PDA

View Full Version : The Spell Reformation: Part I-II of V (General Changes and Conditions)



Vadskye
2013-08-08, 01:54 AM
EDIT: Part II is now up. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15849535&postcount=15)
Part III is finally up too! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16018567&postcount=33)
And Part IV! Almost done! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16156034&postcount=53)

Here begins my attempt to rewrite every spell in D&D. Fixing the entirety of the spell system is too great a task for a single post. Even if I could do it without exceeding the word limit, it would be so immensely complex that I doubt anyone would care. For this reason, I have broken down my proposed changes into five parts. These are purely out-of-game constructs and are never referenced within the rules; they exist only to the extent that it makes the changes easier to understand.

General changes that affect all spells. This includes ranges, areas, durations, spell resitance, etc.
Changes to "Condition" spells, which impose some negative condition on their targets. This includes Glitterdust, Hold Person, Web, Dominate Person, etc. For reasons which will become apparent later, instant death effects such as Finger of Death are also considered to be Condition spells.
Changes to "Damage" spells, which deal damage to their targets. This includes Fireball, Scorching Ray, Magic Missile, Meteor Swarm, etc.
Changes to "Buff" spells, which provide bonuses to their targets. This includes Bless, Fly, Haste, Heroism, etc.
Changes to other spells, which do... stuff. This includes Bless Water, Scrying, Hallow, etc.


In this post, I will address the first category. Future posts will deal with the other categories - most likely, in the order that they were listed above. First, I present the guiding principles that I use.

Foundational Principles of the Spell Reformation

Spellcasters are too powerful.
Spells are poorly designed. (see this list of 45 things wrong with spells (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=296170).)
An ideal spell rewrite will decrease the overall power level of spells and spellcasters.
It is possible to reduce the power level of spellcasters while actually making them more fun to play.
An ideal spell rewrite will be as modular as possible, allowing changes to be applied individually.It is unreasonable to think that one system perfectly fits everyone's game. Everyone has different ideas of what makes D&D fun. I would hate to see someone throw the 95% of the revisions that they like because the other 5% changes something that they regard as essential.
The problem with magic in D&D lies with the spells, and not with the casting system itself.This is not to say that I endorse the Vancian prepared casting sytem. I personally think the "spells known and spell slots" method that the sorcerer uses is the best casting system, followed by the "spells known and power points" method, and finally followed by prepared casting. However, the casting system used isn't the problem by itself. Whether mages use prepared casting, power points, or spell slots, they are still broken if the spells they cast are broken.
An ideal spell rewrite would work regardless of which casting system is used.All of the changes here are designed to be system-agnostic, and compatible with whatever your favorite method of casting is. Note that this also means changing some spells that only work under a Vancian prepared casting system. See the Rituals section for more detail.
While perfection is impossible, it should still be the goal.Some problems with the spell system are game-breaking. Some problems are trivial - but they are still problems. The Spell Reformation strives for perfection, rewriting or removing every single spell in the game. Insane? Perhaps. But I think that the outcome is better for it.
Players must never be forced to choose between the interesting and the powerful.
Minimize complexity!


General Spell Changes: New Systems
Rituals


Observations:

Some spells have effects that are not worth a spell slot of their level, yet are difficult to reduce in level. Consider a spell like Consecrate. Is it a magical effect? Absolutely. However, its effects are fairly minor - notable only for their duration. I have a hard time justifying spending a 2nd or 3rd level spell slot on this effect; it's just not worth it.

With that said, it doesn't seem fair to let a 1st level caster Consecrate an area, either. This is a significant magical effect - it's just not a useful one.

As a further example, consider Remove Disease. It's an effect that a an archetypal cleric should be able to create, provided that she is sufficiently powerful. However, it's hard to justify spending a 3rd level spell slot on an effect like that. It's even worse if you look at it from the perspective of spending a whole spell known just to get the ability to remove diseases. Spellcasters who have specific lists of spells known (Favored Souls in vanilla, or a variety of homebrew classes) should be able to remove diseases without having to lose spells known.
Some spells have extremely long or permanent durations, yet cost no permanent resources to use, making them abusable.Explosive Runes is the archetypal example here, but any multiday spell can cause these sorts of problems. Any spell which lasts for multiple days should impose some sort of cost beyond the initial spell slot, since that will be recovered by the time the spell is actually relevant - thus making the spell effectively free.
Some spells thematically feel more like rituals than spells.This is fairly subjective, so I don't assign it too much weight. However, I would simply note that rituals have a long and storied history in fantasy tropes, yet no representation in core D&D. This should be changed.
Some spells can dramatically alter the nature of the world when they are freely usable without permanent cost.Do you know the easiest way to get through the Tomb of Horrors? Just cast Clairaudience/Clairvoyance every day for weeks until you've mapped out the entire area. Need to get information on an enemy? Just cast Scrying ad infinitum until they fail a save. Then cast Scrying on every single person you see in the first Scrying. Most campaigns don't run into these issues for for one of two reasons: either the players and the DM have a gentleman's agreement not to actually use the spell system as written, or they haven't thought of it yet. I have yet to see any campaign actually run in the Tippyverse. However, I think we deserve a spell system that isn't painfully abusable.
Some spells provide benefits to the entire party, yet extract resources from only the caster.Divination, Restoration, Scrying, and Teleport are all important effects that everyone in the party benefits from. However, they all require the caster to expend spell slots (and even more painfully, spells known, in systems that use spells known) to get these results. This amounts to a hidden tax on the caster's capacity, forcing them to choose between having personal power and contributing necessary effects. Now, casters have historically been so powerful that this is not a serious detriment to their utility. However, if casters were balanced against the other classes, this tax would be a problem. It would be better if party gain came from party resources.
Solution:
Convert the problematic spells into rituals. Rituals require material components instead of spell slots to cast, and require a scribing cost instead of a spell known to learn. They always take time to cast. Additionally, each ritual is tied to one or more skills, solidifying their flavor and preventing casters with large amounts of money from having access to every ritual in the game. Full mechanics in the spoiler:
Rituals
Rituals are ceremonies that create magical effects. You don't memorize a ritual as you would a normal spell; rituals are too complex for all but the mightiest wizards to commit to memory. To cast a ritual, you need to read from a book or a scroll containing it. Rituals are considered to be spells for many purposes, such as for spell resistance and for effects related to spells, but they are learned and cast in very different ways.

Ritual Descriptions
Like a spell, each ritual has a school, a level, and a magical effect. The description of each ritual follows the same format as other spells, with three differences. First, unlike spells, which have levels based on class, rituals have levels based on the source of magic: arcane, divine, or both. A ritual always matches the magic source of the person performing the ritual. For example, Scrying is an arcane ritual when performed by a wizard, but a divine ritual when performed by a cleric or druid. Second, each ritual has one or more skills associated with it. In order to learn and perform a ritual, a character must be trained in one of the skills associated with the ritual.

Ritual Books
A ritual book contains one or more rituals that you can use as often and as many times as you like, as long as you can spare the time and the components to perform the ritual. Scribing a ritual in a ritual book takes an amount costs an amount of precious inks with cost equal to 100 * ritual level * ritual level.

Ritual Components
Every ritual has a material component cost. Unless otherwise specified in the ritual description, the material component cost for a ritual is equal to 20 * ritual level * ritual level. This cost can be paid with precious metals or gems.

Casting Rituals
To cast a ritual, you must have a ritual book containing the ritual and the material components required for the ritual. At the end of the ritual, make a skill check using a skill appropriate for the ritual. If you are trained in multiple skills associated with the ritual, you may choose which skill to use. The DC for the check is equal to 10 + twice the ritual's level. If you succeed, the ritual is cast successfully and the material components are expended. If you fail by 9 or less, the ritual is cast successfully and the material components are expended, but channeling the magic drains you and you gain a negative level. This negative level persists for 24 hours before disappearing. If you fail by 10 or more, you botched the ritual. The material components are expended, but the ritual has no effect, and you gain a negative level that lasts for 24 hours.
You can take 10 on this skill check if you are not threatened, even if the skill required to cast the ritual is a Knowledge skill. You can also take 20 by spending twenty times the normal time to cast the ritual, and expending twice the normal amount of material components.

Explanation:
Tying rituals to skills serves several purposes. As mentioned above, it keeps the system more balanced even when casters have a lot of money at their disposal. It also neatly ensures that wizards are better at rituals than sorcerers, no matter what casting system is used. The skills are tied to the definition of the ritual. Consecrate is Knowledge (religion), Awaken is Knowledge (nature), Endure Elemental is Survival, Teleport is Knowledge (arcana), and so on. The material component costs involved in learning and cast rituals limit their use to situations where they actually matter.

I am still finalizing the list of ritual spells. However, if it feels like a ritual and/or it meets the criteria described above, it probably is a ritual. There are no spells that are not rituals in the Spell Reformation with casting times of longer than 1 full round.
Spell Durations


Observations:
Buffing before combat is time-consuming and unnecessarily complicated.
1 round/level durations scale strangely, being useless at low levels and extremely long at high levels.
Level-scaling ranges and durations increase complexity substantially for little gain.
If spell durations are too short, it restricts the degree to which spells can be used for utility rather than combat.
If spell durations are too long, it allows casters to cast many spells before combat with ease, increasing complexity and hurting balance. (More on this when the Buffs section is published).
If spell durations are too long, it is impossible to "wait out" powerful spells such as Fly.
Spells should use unified durations; buffs and condition spells should use the same basic measurements of duration.

Solution:
There are four basic duration categories. Short: Concentration + 5 rounds
Medium: 5 minutes
Long: 1 hour
Extended: 12 hours
There is a rule clarifying that a caster can concentrate on a typical spell for up to 5 minutes before he becomes fatigued.
Explanation:The Short duration is the largest change here. Few combats last substantially longer than 5 rounds, regardless of level, unless the combatants are intentionally prolonging it. A spell of that duration is long enough to last for a typical combat, but short enough that trying to survive until a spell duration wears off - whether a debilitating condition or an overly buffed opponent - is a viable tactic. Additionally, it makes it impractical to have a massive number of buffs active before a combat. (Again, see the Buffs section when it is written.)

The Concentration component means that a caster can keep an important spell active until the combat starts without having to know exactly when it will begin, limiting the amount of boring duration-tracking. Additionally, it ensures that creative or noncombat uses of short duration spells are still possible, such as commanding a (single) summoned monster to explore down a path and report back on what is found.

The changes to the other durations are more minor. Minor benefits include making it virtually impossible to overlap buffs between days at high levels, which is an unnecessarily complex bit of chicanery that I'd rather avoid.
Ranges


Observations:
Level-scaling ranges and durations increase complexity substantially for little gain.
Spell ranges are confusingly formatted on area spells.
High-level casters can cast spells at unnecessarily long ranges.
Radius spells cast at the limit of their range have very odd and unintuitive shapes.

Solution:
There are three basic range categories:

Close: 30 ft.
Medium: 100 ft.
Long: 500 ft.

Area spells centered on the caster do not have a listed range; the Area line specifies the extent to which the spell extends from the caster. A listed range refers to the limit on where the spell's point of origin can begin; a spell's effects can go outside the spell's listed range.

Finally, many spells moved to a shorter range category.

Explanation:
These ranges are beautifully simple and easy to use. It still allows many spells to be used outside of charging distance, which I think is a reasonable expectation for a properly squishy caster. Casters should fear melee; it's just rude to force them to enter essentially melee range just to cast their spells. However, they can no longer throw spells across football fields, either.

And did I mention how much I love how easy these ranges are to remember? Ever since I started using these ranges, I can't think of a single time there was confusion about spell range with my players.
Effects (Manifestations)


Observations: The word "effect" is overused, and should not be used to refer to objects or creatures created by a spell.
Both the Area and Effect sections of a spell define a "spread" independently; this is redundant, and should be combined.
Solutions:
Effects are now called "Manifestations". I'm open to a better name if anyone has suggestions.

Spells like Fog Cloud no longer say "Fog spreads in 20 ft. radius, 20 ft. high". Instead, Fog Cloud has an Area line of "Medium (20 ft.) radius spread", and the Manifestation line reads "Fog in the area".
Areas and Targets


Observations:
Spell ranges are confusingly formatted on area spells.
Area spells affect arbitrarily chosen and difficult to remember areas.
Spells which affect multiple targets have inconsistent limitations.
Spells which affect multiple targets specify the size limitation within the "Targets" line. This should be done in the Area line to maintain consistency.
Spells which affect cylinders can pass through walls.
Line spells are confusing. How many squares does a 50 ft. line spell affect? That depends - if you aim it in any of the four cardinal directions, it affects 20 squares. If you aim it very slightly to the left or right of that, it affects about 10 squares. This is, frankly, stupid.

Solutions:
There are three basic area categories. Each is defined in terms of the number of feet of the relevant dimension for each shape. For lines and cones, this is the length of the effect. For spheres, it is the radius of the effect.
Small: 10 ft.
Medium: 20 ft.
Large: 50 ft.
Almost every spell was changed to fit these categories. Some, like Lightning Bolt, have unique areas (affecting a 100 ft. line), but most follow these limitations.

Line spells are defined to be 10 feet wide unless otherwise specified. They affect the closest two squares to the line chosen. It's hard to give examples without drawing pictures, but basically, a line going due North is virtually identical to a line going very slightly to the right of due North. Let me know if this is confusing.

There is a new type of area: in addition to burst, spread, and emanation, there is also "limit". A spell with a limiting area does not automatically affect everything within the area; instead, it always includes a "Targets" line which specifies which specific targets it affects within the area. For example, Mass Haste has an Area line of "Medium (20 ft.) radius limit" and a Targets line of "One creature/level within the area".

Any mobile area spell centered on the caster specifically states that it is "centered on you". Any immobile area spell centered on the caster specifically states that it is "centered on your location". (As mentioned above, those spells would not have a listed range.) If that text is absent, the point of origin for the area can be anywhere within the spell's range.

Cylinder-shaped spells now ignore all vertical obstacles, not all obstacles of any kind.
Save DCs


Observations:
Any low-level spells which depend on a saving throw are useless at mid to high levels.
Low-level spells that do not depend on saving throws are very powerful at mid to high levels, thanks to metamagic.
This dichotomy is unnecessary and harmful to game balance.
Calculating saving throw DC individually for every level of spells adds an unnecessary level of complexity to the game.
Effects which improve spellcasting by only improving DCs arbitrarily help some kinds of spellcasters substantially while providing no benefit to others.
Most effects which improve spellcasting improve only DCs, contributing to the imbalance between damage spells and nondamaging spells.
Not enough effects improve spellcasting in interesting and consistent ways.
Solution:
Spell saving throw DC is calculated by 10 + 1/2 caster level + casting ability modifier. Effects which used to improve DC instead improve caster level, granting +2 caster level instead of +1 DC. Effects which used to improve caster level continue to do so. I recommend that there be magic items that can also affect caster level, such as wizard's robes (a classic fantasy trope which has never had proper representation in D&D), but it is outside the scope of this fix to actually create those items.

Damage spell formulas and other spells which depend on caster level will be rewritten such that increasing caster level in this way does not make them overly strong or overly weak. This will be discussed in Part 3 of the Spell Reformation.
Explanation:
I know that a major objection to this will be based how allowing caster level to be much more variable will break existing spells - particularly damage spells and effects like Holy Word. I have taken this into account. I would ask that this change be judged based on whether it is a good system on its own, not based on how it interacts with spells that were not designed for it (and which have been rewritten accordingly).

This change dramatically increases the usefulness of low-level spells in combat. This is completely intentional; it gives casters more flexibility and encourages them to take higher level spells because they are actually better, rather than by forcing old spells to be useless. However, allowing low-level spells to have a potentially significant role makes the next change even more important.
Quicken Spell


Observations: As has been said many times, Quicken Spell breaks the action economy like crazy.
Casters should generally be limited to one major action per round, just like everyone else in the game.
Quickening is essentially useless (without metamagic abuse) until very high levels, at which point it is overpowered.
Quicken Spell should scale more appropriately with level, being useless at many levels but never becoming game-breaking.
Solution:
Quicken Spell is rewritten as follows:

Benefit: Casting a quickened spell is a swift action. You can perform another action, even casting another spell, in the same round as you cast a quickened spell. However, casting a quickened spell is mentally exhausting. In the turn after you cast it, you lose your standard action. You may cast only one quickened spell per round. A spell whose casting time is more than 1 standard action cannot be quickened. A quickened spell uses up a spell slot two levels higher than the spell's actual level. Casting a quickened spell doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity.
Special: All spellcasters can cast a quickened spell as a swift action, even if they would normally increase the casting time of spells with metamagic applied.
Explanation:
This allows Quicken Spell to fulfill its iconic role of "casting spells faster" and allows many opportunities for interesting tactical decision, yet never allows Quickening casts to completely escape the "1 action per round" constraint. I really like this fix; it takes some getting used to, but it neatly addresses a huge problem with high-level casters.
Spell Resistance


Observations: Spell resistance is crude and noninteractive.
Casters typically ignore spell resistance rather than ever interacting with it directly.
It takes too long for a creature to lower its own spell resistance.
Solution:
Spell resistance is rewritten as follows:

Spell resistance is a special defensive ability. If your spell is being resisted by a creature with spell resistance, you must make a spell resistance check (1d20 + half caster level + casting ability modifier) against a DC equal to the creature's spell resistance + the creature's relevant saving throw modifier. If you succeed, the spell affects the creature normally. If you fail, the spell has no effect on the creature, though it may affect other targets (if any) normally. The defender's spell resistance is like an Armor Class against magical attacks.

The Spell Resistance entry and the descriptive text of a spell description tell you whether spell resistance protects creatures from the spell and what saving throw the creature adds to its spell resistance. In many cases, spell resistance applies only when a resistant creature is targeted by the spell, not when a resistant creature encounters a spell that is already in place.
A "typical" spell resistance value in this system is 10; that is the equivalent value for any creature which used to have a SR value of 11 + CR. Mind flayers would probably have a 15, and Celestial creatures would probably have a 5. Additionally, spell resistance can be lowered as a swift action.
Explanation:
This means that casters can actually take direct action against a creature with spell resistance. It acts as a limitation on the caster's actions, but one which is heavily dependent on the individual creature and the spells that the caster has available. This makes it more interactive and fun to play with - and therefore, better.
Spell Description Formatting


Observations:
Including "Casting Time: 1 standard action" and "Components: V, S" on 95% of all spells just makes it difficult to notice when the casting time or components are different from the norm.
Many, many spells are poorly or confusingly formatted.
Many, many spells are poorly or confusingly worded.
Solution:
All spells are defined as requiring verbal and somatic components unless otherwise specified. The "Casting Time" and "Components" lines are omitted when they the spell has a standard casting time and components, just like the Saving Throw and Spell Resistance lines are omitted for Personal spells.

Also, individually all the poorly worded spells have been rewritten.
Arcane Invocations


Observations:
Low-level spellcasters have two modes: "useless" and "broken".
Firing a crossbow every round is boring and doesn't capture the feel of being a wizard.
Solution:
Sorcerers and wizards have at-will spell-like abilities called "arcane invocations". Unlike other spell-like abilities, they have verbal and somatic components and are subject to arcane spell failure. All arcane invocations take a standard action to cast. They are weaker than 1st level spells, but more powerful than shooting a crossbow. For example, Magic Ray is an arcane invocation that deals 1d6 force damage + 1 per caster level as a ranged touch attack to an enemy within Close (30 ft.) range.

Arcane invocations are designed to only be useful in combat, and are explicitly intended not to risk breaking any world continuity through their abuse. Their power scales smoothly at low levels, avoiding massive power jumps. Full details of arcane invocations will be given after the sections of the Spell Reformation describing their functionality.
Explanation:
Arcane invocations don't dramatically change the power level of the game. Firing a crossbow can be moderately effective in a pinch. However, using an arcane invocation - particularly one with more fluff than the comparatively basic Magic Ray - feels much more magely than existing magic-users do at low levels. No more will low-level level wizards alternate between being boring and being godly; they will be characters like any other, with the ability to act in combat each round without constantly worrying about spell slots.
Spell Schools, Subschools, and Descriptors

Observations
Spell schools, subschools, and descriptors are poorly defined and poorly implemented.
Some schools have well-defined subschools that capture most spells in the school, while others lack subschools entirely.
Good, robustly defined subschools and descriptors provide convenient and valuable ways of categorizing similar spells. This provides guidance to players and the opportunity for interesting and entertaining homebrew.
Solution:
Add good, solid spell schools, subschools, and descriptors. Allow dual-school spells. This process is 95% done. See the Subschools (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=291683) thread if you have an hour to kill and want to get an idea of where I'm going with this. Otherwise, I'll have this done... soon.

This concludes Part I of V of the Spell Reformation. Unless I forgot some things that I changed, which I probably did. Looking forward to see what you all think.

EDIT: Some additional changes that missed the cut when I wrote my explanation the first time! The first two are formatting changes, but the last one is very important.

Clarifying Partial and Separate Spell Effects

Observations:
The text "Will partial" (and similar) is unnecessarily ambiguous.
Effects such as Mettle that negate "partial effects" interact poorly with effects which allow no save for damage, but which allow a save against a separate effect.Polar Ray has "Saving Throw: None", it cannot be resisted by Mettle. Imagine a "Polarer Ray" was the exact same as Polar Ray except that it slowed the creature if it failed a Fortitude save. Polarer Ray would say "Saving Throw: Fortitude partial", so the whole spell could be resisted by Mettle - including the damage, which allows no saving throw!
Spells with multiple effects, each of which has a separate duration, list the spell durations ambiguously.For example, Blasphemy is listed as having an "Instantaneous" duration, but it lists three different durations in the description of the spell.

Solution:
Separate attributes on a spell are listed separately, distinguished by a slash. For example, "Polarer Ray" would be listed as "None/Fortitude negates".
Explanation:
It's easier to read, and allows Mettle to function as intended against spells with "rider" effects.
Improving Spell Readability

Observations:
Keeping the fluff description of a spell in the exact same place as the mechanics can lead to confusion over what has direct game significance and what does not.
Separating fluff where feasible makes it much easier to reskin spells for different campaign settings or homebrew systems.
Since "Effect" is no longer being used for other purposes, it can be officially used to describe the effects of a spell. (Finally.)
Details which are the same between many spells should not be repeated in the main body of the spell; that makes it harder to quickly reference or understand a spell's effect.
Details about how a spell interacts with other spells adds information which is irrelevant 90% of the time, making the spell's effect harder to read.

Solution:
Where feasible, the fluff text is moved to a new location between the name of the spell and the rest of the spell description. It is italicized so that it is visually distinct. The main body of the spell text is denoted with a bold "Effect:" line. A "Note:" section is added below the main spell description, listing additional details about how the spell interacts with other spells, or explanations of frequently used terms (such as condition descriptions).
Explanation:
It's clearer and looks better. Here are a couple examples of spells where this template is used:
Blur
You distort the subject's outline so it appears blurred, shifting, and wavering.
Illusion (Glamer)
Level: Sor/Wiz 3
Components: V
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
Duration: Short (Concentration + 5 rounds)
Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless)
Spell Resistance: Yes (Will)
Effect: The subject gains concealment. This concealment is not sufficient by itself to make a Hide check.
Note: Attacks against a creature with concealment have a 20% chance to miss. This miss chance is rolled before the attack roll. A see invisibility spell does not counteract the blur effect, but a true seeing spell does. Opponents that cannot see the subject ignore the spell's effect (though fighting an unseen opponent carries penalties of its own).

Web
You create a many-layered mass of strong, stricky strands that entangle creatures caught within them. The strands are similar to spider webs, but larger and tougher.
Conjuration (Creation)
Level: Sor/Wiz 3
Range: Close (30 ft.)
Area: Medium (20 ft. radius) spread
Manifestation: Webs in the area
Duration:
Saving Throw: Reflex negates
Spell Resistance: None
Effect: Each creature in the spell's area becomes entangled unless it makes a successful Reflex save. This save must be repeated each round that the creature moves or fights within the area. An entangled creature can spend a standard action to try to break free of the webs on it. To do so, it must make a grapple attack or Escape Artist attempt against the spell's save DC. A creature entangled by the spell remains entangled until it breaks the webs holding it.
If the strands can be anchored to two or more solid and diametrically opposed structures, such as walls, the strands are much more sturdy. A creature entangled within a sturdy web is unable to move from its square until it breaks the webs on it.
Notes: An entangled creature moves at half speed, cannot run or charge, and takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls, Strength and Dexterity-based checks, and armor class. If it attempts to cast a spell must make a Concentration check (DC 15 \add the spell's level) or lose the spell.
The strands are too widely spaced to significantly obscure sight, but are flammable. A magic flaming sword can slash them away as easily as a hand brushes away cobwebs. Any fire can set the webs alight and burn away 5 square feet in 1 round. All creatures within flaming webs take d6 points of fire damage from the flames.
Web can be made permanent with a permanency ritual. A permanent web that is destroyed regrows in 10 minutes.
New Spell Level Acquisition

Observations:
Not all full casters acquire new spell levels at the same levels.
This makes it impossible to write spells that assume they will be acquired at a specific level.This extremely important for the damage rewrite. Even aside from that, it makes it easier to write good, balanced spells if we can be sure when exactly spellcasters can first get access to them.
This causes a variety of inconsistencies and oddities that generally make the system less intuitive.For example, magic items made by a sorcerer have to cost more than magic items made by a wizard, because they have a higher caster level. In general, using inconsistent level acquisition just makes things weirder.
(Caster level - 1)/2 is just an ugly formula for remembering when new spells are acquired.
Spontaneous casters have always been second-class compared to full casters.
Adding arcane invocations increases the power and flexibility of casters at low levels.
Solution:
All casters acquire new spell levels every even level, learning 2nd level spells at 4th level and reaching 9th level spells at 18th level.
Explanation:
I said I wanted to avoid making global system changes to things that aren't spells, and I tried really, really hard to do it. But the inconsistency in spell acquisition rate made it really hard to build a good system for damage spells. And this just... doesn't serve a point. Wizards are [i]already[i] better than sorcerers due to prepared casting! They don't need an additional benefit.

I welcome debate on this change - I know this is one of the bigger ones from a compatibility perspective. However, I really do think it is necessary in order to end up with a working spell system. Bumping back clerics, druids, and wizards by a level on casting is very simple to change; just move every level except 1st level back by one, and keep the 1st level the same. Even better, give 3 1st level spells per day at 3rd level - that maintains a steady progression.[/spoiler]

eggynack
2013-08-08, 02:26 AM
I dunno if I'm supposed to add new potential stuff hereabouts, or in the old thread, but I'll just stick it here for now. One issue that exists with wizards is that they naturally have a command of the action economy that fighters can't hope to match. Just on a basic level, let's assume a situation where the party gets a surprise round against some enemies. The wizard casts grease, because he correctly thinks that grease is a super cool spell. The fighter moves close to the enemies, and ends his turn without effecting combat in any way. Maybe he slips on the grease, just to add an element of slapstick to his sadness. These two options just don't have any kind of parity. Even without effects that completely alter the action economy, the wizard's best techniques usually take place within a standard action, while a fighter's best techniques usually require a full round to execute. There isn't a wizard full attack, and they don't have to move into position to do their thing, so they're free to use that action doing whatever they want. It's an issue of some kind.

Also on the topic of the action economy, quicken spell seems a bit too reduced in cost. In the new form, it's basically celerity: the metamagic'ing, and that's a pretty powerful effect. You should consider maybe returning it back to the normal cost, or maybe compromising on a +3. Quickening is a super powerful effect, and it needs a super high cost to get it anywhere close to balanced. Doing a partial celerity thing is a good idea though.

Cheiromancer
2013-08-08, 07:50 AM
@eggynack: You just blew my mind. I have never thought about the wizard's action advantage in that way. But you're right; the fighter needs to move and take a full round action. The wizard doesn't have to move, and takes only a standard action.

What I like about the quicken mechanic is that the cost is not phrased in terms of a condition. There are ways to get immunity to the dazed condition, and that is part of why celerity is so powerful. There are fewer loopholes to exploit with the variant quicken.

The fixed ranges make every ranged spell an option for Persistent Spell. I suspect that this feat will see a major revision.

I am a little alarmed by the prospect of every spell being rewritten. There are what, 3000 of them? But if they are mostly global changes to duration and range and what not, that would be at least a little better.

Xaotiq1
2013-08-08, 08:16 AM
I will once again throw out looking at Green Ronin's True20 magic system. Many spells have a fixed duration. There's a fatigue system built into the existing rules. Plus, casters have to spend feats to obtain spells. The whole thing could be seamlessly integrated into 3.5 with little to no effort.

tarkisflux
2013-08-08, 01:14 PM
@eggynack: You just blew my mind. I have never thought about the wizard's action advantage in that way. But you're right; the fighter needs to move and take a full round action. The wizard doesn't have to move, and takes only a standard action.

It isn't really caster vs. non-caster here, it's ranged vs. melee. The bow ranger can stand back and full-attack away as well. There's still an action differential, but not one that matters quite as much because both the bow guy and the casting guy still get their stuff off for the round. Setting spell casting to full-round action and melee full-attack to standard action does a lot to resolve it though, while also giving you a reason to melee instead of ranged.

Comments on other things when I've digested them, maybe.

Maladaptive
2013-08-08, 03:55 PM
Even without effects that completely alter the action economy, the wizard's best techniques usually take place within a standard action, while a fighter's best techniques usually require a full round to execute.

Vadskye has a much broader list of changes compiled into a completely separate system in an older thread. In this system, iterative attacks occur on standard action attacks. Given, you aren't obligated to make those changes yourself, but I'm guessing a lot of the specifics of the Spell Reformation came about as a result of that system. With that in mind, the issue you are describing is dealt with at least to some extent.

eggynack
2013-08-08, 04:29 PM
Vadskye has a much broader list of changes compiled into a completely separate system in an older thread. In this system, iterative attacks occur on standard action attacks. Given, you aren't obligated to make those changes yourself, but I'm guessing a lot of the specifics of the Spell Reformation came about as a result of that system. With that in mind, the issue you are describing is dealt with at least to some extent.
That's definitely a helpful change of some kind. Amusingly, it still doesn't solve the weird issue with surprise rounds, but I don't know if the onus is on fighters to gain the ability to act, or on wizards to lose it. I suspect that it's the former, now that you mention it, because an advantage without a purpose is a pretty boring mechanic. Still, that does make a lot of headway.

Vadskye
2013-08-08, 04:30 PM
eggynack:

I dunno if I'm supposed to add new potential stuff hereabouts, or in the old thread, but I'll just stick it here for now.
I'm making up the formatting and organization as I go along, so go with whatever feels right.

One issue that exists with wizards is that they naturally have a command of the action economy that fighters can't hope to match. Just on a basic level, let's assume a situation where the party gets a surprise round against some enemies. The wizard casts grease, because he correctly thinks that grease is a super cool spell. The fighter moves close to the enemies, and ends his turn without effecting combat in any way. Maybe he slips on the grease, just to add an element of slapstick to his sadness. These two options just don't have any kind of parity. Even without effects that completely alter the action economy, the wizard's best techniques usually take place within a standard action, while a fighter's best techniques usually require a full round to execute. There isn't a wizard full attack, and they don't have to move into position to do their thing, so they're free to use that action doing whatever they want. It's an issue of some kind.
As tarkisflux pointed out, this is fundamentally a problem with melee, not solely with caster vs. noncaster - and as maladaptive pointed out, I think that the best solution to this problem is to make full attacking a standard action.

Also on the topic of the action economy, quicken spell seems a bit too reduced in cost. In the new form, it's basically celerity: the metamagic'ing, and that's a pretty powerful effect. You should consider maybe returning it back to the normal cost, or maybe compromising on a +3. Quickening is a super powerful effect, and it needs a super high cost to get it anywhere close to balanced. Doing a partial celerity thing is a good idea though.
You're probably right - and certainly if any metamagic reductions are allowed! I'll change it to +3. I know I'd still use it at that cost.

Comments on other things when I've digested them, maybe.
I look forward to it.
Cheiromancer (You get to be unspoilered because I want people to see the beta Persistent Spell. Lucky you!)

The fixed ranges make every ranged spell an option for Persistent Spell. I suspect that this feat will see a major revision.
That's a misinterpretation of the definition of "fixed range", which is actually fairly well defined in D&D. It's an example of the perils of applying literal dictionary definitions onto game terminology. In any event, Persistent Spell is going to be changed, yes. I've been kicking around the following effect:

Persistent Spell
Prerequisite: Caster level 6th
Benefit: A persisted spell increases its duration category by one level: short becomes medium, medium becomes long, and long becomes extended. A spell with an extended duration becomes a permanent duration spell when persisted. However, the spell slot used to persist the spell becomes unavailable for as long as the spell lasts. When you ready your spells for the day, you can choose to end the spell and regain the spell slot.
This metamagic cannot be applied to spells with a duration other than short, medium, long, or extended.
Special: You can apply this metamagic feat multiple times to the same spell. Each time, it increases the duration by one level, to a maximum of permanent.
However, I haven't thoroughly tested this to see if it is abusable, so it's waiting in the wings for now.


I am a little alarmed by the prospect of every spell being rewritten. There are what, 3000 of them? But if they are mostly global changes to duration and range and what not, that would be at least a little better.
Here's the fun part: I already did that. They're all already rewritten. I'm just laying out my reasoning for the changes in detail so people can understand how and why I changed them. (And so that my mistakes can be corrected!)
Xaotiq:

I will once again throw out looking at Green Ronin's True20 magic system. Many spells have a fixed duration. There's a fatigue system built into the existing rules. Plus, casters have to spend feats to obtain spells. The whole thing could be seamlessly integrated into 3.5 with little to no effort.
It sounds completely different from the D&D casting system. Which, admittedly, is a good thing in some ways. However, my goal is to fix D&D spells in a way that can be integrated as seamlessly as possible with other homebrew and play styles that originally used the 3.5 spell system. Therefore, I'm trying to stay within the normal spells constraints.
Maladaptive:

Vadskye has a much broader list of changes compiled into a completely separate system in an older thread. In this system, iterative attacks occur on standard action attacks. Given, you aren't obligated to make those changes yourself, but I'm guessing a lot of the specifics of the Spell Reformation came about as a result of that system. With that in mind, the issue you are describing is dealt with at least to some extent.
Someone read Rise! :3 I'm so happy. Incidentally, Rise's spell system will be replaced by a modified version of the Spell Reformation soon.

Realms of Chaos
2013-08-08, 04:44 PM
One thing that I've never quite followed. You seem to liken Spell Resistance to miss chances as a flat chance of failure that you don't interact with. How is that different from plain old attack rolls? or skill checks? or any other d20 roll ever? While a few skills have degrees of success, most rolls are binary. Further, optimization allows you to almost assuredly succeed at whatever you're doing and messes such as uberchargers or diplomancers can cause as much harm to games as spellcasters can (if not in as many ways).

While it's true that spell resistance doesn't possess an equivalent for "flat-footed" or circumstance bonuses, it sounds like your major problems with rolling a dice to see if your action is wasted is something that all of D&D does so why chalk it up to a spellcasting problem in particular?

Vadskye
2013-08-09, 04:20 PM
Realms of Chaos:

One thing that I've never quite followed. You seem to liken Spell Resistance to miss chances as a flat chance of failure that you don't interact with. How is that different from plain old attack rolls? or skill checks? or any other d20 roll ever? While a few skills have degrees of success, most rolls are binary. Further, optimization allows you to almost assuredly succeed at whatever you're doing and messes such as uberchargers or diplomancers can cause as much harm to games as spellcasters can (if not in as many ways).

While it's true that spell resistance doesn't possess an equivalent for "flat-footed" or circumstance bonuses, it sounds like your major problems with rolling a dice to see if your action is wasted is something that all of D&D does so why chalk it up to a spellcasting problem in particular?
I apologize for not being clear. This is something that I seem to have some trouble explaining. The problem is not that Spell Resistance is binary. The problem is that it is essentially non-interactive, with a "fake" scaling. Monster SR isn't based on the strength of the monster, or any particular attributes of the monster; it's just (a number) + CR, and 90% of the time that number is the same (11). Similarly, caster level is the attribute that a caster has the least control over, and scales relatively little with level.

Here's one way to look at it. A difference of 5 CR is a huge difference. That's more than the difference between a Dire Tiger and a brown bear, or between a hill giant and a cloud giant, or what have you. Fighters, monsters, and wizards scale a lot between level 5 and level 10. Spell resistance, however, does not. A 10th level wizard still has a 25% chance to completely botch a spell on a CR 5 monster who is lucky enough to have spell resistance. There's virtually nothing the caster can do about it except to ignore the SR completely - so that's what basically everyone does. It's just not a good system, because it doesn't take into account the different between different wizards, different spells, and different monsters - it's almost totally independent of the specific circumstances under consideration.

With this system, Spell Resistance is an added defense that makes it harder to affect the creature with spells - but it's still possible. And it's more flexible - how you react to a Mind Flayer is likely to be very different from how you react to a drow, because they have different strong and weak saves. Basically, more interactive is better.
Three new changes were added. I'll replicate the most important one here, since it is both very important and likely to cause debate.
New Spell Level Acquisition

Observations:
Not all full casters acquire new spell levels at the same levels.
This makes it impossible to write spells that assume they will be acquired at a specific level.This extremely important for the damage rewrite. Even aside from that, it makes it easier to write good, balanced spells if we can be sure when exactly spellcasters can first get access to them.
This causes a variety of inconsistencies and oddities that generally make the system less intuitive.For example, magic items made by a sorcerer have to cost more than magic items made by a wizard, because they have a higher caster level. In general, using inconsistent level acquisition just makes things weirder.
(Caster level - 1)/2 is just an ugly formula for remembering when new spells are acquired.
Spontaneous casters have always been second-class compared to full casters.
Adding arcane invocations increases the power and flexibility of casters at low levels.
Solution:
All casters acquire new spell levels every even level, learning 2nd level spells at 4th level and reaching 9th level spells at 18th level.
Explanation:
I said I wanted to avoid making global system changes to things that aren't spells, and I tried really, really hard to do it. But the inconsistency in spell acquisition rate made it really hard to build a good system for damage spells. And this just... doesn't serve a point. Wizards are [i]already[i] better than sorcerers due to prepared casting! They don't need an additional benefit.

I welcome debate on this change - I know this is one of the bigger ones from a compatibility perspective. However, I really do think it is necessary in order to end up with a working spell system. Bumping back clerics, druids, and wizards by a level on casting is very simple to change; just move every level except 1st level back by one, and keep the 1st level the same. Even better, give 3 1st level spells per day at 3rd level - that maintains a steady progression.[/spoiler]

nonsi
2013-08-11, 01:56 PM
The problem with magic in D&D lies with the spells, and not with the casting system itself.

Yes, and not exactly.
The casting system itself, sterile of all the char-op shenanigans, is fine. Once you allow multi-meta or more than a single spell per round – that’s where the system starts breaking down.




Need to get information on an enemy? Just cast Scrying ad infinitum until they fail a save.

That’s why I've been claiming for a long time now that Scrying should target a known location (or, in case of an unknown location, somewhere that when removing all artificial obstacles could count [within line of sight]), not a creature.




* Short: Concentration + 5 rounds

Brilliant !!!




Close: 30 ft.
Medium: 100 ft.
Long: 500 ft.

I’d change long to 300 – that’s more than enough.
I’d also allow up to 5 miles for special effects, such as sending whispered words across a large battlefield to an enemy warlord or an ally spy.




Spells like Fog Cloud no longer say "Fog spreads in 20 ft. radius, 20 ft. high". Instead, Fog Cloud has an Area line of "Medium (20 ft.) radius spread", and the Manifestation line reads "Fog in the area".

And how do I deduce the 20ft height from that description?




Small: 10 ft.
Medium: 20 ft.
Large: 50 ft.
Almost every spell was changed to fit these categories. Some, like Lightning Bolt, have unique areas (affecting a 100 ft. line), but most follow these limitations.
Some, like Lightning Bolt, have unique areas (affecting a 100 ft. line), but most follow these limitations.

Wouldn’t it just be easier and cleaner to add a 4th category? (Extensive?)




Quicken Spell . . .

What does this mean regarding spells that have [Casting Time: swift action] inherently?




If your spell is being resisted by a creature with spell resistance, you must make a spell resistance check (1d20 + half caster level + casting ability modifier) against a DC equal to the creature's spell resistance + the creature's relevant saving throw modifier.

Unless you intend on allowing take-10 and take-20 in some appropriate circumstances, make it [10 + ½ CL + ability-mod], otherwise you’re just forcing dice rolls with zero added value (unless you consider arbitrary results a value in and on itself).




Sorcerers and wizards have . . . !!!

Sorc. & Wiz. are too similar to justify two different classes.
I get it that this project doesn’t involve redesigning classes.
Nevertheless, consider uniting them to a single class that has some sort of repertoire of known spells and some sort of access to magic via written text.
Leave the role of the “illiterate” spellcaster to a Sorc.-Warlock hybrid.




Improving Spell Readability . . .

Suggestion: bold the ‘Note:’

Vadskye
2013-08-12, 02:04 PM
Yes, and not exactly.
The casting system itself, sterile of all the char-op shenanigans, is fine. Once you allow multi-meta or more than a single spell per round – that’s where the system starts breaking down.
Why do you think applying multiple metamagic effects is problematic? I don't see a problem with casting a Still Silent spell, or an Enlarged Widened spell. I think there are a number of individual metamagic effects which are highly problematic, but that is the fault of the metamagic feat, not a problem with metamagic as a general concept.

That’s why I've been claiming for a long time now that Scrying should target a known location (or, in case of an unknown location, somewhere that when removing all artificial obstacles could count [within line of sight]), not a creature.
I think a location-based scrying effect should exist and perhaps be lower level than Scrying, though there would have to be some sort of defense against it. (Will save to not appear to the sensor?) However, I don't have a problem with creature-based scrying in particular. I think that's flavorful and accomplishes important narrative goals, particularly for NPCs. The key problem is that it shouldn't be infinitely repeatable.

Brilliant !!!
Thank you! :smallsmile: I love this duration.

I’d change long to 300 – that’s more than enough.
300 is probably a better range. I haven't seen many Long range spells cast in my playtesting (not many Long range spells left), but once that happens, I'll see whether it feels longer than it should.

I’d also allow up to 5 miles for special effects, such as sending whispered words across a large battlefield to an enemy warlord or an ally spy.
Absolutely - not everything need be bound the the Close/Medium/Long range limit. The other things are primarily unique effects that are hard to pin down to specific ranges, so I didn't think it was worth creating a category for them.

And how do I deduce the 20ft height from that description?
You don't. Sorry for the ambiguity - Fog Cloud and all similar effects are now spheres. I couldn't figure out a good reason for them to be cylinders.

Wouldn’t it just be easier and cleaner to add a 4th category? (Extensive?)
If there were multiple spells that had a 100 ft. area, then yes. As it is, anything larger than 50 ft. tends to have a unique area, so assigning it to a category doesn't make much sense.

What does this mean regarding spells that have [Casting Time: swift action] inherently?
Within the PHB, virtually nothing has that casting time, so it remains unchanged. Outside of the PHB (such as with the Swift spells), I'd evaluate them individually. Some spells can probably stay unchanged (Swift Expeditious Retreat seems fine to me), but I'd have to develop a system for exactly how much a spell's level should increase by becoming a swift action.

Unless you intend on allowing take-10 and take-20 in some appropriate circumstances, make it [10 + ½ CL + ability-mod], otherwise you’re just forcing dice rolls with zero added value (unless you consider arbitrary results a value in and on itself).
What do you mean, zero added value? Casting a spell against a creature with SR adds a roll to the resolution of the spell that doesn't exist against creatures without SR. This represents the fact that creatures with SR are hard to cast spells against. The resolution of the roll depends strongly on the spell being cast and the attributes of the caster and the target, so it's not a totally arbitrary roll.

Sorc. & Wiz. are too similar to justify two different classes.
I get it that this project doesn’t involve redesigning classes.
Nevertheless, consider uniting them to a single class that has some sort of repertoire of known spells and some sort of access to magic via written text.
Leave the role of the “illiterate” spellcaster to a Sorc.-Warlock hybrid.
Sorc and Wiz deserve to be different classes just as much as the Fighter and Barbarian deserve to be different classes. If you're planning on building a highly flexible system where each class contains multiple thematically and mechanically distinct archetypes, then you can merge those classes together. If you're building a system where each class is fully distinct, Sorc and Wiz should be separate. The key problem in core is that neither sorcerers nor wizards have any proper class features, so they don't feel different. This is solved by giving them both unique class features, not destroying what remains of the distinction between them. See Rise for my ideas on how to do that.

Suggestion: bold the ‘Note:’
Hmm. You're right that that looks better on the forums. I think that the italics looks better in the PDF that I originally wrote the design for. I'll try to use bold for the notes when I post spells here.

Cheiromancer
2013-08-12, 03:10 PM
The annoying thing about circles is deciding whether creatures on the edge are in or out. If something has a spherical radius, you also have to worry about whether its head is poking out. Cylinders are a little better in that regard.

nonsi
2013-08-12, 04:16 PM
The annoying thing about circles is deciding whether creatures on the edge are in or out. If something has a spherical radius, you also have to worry about whether its head is poking out. Cylinders are a little better in that regard.

I agree.
Only things that go "boom!" and emanations should be spherical.

Vadskye
2013-08-19, 12:46 AM
Here begins the second part of my attempt to rewrite every spell in D&D. This section focuses on rewriting nondamaging combat spells. Many of the most iconic and powerful spells in D&D belong to this category: Glitterdust, Grease, Solid Fog, Web, and so on. For ease of reference, these will be referred to as "Condition" spells, though not all such spells literally impose conditions.

If you are more interested in concrete examples than theory, you can see all of the revised spells here (http://kcjohnson.me/TheSpellReformation2.html).

I have done a great deal of tearing apart the problems with the original spell system already, so I will try to limit the amount of simple criticism in this post. Instead, I will focus on presenting my solutions. The fundamental goal of Part II is to create a rigorous system for assigning spell levels to nondamaging spells. In order to understand how to do this, I first analyze conditions. In addition to a minor rewrite to contitions, I split condition effects into condition tiers that roughly represent an individual condition's power. These condition tiers will be the building blocks of the unified system.

First, I present the Guiding Principles on Conditions and Action Denial:

Penalties encourage dynamic and tactical combats by encouraging players to vary their actions in response to changing situations.
Penalties encourage interaction between casters and noncasters by forcing them to work together to defeat opponents.
Action denial effects used on players prevent them from interacting with the game, limiting their experience and fun.
Action denial effects used on NPC antagonists/monsters can trivialize combats - particularly on "bosses".
Action denial effects discourage interaction between casters and noncasters, potentially rendering noncasters no more than the "mop-up crew" that deals hit point damage to already defeated foes.
Penalties should be the most frequent and prominent effect of debilitating spells.
Action denial effects should be strictly limited.

With these principles in mind, we must revise penalizing conditions so they are more universally relevant, using the same format as used in Part I.

Condition Mechanics
Observations:
Conditions (sickened, shaken, fatigued) are too weak.
Conditions do not penalize casters at all.
Two opponents suffering the same penalties are not equivalent to each other in combat.
Conditions which impose ability score penalties have odd effects that take time to calculate.
The differences between what exactly conditions penalize can be hard to remember.
Dazzled is a terrible condition.
Solution:
Almost all penalizing conditions now gives a -2 penalty to attack rolls, saving throws, checks, DCs, and AC. "Checks" is essentially all checks. To be precise, that includes all of the following:
Skill checks
Ability checks
Initiative checks
Concentration checks (for systems where Concentration is not a skill)
Spell penetration checks
A dazzled creature treats everything he sees as if it has concealment (20\% miss chance), and takes a -4 penalty to Spot checks. Three new conditions were added: bewildered, demoralized, and ignited. Bewildered and demoralized simply use the standard penalties. An ignited creature suffers no penalty to saving throws, but takes d6 fire damage/round.
Explanation:
Casters now suffer from conditions just like everyone else in the game. In general, two creatures with the same condition fight on equal terms, which strikes me as being a nicely intuitive result.

In general, making minor conditions like this more useful means that they can actually serve a role in combat and be effective on their own merits.

One additional note on scaling is relevant here. Penalties do not automatically scale with level because they always remain relevant, for the simple reason that they are not typed. A -2 penalty matters about as much at 20th level as it does at 1st level - it still yields a roughly 10% decrease in effectiveness. (This is a gross oversimplification of how probability works, but I'd rather not get into a debate on that. It's true enough.)
Not all condition are created equal, of course. For reasons which will become clear, conditions can be grouped into roughly six distinct "tiers", divided by power level.
Condition Tier List:

Tier 6: Minor penalties to a single statistic. Includes "-2 to attack rolls" and similar effects.
Tier 5: Minor penalties to a broad range of statistics, or major penalties to a single attribute. Includes bewildered, dazzled, demoralized, fatigued, ignited, shaken, and sickened. These are the "standard" penalizing conditions.
Tier 4: Major penalties to a single ability score.
Tier 3: Major penalties to a broad range of statistics, or partial action denial. Includes exhausted, slowed, and staggered.
Tier 2: Total action denial with exceptions, or penalties that effectively prohibit a broad range of actions. Includes blinded, charmed, confused, and frightened.
Tier 1: Total action denial. Includes dazed, dead, dominated, nauseated, panicked, paralyzed, petrified, and stunned.

A "Minor penalty" means a -2 penalty, and a "major penalty" is typically a -4. We now have a solid basis for what a condition means.

Condition Stacking
Imagine your foe is caught in a Stinking Cloud, and you have a different spell which sickens him. As a new player, or as a character in a fantasy world, I would assume that sickening him further would be useful. Currently, however, casting the second spell would be foolish, since conditions never stack with themselves. This rule exists to prevent "spamming" the same spell over and over again from being a valid combat tactic. I think that is a good goal, but it can be accomplished more elegantly. The new rule is that conditions stack, except from the same source. This is the same rule that is used for penalties of any kind, and there is no good reason for conditions to be different. A creature can be separately sickened by Stinking Cloud, Ghoul Touch, Unholy Blight, and anything else that happens to come up.

The Bloodied System
As described above, action denial effects - Tier 2 and Tier 1 conditions - have a generally negative impact on gameplay when freely available. However, they can also be fun when used selectively, and they are an important part of what makes a spellcaster feel like a spellcaster. Ideally, it would be possible to impose such conditions, but in a way that works with teammates instead of in opposition to them. Additionally, the power of action denial conditions should be decreased. The solution to these problems is the bloodied system.

When affected by some forms of powerful magic, a healthy creature - even one that failed its saving throw - can stave off the worst of the effects for a time. Creatures that have already taken significant damage do not have that resilience, and suffer the full effects of the magic. Mechanically, a creature is "bloodied" if it is at half its hit points or below.

Almost all spells with a bloodied effect also have some effect on healthy creatures. If the creature becomes bloodied at any point during the duration of the spell, it immediately suffers the bloodied effect. To look at how this works in practice, let's consider one of the most basic action denial spells, Hold Person. As originally written, it is essentially a 2nd level save-or-die spell. Here is what it looks like in the new system:

Hold Person
Level: Brd 2, Clr 2, Sor/Wiz 2, War 2
Range: Close (30 ft.)
Target: One humanoid creature
Duration: Short (Concentration + 5 rounds) (D)
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes (Will)
Healthy Effect: The subject is bewildered.
Bloodied Effect: The subject is paralyzed and unable to act. Each round on its turn, the subject may attempt a new saving throw to end the effect. If it succeeds, it is no longer paralyzed, though it can take no other actions in that round.
Note: A bewildered creature takes a -2 penalty on attack rolls, saving throws, checks, DCs, and AC.
When Hold Person is cast on a healthy creature, that creature suffers penalties, but can continue to act. If that creature becomes bloodied during the spell, the effect switches to the bloodied effect, which is much more brutal. This means that Hold Person can no longer end fights before they start. However, an enemy affected by Hold Person makes a ripe target for the caster's allies: he is less able to defend himself, and only half of the normal amount of damage is required to effectively put him out of the fight. The bloodied system thus encourages teamwork and tactical play while dramatically limiting casters' ability to end fights before they start.

The VADSKYE Spell Engine

(Very Astutely Designed Spell Kalculator Yielding Enlightenment)
With the bloodied system and the revision to spell conditions, we can now use a unified system for assigning spell levels to spells. This spell engine is the most important idea underlying the entire Spell Reformation. The core idea behind the system is that every aspect of a spell can be represented in terms of an addition or a multiplier to the overall level of the spell. If you want a highly abridged explanation for why the system is designed the way it is, see the spoiler! Otherwise, the explanation of the system itself is below.
First, we need a "default" spell - the building block that defines the basis for the rest of the system. I decided that the following spell was an appropriate default:

Default Spell
Level: Brd 1, Clr 1, Drd 1, Pal 1, Rgr 1, Sor/Wiz 1
Range: Close (30 ft.)
Target: One creature
Duration: Short (Concentration + 5 rounds)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes
Effect: The subject is affected by a Tier 5 condition.
This spell can be readily modified by changing its attributes. If I were to make it a Medium (100 ft.) range spell, I would increase its level by 1. If I were to increase its duration to Medium (5 minutes), I would also increase the level by 1. Some modifiers are more complicated, however. Adding a saving throw should reduce the cost of the spell. The more powerful the spell, the more adding a saving throw should reduce the cost. Thus, it is a multiplier, not a flat addition or subtraction. Intuitively, I'd guess that adding a saving throw to negate the effect should roughly halve the cost of the spell. Additionally, not all aspects of the spell should contribute equally to this. While a more severe effect should be reduced more by a saving throw, a saving throw shouldn't be multiplied onto any costs incurred by increasing the range; that's not about the spell's power, merely its versatility. Therefore, multiplicative modifiers - such as those provided by including a saving throw - do not apply equally to all aspects of a spell. Instead, different areas of the spell can be tracked separately; a saving throw might apply to the costs incurred by the strength of the spell, but not affect other aspects of a spell such as its range.

The interplay between multipliers and simple additions and subtractions is tricky, and I went through many iterations of the system before I settled on this one. It is beyond even my copious patience (not to mention my time!) to go through every single calculation of the system and describe why it is priced the way it is. In general, if the power of one aspect of the spell strongly depends on another aspect, at least one of them is a multiplier. For example, area spells apply a *1.5 modifier on the cost of the spell's strength. The more creatures a spell affects, the more the strength of its effect matters.
A spell's final level is determined by following the following outline:

Spell Strength

Condition Strength
Duration
Spell Strength Multipliers

Area
Other

First, we must determine the strength of the spell. To do that, we have to determine the strength of the conditions that make up the spell, the duration of those condition, and then apply any of a variety of modifiers. These modifiers primarily include limitations on the spell's effect, such as whether it allows a saving throw and whether it can only affect certain types of creatures. If a spell applise multiple conditions - particularly if it applies one condition on healthy creatures and a separate condition on bloodied creatures - we repeat this process, adding the spell strength of each condition together. After this is done, we apply additional modifiers for the area of the spell - the larger it is, the more the level increases. Finally, we add a few special modifiers that never have multipliers, such as modifiers for the spell's range. The full system is described below. Be warned; it is complicated. But it is the key that links together everything in the Spell Reformation.

Spell Strength

Condition Strength

Direct Modifiers:

+2 per condition tier (+2 for tier 6, +4 for tier 5, etc.)
+1: The spell allows a choice of a different condition of equal or lower tier

Multipliers:

*0.4: The condition applies only to a bloodied foe.


Duration
Duration starts at Short for most spells, and 1 round for tier 2 and tier 1 spells.

Direct Modifiers:

-3: Decrease duration from Short to 1 round
+1: Increase duration by a tier (Short -> Medium -> Long -> Extended)
+2: Increase duration from Extended to Permanent
+3: Increase duration from 1 round to Short
+1: The spell cannot be dispelled

Multipliers:

*0.6: The spell requires concentration each round to be maintained.
*0.6: The subject can save each round to end the effect.
*0.8: Condition only applies to a bloodied foe, and cannot be applied "retroactively" if the target is damaged while the spell is in effect.
*1.5: The condition is Tier 2.
*2: The condition is Tier 1


Spell Strength Multipliers:

*1.5: Spell affects an area
*0.8: Irrelevant or negated in combat (Charm, fascinate, etc.)
*0.8: Requires touch attack to hit
*0.6: Saving throw negates
*0.7: Saving throw mitigates (almost negates; short duration to 1 round, etc.)
*0.8: Saving throw partial (roughly half effect)
*0.9: Broad limitation on affected creatures (Less than 75% of targets, such as mind-affecting or with HV not exceeding caster level)
*0.75: Limitation on affected creatures (Less than 25% of targets, such as good, evil, or humanoid)
*0.6: Narrow limitation on affected creatures (Less than 10% of targets, such as law, chaos, or specific creature type)
*0.6: Effect can be escaped (as with Stinking Cloud, Fog Cloud, etc.)
*0.8: Effect can be escaped, but with limitations or difficulties (as with Entangle, Solid Fog, etc.)
*0.6: Only affects healthy (non-bloodied) creatures. (Only applied to additional conditions when the primary condition only affects bloodied creatures)
*0.8: Secondary condition. (Only applied to conditions beyond the primary condition on a spell)


Area

Direct Modifiers:

0: Does not affect an area
0: Affects a Small radius, Medium cone, or Medium line (~10 squares)
1: Affects a Large line (20 squares)
2: Affects a Medium radius (~50 squares)
3: Affects a Large cone (~75 squares)
5: Affects a Large radius (~300 squares)
+2: Choose targets freely within the area

Multipliers:

*0.6: Affects a maximum of 5 creatures in the area


Other

Direct Modifiers:

+2: Does not allow SR
-1: Does not have a range (must be touch attack or AOE, not applied to divine spells)
+1: Increase range by 1 tier (Close -> Medium -> Long)



After all this is done, the spell's actual level is the resulting value minus 3.
Whether or not you actually dove into the mechanics of the system itself, you will want to know what exactly the effects of all of these changes are. Unfortunately, when I tried to make a post showing all of the changes I made to condition-based spells, it exceeded the text limit for the forums. Therefore, I strongly encourage you to read this PDF to see what all of the new spells look like (http://kcjohnson.me/TheSpellReformation2.html). Some highlights are below.
Cause Fear

You fill your enemy with fear.
Enchantment (Emotion) [Fear, Mind-Affecting]
Level: Brd 1, Clr 1, Sor/Wiz 1
Range: Close (30 ft.)
Target: One creature
Duration: Short (Concentration + 5 rounds) /1 round (D)
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes (Will)
Healthy Effect: The subject is shaken.
Bloodied Effect: As the healthy effect, plus the subject is frightened for 1 round.
Confusion

You compel a creature to act randomly, sowing confusion in your foes' ranks.
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Brd 3, Chaos 3, Sor/Wiz 3, Trickery 3
Range: Close (30 ft.)
Target: One creature
Duration: Short (Concentration + 5 rounds)
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes (Will)
Healthy Effect: The subject is bewildered.
Bloodied Effect: The subject is confused. Each turn, it has a random chance to take one of four actions: babble incoherently, flee from the caster as if panicked, attack the nearest creature, or act normally. A confused character who can't carry out the indicated action does nothing but babble incoherently. Any confused character who is attacked automatically attacks its attackers on its next turn, as long as it is still confused when its turn comes.
Note: A bewildered creature takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls, saving throws, checks, DCs, and AC.
Attackers are not at any special advantage when attacking a confused character. A confused character will not make attacks of opportunity against any creature that it is not already devoted to attacking (either because of its most recent action or because it has just been attacked).
Confusion, Mass

You compel a group of creatures to act randomly, sowing confusion in your foes' ranks.
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Brd 6, Sor/Wiz 8, Trickery 8
Range: Medium (100 ft.)
Area: Medium (20 ft.) radius limit
Targets: All creatures within the area, to a maximum of five creatures
Effect: This spell functions like confusion, except that it affects multiple creatures. If there are more creatures in the area than you can affect, randomly determine which creatures are affected.
Entangle

Transmutation (Animation)
Level: Drd 1, Nature 1
Range: Medium (100 ft.)
Area: Small (10 ft.) radius spread
Duration: Short (Concentration + 5 rounds) (D)
Saving Throw: Reflex partial
Spell Resistance: No
Effect: Grasses, weeds, bushes, and even trees wrap, twist, and entwine about creatures in the area or those that enter the area, holding them fast and causing them to become entangled. The creature can break free and move half its normal speed by using a standard action to make a combat maneuver check or an Escape Artist check against this spell's save DC. A creature that succeeds on a Reflex save is not entangled but can still move at only half speed through the area. Each round on your turn, the plants once again attempt to entangle all creatures that have avoided or escaped entanglement.
Note: The effects of the spell may be altered somewhat based on the nature of the entangling plants. If no plants exist in the area, the spell has no effect.
Entangling Growth

Transmutation (Alteration, Animation)
Level: Drd 4, Nature 4
Area: Medium (20 ft.) radius spread
Effect: This spell functions like entangle, except that it affects a wider area and also grows new plants in the area. These plants grow from any terrain, even if it would not normally support plant life, and entangle creatures in the area for the duration of the spell. When the magic fades, the plants with and recede into the ground, leaving no trace that they were ever there.
Glitterdust

Conjuration (Creation)
Level: Sor/Wiz 2
Range: Medium (100 ft.)
Area: Small (10 ft.) radius spread
Manifestation: Glittering particles in the area
Duration: Short (Concentration + 5 rounds)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No
Effect: A cloud of golden particles covers everyone and everything in the area, visibly outlining invisible things for the duration of the spell. It likewise negates the effects of blur and displacement, and reveals figments, mirror images, and projected images for what they are. All within the area are covered by the dust, which cannot be removed and continues to sparkle until it fades.
Any creature covered by the dust takes a -40 penalty on Hide checks.
Glitterdust, Greater

Conjuration (Creation)
Level: Sor/Wiz 5
Area: Medium (20 ft.) radius spread
Saving Throw: None/Will negates
Effect: This spell functions like glitterdust, except that creatures in the area must also make Will saves or be dazzled for the duration of the spell.
Grease

You conjure a layer of slippery grease on the ground, tripping up your foes.
Conjuration (Creation)
Level: Brd 1, Sor/Wiz 1
Range: Close (30 ft.)
Target or Area: One object or a 10 ft. square
Duration: Short (Concentration + 5 rounds) (D)
Saving Throw: See text
Spell Resistance: No
Effect: Any creature in the area when the spell is cast must make a successful Reflex save or fall. A creature can walk within or through the area of grease at half normal speed with a DC 10 Balance check. Failure means it can't move that round, while failure by 5 or more means it falls (see the Balance skill for details). A creature standing in a greased area loses its Dexterity and dodge modifiers to AC due to the slippery surface.
The spell can also be used to create a greasy coating on an item. Material objects not in use are always affected by this spell, while an object wielded or employed by a creature receives a Reflex saving throw to avoid the effect entirely. If the initial saving throw fails, the creature immediately drops the item. If the item is successfully greased, a saving throw must be made in each round that the creature attempts to pick up or use the greased item. A creature wearing greased armor or clothing gains a +10 bonus on Escape Artist checks and on grapple attacks made to resist or escape a grapple or to escape a pin.
Web

You create a many-layered mass of strong, sticky strands that entangle creatures caught within them. The strands are similar to spider webs, but larger and tougher.
Conjuration (Creation)
Level: Sor/Wiz 3
Range: Close (30 ft.)
Area: Medium (20 ft.) radius spread
Manifestation: Webs in the area
Duration: Short (Concentration + 5 rounds) (D)
Saving Throw: Reflex negates; see text
Spell Resistance: No
Effect: Each creature in the spell's area are entangled unless it makes a successful Reflex save. This save must be repeated each round that the creature moves or fights within the area. An entangled creature can spend a standard action to make a grapple attack or Escape Artist attempt against the spell's save DC to break the webs holding it, preventing it from being entangled. A creature entangled by the spell remains entangled until it breaks the webs holding it or escapes the spell's area.
If the strands can be anchored to two or more solid and diametrically opposed structures, such as walls, the strands are much more sturdy. A creature entangled within a sturdy web is unable to move from its square until it stops being entangled.
Note: An entangled creature moves at half speed, cannot run or charge, and takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls, Strength and Dexterity-based checks, and armor class. If it attempts to cast a spell must make a Concentration check (DC 10 + double the spell's level) or lose the spell.
The strands are too widely spaced to significantly obscure sight, but are flammable. A magic flaming sword can slash them away as easily as a hand brushes away cobwebs. Any fire can set the webs alight and burn away 5 square feet in 1 round. All creatures within flaming webs take 2d4 points of fire damage from the flames.
Web can be made permanent with a permanency ritual. A permanent web that is destroyed regrows in 10 minutes.
This should conclude Part II of the Spell Reformation. Hopefully this clarifies what my goals are for the revised spell system. There are far too many changes for me to go over each one individually, but I will - as always - make an effort to respond to questions or confusion on how exactly this works.

tarkisflux
2013-08-19, 01:34 PM
In the other thread you stated that you wanted to avoid spell obsolescence, can you spend a bit discussing how you avoid that with the condition progression that you have? It does not seem to be the case that you could prepare a level 1 condition spell instead of a level 5 condition spell and avoid feeling gimped (or a 3 and 8, since that's the spread on confusion and mass confusion) without there being a substantial difference in spell power.

And in case you were still wrestling with damage numbers, here's a thought for you. If you broke damage up into categories (minor, light, moderate, serious, critical, lethal), you could scale each value with level and then assign each of those to a tier like your conditions. So a moderate damage spell would deal damage based on caster level regardless of spell level, but a higher level spell that dealt moderate damage might deal it in a larger area or at a further range or with some other rider ability.

[Edit] And since there's no responses just yet, I can toss in an example!

Let's say that Burning Hands and Fireball are both moderate damage spells, and Fireball is higher level by virtue of being a larger area and farther out. I'm not sure that actually works with your spell setup, but I don't feel like math at the moment and this is for illustrative purposes and so I'm going to skip it. Anyway, at level 6 you get Fireball, and also at level 6 you look up that "moderate" damage means 4d6 (or whatever you determine it to be). Your choices for wizard spell choice would then be a level 1 Burning Hands that deals 4d6 at close range or a level 3 Fireball that dealt 4d6 at a longer range in a larger area. Still a power difference, but you don't feel the damage pinch if you select the lower level spell. And when you level up to 7 the damage of all of your moderate damage spells goes up as well, according to whatever scaling you decide appropriate (likely some "average damage of spell is equal to X% of average target hp metric).

ArkenBrony
2013-08-20, 04:46 PM
the link to your list of spells isn't working for me

nonsi
2013-08-21, 03:27 AM
Tier 1: Total action denial. Includes dazed, dead, dominated, nauseated, panicked, paralyzed, petrified, and stunned.


I think there’s some inaccuracy here.
Dazed / nauseated / panicked targets are not helpless.

Dead / dominated / Paralyzed should be of a higher tier.


Also, I think it would help if you presented 2 complete tier-lists of harmful and beneficial conditions.

Craft (Cheese)
2013-08-21, 10:01 AM
I don't really have any specific feedback at this time, but I just wanted to say I really like this and can't wait to see it continued.

Vadskye
2013-08-21, 10:15 AM
Tarkisflux:

In the other thread you stated that you wanted to avoid spell obsolescence, can you spend a bit discussing how you avoid that with the condition progression that you have? It does not seem to be the case that you could prepare a level 1 condition spell instead of a level 5 condition spell and avoid feeling gimped (or a 3 and 8, since that's the spread on confusion and mass confusion) without there being a substantial difference in spell power.
There will be an increase in power level as you increase in spell level; that's totally appropriate. Avoiding spell obsolesence doesn't mean that spells can never improve. It means that the effect you get when you cast Confusion at 6th level is the same as the effect you get when you cast Confusion at 18th level. It still has (roughly) the same chance to succeed, because DC scales automatically with caster level rather than with spell level. There are no HD limits or other things which force the original Confusion spell to be obsolete. It is less effective than the 8th level Mass Confusion, but that's completely different. If an 18th level caster casts Confusion, they are still contributing to the battle in a significant way; if that effect was worth an action at 6th level, it can also be worth an action at 18th level.

Note that external forces, such as the improved special/magical defenses that many opponents have at high levels, can make casting a regular Confusion not very effective by the time you hit 18th level. That's perfectly fine; there is already a degree of obsolesence built into the system as a whole. That doesn't need to be artificially reinforced by forcing spells to become obsolete over time.

And in case you were still wrestling with damage numbers, here's a thought for you. If you broke damage up into categories (minor, light, moderate, serious, critical, lethal), you could scale each value with level and then assign each of those to a tier like your conditions. So a moderate damage spell would deal damage based on caster level regardless of spell level, but a higher level spell that dealt moderate damage might deal it in a larger area or at a further range or with some other rider ability.

[Edit] And since there's no responses just yet, I can toss in an example!

Let's say that Burning Hands and Fireball are both moderate damage spells, and Fireball is higher level by virtue of being a larger area and farther out. I'm not sure that actually works with your spell setup, but I don't feel like math at the moment and this is for illustrative purposes and so I'm going to skip it. Anyway, at level 6 you get Fireball, and also at level 6 you look up that "moderate" damage means 4d6 (or whatever you determine it to be). Your choices for wizard spell choice would then be a level 1 Burning Hands that deals 4d6 at close range or a level 3 Fireball that dealt 4d6 at a longer range in a larger area. Still a power difference, but you don't feel the damage pinch if you select the lower level spell. And when you level up to 7 the damage of all of your moderate damage spells goes up as well, according to whatever scaling you decide appropriate (likely some "average damage of spell is equal to X% of average target hp metric).
My plan is to an approach similar to what I did with condition spells; low-level damage spells scale much better over time than they did before (because they are uncapped), though they won't deal quite the same damage as highest-level spells. The key differentiator will be all of the "extra" effects; increased range, area of effect, or additional conditions. For example, Cone of Cold is a 5th level spell that deals 5d8 damage at 10th level. At the same level, Burning Hands would deal 3d8 damage. Both affect a Medium (20 ft.) cone, but Cone of Cold also fatigues creatures that fail their Reflex saves for 5 rounds. In other words, both could be useful - particularly if the caster doesn't mind getting close to his enemies - but Cone of Cold is more effective. I'll give a full explanation of the damage scaling mechanics when I get a chance. (There is so much interest in that aspect specifically!)
ArkenBrony:

the link to your list of spells isn't working for me
Sorry! I should know better than to use free web hosting. Does this link work for you? (http://kcjohnson.me/SpellReformation2.pdf)
Nonsi:

I think there’s some inaccuracy here.
Dazed / nauseated / panicked targets are not helpless.

Dead / dominated / Paralyzed should be of a higher tier.
There is some fudging with the tier lists; there will always be conditions that are better or worse than each other in the same tier. For example, slowed and stunned are strictly better than staggered and dazed, but they are in the same tier. I'm not sure whether I need a seventh separate tier for dominated and paralyzed. Six is already a great number of tiers! So far, I've just used the knowledge of the relative strength within a tier to affect how I round the resulting spell levels. There is still a great deal of art in assigning spell levels, even with such an intricate system.[/quote]


Also, I think it would help if you presented 2 complete tier-lists of harmful and beneficial conditions.
Not sure what you mean here. I think I have a complete list of harmful conditions. What beneficial conditions do you mean?
Craft (Cheese):

I don't really have any specific feedback at this time, but I just wanted to say I really like this and can't wait to see it continued.
I appreciate that! Encouragement is welcomed in addition to criticism. :smallsmile:

nonsi
2013-08-21, 12:56 PM
What beneficial conditions do you mean?

I don't know, efects such as: levitate / fly / enlarge / haste / ability-boost / polymorph . . . basically, any and all buffs.

Vadskye
2013-08-21, 01:01 PM
I don't know, efects such as: levitate / fly / enlarge / haste / ability-boost / polymorph . . . basically, any and all buffs.

Oh, my approach to buffs is worth a whole post in itself. It's also the aspect of the system that I have the most trouble with at this point. Currently that's scheduled to be Part 4, since there seems to be a lot of interest in damage spells.

In a very short summary, buffs will still be useful, but 90% of buffs will be Short duration. This means that casters can still bestow benefits on party members, but the whole "let's all sit around and plan out our buffs before the combat" aspect of the game is significantly diminished. The "Concentration" aspect of the Short duration is extremely relevant here; a caster can put a buff up before combat and be sure it will be active without having to track exact rounds between the casting and the start of combat.

tarkisflux
2013-08-21, 01:37 PM
There will be an increase in power level as you increase in spell level; that's totally appropriate. Avoiding spell obsolesence doesn't mean that spells can never improve. It means that the effect you get when you cast Confusion at 6th level is the same as the effect you get when you cast Confusion at 18th level. It still has (roughly) the same chance to succeed, because DC scales automatically with caster level rather than with spell level. There are no HD limits or other things which force the original Confusion spell to be obsolete. It is less effective than the 8th level Mass Confusion, but that's completely different. If an 18th level caster casts Confusion, they are still contributing to the battle in a significant way; if that effect was worth an action at 6th level, it can also be worth an action at 18th level.

Note that external forces, such as the improved special/magical defenses that many opponents have at high levels, can make casting a regular Confusion not very effective by the time you hit 18th level. That's perfectly fine; there is already a degree of obsolesence built into the system as a whole. That doesn't need to be artificially reinforced by forcing spells to become obsolete over time.

Having read that, I think we mean very different things by 'obsolete'. Boo term confusion. Obsolete just means out of date, and that's pretty much what you're allowing for. That does not prevent them from being niche or backup effects, however, in the same way that an 'old and way behind the power curve' (aka 'obsolete') computer or laptop may be a useful backup if you ever broke your current one.

I was not advocating for spells to become actually useless or to add artificial reinforcement to their falling out of use (and my preferred method (http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Static_Spell_Points_%283.5e_Variant_Rule%29) of dealing with lower power spells is to decrease the cost of their use so that they see potentially more use despite being vastly less powerful, similar to nonsi's method), because as you note those things already exist in the form of new defenses and general spell power progression. I was arguing that eventual differences in effectiveness will cause them to fall out of use and be obsolete in general, and that fighting that means a very different take on spells than you've been pursuing.

So I'm not really sure where the disagreement is, except perhaps that you don't want that phenomenon to be called obsolescence. You want the spell levels closer together in general, but that just changes the obsolescence point rather than removing it.


My plan is to an approach similar to what I did with condition spells; low-level damage spells scale much better over time than they did before (because they are uncapped), though they won't deal quite the same damage as highest-level spells. The key differentiator will be all of the "extra" effects; increased range, area of effect, or additional conditions. For example, Cone of Cold is a 5th level spell that deals 5d8 damage at 10th level. At the same level, Burning Hands would deal 3d8 damage. Both affect a Medium (20 ft.) cone, but Cone of Cold also fatigues creatures that fail their Reflex saves for 5 rounds. In other words, both could be useful - particularly if the caster doesn't mind getting close to his enemies - but Cone of Cold is more effective.

I would actually call burning hands obsolete in that scenario (since it is less than half as effective against any individual and I still have to use the same action to trigger it). It could still be useful in combat, but the difference there is large enough that I don't see myself using it except against much lower level foes or after I had exhausted all of my other options. I'm not sure if they're intended for different things (burning hands is a large AoE effect for its level, while cone of cold is a small AoE effect for its level so it does more) or what, but the scaling there seems much worse than in the Confusion and Mass Confusion example.

Also, why do you want lower level spells to necessarily do less damage than the higher level ones? Your confusion example deals the same effect to more targets at higher level, what would be wrong with dealing the same damage to more targets at higher level? It seems like there would be room for an area boosted burning hands that did the same damage, and an area reduced (maybe touch even) cone of cold that did the same damage and fatigue, and those compare in more obvious ways with your condition effect spell growth.

Vadskye
2013-08-22, 08:58 PM
Having read that, I think we mean very different things by 'obsolete'. Boo term confusion. Obsolete just means out of date, and that's pretty much what you're allowing for. That does not prevent them from being niche or backup effects, however, in the same way that an 'old and way behind the power curve' (aka 'obsolete') computer or laptop may be a useful backup if you ever broke your current one.

I was not advocating for spells to become actually useless or to add artificial reinforcement to their falling out of use (and my preferred method (http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Static_Spell_Points_%283.5e_Variant_Rule%29) of dealing with lower power spells is to decrease the cost of their use so that they see potentially more use despite being vastly less powerful, similar to nonsi's method), because as you note those things already exist in the form of new defenses and general spell power progression. I was arguing that eventual differences in effectiveness will cause them to fall out of use and be obsolete in general, and that fighting that means a very different take on spells than you've been pursuing.
In retrospect, it does seem odd that we agreed on so much and yet came to completely different conclusions. Yes, I like spell obsolescence in this sense - I think it's critical. I just don't like forced obsolescence, such as nonscaling damage spells.
So I'm not really sure where the disagreement is, except perhaps that you don't want that phenomenon to be called obsolescence. You want the spell levels closer together in general, but that just changes the obsolescence point rather than removing it. I would merely add that I don't think spell points are key to the problem of spell scaling; even if a spell is cheap, after a certain level (say, 6th or 7th) the primary cost of a low-level spell is the action used to cast it, not the spell slot. That's true in both a more traditional Vancian system and in a spell point system for all but the longest adventuring day. Actually, depending on how you cast your spells, it's even more true in a Vancian system. It's also more true with the "arcane invocation" system I proposed here.

I would actually call burning hands obsolete in that scenario (since it is less than half as effective against any individual and I still have to use the same action to trigger it). It could still be useful in combat, but the difference there is large enough that I don't see myself using it except against much lower level foes or after I had exhausted all of my other options. I'm not sure if they're intended for different things (burning hands is a large AoE effect for its level, while cone of cold is a small AoE effect for its level so it does more) or what, but the scaling there seems much worse than in the Confusion and Mass Confusion example.
I think that saying that a 1st level spell is substantially worse than a 5th level spell is perfectly reasonable. If that weren't the case, it would cause problems in the system. Yes, I see burning hands as being primarily useful only against lower level foes if you use just a 1st level slot for it. Of course, that's all that a 1st level slot should be good for in combat - useful when you aren't in a life or death situation, but still want to do something useful and magical. Of course, the real trick is the use of metamagic. I intend to substantially expand the metamagic options. Imagine an "Igniting Spell" metamagic (+2 on a single-target spell, or +3 on an AOE spell): the subject(s) are ignited for 5 rounds unless they make a successful Reflex save. You could apply that to Burning Hands, and it would be a 5th level spell like Cone of Cold; both would impose a Tier 6 condition (Ignited being a particularly potent tier 6 condition), with the primary difference being simply that Cone of Cold deals more damage. Sounds like a reasonable tradeoff to me.
(Also, something seemed off about Cone of Cold, so I reran the numbers on it. It's overpriced as I described it here; it should fatigue for 1 round on a successful save, and for 5 rounds on a failed save.)

Also, why do you want lower level spells to necessarily do less damage than the higher level ones? Your confusion example deals the same effect to more targets at higher level, what would be wrong with dealing the same damage to more targets at higher level? It seems like there would be room for an area boosted burning hands that did the same damage, and an area reduced (maybe touch even) cone of cold that did the same damage and fatigue, and those compare in more obvious ways with your condition effect spell growth.
First, that makes lower level damage spells scale too well. Even with this scaling system, my 12th level players typically use their 2nd and 3rd level damage spells as their "go-to" spells for combat. If they scaled perfectly with level relative to higher level spells, the whole system would get out of whack pretty quickly. Second, this allows a lot of room for interesting metamagic. the math of spell damage is bloody difficult to work out properly. I can get a bit more into that in Part III. Basically, scaling this way ties together spell level, DC, the requirement to increase damage with level, and other factors much more elegantly than any other scaling system I have tried.
I want to be clear, though - I do see your point about the problem. There is a scaling inconsistency between damage spells and nondamaging spells. However, I think this works itself out reasonably well insofar as penalties and conditions can be overriden or ignored in a variety of ways at higher levels, while damage remains consistently useful/necessary at every level.

tarkisflux
2013-08-24, 05:44 PM
In retrospect, it does seem odd that we agreed on so much and yet came to completely different conclusions. Yes, I like spell obsolescence in this sense - I think it's critical. I just don't like forced obsolescence, such as nonscaling damage spells.

I wouldn't call that forced, as they remain quite useful against much lower level foes and allow you to retain your bigger spells for more appropriate foes. Forced would probably be something like Deepbluediver's spell progression tweak where your low level slots go away and you actually can't bring them along just in case.

But this is getting pretty semantic and irrelevant, and I think I've said too much on it already.


I would merely add that I don't think spell points are key to the problem of spell scaling; even if a spell is cheap, after a certain level (say, 6th or 7th) the primary cost of a low-level spell is the action used to cast it, not the spell slot. That's true in both a more traditional Vancian system and in a spell point system for all but the longest adventuring day. Actually, depending on how you cast your spells, it's even more true in a Vancian system. It's also more true with the "arcane invocation" system I proposed here.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If you think it's relevant, would you mind phrasing it in a different way?


I think that saying that a 1st level spell is substantially worse than a 5th level spell is perfectly reasonable. If that weren't the case, it would cause problems in the system. Yes, I see burning hands as being primarily useful only against lower level foes if you use just a 1st level slot for it. Of course, that's all that a 1st level slot should be good for in combat - useful when you aren't in a life or death situation, but still want to do something useful and magical. Of course, the real trick is the use of metamagic. I intend to substantially expand the metamagic options. Imagine an "Igniting Spell" metamagic (+2 on a single-target spell, or +3 on an AOE spell): the subject(s) are ignited for 5 rounds unless they make a successful Reflex save. You could apply that to Burning Hands, and it would be a 5th level spell like Cone of Cold; both would impose a Tier 6 condition (Ignited being a particularly potent tier 6 condition), with the primary difference being simply that Cone of Cold deals more damage. Sounds like a reasonable tradeoff to me.

I think you mean a 4th level spell, and I would hope so since it's a spell with the same area, same cast time, and effect of the same tier (with hopefully the same or less duration) that deals less damage than a 5th level. If you meant 5 though... then your metamagic allows you to build up lower level spells into options that are worse than non-metamagic spells that could use the same spell slots. I probably wouldn't use such a system, because there are better options without.

As for interesting... that's a matter of taste I suppose. It's interesting from the design side though, since it reduces the number of spells you have to write to provide lots of options. But as a player it sounds like an expected metamagic to be honest, not one that really opens up interesting options, and a bit boring if functional as a result.


First, that makes lower level damage spells scale too well. Even with this scaling system, my 12th level players typically use their 2nd and 3rd level damage spells as their "go-to" spells for combat. If they scaled perfectly with level relative to higher level spells, the whole system would get out of whack pretty quickly. Second, this allows a lot of room for interesting metamagic. the math of spell damage is bloody difficult to work out properly. I can get a bit more into that in Part III. Basically, scaling this way ties together spell level, DC, the requirement to increase damage with level, and other factors much more elegantly than any other scaling system I have tried.

The idea of someone using a 2nd or 3rd level spell as their go-to spell in combat at level 12 is completely alien to me ([Edit]: unless they're at-will and better than their invocation equivalent I guess, or maybe you don't mean 'first to be cast' when you say go-to). Given the reduced effectiveness of the 5th level cone of cold (already not a great spell) and a few other things you've dropped along the way, I suspect it's a playstyle difference I don't know how to wrap my head around. Which probably means that I should stop taking up your time and let you get on with finishing things rather than responding to me. So I think I'll stop after this next bit, unless I see something that I suspect is relevant to what I imagine your playstyle goals to be.


I want to be clear, though - I do see your point about the problem. There is a scaling inconsistency between damage spells and nondamaging spells. However, I think this works itself out reasonably well insofar as penalties and conditions can be overriden or ignored in a variety of ways at higher levels, while damage remains consistently useful/necessary at every level.

It sounds like you're discounting damage resistance and reduction. Smaller damage values can be overriden or ignored potentially much more easily than conditions, but I guess we'll see when you do damage and buffs.

necroon
2013-08-24, 05:56 PM
Solution:
Spell saving throw DC is calculated by 10 + 1/2 caster level + casting ability modifier. Effects which used to improve DC instead improve caster level, granting +2 caster level instead of +1 DC. Effects which used to improve caster level continue to do so. I recommend that there be magic items that can also affect caster level, such as wizard's robes (a classic fantasy trope which has never had proper representation in D&D), but it is outside the scope of this fix to actually create those items.

Damage spell formulas and other spells which depend on caster level will be rewritten such that increasing caster level in this way does not make them overly strong or overly weak. This will be discussed in Part 3 of the Spell Reformation.
Just to make sure I understand: Caster Level should, still, by no means ever exceed the total number of levels a character has? This is aimed at multi-classed characters and characters with levels in PrCs that don't offer full spellcasting progression?

unbeliever536
2013-08-24, 10:09 PM
I worry about requiring concentration for buffs, because it means that every caster in the group is only going to be able to keep one buff going for a long period in core. Additionally, concentrating on a spell takes a standard action, which is going to slow down an adventuring party that is not in a combat situation, and possibly prevent a caster maintaining a buff from doing somethign else useful outside of combat. Is part of this fix the ability to resume concentration if the spell is still going? Core is unclear but implies that this cannot be done. Can a caster concentrate on multiple spells with a single concentrate action?

Otherwise very nice work, thanks for doing this.

SamBurke
2013-08-30, 03:35 PM
I am both subscribed and interested.

Vadskye
2013-09-02, 03:40 PM
I'm back! Working on Part III now...
Tarkisflux:

I wouldn't call that forced, as they remain quite useful against much lower level foes and allow you to retain your bigger spells for more appropriate foes. Forced would probably be something like Deepbluediver's spell progression tweak where your low level slots go away and you actually can't bring them along just in case.

But this is getting pretty semantic and irrelevant, and I think I've said too much on it already.
Makes sense.


I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If you think it's relevant, would you mind phrasing it in a different way?
Ah, that was a bit hard to understand, sorry! After reflection, I think we agree enough on spell costs that it's not worth worrying about.

I think you mean a 4th level spell, and I would hope so since it's a spell with the same area, same cast time, and effect of the same tier (with hopefully the same or less duration) that deals less damage than a 5th level. If you meant 5 though... then your metamagic allows you to build up lower level spells into options that are worse than non-metamagic spells that could use the same spell slots. I probably wouldn't use such a system, because there are better options without.
I do mean 4th, oops. And I do think that spells created with metamagic should be worse than an equivalent spell of the same level. Metamagic spells are more flexible. That's why the spell system treats increasing range from 30 ft. to 100 ft. as costing +1 level, but the Enlarge metamagic would only increase range from 30 ft. to 60 ft. for +1 level. That's fair because with the metamagic version, you get a choice of which one to use - you can decide to cast it with or without the metamagic attached. Having a full spell just for that purpose is less flexible, so it should be more powerful.

As for interesting... that's a matter of taste I suppose. It's interesting from the design side though, since it reduces the number of spells you have to write to provide lots of options. But as a player it sounds like an expected metamagic to be honest, not one that really opens up interesting options, and a bit boring if functional as a result.
I'll grant that it's not the most inspiring metamagic. But I'm looking for ways to give casters a little more control over their spells. I think that makes being a caster more fun - particularly if you can apply them spontaneously. Do you have better ideas for metamagic? I'm looking for new metamagic feats.

The idea of someone using a 2nd or 3rd level spell as their go-to spell in combat at level 12 is completely alien to me ([Edit]: unless they're at-will and better than their invocation equivalent I guess, or maybe you don't mean 'first to be cast' when you say go-to). Given the reduced effectiveness of the 5th level cone of cold (already not a great spell) and a few other things you've dropped along the way, I suspect it's a playstyle difference I don't know how to wrap my head around. Which probably means that I should stop taking up your time and let you get on with finishing things rather than responding to me. So I think I'll stop after this next bit, unless I see something that I suspect is relevant to what I imagine your playstyle goals to be.
Not first to cast, unless they think the encounter isn't a serious threat. Higher level spells are still bigger and better. I suspect that the playstyle difference isn't as big as you imagine; I'll work on getting the rest of the damage rewrite up so you can judge it in its entirety before you decide to write it off. I've definitely appreciated your feedback so far!

It sounds like you're discounting damage resistance and reduction. Smaller damage values can be overriden or ignored potentially much more easily than conditions, but I guess we'll see when you do damage and buffs.
This is true. DR against magic isn't terribly common, though, except elemental DR.
Necroon:

Just to make sure I understand: Caster Level should, still, by no means ever exceed the total number of levels a character has? This is aimed at multi-classed characters and characters with levels in PrCs that don't offer full spellcasting progression?
As with core D&D, caster level can exceed a character's total level. You have to change the way you think about it; caster level isn't a virtually static value that only increases as a character gains levels, like base attack bonus is. Instead, it's a somewhat more variable measure of a caster's power, like total attack bonus (after including modifiers like Weapon Focus and magic weapons). Does that make sense? Caster level and and will be more variable with this system, and spells that are strongly dependent on caster level like Holy Word are rewritten to account for that change.
Unbeliever:

I worry about requiring concentration for buffs, because it means that every caster in the group is only going to be able to keep one buff going for a long period in core. Additionally, concentrating on a spell takes a standard action, which is going to slow down an adventuring party that is not in a combat situation, and possibly prevent a caster maintaining a buff from doing somethign else useful outside of combat. Is part of this fix the ability to resume concentration if the spell is still going? Core is unclear but implies that this cannot be done. Can a caster concentrate on multiple spells with a single concentrate action?

Otherwise very nice work, thanks for doing this.
Every caster is going to only keep one (short duration) buff active going into a combat, yes. That is intentional; part of the objective is to limit the degree to which players stop and spend time working out buff strategies before entering combat. As far as movement goes, it is true that a caster concentrating on a buff is less mobile. Typically, parties travel at walking speed unless they are doing something important, so it shouldn't be a significant hindrance. You shouldn't be concentrating on a spell all of the time anyway; it's mentally exhausting! If the party is rushing, or if the caster wants to cast a different spell, the caster will have to break off concentration. I'm not convinced that's a problem, though. It's an incentive not to be constantly concentrating. You should only be concentrating on a short-term buff if you expect a fight in the near future. You can't resume concentration on a spell while it is still active in order to get it to last longer, though I might consider a feat or class feature that granted that ability. Likewise, you can't concentrate on multiple spells at once; that would undo the nerf to precombat buffing. If you want to buff multiple people, you should use a Mass spell. I think there is room to allow some mechanic to concentrate on multiple spells at once with some limitations; perhaps as a metamagic feat. However, that's not a core mechanic. The goal is to limit the necessity of buffs without reducing their power level more than is necessary.

And I appreciate that!
SamBurke:

I am both subscribed and interested.
Glad to hear it!
and I lost the game. Darn you.

necroon
2013-09-02, 05:17 PM
I'm back! Working on Part III now...
Necroon:

As with core D&D, caster level can exceed a character's total level. You have to change the way you think about it; caster level isn't a virtually static value that only increases as a character gains levels, like base attack bonus is. Instead, it's a somewhat more variable measure of a caster's power, like total attack bonus (after including modifiers like Weapon Focus and magic weapons). Does that make sense? Caster level and and will be more variable with this system, and spells that are strongly dependent on caster level like Holy Word are rewritten to account for that change.
Unbeliever:
[spoiler]


Ah okay - Now I follow.
I appreciate you taking the time to explain that for me.

ArkenBrony
2013-09-02, 05:28 PM
I've had plans of redoing the players handbook for a campaign I'll be running, And this seems to be exactly what i wanted the magic system to be, without me actually having to devote my time to doing it. thank you for the service you are doing

tarkisflux
2013-09-03, 01:15 AM
We're going to do this out of order I think...


I suspect that the playstyle difference isn't as big as you imagine; I'll work on getting the rest of the damage rewrite up so you can judge it in its entirety before you decide to write it off. I've definitely appreciated your feedback so far!

To be honest, I've already written off your project. It might be non-obvious to you, but there are some very large and serious differences in preference between us. My own design priorities are not relevant in someone else's project, so I've been trying to leave them outside and to instead work with what I think your design priorities are to address places where your design falls short of them, or just to provide generic advice / explanation (like on the CR stuff). I enjoy design exercises, even if I don't have any interest in the finished product, and that's what got me in the beginning and has been keeping me around.

But there's basically nothing in this project that I'd use at this point, and it continues to diverge from things I want as it goes. The divergence is getting close to the point where I don't think I can provide useful criticism, at which point I'll just drop out to keep from derailing it. There's plenty of other people who seem happy with what you're doing, and I don't want to delay you or them getting something complete and playable.


I do mean 4th, oops. And I do think that spells created with metamagic should be worse than an equivalent spell of the same level. Metamagic spells are more flexible. That's why the spell system treats increasing range from 30 ft. to 100 ft. as costing +1 level, but the Enlarge metamagic would only increase range from 30 ft. to 60 ft. for +1 level. That's fair because with the metamagic version, you get a choice of which one to use - you can decide to cast it with or without the metamagic attached. Having a full spell just for that purpose is less flexible, so it should be more powerful.

So a 5th level slot isn't always worth a 5th level slot? That's ridiculous, and also a bunch of extra work for yourself. Rather than writing a level 5 spell and letting people metamagic up a level 6 spell with better range/damage/duration/whatever, you now need to write a level 5 spell and a level 6 spell for each of those +1 level upgrades. And if you don't write it, someone will take your spell calculator and just go research permanent versions of those boosted spells if they want them. Which is more work for the player and the DM instead of you I guess, but still kind of crappy.

It sort of looks like you're trying to manage the caster who takes a broad range of spells over the levels vs. the one who focuses on spell upgrades, and I don't get why you'd want to do that. What's the problem with breadth? It's already limited to known, so the breadth size is pretty sharply limited. And if you're worried that some people will get breadth and others won't... then just don't write higher level versions of spells that you could get via metamagic. People get breadth by default because the simple upgrades aren't there to grab, and the metamagic that you take helps differentiate you from your peers (duration caster vs. distance caster vs. effect caster vs. whatever else is a thing).

[Edit] Also, it seems like you're discounting the cost that the caster is paying for the ability to go for breadth instead of simple spell upgrades - the feat cost of acquiring metamagic. They pay for the ability to have a broader spell list modified by metamagic by not getting to do other things with their feats. So double charging them for that, once with the feat and once with reduced power compared to people who took a fixed spell and a different feat, requires a bit more justification than I think you've provided. Is it really that much better than the other things they could be picking up with feats?


I'll grant that it's not the most inspiring metamagic. But I'm looking for ways to give casters a little more control over their spells. I think that makes being a caster more fun - particularly if you can apply them spontaneously. Do you have better ideas for metamagic? I'm looking for new metamagic feats.

Not really. As stated above I think your stated goals for metamagic are weird, and I'd probably avoid it if there were other things I could be doing. Any metamagicked spell is less strong than something else I could be doing with the same slot after all, and so its use is non-optimal by definition. I'm pretty sure it can be worked around with decent spell selection, particularly since it's all combat effects all the time now.

Vadskye
2013-09-13, 04:22 PM
The Spell Reformation Part III: Damage Spells
Fundamental Goals
The Spell Reformation's approach to damage spells starts from three core assumptions:

Caster level caps are inconvenient and unintuitive.
An area of effect spell should be weaker than an equivalent single-target spell.
Caster damage should be proportionate to noncaster damage.

Some justification for these statements was given in the Theses thread. For now, I will take them as given.

Examples
Let's do things a little differently this time. First, let's look at three examples of damage spells in the Spell Reformation so it is clear what the goal is. Then we can walk through the process of deciding why damage spells should look this way. First, an extremely basic spell, Inflict Light Wounds:

Inflict Light Wounds
Necromancy (Vitalism) [Negative]
Level: Clr 1
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Will half or Will half (harmless)
Spell Resistance: Yes (Will)
Damage: 2d8 negative energy damage + d8 per two caster levels above 1st
Effect: The touched creature takes damage. Since undead are powered by negative energy, this spell heals them instead of dealing damage. You must succeed on a melee touch attack to hit a target that does not allow you to touch it.
Next, the perennial favorite, Fireball:

Fireball
You create an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar, damaging nearby creatures and objects.
Evocation (Energy) [Destructive, Fire]
Level: Fire 3, Sor/Wiz 3
Range: Medium (100 ft.)
Area: Small (10 ft.) radius spread
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Reflex half
Spell Resistance: Yes (Reflex)
Damage: 3d8 fire damage + d8 per four caster levels above 6th
Effect: Everything in the area takes damage.
Note: If a destructive spell deals enough damage to an interposing barriers to shatter or breaks through it, its effects may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise, it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.
Finally, a classic spell that I can't remember seeing anyone ever cast, Cone of Cold:

Cone of Cold
You create an area of extreme cold, draining heat from your foes and diminishing their ability to move and fight.
Evocation (Energy) [Cold, Destructive]
Level: Drd 5, Sor/Wiz 5
Area: Medium (20 ft.) cone-shaped burst
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Reflex half/Reflex partial
Spell Resistance: Yes (Reflex)
Damage: 5d8 cold damage + d8 per four caster levels above 10th
Effect: Everything in the area takes damage. Creatures damaged by the spell are fatigued for 5 rounds. A successful Reflex save halves the damage and reduces the duration of the fatigue to 1 round.
Note: If a destructive spell deals enough damage to an interposing barriers to shatter or breaks through it, its effects may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise, it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.
Now let's look at why these spells look the way they do.
Non-Functional Changes
The damage dealt by a spell is typically buried in the long text description of the spell. It is very valuable to be able to quickly reference the important aspects of a spell during play. Therefore, there is a new "Damage:" header, placed immediately after the "Spell Resistance" header, which describes the damage dealt by the spell.

In addition, based on feedback from this board, I have decided that it is desirable to make sure that all damage dealt by spells is typed. Therefore, several new types of damage have been added - most prominently, divine damage and life damage. These currently add no functionality, but it allows the possibility for interesting interactions and added fluff.

Core Scaling Mechanism
Without caster level caps, spells can't use a simple "1dX per level" progression. If they did, low-level spells would be way too powerful at high levels. We need a mechanism that scales with spell level, just like caps scale with spell level. In addition, we want caster level to contribute to both condition spells and damage spells. Adding +2 caster level increases spell DC of a spell by 1, so it should increase the damage as well. Thus, we need a mechanism that scales with caster level.

This means we need a damage scaling mechanism with two parts: spell level and caster level. For the sake of simplicity and intuitiveness, let's assume that both components will use dice of the same size. This will allow us to describe the damage output of (almost) any spell with just its die size and spell level.

This also means that we can adjust the damage dealt by a spell by simply modifying its die size. A spell which allows a saving throw for half damage should deal more damage than a spell which allows no saving throw. We can use a modified version of the VADSKYE Spell Engine to represent this. The fundamental building block will be a base spell which allows no saving throw, does not require a touch attack, and does not have any other major limitations on its ability to deal damage. From there, we apply the following modifiers:

+? die size: Allows a saving throw for half damage
+? die size: Allows a saving throw to negate damage
+? die size: Requires a touch attack to hit

So far, so good. I'm going to add one more modifier to achieve the second fundamental goal:
-? die size: Affects an area
This means that Fireball will deal some amount less damage than a hypothetical single-target damage spell of the same level. After we assign concrete values to spell damage, we'll come back to this list and assign die size values to each of these modifiers.

Damage Values
Now that we have a scaling mechanism, we need to decide how much damage spells should do. There are two things we should decide. First, we need to know the damage of a typical spell that is roughly representative of spell damage as a whole. Second, we need to know the damage of the base spell, as discussed above: a spell with no saving throw or limitations of any kind.

First, let's consider the typical spell. Most damage spells either have a saving throw for half (Fireball) or require a touch attack to hit (Scorching Ray). At any given level, the highest level of spells a caster has access to usually deals about 1d6 damage per caster level, ignoring metamagic. That seems like a reasonable starting point. Doing a detailed mathematical analysis of spell damage as it relates to hit points and typical noncaster damage is probably unnecessary. Of course, I did it anyway! However, converting the data into a forum-friendly format (alliteration!) is time-consuming, so I'd rather avoid that unless people have specific problems with the scaling values.

For now, let's agree that the highest level of spells a caster has access to should deal somewhere around 1d6 damage per caster level. That's a bit of a mouthful. Assuming a typical caster level of twice the spell's level, we can simplify that statement to say that a typical level X spell deals 2Xd6 damage when first acquired. This is consistent with core D&D spells, if you delay spell acquisition as discussed in Part I; core Scorching Ray deals 4d6 when first acquired, and core Fireball deals 6d6 when first acquired.

The base spell must deal less damage than the typical spell by definition. We also know that the typical spell typically allows a save for half or requires a touch to hit. I did some math against monster statistics and decided that it is reasonable to assume that a save can be made roughly 50% of the time, and a touch attack will hit roughly 75% of the time. For this reason, a spell without those restrictions should deal roughly 75% of the damage of the "typical" spell. A d4 deals roughly 75% of the damage of a d6, so we can simply decrease the damage die of the spell by one size. However, not very many people have that many d4s, so let's represent 2d4 as 1d10. This means that the base level X spell deals Xd10 damage when first acquired. If the spell has a save for half damage or requires a touch attack, it deals 2Xd6 damage. From there, it is simple to conclude that a spell which allows a save to negate would deal 2Xd8 damage, and a spell which required a touch attack and allowed a save to negate would deal 2Xd10 damage.

Now we have values for how much damage a spell should do when first acquired. How should spells scale with level? Given that there are no caster level caps, we can't scale too quickly; adding 1d6/level is too much. Additionally, adding 1d6/level would be out of sync with spell DC, which only increases by 1 per two caster levels. I spent many hours fiddling with spreadsheets to try to solve this problem, though I will skip past the details for the sake of brevity and my own sanity. In the end, I came to the conclusion that a typical spell can increase in damage by 1d6 per two caster levels above the minimum to cast the spell. This means that low-level spells are always stronger when cast by a higher-level caster, yet they will never outshine higher-level spells.

Determining Additional Effects
We now know what damage a spell of any level, with any of the core damage modifiers, should do. However, we still have no rules for determining the additional components of the spell. For example, why does Fireball now have a 10 foot radius? Why does Cone of Cold fatigue creatures for 5 rounds? We can use the VADSKYE spell engine described in Part II to determine these characteristics. Damage spells use a similar system: we simply need to change a few factors. We define the "base" damage spell as follows:

Example Spell
Level: Any 1
Range: Close (30 ft.)
Target: One creature
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes (Will)
Damage: 1d10 <something> damage + d10 per four caster levels above 1st
Effect: The target takes damage.
We can roughly consider there to be two different types of damage: the four main "energy" types (acid, cold, electricity, and fire), and the other types. These are distinct because resistances to the main energy types are much more common, and because they have more concrete fluff implications than the damage dealt by other spells like Chaos Hammer. As a result, energy spells should be easier to cast than non-energy spells. We represent this in the system with a -1 level adjustment for energy spells. To compensate for this, the "base" spell is actually a 2nd level spell (worth 5 points in the VADSKYE engine). From that starting point, we can simply use that engine to determine spell levels - with one major distinction. Damage spells that affect an area, allow saving throws, and require touch attacks should not use the normal spell level modifiers for those components. The spell is already adjusted by changing its damage output. Instead, we ignore all multipliers from those effects, and add a flat +1 level for area spells. From there, we simply apply any normal modifiers, including adding on extra conditions as necessary. Any extra conditions get a 20% discount, encouraging spells which both do damage and apply other effects.

This allows us to see how the three example spells at the beginning were derived. Inflict Light Wounds starts from the base spell (5 points), applies a -1 modifier for not having a range (4 points), and applies no modifier for requiring a touch attack. Therefore, it is a 4 point spell, or a 1st level spell. Fireball starts from the base spell (5 points), affects an area (+1 point), has a Medium range (+1 point), and is an energy spell (-1 points), for a total of 6 points - making it a 3rd level spell. Cone of Cold is slightly more complicated:
Base damage spell: 5 points
Energy damage: -1 point
No range: -1 point
Affects an area: +1 point
Fatigues for 1 round: +1.2 points
Base condition spell: 4 points
Affects an area: *1.5
Secondary effect: *0.8
Saving throw mitigates: *0.7
Total: 4*1.5*0.8*0.7 = 3.36

Total: 5-1-1+1+3.36 = 7.36 points

Therefore, Cone of Cold is either a 4th or 5th level spell. I assigned it to 5th level to add the [Destructive] descriptor, which increases the spell's power by a small amount.

Why Nerf Area of Effect Spells?
Let's look at a simple example. Imagine a hypothetical 3rd level single-target damage spell that allowed a saving throw for half damage; let's call it Scorching Spear. It would deal 6d6 fire damage + d6 per two caster levels above 6th. Fireball deals 3d8 fire damage + d8 per four caster levels above 6th. How much damage will each spell be guaranteed to do (assuming the save is failed for simplicity)? Scorching Spear deals 21 damage, and Fireball deals 13.5 damage. Some people look at that and say that Fireball is pitifully weak.

But let's look at the question from a different angle. Instead, let's look at the potential for each spell. Scorching Spear will only ever deal that 6d6 damage. However, if Fireball hits a tight formation of Medium creatures (one per square), it can deal 36d8 damage, or 162 damage if you prefer. By this standard, Fireball is ludicrously overpowered. Note that this is after the nerf to Fireball's area; at its original 20 foot radius, the same Fireball could deal 132d8 damage. (It's even worse at Fireball's original d6/level progression, naturally.)

It's unfair to assume a best-case scenario when designing the spell. However, it is also equally unfair to assume a worst-case scenario, where it hits only one target. Spellcasters have dozens of spells available to them at any given time, and they have the flexibility to only cast their spells when the sitution suits it. What we need to consider is an typical scenario - the average case, which is somewhere between the best case (36d8) and worst case (3d8). We must also consider the fact that dealing 36d8 damage split among a large number of targets is less powerful than dealing 36d8 damage to a single target. If an area spell did exactly the same damage as a single target spell, the single target spell would be more powerful. However, it is easy to overstate the importance of this point.

My calculations and play style assumptions lead me to assume that the average AOE spell hits two targets. Thus, whenever we look at the damage of an AOE spell, we should mentally double it; in other words, Fireball actually deals about 6d8 + d8 per two caster levels above 6th. This is very similar to Scorching Ray, but a die size larger; that die size difference represents the fact that single-target damage is better than distributed damage. Fireball has a lot more potential for damage than Scorching Spear, but Scorching Spear is more consistent. In other words, the difference between the two is primarily a difference of play style, not raw power. Players who like high risk-high reward characters probably prefer AOEs, and characters who prefer to play it safe probably prefer single-target spells. If a campaign features many large-scale combats (such as a war campaign), AOE spells are more powerful. If a campaign features many "single boss" encounters (such as a monster slayer campaign), AOE spells are less powerful. That's okay! Every spell varies in power and usefulness depending on the circumstances, and AOEs should be no different. That means that there need to be circumstances - such as striking a single target - where they are less powerful than other, similar spells would be. That is the sign of a healthy system.

Summary
A typical spell of level X deals 2Xd6 damage + d6 per two levels above the minimum caster level for the spell. This formula keeps spell damage balanced, removes the necessity of arbitrary caster level caps, and allows low-level spells to remain relevant in combat for longer. Almost all damage spells, except very low-level ones, have additional effects of some kind that go beyond the mere ability to do damage. Damage spells are all constructed as part of the VADSKYE spell engine, like debuff and condition spells, making spell construction unified and ensuring that damaging and nondamaging are balanced against each other.

A full list of damage spells is forthcoming; it takes time to reformat them all into a forum-friendly style, and I made some minor adjustments to the spell engine while writing this explanation. However, would be happy to comment on any individual damage spells that people have questions about. As always, if something is unclear, let me know! I'll try to explain it differently. My goal is to eventually build a simple web app of some sort that would allow people to easily construct their own spells in the VADSKYE spell engine without needing to do all the math. (I can't believe I'm still using that name...)

This should conclude Part III: Damage Spells. Part IV - Buffs - will be done when it's done!

AttilaTheGeek
2013-09-14, 10:59 AM
I have just a second to write this short post, but why is making a spell a ray a multiplier of 0.75 when touch AC scales negatively with level?

Vadskye
2013-09-14, 11:39 AM
Tarkisflux:

We're going to do this out of order I think...
Nothing wrong with that!


To be honest, I've already written off your project. It might be non-obvious to you, but there are some very large and serious differences in preference between us. My own design priorities are not relevant in someone else's project, so I've been trying to leave them outside and to instead work with what I think your design priorities are to address places where your design falls short of them, or just to provide generic advice / explanation (like on the CR stuff). I enjoy design exercises, even if I don't have any interest in the finished product, and that's what got me in the beginning and has been keeping me around.

But there's basically nothing in this project that I'd use at this point, and it continues to diverge from things I want as it goes. The divergence is getting close to the point where I don't think I can provide useful criticism, at which point I'll just drop out to keep from derailing it. There's plenty of other people who seem happy with what you're doing, and I don't want to delay you or them getting something complete and playable.
I always tend to see more similarities than differences. But I appreciate your help all the more if you know you aren't going to use what comes out of it. The worst thing that can happen as a designer is to get locked into an echo chamber with only people that agree with you. (Okay, maybe second worst. The worst thing is that no one pays any attention at all and you die alone and unloved, surrounded by the remnants of game systems never used.) Your pushback has convinced me to change several things about my ideas already, so as long as you still feel like it's worth the time, I'm happy to see what you have to say - derailment or no.

So a 5th level slot isn't always worth a 5th level slot? That's ridiculous, and also a bunch of extra work for yourself. Rather than writing a level 5 spell and letting people metamagic up a level 6 spell with better range/damage/duration/whatever, you now need to write a level 5 spell and a level 6 spell for each of those +1 level upgrades. And if you don't write it, someone will take your spell calculator and just go research permanent versions of those boosted spells if they want them. Which is more work for the player and the DM instead of you I guess, but still kind of crappy.
A 5th level slot has never been always worth a 5th level slot, if only because spells with metamagic applied don't have a DC with a level appropriate for their new level. The difference wasn't obvious before because spells so widely in power level that it was hard to get a good estimation for what a X level spell was actually worth. However, I maintain that this is not merely true, but necessary, for one simple reason: a spell brought to level X through metamagic is inherently better than a level X spell that does the exact same thing. This is true because with the metamagic spell, you have a choice: you can choose to apply the metamagic and cast the higher level version, or not apply the metamagic and cast the lower level version. If a level 2 spell metamagic'd to level 5 had the exact same effect as the level 5 spell, a caster with that metamagic feat would never want to take the level 5 version! The core system recognized this problem and tried to address it by having metamagic not increase spell DC. However, this was only a band-aid solution that left many things (no-save spells) untouched. That's why Scorching Ray is the king of damage spells - because it dodges this attempted nerf and scales with level better than any spell of the same level. (Also because Empower and Maximize screw with spell math.)

In this system, DC no longer scales with spell level. This is good for a variety of reasons - however, it also means that means that metamagic is very powerful, since its only significant limitation was removed. This is more noticeable now because spell components like range and area are actually balanced against each other, rather than being pulled out of a hat more or less at random. Every spell in the Spell Reformation is constructed using the same core system, using certain assumptions. For example, any spell with a Medium (100 ft.) range is one level higher than the same spell would be with a Close (30 ft.) range. Note that this is much more generous than is granted by the Enlarge metamagic feat, which only doubles range for a +1 level cost. That's okay! If metamagic costs used the exact same cost structure as the full engine does, there would be very little reason to take high level spells, since you could simply replicate them more flexibly by applying metamagic to low-level spells.

Yes, this means that doing research to create a custom spell that is set in stone with the effects you want yields a more powerful/cheaper spell than whipping that spell together on the fly with metamagic. What I don't understand is why you portray that as a bad thing.Of course this process should be subject to DM discretion. The spell engine is a way of assigning fair levels to well-designed spells. It is most definitely NOT a method of designing spells in the first place; it cannot take a terribly designed spell and make it good. For that reason - and because the engine is pretty complicated - I strongly advise against giving players whole-sale license to use the engine to design spells. The DM and the player should work to design the spell first, and then consult the engine to see what level the spell should be, making adjustments as necessary to fit the player's needs.


It sort of looks like you're trying to manage the caster who takes a broad range of spells over the levels vs. the one who focuses on spell upgrades, and I don't get why you'd want to do that. What's the problem with breadth? It's already limited to known, so the breadth size is pretty sharply limited. And if you're worried that some people will get breadth and others won't... then just don't write higher level versions of spells that you could get via metamagic. People get breadth by default because the simple upgrades aren't there to grab, and the metamagic that you take helps differentiate you from your peers (duration caster vs. distance caster vs. effect caster vs. whatever else is a thing).
It would be more accurate to say that allowing perfectly scaling metamagic would make it highly advantageous for everyone with feats to spare to be a breadth caster, since there would be no point in getting spell upgrades - they could simply be replicated by metamagic. With this system, casters can choose to specialize or take a broad variety, and there are advantages and disadvantages to each option. It's also worth noting that spells in general scale better than they used to, so the system already encourages breadth casters over depth casters.

[Edit] Also, it seems like you're discounting the cost that the caster is paying for the ability to go for breadth instead of simple spell upgrades - the feat cost of acquiring metamagic. They pay for the ability to have a broader spell list modified by metamagic by not getting to do other things with their feats. So double charging them for that, once with the feat and once with reduced power compared to people who took a fixed spell and a different feat, requires a bit more justification than I think you've provided. Is it really that much better than the other things they could be picking up with feats?

Not really. As stated above I think your stated goals for metamagic are weird, and I'd probably avoid it if there were other things I could be doing. Any metamagicked spell is less strong than something else I could be doing with the same slot after all, and so its use is non-optimal by definition. I'm pretty sure it can be worked around with decent spell selection, particularly since it's all combat effects all the time now.
Metamagic allows people to do things that would be impossible without metamagic. It effectively contributes many extra spells known, particularly to spontaneous casters. As long as metamagic plays such a unique role, it will never become useless. The differences in power between a metamagic 5th level spell and a "true" 5th level spell are not so obvious that it will dramatically change the way people approach metamagic. Again, low-level spells scale much better than they used to, so metamagic is already better than it used to be (since low-level spells other than a very select few often became useless as time went on).
AttilaTheGeek:
Because it should do more damage, and how else would I represent that than a die size increase? A flat damage increase?

Um. That might actually be a good idea. I hadn't thought of that before. Let me get back to you on that.

(The actual answer is that I originally designed the spell reformation for Rise, and touch AC scales much better in Rise. I forgot to translate that when I was writing this up for 3.5.)

Incidentally, there is absolutely nothing wrong with only replying to a fragment of a post. Not everything needs to be ridiculously comprehensive!

Realms of Chaos
2013-09-14, 06:37 PM
I apologize for not being clear. This is something that I seem to have some trouble explaining. The problem is not that Spell Resistance is binary. The problem is that it is essentially non-interactive, with a "fake" scaling. Monster SR isn't based on the strength of the monster, or any particular attributes of the monster; it's just (a number) + CR, and 90% of the time that number is the same (11). Similarly, caster level is the attribute that a caster has the least control over, and scales relatively little with level.

Here's one way to look at it. A difference of 5 CR is a huge difference. That's more than the difference between a Dire Tiger and a brown bear, or between a hill giant and a cloud giant, or what have you. Fighters, monsters, and wizards scale a lot between level 5 and level 10. Spell resistance, however, does not. A 10th level wizard still has a 25% chance to completely botch a spell on a CR 5 monster who is lucky enough to have spell resistance. There's virtually nothing the caster can do about it except to ignore the SR completely - so that's what basically everyone does. It's just not a good system, because it doesn't take into account the different between different wizards, different spells, and different monsters - it's almost totally independent of the specific circumstances under consideration.

I apologize for taking so long to respond to this point but after several trips, starting up school, and shifting to a new computer, I finally wanted to point out that this doesn't look right to me.

I think that AC and Spell Resistance are basically the same thing on all counts. First of all, though many monsters may seem to follow the formula of CR + 11 for SR, this is never put forth as a rule. The lack of diversity in the SR of CR 5 creatures, therefore, is hardly a failure of SR in and of itself.

With this established, SR is almost entirely analogous to AC, representing an chance of failure for an offensive action. If you (as a DM) want attackers to back down in a combat, you can use a creature with higher AC for its CR much as you could use one with high SR for its CR if you want attackers to shine.

Further, there are a plethora of ways out there to increase your caster level, give yourself spell resistance, or boost/weaken the spell resistance of others (true casting lets you disregard the stuff about as reliably as true strike lets you ignore AC). Thus, while it is true that SR lacks the equivalent of flat-footed or touch AC, saying that there is no degree of interaction to be had strikes me as a bit ingenuous.

The way you talk about different values for different kinds of casters or spells, you might as well say that I should have 3 forms of AC against Bludgeoning/Piercing/Slashing weapons with subdivisions within each category offering modifications against each individual kind of weapon.

On top of that, having a 25% chance of failure on something 5 CR lower than yourself basically applies to both AC and SR (due to occasional better weapons or str/dex boosts, maybe reduce it to a 20% chance). If you hit a creature about half of the time at level 5, you generally don't automatically hit it by level 10 (especially on iterative attacks).

I apologize for waiting so long after the fact but I really do want to know what problem you see in SR that doesn't exist in AC. Is it the lack of cover/high ground/miscellaneous bonuses and penalties?

Vadskye
2013-09-14, 07:11 PM
I apologize for waiting so long after the fact but I really do want to know what problem you see in SR that doesn't exist in AC.

explanationexplanationexplanation
This is a foe's AC:
10 + Dex modifier + natural armor modifier + deflection/insight/etc. modifier + armor (if any) + special abilities (miss chance, etc.) + circumstantial modifiers (cover, etc.) - penalties
This is a foe's SR:
<a random number that is usually 11 + CR>
See the problem? It's similar for attack bonus, but not quite as bad. Here's a PC's attack bonus:
Base attack bonus + Str/Dex modifier + magic weapon + feats + morale/competence/etc. + special abilities + circumstantial modifiers (flanking, etc.) - penalties (sickened, etc.)
And here's a PC's spell penetration:
Caster level + Spell Penetration + very rare caster level increases (ioun stone) + very specific spells
This is the core problem with SR: it's essentially non-interactive. This isn't about having the equivalent of flat-footed or touch AC, or having different bludgeoning/piercing/slashing ACs - it's the way the DC is derived and how many ways there are to adjust it. Attack bonus and armor class have an immense wealth of interaction mechanisms. There are a very small number of spells and abilities that interact with SR, and those are almost entirely noncore - and even then, to call them "interactive" would be a stretch. True Casting and Assay Resistance simply render CR-appropriate SR irrelevant. SR is only akin to AC in that you have to roll higher than that value to succeed. However, that describes the entire d20 system, so that's not much help. Everything about their inner workings is different.


On top of that, having a 25% chance of failure on something 5 CR lower than yourself basically applies to both AC and SR (due to occasional better weapons or str/dex boosts, maybe reduce it to a 20% chance). If you hit a creature about half of the time at level 5, you generally don't automatically hit it by level 10 (especially on iterative attacks).
I would put it to you that this is very much untrue. The combination of magic weapons, feats, ability score increases, base attack bonus, and increased access to magical effects in general means that attack bonus scales much more rapidly than caster level. Now, if you're looking at the average hit % over all attacks, the existence of iterative attacks does drive that down. However, that's very different; even if you only hit with one iterative, you're still doing something. Unlike attacking, SR is totally binary; you either succeed and get the spell's full effect, or you fail and nothing at all happens. That doesn't necessarily mean it can't work that way, but the totally binary nature means that it is even more important that it be properly interactive.

Does that help explain my view on SR? (It's no trouble at all to explain this - I need to get better at explaining things, obviously! This is just good practice!)

Just to Browse
2013-09-15, 01:00 AM
Making SR "more engaging" is not a really big deal, and changing the value based on saves isn't a way to do that anyhow. SR is just another defense, and players will not be making any more of an educated decision than before (when they were planning on targeting will/ref/dex with their save-affecting spells).

In addition it compounds the save-choosing problem, like when the choice between targeting Fort and Ref is like half the RNG. Under a system like this, it would be half an RNG and two die rolls. That makes rocket launcher tag worse, and it shouldn't be made worse.

Mad Wizard
2013-09-15, 11:51 PM
Huh, cone of cold does fire damage now? This rewrite is changing the game more than I expected. :smalltongue:

Vadskye
2013-09-15, 11:59 PM
Making SR "more engaging" is not a really big deal, and changing the value based on saves isn't a way to do that anyhow. SR is just another defense, and players will not be making any more of an educated decision than before (when they were planning on targeting will/ref/dex with their save-affecting spells).
It's far from the most critical change, yes. And I though I am confident that SR currently uses a bad mechanic, I have much less confidence in the specific details of the new version. As you point out, it doesn't really introduce a new type of decision-making, which is what the ideal would be; it just exaggerates the importance of the decisions that the character was probably already making. (Though it is not fair to say that it is totally redundant; many spells have SR that don't have saving throws). In a perfect world, I think spells would some concise and intuitive method of being "mitigated" by SR, which more accurately approximates the effects of a high AC; it doesn't mean all attacks miss, it just means you do less damage. I haven't figured out a way of implementing that, however, and I maintain that the proposed system is better than core, even if it is still not ideal.


In addition it compounds the save-choosing problem, like when the choice between targeting Fort and Ref is like half the RNG. Under a system like this, it would be half an RNG and two die rolls. That makes rocket launcher tag worse, and it shouldn't be made worse.
Not quite. SR is <SR value> + creature's save modifier; it's a static defense, just like it used to be. Only one die roll is involved, and it is made by the attacker.


Huh, cone of cold does fire damage now? This rewrite is changing the game more than I expected. :smalltongue:
Well, you know, I really felt that Cone of Cold dealing fire damage was better for the game because of complicated math and spreadsheets that I would explain but I just don't have the time...

by which I mean oops! Thank you for the catch - it should be fixed now

Just to Browse
2013-09-16, 03:23 AM
Not quite. SR is <SR value> + creature's save modifier; it's a static defense, just like it used to be. Only one die roll is involved, and it is made by the attacker.

One roll is the SR, one roll is the save. Now both rolls require the player to target a good save, and the player is even more severely punished for not having a batman's toolkit of save-targeting abilities. That's not a good thing to encourage.

Neoxenok
2013-09-16, 08:47 AM
It's far from the most critical change, yes. And I though I am confident that SR currently uses a bad mechanic, I have much less confidence in the specific details of the new version. As you point out, it doesn't really introduce a new type of decision-making, which is what the ideal would be; it just exaggerates the importance of the decisions that the character was probably already making. (Though it is not fair to say that it is totally redundant; many spells have SR that don't have saving throws). In a perfect world, I think spells would some concise and intuitive method of being "mitigated" by SR, which more accurately approximates the effects of a high AC; it doesn't mean all attacks miss, it just means you do less damage. I haven't figured out a way of implementing that, however, and I maintain that the proposed system is better than core, even if it is still not ideal.
I'm rather curious as to why you believe Spell Resistance to be a bad mechanic. You've mentioned that it's essentially because the "attack modifier" of the caster level check used to beat SR can be upped like actual attack bonuses can and you wish to make SR more like AC in that it can be raised through spells and items, correct?

I would think that simplicity and intuitive would be a simple die roll with fewer modifiers than more (of which SR has the least of all the things you've mentioned).

It certainly seems different, but I'm not sure about "better." It seems to me to be a lateral move, but my issues with SR have more to do with the fact that becomes meaningless once a mage knows enough SR: No spells and that caster level boosts are far too common - most people prefer to try to attack this issue by eliminating the wide plethora of caster level boosts instead of finding ways to boost SR like AC, but if I'm not understanding your idea, please correct me.


Not quite. SR is <SR value> + creature's save modifier; it's a static defense, just like it used to be. Only one die roll is involved, and it is made by the attacker.

Save modifiers are not static - they can increase or decrease depending on magic items and spells - but I assume that was the intention, right?

Either way, I'm not entirely certain what your goal with SR is. This doesn't make it simpler, more intuitive, and I don't know what you mean by "more engaging" unless you mean that you can increase it or decrease it the way you can other stats (like AC).

tarkisflux
2013-09-17, 02:06 AM
I always tend to see more similarities than differences. But I appreciate your help all the more if you know you aren't going to use what comes out of it. The worst thing that can happen as a designer is to get locked into an echo chamber with only people that agree with you. (Okay, maybe second worst. The worst thing is that no one pays any attention at all and you die alone and unloved, surrounded by the remnants of game systems never used.) Your pushback has convinced me to change several things about my ideas already, so as long as you still feel like it's worth the time, I'm happy to see what you have to say - derailment or no.

Then I've done a good job on my end.

If you wanted a better sense, you could spend some time wandering through my magnum opus skills rewrite (direct link (http://www.dnd-wiki.org/wiki/ToP), because it's more up to date than the one in my sig) the next time you get burned out. There's classes I could point you at instead, but that's probably the largest and most thorough example, complete with power scaling.

But the short version is that I'm quite happy with the 2 level power double scaling, as it puts olympic or norse gods in the upper level ranges. Beating up Zeus (as equals, not God of War style) is a thing I don't mind happening near 20. But you're running from that scaling as fast as you can, and it's just not a game I'm very interested in or a game that I can crib from as a result. Plus, I can already play the game you're making by stopping leveling between 6 and 10, and then don't have to worry about upgrade treadmill levels that don't make the game play differently. It's not a position that a lot of people hold though, so it doesn't come up as relevant often.

That said, enjoy some pushback. As I've been sucked into another project, it may be my last for a while.


A 5th level slot has never been always worth a 5th level slot, if only because spells with metamagic applied don't have a DC with a level appropriate for their new level. The difference wasn't obvious before because spells so widely in power level that it was hard to get a good estimation for what a X level spell was actually worth.

No, it's been obvious for a while now. It's also been a deeply ugly design decision, and you passing over a chance to fix it seems a waste. Particularly given other design decisions you're making.


However, I maintain that this is not merely true, but necessary, for one simple reason: a spell brought to level X through metamagic is inherently better than a level X spell that does the exact same thing. This is true because with the metamagic spell, you have a choice: you can choose to apply the metamagic and cast the higher level version, or not apply the metamagic and cast the lower level version. If a level 2 spell metamagic'd to level 5 had the exact same effect as the level 5 spell, a caster with that metamagic feat would never want to take the level 5 version! The core system recognized this problem and tried to address it by having metamagic not increase spell DC. However, this was only a band-aid solution that left many things (no-save spells) untouched.

I utterly and without hesitation reject your initial premise. A spell is not necessarily better or worse than a spell of the same level just because you could have chosen to not cast it at that level. In fact, your actual metamagic design makes them worse if you elect to exercise that choice instead of casting a base/fixed spell.

Your concern that they'd never want to take the level 5 spells seems entirely misplaced. You already have some conditions that don't come online until that level as a result of your spell engine, but for some reason you don't think that people would desire them enough to select them and prepare them instead of a metamagicked level 2 spell. If true, which I strongly doubt, that sounds more like a level 5 spell problem or a lack of 10th level enemy counter to level 2 spell effects problem than a metamagic problem. Having the metamagic just means you cast the boosted low level spell sometimes and the high level effect sometimes, tactical decision like.

But beyond that, since you're doing a spells known model for everyone this feat just turns into a breadth feat. Instead of only having 2 eligible spells to prepare and cast when you first get level 5 spells, you instead have 2 + 4 (from second level) to prepare and cast (assuming you get to pick 2 known per level, else substitute your own progression). It's a 66% increase in options when acquired, and only a 50% increase in options a level later when you get more 5th level spells. Compare that to an item creation feat that gives you 100% more stuff for the same gold and lets you pick exactly what you want (subject only to spell list and time constraints), and I wonder even more what you're worried about. It's just not a problem by comparison with other things that you haven't mentioned (you might care about them too, I don't know).

Also, I think you're giving the designers a lot more credit with that last bit than is deserved. They wrote empower spell to raise spell level (and not do anything else, like exceed damage caps that were based on spell level), and that suggests they weren't really considering things as a whole and just wrote down cool ideas that playtested well.


That's why Scorching Ray is the king of damage spells - because it dodges this attempted nerf and scales with level better than any spell of the same level. (Also because Empower and Maximize screw with spell math.)

In your spell engine, you have precise values for the damage increase that results from +1 spell level, and +X spell levels by extrapolation. Empower and Maximize should look very different in your system, since you can peg them to what they're supposed to be based on your spell engine, and any references to old values are unnecessary and distracting.

Just like I think you should do with all of the metamagic.


In this system, DC no longer scales with spell level. This is good for a variety of reasons - however, it also means that means that metamagic is very powerful, since its only significant limitation was removed. This is more noticeable now because spell components like range and area are actually balanced against each other, rather than being pulled out of a hat more or less at random. Every spell in the Spell Reformation is constructed using the same core system, using certain assumptions. For example, any spell with a Medium (100 ft.) range is one level higher than the same spell would be with a Close (30 ft.) range. Note that this is much more generous than is granted by the Enlarge metamagic feat, which only doubles range for a +1 level cost. That's okay! If metamagic costs used the exact same cost structure as the full engine does, there would be very little reason to take high level spells, since you could simply replicate them more flexibly by applying metamagic to low-level spells.

No, it's not okay. Well, the DC thing is, but not the metamagic spell levels aren't worth fixed spell levels thing. Since you want to put a limit on metamagic, try this one: each metamagic can only be applied to a spell once. There, now you can't boost a close spell to long, and you need to take the long one two levels later. Or you could limit metamagic to +1 spell level for free, +2 spell level for a swift action, +3 spell level for a move action, +4 spell level turns casting into a 1-round action, and so on. That lets you mimic a larger array of things, but at an action cost you may not be willing to pay. It's still worse than the fixed version, but only when the differences start to get large. And even then it's not as offensive as straight worse effects IMO... but I like it less and less the more I think about it.

As for other reasons to take higher level spells... how about feat limits and wanting to take other feats? You can't even replicate every high level damage/healing spell even without that limitation until you can afford damage boosting, range boosting, area boosting, and energy sub at level 9(6 if human I guess). Even if you can just metamagic up all of the damage and heal spells that you want, I really can't be bothered to care. It just eliminates the upgrade treadmill from them. Oh noes! And that's before we bring in the actually higher level as a base thing that you have going on because of your effect tiers. Which you would be selecting with your higher level slots, because you can't replicate them with 'just metamagic' at all.

And you're pretty screwed on other feats if you want to make that sort of investment. Since you're only owed 3 more feats over your whole career (4 if human), you've invested a very substantial portion of yourself in that flexibility and given up all of your other options. You give up even more if you want to apply duration boosts or additional (and lower level) conditions, and so on. In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that it is actually impossible with default feat progressions to actually mimic even a substantial portion of the spells you're writing up with metamagic alone.


Yes, this means that doing research to create a custom spell that is set in stone with the effects you want yields a more powerful/cheaper spell than whipping that spell together on the fly with metamagic. What I don't understand is why you portray that as a bad thing.Of course this process should be subject to DM discretion. The spell engine is a way of assigning fair levels to well-designed spells. It is most definitely NOT a method of designing spells in the first place; it cannot take a terribly designed spell and make it good. For that reason - and because the engine is pretty complicated - I strongly advise against giving players whole-sale license to use the engine to design spells. The DM and the player should work to design the spell first, and then consult the engine to see what level the spell should be, making adjustments as necessary to fit the player's needs.

It's bad because it increases the number of spells you need to write to be complete, and most of them are boring upgrade treadmill spells. It's bad because of your spoiler - some GMs will let people do that and others won't (because downtime) and will have to depend on the worse feats you're writing. It's bad because you are overvaluing the flexibility of these feats and undervaluing their alternatives. It's bad because you know what the values of the changes metamagic makes should be, and you're not applying them consistently. But mostly it's bad aesthetically, because sometimes a level 5 slot is worth less because you had the audacity to take a feat for flexibility to boost a lower level spell rather than play the spell engine game with your DM or take a premade upgrade treadmill spell and an item creation feat.


It would be more accurate to say that allowing perfectly scaling metamagic would make it highly advantageous for everyone with feats to spare to be a breadth caster, since there would be no point in getting spell upgrades - they could simply be replicated by metamagic. With this system, casters can choose to specialize or take a broad variety, and there are advantages and disadvantages to each option. It's also worth noting that spells in general scale better than they used to, so the system already encourages breadth casters over depth casters.

I think this has already been addressed, except for the last bit.

If that's true, doesn't that diminish the value of metamagic because you don't need it as much? Isn't being able to cast a lower level spell that isn't that much worse than the shiny new one an argument for parity with spell engine values, rather than an argument against it, because you don't need to metamagic it up to keep it relevant?


Metamagic allows people to do things that would be impossible without metamagic. It effectively contributes many extra spells known, particularly to spontaneous casters. As long as metamagic plays such a unique role, it will never become useless. The differences in power between a metamagic 5th level spell and a "true" 5th level spell are not so obvious that it will dramatically change the way people approach metamagic. Again, low-level spells scale much better than they used to, so metamagic is already better than it used to be (since low-level spells other than a very select few often became useless as time went on).

Your metamagic doesn't allow people to do anything impossible with spells (except in that the values don't map appropriately and you can't get the smaller than standard values), because your spell engine is rather thorough and they could just research it up. It allows casters to have more spell options than characters who don't take these feats, but that is also not impossible because you are explicitly writing it into the rules. So impossibility is patently false.

It does contribute many extra spells known, but they're competing equally with effects designed for the spell level and will be preferred for tactical reasons, not for power reasons. So I continue to not see that as a problem, particularly since they're getting spell broadness instead of item broadness in many cases (and could just be carrying cheap scrolls anyway).

And while the differences are not so obvious that the casual player will notice, they exist and are universally worse and will be shunned by people who know better, particularly since you're touting the closeness of the spell levels and the increased relevance of lower level spells without metamagic.

Vadskye
2013-09-17, 02:18 AM
A brief thought, since I can't reply to the full thing now.
Just to Browse and Neoxenok, I find your arguments persuasive. I will look into alternate mechanisms for SR. I still don't like the current approach, though.

Tarkisflux, can you think of any other feats that add as much flexibility (multiple extra spells known) as a metamagic feat? You mention item creation, which is true in core. However, I plan on rewriting item crafting rules at some point, and even without that item crafting is vastly less flexible in a fully spontaneous system (though I am not actually designing the Spell Reformation to be fully spontaneous). As a result, I would be interested if there were other comparisons. My suspicion is that no such feats exist, and metamagic feats are only balanced because they are less efficient than casting a fully researched spell.

tarkisflux
2013-09-17, 03:29 AM
Some of the Legacy feats get close, but they offer specific spells at a variety of spell levels rather than extrapolations of spells from earlier spell levels.

I've said my peace on the matter though. If you want to balance metamagic with decreased effect, go ahead. I think you're worried over nothing and/or doing it both wrong and inelegantly, but I have other things to spend my time on rather than argue it further. Maybe we'll agree on something in the future instead.

Neoxenok
2013-09-17, 08:01 PM
Just to Browse and Neoxenok, I find your arguments persuasive. I will look into alternate mechanisms for SR. I still don't like the current approach, though.

There are a few routes that I can think of.
There's the one I took (fold SR into saves using the evasion/mettle mechanic) in my own long line of fixes.
You could return to a more 2e method of just making it a flat percentage, so a monster with 50% magic resistance would have a flat 50% chance to resist any/all magic.
A more 3e method would likely still use the d20+modifiers, so that might translate into a d20 vs. DC mechanic - something at least a bit simpler than what it offers now.

Considering that all supernatural/spell-like abilities are keyed off charisma, perhaps spell resistance could be a straight ability check between the caster's primary stat and the opponent's primary casting stat (or charisma) with up-or-down modifiers depending on improved versions of SR (perhaps a race has a +4 racial bonus to resist spells - could be all spells or spells of a certain variety). Of course, ability modifiers can and will change.

So, for example, a 15th level wizard (30 INT) facing off against a powerful dragon with a 27 CHA so the wizard would make an INT check against a DC of (10 + 9 = 19) with a bonus of +10 or +12 if the wizard has spell penetration (which you won't have to change at all).

It's a bit of a lateral move, but it's harder to alter ability scores than saving throws, they don't go up automatically (sort of) with level, and they can remain fairly relevant. They also aren't changed with caster level increases. Pretty much just tomes of (ability score) and enhancement items.

Zireael
2013-09-20, 09:26 AM
I like the idea of tying SR to ability scores.

Vadskye, is there any way to download the pdf with the spells? This is so awesome I want to keep it on my HDD for the times when my net refuses to work...

Vadskye
2013-09-20, 04:09 PM
Just to Browse:

One roll is the SR, one roll is the save. Now both rolls require the player to target a good save, and the player is even more severely punished for not having a batman's toolkit of save-targeting abilities. That's not a good thing to encourage.
Got it. I see what you mean. That is a problem.
Neoxenok:

I'm rather curious as to why you believe Spell Resistance to be a bad mechanic. You've mentioned that it's essentially because the "attack modifier" of the caster level check used to beat SR can be upped like actual attack bonuses can and you wish to make SR more like AC in that it can be raised through spells and items, correct?
Partially. I also think the "attack modifier" can't be modified enough, or in the right ways.

I would think that simplicity and intuitive would be a simple die roll with fewer modifiers than more (of which SR has the least of all the things you've mentioned).
Simpler, yes. But intuition suggests that better casters are better at overcoming SR. I don't think that is true enough in the current system. To clarify what I mean, consider the 2e style of SR where there's just a flat chance that spells fail. It's hard to get simpler than that, but I don't find it very intuitive, since Tim the mighty wizard has just as much chance to be beaten by SR as Bob the apprentice. Modifiers need to matter.

It certainly seems different, but I'm not sure about "better." It seems to me to be a lateral move, but my issues with SR have more to do with the fact that becomes meaningless once a mage knows enough SR: No spells and that caster level boosts are far too common - most people prefer to try to attack this issue by eliminating the wide plethora of caster level boosts instead of finding ways to boost SR like AC, but if I'm not understanding your idea, please correct me.
I think it's fair to characterize it as a lateral move rather than a truly positive one. I'm looking for a more positive change now!

Save modifiers are not static - they can increase or decrease depending on magic items and spells - but I assume that was the intention, right?
Right - by static, I just meant that save modifiers are not rolled.

Either way, I'm not entirely certain what your goal with SR is. This doesn't make it simpler, more intuitive, and I don't know what you mean by "more engaging" unless you mean that you can increase it or decrease it the way you can other stats (like AC).
My goal is to make SR no longer feel... arbitrary. That is my core problem with it. You're right that the current solution doesn't really make it simpler or more intuitive, though.
Tarkisflux:

Then I've done a good job on my end.
Darn right.

If you wanted a better sense, you could spend some time wandering through my magnum opus skills rewrite (direct link (http://www.dnd-wiki.org/wiki/ToP), because it's more up to date than the one in my sig) the next time you get burned out. There's classes I could point you at instead, but that's probably the largest and most thorough example, complete with power scaling.
Wow, that's... really complex. It has a lot of good ideas, though. I'll give it a more thorough readthrough when I get a chance. My sense is that there are a lot of individual things that I would want to take, after simplifying them substantially. Have you done playtesting with this? How do new players react?

But the short version is that I'm quite happy with the 2 level power double scaling, as it puts olympic or norse gods in the upper level ranges. Beating up Zeus (as equals, not God of War style) is a thing I don't mind happening near 20. But you're running from that scaling as fast as you can, and it's just not a game I'm very interested in or a game that I can crib from as a result. Plus, I can already play the game you're making by stopping leveling between 6 and 10, and then don't have to worry about upgrade treadmill levels that don't make the game play differently. It's not a position that a lot of people hold though, so it doesn't come up as relevant often.
I don't think our visions for the game are as different as you think. 20th level should be orders of magnitude different than earlier levels. The key is that even double scaling doesn't actually get you to those levels of difference. That would imply that Zeus/20th level ubermensch is worth a mere 512 2nd level warriors. I want a different scaling mechanism. I think that at 20th level, one person of level X is worth roughly two people of 17th level. (probably. I want to do math to figure that out more precisely.) However, maybe that's also equal to four people of 15th level, or eight people of 14th level. Maybe by the time you get down to 10th level, it takes hundreds of people to reach equivalency. I don't know the right numbers off the top of my head. My point is that there's a different scaling here; it's not geometric. My bet is that it's actually exponential, due in large part to the way variability works on a d20.

In other words, we absolutely agree on the importance of having the nature and scale of the game change dramatically at different levels. I don't want every level to play the same. We disagree only on the CR system that best approximates that dynamic.

No, it's been obvious for a while now. It's also been a deeply ugly design decision, and you passing over a chance to fix it seems a waste. Particularly given other design decisions you're making.

I utterly and without hesitation reject your initial premise. A spell is not necessarily better or worse than a spell of the same level just because you could have chosen to not cast it at that level. In fact, your actual metamagic design makes them worse if you elect to exercise that choice instead of casting a base/fixed spell.

Your concern that they'd never want to take the level 5 spells seems entirely misplaced. You already have some conditions that don't come online until that level as a result of your spell engine, but for some reason you don't think that people would desire them enough to select them and prepare them instead of a metamagicked level 2 spell. If true, which I strongly doubt, that sounds more like a level 5 spell problem or a lack of 10th level enemy counter to level 2 spell effects problem than a metamagic problem. Having the metamagic just means you cast the boosted low level spell sometimes and the high level effect sometimes, tactical decision like.

But beyond that, since you're doing a spells known model for everyone this feat just turns into a breadth feat. Instead of only having 2 eligible spells to prepare and cast when you first get level 5 spells, you instead have 2 + 4 (from second level) to prepare and cast (assuming you get to pick 2 known per level, else substitute your own progression). It's a 66% increase in options when acquired, and only a 50% increase in options a level later when you get more 5th level spells. Compare that to an item creation feat that gives you 100% more stuff for the same gold and lets you pick exactly what you want (subject only to spell list and time constraints), and I wonder even more what you're worried about. It's just not a problem by comparison with other things that you haven't mentioned (you might care about them too, I don't know).
The bolded part is the core problem with metamagic. If metamagic spells are just as powerful as regular spells, each metamagic feat adds a huge number of spells known. Yes, saying that a spell slot is not always worth a spell slot is not ideal from a certain perspective. However, I think you overstate the extent of the problem. Not every spell is equally helpful in a given situation. Sometimes, a lower level spell can be more effective in a specific situation than a higher level spell. That is okay! Spell slots don't always need to be equal. Specialization has rewards, and metamagic provides huge flexibility. Unless you change how metamagic works, making it less flexible, you can't increase its power.

Also, I think you're giving the designers a lot more credit with that last bit than is deserved. They wrote empower spell to raise spell level (and not do anything else, like exceed damage caps that were based on spell level), and that suggests they weren't really considering things as a whole and just wrote down cool ideas that playtested well.
Yeah, probably true. That's one of the core problems with D&D, really.

In your spell engine, you have precise values for the damage increase that results from +1 spell level, and +X spell levels by extrapolation. Empower and Maximize should look very different in your system, since you can peg them to what they're supposed to be based on your spell engine, and any references to old values are unnecessary and distracting.

Just like I think you should do with all of the metamagic.
Fair enough. Right now, Empower and Maximize have been merged into Heighten, which grants +2 caster level per +1 spell level. That makes the spell deal exactly as much damage as a spell of its new level would deal. For example, Scorching Ray Heightened to 5th level deals exactly as much damage as a 5th level version of Scorching Ray would deal. However, note that it's still less powerful, since it lacks the other benefits that would normally come with that increased spell level, such as longer range or extra effects.

No, it's not okay. Well, the DC thing is, but not the metamagic spell levels aren't worth fixed spell levels thing. Since you want to put a limit on metamagic, try this one: each metamagic can only be applied to a spell once. There, now you can't boost a close spell to long, and you need to take the long one two levels later. Or you could limit metamagic to +1 spell level for free, +2 spell level for a swift action, +3 spell level for a move action, +4 spell level turns casting into a 1-round action, and so on. That lets you mimic a larger array of things, but at an action cost you may not be willing to pay. It's still worse than the fixed version, but only when the differences start to get large. And even then it's not as offensive as straight worse effects IMO... but I like it less and less the more I think about it.

As for other reasons to take higher level spells... how about feat limits and wanting to take other feats? You can't even replicate every high level damage/healing spell even without that limitation until you can afford damage boosting, range boosting, area boosting, and energy sub at level 9(6 if human I guess). Even if you can just metamagic up all of the damage and heal spells that you want, I really can't be bothered to care. It just eliminates the upgrade treadmill from them. Oh noes! And that's before we bring in the actually higher level as a base thing that you have going on because of your effect tiers. Which you would be selecting with your higher level slots, because you can't replicate them with 'just metamagic' at all.

And you're pretty screwed on other feats if you want to make that sort of investment. Since you're only owed 3 more feats over your whole career (4 if human), you've invested a very substantial portion of yourself in that flexibility and given up all of your other options. You give up even more if you want to apply duration boosts or additional (and lower level) conditions, and so on. In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that it is actually impossible with default feat progressions to actually mimic even a substantial portion of the spells you're writing up with metamagic alone.

It's bad because it increases the number of spells you need to write to be complete, and most of them are boring upgrade treadmill spells. It's bad because of your spoiler - some GMs will let people do that and others won't (because downtime) and will have to depend on the worse feats you're writing. It's bad because you are overvaluing the flexibility of these feats and undervaluing their alternatives. It's bad because you know what the values of the changes metamagic makes should be, and you're not applying them consistently. But mostly it's bad aesthetically, because sometimes a level 5 slot is worth less because you had the audacity to take a feat for flexibility to boost a lower level spell rather than play the spell engine game with your DM or take a premade upgrade treadmill spell and an item creation feat.
Sure, if you invest all your feats, you don't have feats left for other things. But the problem is that each feat grants a huge amount of flexibility, as discussed above. I agree that you can't perfectly represent new spells with metamagic, since many spells aren't just strict upgrades. However, that doesn't change the fact that each individual metamagic feat grants a major boost in flexibility (and consequently, power).

The biggest problem is that fully powered metamagic could be used to create effects that no spell can produce - because I don't want those effects in the game, even if the engine would allow it! For example, a huge part of the change to buffs is that they are almost universally Short duration, which drastically limits the potential for precombat buffing. That's a design goal, not something the engine is explicitly tuned to deal with. Like I said somewhere else, the engine is not a tool for designing spells. It's just a method of assigning levels. Because it is so universal, the engine can generate a wide variety of spells that don't belong in the game. Giving players access to metamagic that replicates the full power of the spell engine is like letting them use it as a design tool, which will not end well.

I think this has already been addressed, except for the last bit.

If that's true, doesn't that diminish the value of metamagic because you don't need it as much? Isn't being able to cast a lower level spell that isn't that much worse than the shiny new one an argument for parity with spell engine values, rather than an argument against it, because you don't need to metamagic it up to keep it relevant?
Not sure how that works. Yes, you don't need metamagic to keep spells relevant. Thus, metamagic doesn't need to be at "full power" to be useful and create interesting game dynamics.

Your metamagic doesn't allow people to do anything impossible with spells (except in that the values don't map appropriately and you can't get the smaller than standard values), because your spell engine is rather thorough and they could just research it up. It allows casters to have more spell options than characters who don't take these feats, but that is also not impossible because you are explicitly writing it into the rules. So impossibility is patently false.

It does contribute many extra spells known, but they're competing equally with effects designed for the spell level and will be preferred for tactical reasons, not for power reasons. So I continue to not see that as a problem, particularly since they're getting spell broadness instead of item broadness in many cases (and could just be carrying cheap scrolls anyway).
Mostly discussed above. I'd just reiterate that just because you can assign a level to it with the spell engine doesn't mean it should be a spell in the game. For example, imagine a spell called "I Hate Dragons". If you succeed on a melee touch attack against a dragon, it's paralyzed for five rounds, with no save or SR allowed. I can calculate its level with the spell engine (3rd level - just like Shivering Touch, coincidentally). However, it would be completely insane to actually allow that spell in a game; it would trivialize major encounters and be completely useless in every other circumstance.

That's admittedly an extreme example. However, my point is that you can't just have metamagic use the same rules as the spell engine. That doesn't work. (If nothing else, the spell engine has too many multipliers and modifiers for such a translation to even be possible). Even the "weaker" form of metamagic that I propose (which, of course, is usually just as good or better than metamagic used to be) can create entirely new spell effects.

As far as items go, I plan on changing how many magic items work anyway once I'm done. There are many design goals that I want to accomplish with that, but what is most relevant here is I want to discourage the practice of carrying a large number of scrolls to have a huge number of utility effects. The primary limitation on a caster's abilities should be his spells known.

And while the differences are not so obvious that the casual player will notice, they exist and are universally worse and will be shunned by people who know better, particularly since you're touting the closeness of the spell levels and the increased relevance of lower level spells without metamagic.
Universally worse if there is a specific spell that already exists for that purpose, yes. If you have both Fireball and Larger Fireball, you really shouldn't be casting a Widened Fireball, yes. But there are many things that only metamagic can do, such as Widened Larger Fireball.

I've said my peace on the matter though. If you want to balance metamagic with decreased effect, go ahead. I think you're worried over nothing and/or doing it both wrong and inelegantly, but I have other things to spend my time on rather than argue it further. Maybe we'll agree on something in the future instead.
I'm sure we will. I decided to reply to your points anyway, if for no other reason that I need to know why I think what I do; if I can't come up with good reasons to make metamagic the way it is, I should probably change my ideas.
Neoxenok pt. 2:

There are a few routes that I can think of.
There's the one I took (fold SR into saves using the evasion/mettle mechanic) in my own long line of fixes.
You could return to a more 2e method of just making it a flat percentage, so a monster with 50% magic resistance would have a flat 50% chance to resist any/all magic.
A more 3e method would likely still use the d20+modifiers, so that might translate into a d20 vs. DC mechanic - something at least a bit simpler than what it offers now.
The Mettle/Evasion style actually sounds interesting to me, if it could be properly implemented. It integrates SR relatively seamlessly into the existing structure, simplifies the process of casting spells (very little extra rolling), and ensures that stronger casters can penetrate SR more easily than weaker casters.

Considering that all supernatural/spell-like abilities are keyed off charisma, perhaps spell resistance could be a straight ability check between the caster's primary stat and the opponent's primary casting stat (or charisma) with up-or-down modifiers depending on improved versions of SR (perhaps a race has a +4 racial bonus to resist spells - could be all spells or spells of a certain variety). Of course, ability modifiers can and will change.

So, for example, a 15th level wizard (30 INT) facing off against a powerful dragon with a 27 CHA so the wizard would make an INT check against a DC of (10 + 9 = 19) with a bonus of +10 or +12 if the wizard has spell penetration (which you won't have to change at all).

It's a bit of a lateral move, but it's harder to alter ability scores than saving throws, they don't go up automatically (sort of) with level, and they can remain fairly relevant. They also aren't changed with caster level increases. Pretty much just tomes of (ability score) and enhancement items.
This sounds like it has many of the same problems as the original SR mechanic, but with new problems - what happens if I want a creature with high SR, but not a high Charisma? I think your mettle-based idea is good, though.
Zireael:

Vadskye, is there any way to download the pdf with the spells? This is so awesome I want to keep it on my HDD for the times when my net refuses to work...
I'm honored! Here is the PDF from Part II (kcjohnson.me/SpellReformation2.pdf). However, that's only the condition spells. If you want the full list of spells, I'd encourage you to investigate Rise, my full system rewrite (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=290111), which has fixes for every spell. However, there are a few changes there that only make sense in the context of Rise - AOE spells are slightly more penalized, and some buffs are different than they will be in Part IV. The alternative, I guess, is wait until the end of the Spell Reformation (...whenever that is...), when I'll post a full list of revised spells.
New SR idea:
A creature with SR is always allowed a saving throw to negate spells cast on it. The save type for each spell is indicated on the SR line of each individual spell (as the previous fix). If the spell already allowed a save of that type, the only change is that the creature suffers no effect of any kind on a successful save. Otherwise, the creature makes a save of the appropriate type; if it succeeds, it suffers no effect of any kind from the spell.

Thus, the core SR mechanic is simply tied directly into the saving throw mechanic. This is simple; there is no double roll, and the math is not dramatically changed (no double-counting good or bad saves). A creature with SR is able to totally ignore spells that should have affected it, maintaining the fluff of SR. The mechanic limits casters without completely shutting them down - even casters who have chosen a relatively offensive selection of spells. Since casters are both less flexible and less game-breaking than before, we don't want to totally shut them down in all but the most extreme cases (golems).

If we want to draw a distinction between creatures with greater or smaller degrees of SR, we can do this in several ways. For one, the creature might simply have a bonus to saving throws vs. spells. That's simple and to the point. Alternately, the creature might have special effects if it successfully resists a spell. Some creatures, such as living spells, might heal damage or get temporarily stronger after resisting a spell (temporary hit points, bonuses, etc.). Creatures with only limited SR might suffer detrimental conditions (sickened, etc.) after resisting a spell with SR. This allows us to draw distinctions between various monsters and give each battle and monster a unique feel without overcomplicating the direct interaction with PCs.

Neoxenok
2013-09-20, 08:49 PM
This sounds like it has many of the same problems as the original SR mechanic, but with new problems - what happens if I want a creature with high SR, but not a high Charisma? I think your mettle-based idea is good, though.

I would say most likely some sort of racial bonus - like any number of other ability checks. That system does allow for boosting and modifying here and there (my example listed spell penetration as being compatible since you could just have the bonus apply to checks to defeat SR - so logically a similar feat could be created to boost SR as well.)

On a side note, I had been meaning to get around to commenting more on your threads - particularly the RISE RPG thread given that we're both working on similar projects but school work and work work has me pretty thoroughly flogged, but I've been going over your PDF in my spare time and I'll eventually offer a critique of that and your design philosophy both in general and in regards to fixing magic.

It'll be awhile before that happens (I'm also planning to move real soon) but I mention all this because I'd like a back-and-forth about design ideas that could potentially help us both with our respective projects.

EDIT: The SR-as-mettle mechanic was a smaller part of a larger change in the overall game as such that most if not all things offered a save for a reduced effect - so that would also naturally allow for improved and weaker varients of SR as well in the same way that there are stronger and weaker versions of mettle and evasion in that you can have an "improved spell resistance" ability that mimics improved evasion/improved mettle and even an outright spell immunity that allows you to not need to save at all. (Something that golems and a rare few other monsters might have) along with varying degrees of "+X bonus to one/two/all saving throws vs. spells" sorts of gradiations.

A creature that's strongly resistant but not outright immune to magic might have improved spell resistance and a +4 bonus to all saving throws vs. spells, for example (like a Rakshasa).

nonsi
2013-09-30, 12:29 PM
Is this project still on? (I sure hope so)

Vadskye
2013-09-30, 12:41 PM
Is this project still on? (I sure hope so)
Absolutely! I've just been swamped in other work. Coming up next is Part IV, the section on buffs. I'm hoping to have that done by the end of the week.

Salbazier
2013-10-04, 09:35 AM
Derp, I actually write these stuff about your first SR system before I read the thread to finish (still on part I). I'll leave here it anyway. Regarding spell resistance, I don't think changing the action to lower SR to swift action is enough. The problem isn't that it takes too long to lower it, it is that you have to do it every turn and that you cannot lower it while unconscious (which is actually a consequence of the previous problem) when it is likely the time you would need it the most (for emergency healing). The previous problem may seem to be resolved by this new rules but the latter is still there.

I think even if it took standard action to lower SR it still would be fine, as long it stay lowered until the respective creature will it back (If this can be done as free action anytime in a round, so much for the better). As an aside, a potential niche for an ability/class feature (because it likely would be too strong if it became part for standard SR rules) which I don't think I've ever seen is 'smart' SR which can selectively allow certain category spells to pass it.

Also, you are nerfing SR (and thus increasing casters' power) by making SR only apply to when a creature is being targeted. Wall of Fire is now effectively SR:No spell under these rules (unless I misunderstand something).

About the new SR idea: One hand this is good idea. Reducing number of rolls is good. Tying SR to save solve the issue I mentioned in the spoiler above (that lowering SR need to be done repeatedly every turn) since a creature can always choose to fail a save (AFAIK, even when unconscious/unaware, else an unconscious creature would be impossible to healed). Potential for more individualized SR is good. 'more harder to affect by magic) can simply be done by giving save bonus. One the other hand, this change is neither simple nor general, at least in regards to 'greater' SR. DMs have to come up with new SR 'extras' for every creature they consider warrant a 'greater' SR.

Vadskye
2013-10-04, 04:05 PM
The Spell Reformation Part IV: Buffs

Why Buffs Need to Change
Taken from the 75 Theses (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=296170) thread
Buffing before combat is time-consuming and unnecessarily complicated.Tracking durations for a variety of spells and making sure that bonus types match up properly is obnoxious. This slows down the game. The more time you spend buffing before combat, the less time you spend actually enjoying the combat.
Buffing before combat yields massive swings in party capability.A party that chooses to buff before a combat can easily go up multiple ECLs relative to an unbuffed party. This makes it extremely difficult for a DM to plan party-appropriate combat encounters. If the party goes in unbuffed against a monster designed for a buffed party, they can easily be killed or routed. If they go in buffed against a monster designed for an unbuffed party, the encounter will often be trivially easy. Limiting the power and usefulness of precombat buffs would significantly even out gameplay.
Many buffs are just too good.Haste is the biggest offender here as a mass spell that gives everyone significant bonuses for a mere 3rd level spell. Enlarge Person is also amazingly strong for a 1st level spell.
Some buffs can render entire encounters irrelevant.A dire bear's grappling abilities are nearly unbeatable - unless the fighter has Freedom of Movement, in which case the fight will be a breeze. A vampire can be a terrifying foe - but against a party with Death Ward and Magic Circle against Evil, a vampire is just a pale human without a Con score. (Okay, not literally.) The problem is not merely that these spells exist, but rather that they have such a long duration. This means that it is easy to cast the spell on everyone in the party that might need it, and infeasible for an enemy to wait for the spells to expire.
Some buffs can make the subjects effectively invincible to non-spellcasters.Flight effects and Greater Invisibility are the most prominent offenders here.
Some buffs are too minor or situational to be meaningful.Align Weapon and Magic Weapon are good examples of this problem. In general, if something doesn't give at least a +2 bonus, it generally isn't worth keeping track of.
Buff scaling is arbitrary and inconsistent.[spoiler]What is the bonus from Heroism, Shield of Faith, Barkskin, or Greater Magic Weapon if your caster level is 9? Some effects scale with level and some don't, and those that do scale usually use totally different calculations.
There are too many bonus types.[spoiler]Using such a wide variety of bonus types is unnecessary and makes it much more difficult to keep track of whether a particular effect will apply at full strength or not. It also makes things stack more than they should. Compressing the number of bonus types would make buffing spells much simpler.

Proposed Changes


Duration
Almost all of these problems are related to having multiple buffs active at once, whether on the same person or on multiple people. Buffs are powerful on their own, and that is okay. But they are too powerful, and too complicated, when it is easy to layer multiple buffs together at once. As a result, the first and most fundamental change revolves around buff duration. If buffs last a more limited amount of time, buffing before combat would be less practical and yield significantly smaller changes in party power, since it would be infeasible to cast the same buff on everyone in the party separately, or else the buffs could conceivably wear out early in the combat - or before the combat even starts. Even buffs that almost totally shut down specific enemy abilities, such as Death Ward or Protection from Evil, would be more manageable. Only one or two members of the party could have that immunity, and a foe could conceivably wait out that duration if the circumstances required it.

The solution is that almost all buffs now use a Short (Concentration + 5 rounds) duration. This means that it is easy to keep a single buff active for an arbitrary length of time before a combat, removing the need to meticulously count rounds outside of combat. It ensure that the buff will last for a decent length of time in combat - as long as most combats last. However, the length is too short for it to be practical to cast multiple such spells before a combat. This levels the playing field, ensuring that buffing does not become overpowered and forcing casters to adapt to circumstances, while still ensuring that each individual buff feels useful and interesting.

Scaling
Because of how d20 rolls work, a +2 bonus is worth just as much at 1st level as it is at 20th level. So why should buffs scale? If buffs scale, shouldn't penalties automatically scale with level too? These are questions that are left almost entirely unanswered in the core rules. A full discussion of the philosophy of scaling would be time-consuming, and I'm not convinced it is relevant. Therefore, I will simply discuss the answer I arrived at: buffs scale if they have types that don't stack, such as Heroism or Bull's Strength. Penalties and circumstantial buffs that do stack with other effects don't scale.

Additionally, I have found no good reason for buffs to use different scaling mechanisms. Moving to a unified scaling will make things more consistent and make it easier to notice unbalanced effects. In order to be significant, situational numerical bonuses should always start at no less than a +2 bonus, and scale up to a maximum of +5, as per tradition. I wanted casters to reach +5 sometime around 15th level. Therefore, essentially all spells with numerical, typed scaling, such as Shield of Faith and Magic Weapon, follow the following pattern:
+2 bonus at caster level 1
+3 bonus at caster level 8
+4 bonus at caster level 14
+5 bonus at caster level 20
Note that PCs can be reasonably expected to reach caster level 20 well before before 20th level, thanks to an increase in the number of effects that improve caster level.

General Balance
Buffs are integrated into the VADSKYE system, ensuring that different buffs are more balanced against each other. The base buff spell is a touch range 1st level spell that has one of the following effects:
+2 (scaling) bonus to a core statistic: attack rolls, damage rolls, checks, saving throws, or AC.
Temporary hit points: (5*spell level) + caster level. This approximates the amount of damage that a spell of the same level would do.
Damage reduction: Equal to caster level. Note that damage reduction is now calculated per round, rather than per attack. At low levels, you are not guaranteed to use the DR each round, but at higher levels, it is much more difficult to completely avoid damage, so DR is better. On the other hand, it's easier to overcome DR at higher levels. As a result, I'm not sure exactly how I should scale this, so this is partially a placeholder value.

The full calculations for buff spells are still under construction; I haven't decided exactly how to represent them in the system. Right now I'm using levels that "feel" right, using the assumption that adding an additional buff adds two to the spell's level. I'll generate a full system when I figure out what assumptions to make. One thing that is certain is that "Mass" buffs will be properly balanced against single-target buffs. For example, Haste is now a single-target spell, and there is a higher-level Mass Haste spell.

Bonuses and Stacking

The discussion of bonuses and stacking deserves its own section. It is exceptionally important, yet it is also somewhat tangential to the Spell Reformation; it is possible to implement all of the other changes without rewriting the bonus rules. In addition, the changes made here have ramifications throughout the entire game, not just with regards to spells. However, the changes made here address a fundamental and long-standing problem with the game that is a key part of buffs, so it rests here. I encourage you to consider it.

Why We Need a New System

Complexity
The current bonus system is too complicated. The more bonus types there are, the more confusing the system is. Right now, we have 15 different bonus types: circumstance, competence, enhancement, morale, luck, sacred, profane, insight, resistance, deflection, natural armor, dodge, armor, shield, and inherent. (I probably missed some.) Additionally, a large number of bonuses are left totally untyped. In order to know a character's attributes, you have to separately track bonuses from all of these types. It is essential to track each bonus individually to identify what bonuses should stack with each other, and which bonuses should not stack. Some bonuses have implicit rules associated with them: dodge bonuses always stack with each other and are lost when flat-footed, natural armor doesn't apply to touch AC, and so on. All of these rules must be remembered so they can be applied quicklyThis makes the process of tracking bonuses overly complex.

Fluff
The current bonus system is harmful to fluff, not helpful. Some bonus types only ever apply to specific statistics: only saving throws get resistance bonuses, and many bonuses only apply to AC. Others are universal. I have heard arguments that the use of uniquely named bonus types add flavor to the game. It is true that a "resistance" bonus has a more interesting fluff than a "enhancement" bonus. Yet this greater fluff also makes no sense whatsoever; how does a "resistance" bonus help you avoid a pit trap? How does it help you disbelieve an illusion? Yet a resistance bonus does both of those things. These additional types serve no fluff purpose except to confuse things.
(Note: I bring up fluff not because it is an important reason to move to the new system. I bring it up because it is not a reason to stick with the old system.)

Ambiguity
The current system is oddly ambiguous about how stacking works. For example, consider Barkskin, which gives a "enhancement bonus to the creature's existing natural armor bonus", or Magic Vestment, which gives an enhancement bonus to an armor or shield bonus. This means that a very small number of bonuses are actually the sum of other bonuses. However, it is also true that bonuses do not stack with other bonuses. This means that anything that improves natural armor in a way that is designed to stack with natural armor has to use a totally separate wording from the rest of the system; instead of granting a natural armor bonus, effects like the Dragon Shaman or Dragon Disciple class feature have to use the awkward wording "your natural armor bonus improves by 1". Arbitrary exceptions like this should be minimized or eliminated.

Balance
The current bonus system breaks balance. Stacking must be limited. If stacking is more limited, it will actually increase character variety and flexibility, not decrease it.

In the current system, where stacking is virtually unlimited, a fully optimized character can pour all his resources into a single specific strategy, or amass an immense tower of buffs that dramatically increase the character's power. The Ubercharger build is a perfect example of this. When that strategy works, the character is ludicrously powerful; in the (hopefully rare) circumstances where the strategy doesn't work, he is essentially useless. Because he has the capacity to invest all of his resources into a single strategy - because all of his bonuses stack - he is no longer even in the same league as a "generic" character when the strategy works. This makes the character extremely difficult to play with; if the enemies are strong enough to deal with the buffed/optimized character, they can obliterate any unbuffed/unoptimized character.

Now consider a world where stacking was much more limited. It is a world where it is literally impossible to devote all of a character's resources into a single strategy. This forces the character to develop multiple fighting styles, increasing flexibility and the opportunity for dynamic tactical decisions. It means that a fully buffed/optimized character is more powerful than a normal character, and could certainly prevail in a fight - but not by so much that the same foe could not pose a reasonable challenge in either case. This means that characters are more well-rounded and flexible. It means that being buffed does not skyrocket a character's potential power by multiple ECLs. It means a better game.

How to Fix It

Here I present a new definition of bonuses, modifiers, and stacking.

Bonuses, Penalties, and Modifiers
A bonus is the most basic way that a roll or numerical attribute can be modified. All bonuses have one of four types: inherent, competence, enhancement, and circumstance. These types are described in Bonus Types, below. You use these types to determine whether different bonuses stack. Bonuses from the same source never stack.

A penalty is like a bonus, but it subtracts instead of adds. Penalties are never typed, and always stack, except that penalties from the same source don't stack.

A modifier is the sum of bonuses and penalties. Most of the time, a modifier is the number that you add to the d20 when you take an action. For example, when you attack, you add your attack modifier, which is determined by the sum of all of your attack bonuses and attack penalties. Armor Class is a special case, as discussed in Armor Class, below.

Bonus Types
There are four bonus types, described below. Everything which gives a numerical improvement to a character's abilities belongs to one of these bonus types.
Inherent bonuses: These are bonuses which are an inseparable part of a character. They come from base attack bonus, skill ranks, ability modifiers, and other fundamental parts of a character. The bonus provided by wearing a suit of armor or wielding a shield is also considered an inherent bonus, since it is inherent to the item. Inherent bonuses stack with other inherent bonuses.
Competence bonuses: These are bonuses which derive from a character's experience and ability. They usually come from feats, racial features, and class features. For example, Weapon Focus gives a competence bonus to attack rolls. Competence bonuses do not stack with other competence bonuses.
Enhancement bonuses: These are bonuses which derive from magical improvements to a character's abilities. Almost all spells and magic items (except those relating to armor, shields, and weapons) give enhancement bonuses. Enhancement bonuses do not stack with other enhancement bonuses.
Circumstance bonuses: These are bonuses which derive from specific circumstances. Feats, class features, and magic items which are dependent on circumstances or are extremely temporary in nature can give circumstance bonuses. For example, a rogue's sneak attack gives a circumstance bonus to damage. Circumstance bonuses stack with other circumstance bonuses.

Armor Class
Your AC is the sum of five modifiers, described below. Each of those modifiers is calculated separately before being added together to get your final AC.
Armor modifier: An armor modifier usually comes from armor that you wear. It does not apply against touch attacks.
Shield modifier: A shield modifier usually comes from a shield that you wield. It does not apply when you are flat-footed.
Natural armor modifier: A natural armor modifier represents the physical durability of your body. It does not apply against touch attacks.
Dodge modifier: A dodge modifier represents your ability to avoid attacks. It does not apply when you are flat-footed.
AC modifier: A small number of things can affect a character's Armor Class directly - most notably, every character's AC starts at 10. AC modifiers apply to all types of Armor Class.
An example can help illustrate how armor class stacking works. Bob the Fighter is wearing +1 full plate, wielding a heavy shield, and wearing a Ring of Protection +1. Note that the Ring of Protection gives an enhancement bonus to AC, not a deflection bonus.
His AC modifier is 10 (inherent) +1 (enhancement, from the Ring of Protection) = 11.
His armor modifier is 8 (inherent) + 1 (enhancement) = 9.
His shield modifier is 2 (inherent).
Therefore, his total armor class is 11 + 9 + 2 = 22.

If he were to receive a Shield of Faith spell, which gives a +2 enhancement bonus to AC, his AC would increase to 23, since that bonus would not stack with the enhancement bonus from his Ring of Protection. If he were to receive a Barkskin spell, he would gain the full effect, since he does not currently have an enhancement bonus to AC.

Why Is This Better?

Instead of 15 types to remember, many of which have arbitrary and ambiguous rules associated with them, there are four types that describe everything in the game other than AC. AC adds four additional things to remember, but the only rules complexity they add is whether they apply to touch AC or flat-footed AC. This system makes explicit and easy to understand the weirdness created by Barkskin and similar effects, which previously gave bonuses to bonuses. It dramatically limits the potential for stacking modifiers to towering heights, and limits number inflation. It's simple, but can find a place for any bonus or effect (that I've seen) in D&D.

Putting it All Together

Given that this is the second to last component of the Spell Reformation, I hope you will forgive me if I wait to put all the spells together into a single package until Part V. I need to make some adjustments from the version of the Spell Reformation I use for Rise, which is time-consuming. However, I will display some of the most important buff spells here to give an idea of what the full result looks like. Most spells don't list an explicit bonus type because every spell grants an enhancement bonus unless otherwise specified. In other words, the bonuses are not untyped; they are all enhancement bonuses.


Aid
You fill the target with confidence, improving its resilience and stamina in combat.
Level: Enchantment (Emotion) [Mind-Affecting, Morale]
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
Duration: Short (Concentration + 5 rounds)
Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless)
Spell Resistance: Yes (Will)
Effect: The subject gains temporary hit points equal to 10 + caster level and a +2 bonus to attack rolls. This bonus increases to +3 at 8th level, to +4 at 14th level, and finally to +5 at 20th level.

Barkskin
Transmutation (Augment) [Wood]
Level: Drd 2
Range: Touch
Target: Living creature touched
Duration: Short (Concentration + 5 rounds)
Saving Throw: Fortitude negates (harmless)
Spell Resistance: Yes (Fortitude)
Effect: The subject gains a +2 bonus to its natural armor modifier and physical damage reduction equal to your caster level. It ignores an amount of physical damage each round equal to your caster level, though an adamantine weapon bypasses the reduction. This bonus increases to +3 at 8th level, to +4 at 14th level, and finally to +5 at 20th level. The damage reduction increases at the same rate.
Note: If the creature takes fire damage, it loses its damage reduction for 1 round (including against the initial attack, if it also dealt physical damage).

Freedom
Transmutation (Imbuement)
Level: Clr 4, Drd 4, Travel 4
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
Duration: Short (Concentration + 5 rounds)
Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless)
Spell Resistance: Yes (Will)
Effect:The subject can move and attack normally for the duration of the spell, even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement, such as paralysis, solid fog, slow, and web. The subject gains a +20 bonus to resist a grapple, and to grapple checks or Escape Artist checks made to escape a grapple or a pin.
The spell also allows the subject to move and attack normally while underwater, provided that the weapon is wielded in the hand rather than hurled.

Haste
You accelerate your ally's motions, causing her to move and act more quickly than normal.
Transmutation (Temporal)
Level: Brd 3, Sor/Wiz 3
Range: Close (30 ft.)
Target: One creature
Duration: Short (Concentration + 5 rounds)
Saving Throw: Fortitude negates (harmless)
Spell Resistance: Yes (Fortitude)
Effect: The subject is hasted. This has two effects. When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with any weapon he is holding. The attack is made using the creature's full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation.
\par All of the hasted creature's modes of movement (including land movement, burrow, climb, fly, and swim) double in speed, to a maximum of an additional 30 ft. of movement. This increase counts as an enhancement bonus, and it affects the creature's jumping distance as normal for increased speed.
Note: Haste dispels and counters Slow. The extra attack granted is not cumulative with similar effects, such as that provided by a weapon of speed, nor does it actually grant an extra action, so you can't use it to cast a second spell or otherwise take an extra action in the round.

This should conclude Part IV of the Spell Reformation. I'm looking forward to wrapping this up! If you have any questions on specific buffs that are left unclear by this overview, let me know and I'll post my version of the buff.

Finally, a direct reply to Salbazier:

Derp, I actually write these stuff about your first SR system before I read the thread to finish (still on part I).
Yeah, the organization of the thread is a bit of a problem. Now I know why people make reserve posts... maybe when Part V comes out I'll make a new thread with the full Spell Reformation at the beginning, so people can actually read what is going on.

Regarding spell resistance, I don't think changing the action to lower SR to swift action is enough. The problem isn't that it takes too long to lower it, it is that you have to do it every turn and that you cannot lower it while unconscious (which is actually a consequence of the previous problem) when it is likely the time you would need it the most (for emergency healing). The previous problem may seem to be resolved by this new rules but the latter is still there.

I think even if it took standard action to lower SR it still would be fine, as long it stay lowered until the respective creature will it back (If this can be done as free action anytime in a round, so much for the better). As an aside, a potential niche for an ability/class feature (because it likely would be too strong if it became part for standard SR rules) which I don't think I've ever seen is 'smart' SR which can selectively allow certain category spells to pass it.
Hmmm. I think there are two main fluff perspectives on SR. One is that it's an inherent, immutable aspect of the creature that can only be lowered temporarily and with effort, if at all. The other is that it's a secondary aspect of the creature that can be activated or deactivated "at will". I think the difference is important from a fluff perspective. Pixies don't have the ability to go invisible at will; they are naturally invisible and they can temporarily suppress that if they want. That's very different (and pretty cool, I think).

The real problem is that spell resistance is treated as a universal constant, so every creature is forced to use the same "deactivation" mechanism. It might work better if some creatures were allowed to shut off their spell resistance, while others could not. Perhaps a mind flayer can freely toggle their spell resistance, but a celestial creature can only temporarily suppress it. This would help differentiate the two. As you point out, though, it all becomes fairly moot with the new SR system. This is more an idea for people who want to keep the original SR system.

About the new SR idea: One hand this is good idea. Reducing number of rolls is good. Tying SR to save solve the issue I mentioned in the spoiler above (that lowering SR need to be done repeatedly every turn) since a creature can always choose to fail a save (AFAIK, even when unconscious/unaware, else an unconscious creature would be impossible to healed). Potential for more individualized SR is good. 'more harder to affect by magic) can simply be done by giving save bonus.
Glad you like it!

One the other hand, this change is neither simple nor general, at least in regards to 'greater' SR. DMs have to come up with new SR 'extras' for every creature they consider warrant a 'greater' SR.
I think it would be my responsibility to suggest revised SR mechanisms for all of the creatures affected by the change. That can come in Part V of the Spell Reformation. I'm willing to bet that I can find a relatively simple way to create SR tiers, though I don't know how to do that yet.

nonsi
2013-10-05, 12:46 AM
Great work :smallcool:

- Inherent
- Competence
- Enhancement
- Circumstance

That's the first time I actually agree with one's proposed categories of modifiers.



Now for some issues:


1. Don't knock +1s. I've been to countless of encounters where that +1 made the difference between triumph and defeat. +1 is no harder to keep track of than +2.

2. If you wish for characters to reach +5 at 15th, then make it so (I'd make it 16th to give +1 for each 4 levels - nice and clean). Your problem is CL boosting. The best way to deal with CL boosting is by putting an unbreakable cap over it. Just rule that CL can under no circumstances exceed HD and CL-associated game balance issues go out the window.

3. Also, I don't understand how your solution addresses Uberchargers.
Since all those bonuses are competence & circumstance associated, there's nothing for you to mitigate...
But now I notice that Competence bonuses don't stack. What does this mean about Greater Weapon Focus in regard to Weapon Focus, Or Leap Attack in regard to Power Attack ?

4. AC 10 is the baseline. It's not a modifier at all. Everyone in 3e has it. Period.
What I'm trying to say is that a ring of protection shouldn't address this value.
I'd nix "AC modifier" and apply the bonus from Ring of Protection to "Natural armor modifier". That's one less modifier to worry about/calculate/abuse.



[EDIT]: Freedom spell has reminded me that Solid Fog is too powerful the way it is. It should reduce movement by a given amount, not cut it down to 5' regardless of creature's size & strength, or at least allow size & strength to push this hard cap up a bit.

Vadskye
2013-10-05, 01:28 AM
Great work :smallcool:

- Inherent
- Competence
- Enhancement
- Circumstance

That's the first time I actually agree with one's proposed categories of modifiers.
I am very glad to hear it! It's always nice to hear I'm not crazy.

Now for some issues:

1. Don't knock +1s. I've been to countless of encounters where that +1 made the difference between triumph and defeat. +1 is no harder to keep track of than +2.
It's not that I'm calling +1s useless in general. My intention is that circumstantial or temporary effects should at least be +2. Passive bonuses, like that provided by Weapon Focus, can easily be +1, since there's so little calculation required. Anyway, I'm basically just increasing the bonuses so that they start at least +2 rather than getting rid of them altogether, so I don't think it will be an issue.

(Side note: I know that I have a lower tolerance for math than most people on here. A disproportionate amount of my D&D experience has come from teaching new players who aren't good at math, so this may be coloring my views.)

2. If you wish for characters to reach +5 at 15th, then make it so (I'd make it 16th to give +1 for each 4 levels - nice and clean). Your problem is CL boosting. The best way to deal with CL boosting is by putting an unbreakable cap over it. Just rule that CL can under no circumstances exceed HD and CL-associated game balance issues go out the window.
I don't see CL boosting as a problem, though. The reason it was a problem before had to do with the way spells scaled with CL. For example, because the default damage progression was 1d6 per CL, being a few CL ahead gave a huge advantage. In the Spell Reformation, things are intentionally built to scale with CL without breaking. Since it affects both damage and DC, it's actually the best method of increasing caster power, since it affects a wide variety of spells more or less evenly - it is much more fair than simply increasing DC. As a result, increasing CL is now a core part fo the system. Making a rule like that would be like making a rule that your attack bonus can't exceed your HD. I want people to increase their CL, within reason; for example, Spell Focus now gives a +2 competence bonus to caster level, and I plan on making mage robes or other magic items that increase caster level with specific subschools or schools.

3. Also, I don't understand how your solution addresses Uberchargers.
Since all those bonuses are competence & circumstance associated, there's nothing for you to mitigate...
But now I notice that Competence bonuses don't stack. What does this mean about Greater Weapon Focus in regard to Weapon Focus, Or Leap Attack in regard to Power Attack ?
Greater Weapon Focus should simply give a +2 competence bonus to attack. I honestly think that using that wording makes the effect of the feat more clear anyway. Power Attack gives a circumstance bonus, since it's based on a situational fighting style (coupled with an attack penalty) rather than the character's raw competence. It's like sneak attacking, which would also be a circumstance bonus instead of a competence bonus. (Don't take the word "competence" too literally.) Leap Attack would also be a circumstance bonus.

So how does this fix Uberchargers? The bonus system alone doesn't. All of the core Ubercharge components have idiosyncratic wordings and circumstantial components that dodge the normal bonus system. The Ubercharger is an example of the problems that come from allowing obscene levels of specialization. Perhaps I should have chosen a problem that could actually be solved with the bonus system alone, but I couldn't think of one that is as iconic as the Ubercharger.

The actual solution to the Ubercharger that I came up with relies on the same principles as the bonus system: stacking should be limited in intuitive ways. That's in Rise, and when I'm done with the Spell Reformation (and probably a Magic Item Reformation) I might make a Combat Reformation that analyzes D&D combat and explains the changes I made.

4. AC 10 is the baseline. It's not a modifier at all. Everyone in 3e has it. Period.
What I'm trying to say is that a ring of protection shouldn't address this value.
I agree - I just wasn't sure how to word it. You'll never see an example in the game written out the way I did above, but I'll think about how to word it better to make it clear that AC 10 is a baseline, not a modifier.

I'd nix "AC modifier" and apply the bonus from Ring of Protection to "Natural armor modifier". That's one less modifier to worry about/calculate/abuse.
I actually did do something similar in Rise; Rings of Protection actually give bonuses to saving throws, drawing on the Protection from <Alignment> spells for inspiration. However, once you start talking about nuking whole categories of AC, you start having significant (and potentially complicated) effects on combat balance. Since the Spell Reformation isn't incorporating the other AC calculation changes that are needed to accommodate the removal of Rings of Protection (and therefore, essentially the entire category of Deflection bonuses to AC), I left Shield of Faith more or less "as is". I like the way you think, though. That's definitely part of the endgame.

unbeliever536
2013-10-05, 01:55 AM
So I'm thinking about haste...

I'd like it to be more...flavorful. I'd like to see haste have a bunch of really nice effects, but downsides after it wears off. The downsides, obviously, would need to be hard to circumvent, but I do have some rough ideas. Assume for the moment that any penalty I list is hard to circumvent for some reason.

I would suggest the following changes:

Duration: Up to 1 round/4 caster levels (see text)
Saving Throw: Fort negates (harmless)*
Effect: The subject is hasted for a duration selected by the caster when the spell is cast. It may take an extra move action in each round, or it may take two standard actions**. In addition, a hasted creature gains a +2 circumstance bonus to its dodge modifier, reflex saves, and attack rolls. When the spell ends, the creature takes 1d6(?) nonlethal damage for each round it was under the effects of the spell, and becomes exhausted. The exhaustion lasts until the creature rests for eight hours or gets rid of the nonlethal damage.

*But someone might want to attempt the save, given the aftereffects.
**This requires that mundanes have enough useful things to do with their standard actions that they actually want more. An extra move action is still nice, though.

Maybe this could just be another spell (call it Acceleration or something, make it a different level... I don't know.) I don't know how your spell engine would deal with this; it's a buff that can also be used to debuff (turn vulnerable party members invisible or something, haste your foe for one round, suddenly they're exhausted).

Actually, how would/do you deal with spells that can be used for wildly different purposes (ie, spells that are combat spells but don't fit neatly into the buff/debuff/damage paradigm)?

TuggyNE
2013-10-05, 03:27 AM
Effect: The subject is hasted for a duration selected by the caster when the spell is cast. It may take an extra move action in each round, or it may take two standard actions**.

Um... spellcasting is usually still a standard action, no? Please please please don't bring back 3.0 haste.

Vadskye
2013-10-05, 10:42 AM
So I'm thinking about haste...

I'd like it to be more...flavorful. I'd like to see haste have a bunch of really nice effects, but downsides after it wears off. The downsides, obviously, would need to be hard to circumvent, but I do have some rough ideas. Assume for the moment that any penalty I list is hard to circumvent for some reason.

I would suggest the following changes:

changeschangeschanges
I'm afraid that using such a complicated version of haste runs contrary to one of my core principles for the Spell Reformation. Which... huh, isn't included in the first post. I'll fix that. Anyway, the principle is to minimize complexity. This version of haste has a lot of idiosyncratic parts:
Unique duration
Very unique effect (two standard actions)
+2 to dodge
+2 to Reflex saves (unusual to grant bonuses to a specific save)
+2 to attack
Irrelevantly small amount of nonlethal damage
Exhaustion that lasts for a weird amount of time
Yes, my version of Haste is simpler. But I don't think that this means that you lose fluff. I think that it keeps the focus on the game on what you do with Haste, rather than the specific mechanics of the spell. Also, the simplicity of the spell means that you can make interesting combinations with Haste without working about breaking complexity. For example, we could make a spell called Timetheft at, say, 5th level (without running it through the engine): it slows one creature and, if the slow was successful, hastes a different creature.

I could also imagine a "Greater Haste" which actually does grant an extra standard action, provided that it was at a suitably high level (9th or so). However, I wouldn't implement that in the system as written, because it helps casters disproportionately, as TuggyNE pointed out. If you use the Rise system where full attacking is a standard action, it would be functional - it would just be ludicrously powerful. Perhaps too powerful even for a 9th level spell in the somewhat more toned-down world of the Spell Reformation. It could work if it was Concentration duration, though. Applying penalties after the fact doesn't work as a check on power because it doesn't change the immense power granted during the spell's effect. Who cares if you're exhausted or take damage after you nuke the Big Bad Evil Guy?

(Now, if it applied penalties during the effect, that would be interesting. One negative level per standard action taken while Greater Hasted... there's interesting design opportunities there.)

Actually, how would/do you deal with spells that can be used for wildly different purposes (ie, spells that are combat spells but don't fit neatly into the buff/debuff/damage paradigm)?
That's actually one of the strengths of the spell engine: it's totally unified. You just add together the components of the spell and get a final result. It works especially well when combining damage and debuff effects; they are seamless, and that's actually a core part of the changes to damage spells.

It doesn't have a built-in ability to work with "buffs with a downside", though, where the buff and the debuff take place on the same person. I've done that on an ad hoc basis so far, since those effects are fairly unusual, and often involve downsides that couldn't be used as debuffs (such as with Combat Transformation/Tenser's Transformation). If I wanted to include more of those effects, I could write a system for it. However, using a lot of buffs with downsides isn't part of my design goals, so I haven't done that yet.

unbeliever536
2013-10-05, 01:56 PM
Definitely wasn't thinking the extra standard action thing through. 3:00 AM, what can I say? And complexity is definitely an issue. Most of it comes from the whole downside idea, which was just a WAG-based rough summary of what I wanted to do. The unique duration came from the same thing, because I wanted a duration that was (1) short and (2) entirely at the caster's option, in order to mitigate the downsides (which ought to be much more severe than what I gave).

That said, I would like to see more buffs with downsides. They give another dimension to spells that would otherwise be a simple +X to Y, and make it so that buffiing someone pulls resources from the character being buffed, rather than only the buffing character. That's probably not a design goal that everyone would agree with, but it's something I would not mind seeing. It pulls away from the "your buffs are party resources" model, and it means that everybody runs out of resources eventually. Casters, no matter their staying power, shouldn't be the sole reason the party stops for a break.

Note: simplicity is definitely a worthwhile goal, and, on an intellectual level, I am totally in agreement of you with respect to simplicity, but I have a distinct complexity addiction that I have trouble controlling sometimes. (But how exactly does it work, etc)

Specifically with regards to haste:


I think that it keeps the focus on the game on what you do with Haste, rather than the specific mechanics of the spell.


But what if I want to do something other than give someone one more attack? What if I want to Haste the rogue so he can open that locked door/disable and rearm those traps faster and get the party away from the huge pile of enemies that the fighter can only keep away from us for so long? Of course, my version doesn't do that either... Maybe there isn't really a good way to mimic acting at really high speeds in D&D. Initially, I just tried to mirror a single-target (core) slow, but the more I think about it, the less happy I am with what I came up with. Haste is hard. :smallannoyed:

Honestly, I'm starting to think the effect might be better tossed onto a unique magic item. Call it "Boots of Acceleration"; give it a 1/day ability to go really really, really, ridiculously fast, for a short period, and then you fall unconscious based on how long you spent accelerated. Or something.



(Now, if it applied penalties during the effect, that would be interesting. One negative level per standard action taken while Greater Hasted... there's interesting design opportunities there.)


Ooh, interesting...

In sum: Buffs with drawbacks are way cool, and you should be able to do more than make an extra attack while going fast. (But rapid casting spells is a no-no).

tarkisflux
2013-10-05, 02:13 PM
Congrats on part 4 :-)

On haste:

As noted, taking two standards is potentially somewhat crazy for spellcasting. Otherwise though, the two move thing is simpler than vadskye's double movement clause, and benefits melee characters more than anyone else (move + full attack). If you can drop the bonus move for a bonus attack at full bonus, it basically reduces to vadskye's form while also being slightly more flexible (though run / charge distance suffers slightly). You could also add that you could complete a 1-round action with your full-round action + bonus move action, or complete 2-rounds worth of non-social action (for multi-round actions) in 1-round.

Not sure it's worth worrying about though.

On older things in brief:

On Skill Thing
While you're welcome to steal and rework what you like from my skills thing (because CC-BY-SA), I was more linking it to try and show the difference between what we consider acceptable and even desirable. I don't care about mass charm / minor fear at will around mid levels so long as it is available to more than just 1 class and there are plenty of available counters to it, and that's a very different position from the one you've staked out here. I similarly have no problems with uberchargers in my games (well, that's not entirely true, but my problems with them are thematic rather than mechanical or overshadowing).

And yes, lots of playtesting. New players react to it the same way they react to spellcasters, initially overwhelmed until they figure out that they only need to worry about the small bit of it that is immediately relevant. For most players, it's just listing a few options near the skill so that they remember them when they might want to use the skill. And since they can just attempt them whenever they want, the resource management angle of it is less of a burden to them. I've had people try to find extra places to drop them in game, messing around with them while they're still getting used to them basically. Higher levels bring new things or advance old things but also make older and more familiar things easier to use or just declare, and it all works out well enough.

On Metamagic
Your position that some spells should not be made is probably the best argument against equivalent metamagic you've made, even if I don't necessarily agree with it. But if we go with it, it's also an argument against having metamagic for some things at all (as well as an argument for not publishing your spell engine without big huge warning labels and design notes). Since duration is something you're really concerned about, that metamagic should probably not be in there at all rather than complicating it with "can't be used on buffs" lines. Same with area or distance if they're similarly problematic for you in some cases. It would actually be ok if metamagic got reduced to "deals X additional damage of Y type" or "adds Z condition" or "has reduced components" style effects, and the rest was just removed to better maintain your balance goals.

unbeliever536
2013-10-05, 02:24 PM
@Tarkisflux:

Yeah, that idea works, although the extra little options might be a little fiddly for what Vadskye seems to be going for. I had some vague idea that two standard actions would be useful for...something? I don't know what. I wasn't thinking of spellcasting.

Vadskye
2013-10-07, 01:06 AM
The Spell Reformation Part V: Conclusion

Some Final Changes and Notes

A Detailed Analysis of Changes To Every Spell Not Covered by the Previous Four Parts
Sorry, false advertising: that isn't going to happen. There are way too many weird spells for me to explain in detail why I made the exact changes that I did. No matter how rigorous the systems I create, there will always be spells that slip through the cracks that require difficult judgement calls.

Instead, I'm going to say two things. First, I put quite a bit of effort into making sure that some of the weirder effects also fit into the system. It should be pretty solidly balanced, though there will always be things that I missed. Second, if you see something that doesn't seem to fit, say something! We can figure out how to make the spell or mechanic better. This has already happened a number of times on this forum, and I appreciate the feedback you all have given.

Duration Clarification
All durations now end at the end of the caster's turn in the round where the duration expires. For example, a spell with a 1 round duration expires at the end of the caster's next turn. Previously, spells expired at the start of the caster's turn. This meant that the subject of a spell with a 5 round duration would get 5 actions under the effects of the spell except when the caster cast the spell on himself: in such a case, the caster would only receive four actions under the effects of the spell. Now, a 5 round spell lasts for 5 actions, regardless of who the spell is cast on.

Cantrips (And Why They Should Die)
Starting the game as a spellcaster is a daunting task. In addition to the standard feat and skill selections that every other class makes, spellcasters have to select their spells from a large list of potential options. This is difficult enough with only one level of spells to choose from. Why do we need cantrips? It adds substantial complexity, and its effects that vary between "stupidly useless" and "game-changingly amazing", depending on how many free hands your group has for torches and how lenient your DM is with Prestidigitation. Is that really necessary? No, it is not! Cantrips have been removed. The important ones have been converted into level 1 spells. The unimportant ones have ceased to exist.

Arcane Invocations
Arcane Invocations are designed to be moderately simple, repeatable combat effects. Since they are most important at low levels, where foes typically drop quickly, nondamaging effects have very short durations but moderately powerful effects to ensure that they are relevant. Their power level is roughly appropriate for 0-level spells using the VADSKYE Spell Engine, but their mechanics are somewhat ad-hoc and use a different scaling since they are not "true" spells.

Metamagic Feats
Most metamagic feats do not work well with the Spell Reformation. This is an area which is under development, but for now, I recommend the following changes:
Remove Empower, Maximize, and Extend Spell.
Rewrite Quicken Spell, as noted in Part I.
Rewrite Heighten Spell to take the place of Heighten, Empower, and Maximize:

Heighten Spell
Benefit: When casting a heightened spell, you gain a +2 circumstance bonus to caster level. A heightened spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual level. Unlike other metamagic feats, you can apply this metamagic feat any number of times, increasing your caster level by 2 each time.
Don't use most noncore metamagic. In general, anything that significantly boosts the power of lower level spells, like Twin Spell, is too good in the Spell Reformation, since lower level spells scale better than they used to.

Cure and Inflict Spells
The Cure spells and the Inflict spells need additional effects that scale with their spell level that go beyond the mere damage dealt or healed by the spells. I designed additional effects for them in Rise, but those effects don't make sense in a system without "critical damage". I'm open to ideas on how to implement this.

Removing Unnecessary Spells
There are many spells which simply do not need to exist. Some were too complicated, with no clear way to simplify them, such as Magic Jar or the Polymorph effects. Some served very little purpose, like Spellstaff or Open/Close. Not all of the spells that have been removed are gone forever. Quench is unlikely to ever see the light of day again, but Contact Other Plane or Polymorph might reasonably return after a simplification. Fixing those effects was simply a lower priority.

Touch Attacks
I'll be honest: touch attack spells are a bit too powerful for regular D&D. They were originally designed for Rise, where touch AC scales more consistently with level. However, I haven't found a consistent way to adjust their power to account for this, so I'm considering it a known bug for now. I don't think that the overall gameplay effects will be that dramatic; touch attack spells have always been fairly powerful, so at least the problem will be familiar to D&D veterans.

Spell Lists and Rise Integration
As a result of so many changes being made to spells, the spell lists for each class have been rewritten to accommodate the new spells. Cleric domains in particular needed to be reworked; the original lists were almost totally useless. However, this is the point where the fact that I originally wrote the Spell Reformation for Rise becomes problematic. There are two spells at every level for cleric domains instead of one, and "restricted" spells at each level in the sorcerer/wizard list. (Well, there are most of the time. I haven't finished all the spell lists.) Oh, and I don't have a ranger spell list because they don't cast spells in my game.

If you are integrating the Spell Reformation into a normal D&D game, my advice is to treat "restricted" sorcerer/wizard spells as if they were simply regular spells of the same level, and choose one spell at each level for domains. Use the original rager spell list, to the extent that those spells still exist. If people actually start using this for their games and find that it takes too much effort to convert the system, I can go through and fix the formatting to be more core-friendly. My primary priority right now is on making this public and getting feedback, though, so I'm going to delay making purely formatting fixes until and unless they become necessary.

Spell Schools, Subschools, and Descriptors
When used properly, spell schools, subschools, and descriptors can be an elegant way of categorizing spells into easily understood patterns. There are an immense number of spells in D&D, and anything which helps make sense of that variety is valuable. They can help player choose and understand spells, reducing the amount of reading required. For example, a player doesn't need to read every spell in the Evocation (Energy) subschool to realize that they all involve elemental attacks. In addition, these categories offer a rich tool for building interesting and simple mechanical interactions between similar spells. For example, a character might acquire the Helm of Dampening which makes them immune to all [Sound-Dependent] effects. Or imagine a Sustaining Shield which extends the duration of any Abjuration (Shielding) effects cast on the wielder. There is an immense potential for interesting magic items and interactions - but that can only happen if the spell categorizations are well-designed and applied consistently. Every spell should have at least one school and at least one subschool.

The current spell categories are in no way suited for that purpose. The spell schools are poorly balanced and poorly defined. There is great inconsistency in how spells are assigned to spell schools, created in large part because spells are restricted to belonging to only one school. Only a few schools have subschools, and even those that do are not always defined well.

Detailing every change made to individual spells, and justifying the choice of subschools, would require a time investment that I am not sure is worth it, since that process was already described in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=291683). Instead, I will simply present a list of all spells in the Spell Reformation, organized by spell school and subschool.

There are also a number of new descriptors. Some descriptors have mechanical significance. Here are all of the new descriptors:
Acid, air, charm, chaotic, cold, curse, darkness, death, detection, disease, domination, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, fog, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, morale, negative, object-affecting, planar, poison, positive, sight-dependent, size-affecting, sound-dependent, sonic, teleportation, trap, unreal, wall, water, wood.

Rules for descriptors with mechanical significance are spoilered for length.
Air spells do not function in environments without air.
Barrier spells cannot be used offensively. If you force the barrier against a force or creature it prohibits, you feel a discernible pressure against the barrier. If you continue to apply pressure, you end the spell.
Curse spells cannot be dispelled by \spell{dispel magic} or similar effects. However, they can be removed with a \spell{break enchantment}, \spell{limited wish},\spell{miracle}, \spell{remove curse}, or \spell{wish} spell.
A detection spell can penetrate barriers, but is always blocked by special materials of some kind. Unless otherwise specified in the spell description, the spell is blocked by 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt.
Fire spells do not function underwater.
Fog spells do not function underwater and can be dispersed by wind or fire. Unless the spell specifies otherwise, a moderate wind (11\add mph) disperses the fog in 5 rounds, and a strong wind (21\add mph) disperses the fog in 1 round. A fire spell or other powerful fire effect burns away the fog in the area into which it dealt damage.
Language-dependent spells use intelligible language as a medium for communication. If the target cannot understand or cannot hear what the caster of a language-dependant spell says, the spell fails.
Mind-affecting spells work only against creatures with an Intelligence score of 1 or higher.
Sight-dependent spells use sight as a fundamental component of the spell. If the target cannot see the spell, it has no effect.
Size-affecting spells alter a creature's size. Multiple size increasing or size decreasing effects never stack. If a creature is affected by both size-increasing and size-decreasing effects, they cancel out on a one for one basis, and any remaining effect occurs normally.
Sound-dependent spells use sound as a fundamental component of the spell. If the target cannot hear the spell, it has no effect.
Teleportation spells instantaneously move creatures by travelling through the Astral Plane. Anything that blocks planar travel also blocks teleportation.
Trap spells do not have obvious effects immediately. They can be detected with the Spot skill. The DC to detect a trap spell is 25 \add spell level. Most, but not all, traps can be disabled with the Disable Device skill. If it can be disabled, the DC is 25 \add spell level.
No more than one trap spell can be placed on the same object or in the same area. Only the first trap placed has any effect. It must be dispelled or discharged before any new traps can be placed.
Unreal spells do not have ``real'' effects and can be disbelieved. Unreal effects cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements. Consequently, these spells are useful for confounding or delaying foes, but useless for attacking them directly unless combined with a real effect.
Creatures encountering an unreal spell usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion. A Spot or Listen check can be made to interact with an unreal effect if appropriate to the type of effect. Unless otherwise specified by the spell, the DC of such a check is equal to the saving throw DC of the spell.
Once a creature has interacted with an unreal effect, it can make a Will save. A successful saving throw reveals it to be false. Its effects can still be observed if desired, but they are mere shadows of the full effect: visual effects appear translucent outlines, sounds can be heard as ghostly echoes, and so on.
A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss. A character faced with definitive proof that an unreal effect isn't real needs no saving throw. If any viewer successfully disbelieves an unreal effect and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a \plus4 bonus.

Complete Spell and School List
This lists every spell in the Spell Reformation, organized by school and subschool. The new subschools and their descriptions are included. Spells with multiple schools or multiple subschools are denoted with a (+) after the spell's name. After each of the lists is a "Spell Changes" entry which shows how spells in that school changed, showing which spells were added from other schools or moved to other schools.
ABJURATION

Abjuration spells manipulate the raw essence of magic to protect allies or ward off foes. There are four subschools of abjuration spells.
Interdiction: An interdiction spell hedges out creatures or forces of an opposing alignment or type.
Antilife Shell, Banishment (+), Cloak of Chaos, Dismissal (+), Forbiddance (+), Holy Aura, Magic Circle against <Alignment> (+), Planar Binding (Lesser/Greater) (+), Protection from <Alignment>, Shield of Law, Unholy Aura
Negation: A negating spell negates magical effects.
Ablative Shield, Ablative Fortress, Antimagic Field, Break Enchantment, Dispel Magic (Lesser/Greater), Dimensional Anchor (+), Dimensional Lock, Emancipation, Globe of Invulnerability (Lesser), Invisibility Purge, Mage's Disjunction, Remove Curse, Spelltheft (Lesser/Greater)
Shielding: A shielding spell protects creatures or objects from harm.
Death Ward (Mass) (+), Endure Elements, Energy Conversion, Entropic Shield, Fire Shield (+), Inertial Shield, Mage Armor (Greater), Mind Blank, Nondetection, Protection from Energy (Greater), Protection from Spells, Repulsion, Resist Energy (Greater), Resist Impact, Resistance, Retributive Shield, Sanctuary (+), Sequester (+), Share Pain (Forced, Greater) (+), Shield, Shield of Faith, Shield Other (Greater) (+), Spell Immunity (Greater), Spell Resistance, Spell Turning, Undetectable Alignment
Warding: A warding spell protects an area or object from intrusion. If one warding spell is active within 10 feet of another for 24 hours or more, the magical fields interfere with each other and create barely visible energy fluctuations. The DC to find such spells with the Spot skill drops by 4. The DC drops by an additional 2 for each additional warding spell beyond the second.
Alarm, Arcane Lock (+), Explosive Runes, Fire Trap (+), Forbiddance (+), Glyph of Warding (Greater), Guards and Wards (+), Mage's Private Sanctum, Sepia Snake Sigil (+)
Spell Changes:
Spells added from other schools: Fire Shield (+), Invisibility Purge, Mage Armor, Planar Binding (Lesser/Greater) (+), Sepia Snake Sigil (+)
Spells moved to other schools: Atonement, Freedom, Hold Portal, Imprisonment, Remove Fear, Stoneskin
New spells: Ablative Ward, Ablative Fortress, Dispel Magic (Lesser), Energy Conversion (+), Inertial Shield, Mage Armor (Greater only), Protection from Energy (Greater only), Retributive Shield, Resist Energy (Greater only), Resist Impact, Share Pain (Greater) (+), Shield Other (Greater only) (+), Spelltheft (Lesser, Greater)
Removed spells: Antiplant Shell, Dispel <Alignment>, Freedom, Freedom of Movement, Hide from Animals, Hide from Undead, Protection from Arrows, Repel Metal or Stone, Repel Vermin
Renamed spells: Emancipation (formerly Freedom), Freedom (formerly Freedom of Movement)

CONJURATION

Conjuration spells transport and create objects and creatures to aid you. A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it. The creature or object must appear within the spell's range, but it does not have to remain within the range. There are three subschools of conjuration spells.
Creation: A creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates. If the spell has a duration other than instantaneous, magic holds the creation together, and when the spell ends, the conjured creature or object vanishes without a trace. If the spell has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through magic. It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on magic for its existence. \spell{Acid arrow} is a creation spell.
Acid Arrow (Greater), Acid Fog, Black Tentacles, Cloudkill, Clone (+), Create Food and Water, Create Water, Fog Cloud, Gate (+), Glitterdust, Grease, Heroes' Feast (+), Ice Storm (+), Incendiary Cloud (+), Mage's Faithful Hound, Mage's Magnificent Mansion, Major Creation, Mind Fog (+), Minor Creation, Obscuring Mist, Phantom Steed (+), Phase Door (+), Prying Eyes (Greater) (+), Rope Trick (+), Sea of Fog, Sea of Solid Fog, Secure Shelter, Sepia Snake Sigil (+), Shambler(+), Sleet Storm, Solid Fog, Stinking Cloud, Storm of Vengeance (+), Wall of Ice (+), Wall of Thorns, Web, Unseen Servant
Summoning: A summoning spell instantly brings a manifestation of a creature or object to a place you designate. When the spell ends or is dispelled, the manifestation disappears. A summoned creature also disappears if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower. Because summoning spells do not physically transport the actual creature or object, even if the manifestation is injured or destroyed, the original is unharmed. However, it takes 24 hours for the manifestation to reform, during which time it can't be summoned again. Most summoning spells, including the summon monster and summon nature's ally spells, will automatically summon a different creature of the same type should this occur.
Creeping Doom, Elemental Swarm, Insect Plague, Mount, Stampede (Greater), Summon Instrument, Summon Monster X, Summon Nature's Ally X, Summon Nature's Army
Translocation: A translocation spell transports one or more creatures or objects a great distance. The most powerful of these spells can cross planar boundaries. Unlike summoning spells, the transportation is (unless otherwise noted) one-way and not dispellable. Many translocation effects involve teleportation.
Banishment (+), Blink, Dimension Door (Mass), Dimension Slide, Dismissal (+), Dissipating Touch, Ethereal Jaunt, Etherealness, Gate (+), Imprisonment, Instant Retrieval, Maze, Phase Door (+), Planar Binding (Lesser/Greater) (+), Plane Shift, Refuge, Retrieve (Greater), Rope Trick (+), Secret Chest, Shadow Walk, Teleport (Greater), Teleport Object, Teleportation Circle, Transport via Plants, Tree Stride, Word of Recall
Spell Changes:
Spells added from other schools: Banishment (+), Blink, Clone (+), Dismissal (+), Ethereal Jaunt, Etherealness, Ice Storm (+), Imprisonment, Mind Fog (+), Prying Eyes (Greater) (+), Shadow Walk, Wall of Ice (+)
Spells moved to other schools: Delay Poison, Cure X Wounds (Mass), Inflict X Wounds (Mass), Harm, Heal (Mass), Mage Armor, Neutralize Poison, Raise Dead, Regenerate, Remove Blindness/Deafness, Remove Disease, Remove Paralysis, Restoration (Lesser/Greater), Resurrection, Trap the Soul, True Resurrection, Wall of Stone
New spells: Acid Arrow (Greater only), Dimension Door (mass only), Dimension Slide, Dissipating Touch, Mage Armor (Greater only), Sea of Fog, Sea of Solid Fog, Stampede (Greater), Summon Nature's Army
Removed spells: Acid Splash, Planar Ally (Lesser/Greater), Summon Swarm, Wall of Iron
Renamed spells: Instant Retrieval (formerly Instant Summons)

DIVINATION

Divination spells enable you to predict the future, gain or share knowledge, find hidden things, and foil deceptive spells. There are four subschools of divination spells.
Awareness: A awareness spell reveals objects, creatures, or effects within an area. Some awareness spells have cone-shaped areas. These move with you and extend in the direction you look. The cone defines the area that you can examine each round. If you study the same area for multiple rounds, you can often gain additional information, as noted in the descriptive text for the spell.
Alarm (+), Analyze Dweomer (+), Arcane Sight (Greater), Darkvision, Detect Animals or Plants, Detect <Alignment>, Detect Poison, Detect Scrying, Detect Secret Doors, Detect Snares and Pits, Detect Thoughts, Detect Thoughts (Greater), Detect Undead, Discern Lies, Farsight, Find Traps, Locate Creature, Locate Entity, Locate Object, Prying Eyes (Greater only) (+), Revelation (+), See Invisibility, True Seeing
Communication: A communication spell magically enhances communication between creatures, often by transcending linguistic barriers or distance.
Commune, Comprehend Languages, Dream (+), Nightmare (+), Prying Eyes (Greater) (+), Sending, Telepathic Bond (Mass) (+), Tongues
Knowledge: A knowledge spell grants the recipient information. Most knowledge spells give knowledge about the present, but some can reveal information about the future as well.
Analyze Dweomer (+), Augury, Commune with Nature, Discern Location, Discern Vulnerability, Divination, Find the Path, Foresight, Guidance, Identify, Know Direction, Legend Lore, Locate Creature, Locate Object, Moment of Prescience (Lesser/Greater), Object Reading, Precognition (Lesser/Greater), Read Magic, Revelation (+), True Strike, Vision
Scrying: A scrying spell creates an invisible magical sensor that sends you information. Unless noted otherwise, the sensor has the same powers of sensory acuity that you possess. This level of acuity includes any spells or effects that target you, but not spells or effects that emanate from you. However, the sensor is treated as a separate, independent sensory organ of yours, and thus it functions normally even if you have been blinded, deafened, or otherwise suffered sensory impairment.
Any creature trained in Spellcraft can notice the sensor by making a DC 20 Spellcraft check. The sensor can be dispelled as if it were an active spell. Lead sheeting or magical protection blocks a scrying spell, and you sense that the spell is so blocked.
Arcane Eye, Clairaudience/Clairvoyance, Scrying (Greater)
Spell Changes:
Spells added from other schools: Alarm (+), Darkvision, Dream (+), Nightmare (+), Sending
Spells moved to other schools: Prying Eyes (regular only)
New spells: Discern Vulnerability, Farsight, Locate Entity, Moment of Prescience (Lesser/Greater only), Precognition (Lesser/Greater), Revelation
Removed spells: Contact Other Plane, Detect Magic, Speak with Animals, Speak with Plants, Status, Stone Tell

ENCHANTMENT

Enchantment spells affect the minds of others, influencing or controlling their behavior or mental capabilities. Almost all enchantment spells are mind-affecting spells. There are four subschools of enchantment spells.
Compulsion: A compulsion spell forces the subject to act in a certain way. Some compulsion spells determine the subject’s actions or the effects on the subject, some compulsion spells allow you to determine the subject’s actions when you cast the spell, and others give you ongoing control over the subject.
Animal Messenger, Command (Greater), Confusion (Mass), Deep Slumber, Demand (+), Dominate Monster, Dominate Person, Geas/Quest (Lesser), Hideous Laughter, Hypnotic Pattern (+), Illusory Script (+), Insanity, Irresistible Dance, Power Word Confuse, Rainbow Pattern (+), Scintillating Pattern (+), Sleep (Mass), Song of Discord, Suggestion (Mass), Symbol of Insanity, Symbol of Sleep, Zone of Truth
Emotion: An emotion spell influences the subject's emotions.
Aid, Antipathy, Attraction, Aversion, Bane, Bless, Calm Emotions, Cause Fear, Charm Monster (Mass), Charm Person (Mass), Crushing Despair, Good Hope, Fear, Heroes' Feast (+), Heroism (Greater), Phantasmal Killer (+), Prayer, Rage, Remove Fear, Symbol of Fear, Symbol of Persuasion, Sympathy, Weird (+)
Inhibition: An inhibition spell impedes the functioning of the target's mind, typically preventing the target from acting.
Binding, Feeblemind, Hold Monster (Mass), Hold Person (Mass), Lullaby, Mind Fog (+), Power Word Blind, Power Word Stun, Sanctuary (+), Symbol of Stunning, Touch of Idiocy
No Subschool:
Glibness (+), Modify Memory
Spell Changes:
Spells added from other schools: Dream (+), Glibness (+), Heroes' Feast (+), Nightmare (+), Phantasmal Killer (+), Remove Fear, Sanctuary (+), Weird (+)
Spells moved to other schools: Power Word Kill
New spells: Attraction, Aversion, Cause Fear, Confusion (Mass only), Fear, Sleep (Mass only)
Removed spells: Animal Trance, Calm Animals, Charm Animal, Daze, Enthrall, Hypnotism, Confusion (Lesser), Daze Monster, Power Word Command

EVOCATION

Evocation spells create and manipulate energy and forces or tap into divine or other powers to produce a desired end. In effect, they create energy or effects, but not physical objects, out of nothing. Many of these spells produce spectacular effects, and evocation spells can deal large amounts of damage. There are three subschools of evocation spells.
Energy: An energy spell creates or manipulates energy, such as fire or electricity.
Burning Hands, Call Lightning (Storm), Chain Lightning, Cone of Cold (Lesser/Greater), Delayed Blast Fireball, Energy Conversion (+), Fire Shield (+), Fire Seeds (+), Fire Storm, Fireball, Fire Trap (+), Flame Strike (+), Flame Weapon, Flaming Sphere, Freezing Sphere, Heat Metal, Ice Storm (+), Incendiary Cloud (+), Lightning Bolt, Meteor Swarm, Polar Ray, Ray of Frost, Scorching Ray, Shatter, Shocking Grasp, Shout (Greater), Sound Burst, Storm of Vengeance(+), Sympathetic Vibration, Wall of Fire, Wall of Ice (+)
Channeling: A channeling spell channels divine or other power.
Align Weapon (+), Atonement, Blasphemy, Bless Water (+), Bless Weapon (+), Chaos Hammer, Consecrate, Curse Water (+), Desecrate, Dictum, Flame Strike (+), Hallow, Holy Smite, Holy Sword (+), Holy Word, Miracle, Order's Wrath, Unhallow, Unholy Blight, Word of Chaos
Control: A control spell manipulates forces and moves inanimate objects.
Blade Barrier, Clenched Fist, Control Water, Control Weather, Crushing Hand, Earthquake, Floating Disk, Forcecage, Forceful Hand, Grasping Hand, Gust of Wind, Hold Portal, Interposing Hand, Mage Armor (+), Knock, Levitate, Mage Hand, Mage's Sword, Magic Missile, Open/Close, Prismatic Sphere/Spray/Wall (+), Resilient Sphere, Reverse Gravity, Searing Light, Spiritual Weapon, Storm of Vengeance (+), Sunbeam, Sunburst, Telekinesis, Telekinetic Force/Maneuver/Sphere/Thrust, Tiny Hut, Wall of Force, Windstrike (Greater), Zephyr Blade (Greater) (+)
Spell Changes:
Spells added from other schools: Align Weapon (+), Atonement, Bless Water (+), Bless Weapon (+), Control Weather, Curse Water (+), Fire Seeds (+), Fire Trap (+), Hold Portal, Incendiary Cloud (+), Knock, Levitate, Mage Armor, Mage Hand, Open/Close, Prismatic Sphere (+), Prismatic Wall (+), Reverse Gravity, Storm of Vengeance (+), Telekinesis
Spells moved to other schools: Continual Flame, Dancing Lights, Darkness, Daylight, Faerie Fire, Invisibility Purge, Light, Sending
New spells: Cone of Cold (Lesser/Greater only), Energy Conversion (+), Flame Weapon (merged from Flame Blade and Produce Flame), Mage Armor (Greater only), Telekinetic Force/Maneuver/Thrust, Windstrike (Greater), Zephyr Blade (Greater)
Removed spells: Deeper Darkness, Flame Blade, Helping Hand, Imbue with Spell Ability, Produce Flame, Whirlwind, Wind Wall

ILLUSION

Illusion spells deceive the senses of others. They conceal things that exist or cause people to perceive things that do not exist. There are three subschools of illusion spells.
NOTE: Figments and shadows are no longer inherently unreal. Illusions which can be disbelieved gain the [Unreal] descriptor; any spell with the [Unreal] descriptor can be disbelieved by interaction. All rules baggage associated with disbelieving illusions is now explicitly tied to the [Unreal] descriptor, and any illusion without that descriptor cannot be disbelieved. This clarifies the ambiguity in the original rules; it was explicitly stated that all figments and glamers were "unreal", but many (such as Blur, Invisibility, and so on) could not be disbelieved. Now, Light is simply a figment that creates a real effect, while Darkness is a glamer that creates a real effect. This neatly ties the illumination and other sensory manipulation spells to existing subschools, where they fit very nicely, and clarifies to what degree they are real or unreal. Silence and Invisibility are now in the same subschool again, as they should be.
Figment: A figment spell creates a sensation out of thin air.
Color Spray, Continual Flame (+), Dancing Lights, Daylight, Faerie Fire, Flare, Ghost Sound, Hypnotic Pattern (+), Illusory Wall, Light, Magic Mouth, Major Image, Message, Minor Image, Mirror Image, Mislead (+), Permanent Image, Persistent Image, Programmed Image, Rainbow Pattern (+), Scintillating Pattern (+), Silent Image, Whispering Wind
Glamer: A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even disappear.
Blur, Darkness, Disguise Self, Displacement, False Vision, Hallucinatory Terrain, Illusory Script (+), Invisibility (Greater, Mass, Sphere), Magic Aura, Mirage Arcana, Misdirection, Mislead (+), Pass without Trace (+), Phantom Trap, Screen, Sculpt Sound, Seeming, Silence, Veil, Ventriloquism, Zone of Silence
Phantasm: A phantasm spell manipulates the subject's senses to create images or sensations that are not real. It creates personalized sensations, and no one else can observe the effect.
Dream (+), Nightmare (+), Phantasmal Killer (+), Phantom Maze, Weird (+)
Shadow: A shadow spell creates something that is partially real from extradimensional energy.
Project Image, Shades, Shadow Body (+), Shadow Conjuration/Evocation (Greater)
Spell Changes:
Spells added from other schools: Continual Flame, Dancing Lights, Darkness, Daylight, Faerie Fire, Light, Sculpt Sound
Spells moved to other schools: Dream, Nightmare, Phantasmal Killer, Shadow Walk, Weird
New spells: Phantom Maze, Shadow Body (+)
Removed spells: Simulacrum

NECROMANCY

Necromancy spells manipulate the power of life and death, as well as souls. Spells involving positive and negative energy belong to this school. There are three subschools of necromancy spells.
Flesh: A flesh spell affects the home of a creature's life energy: its body. Many flesh spells inflict physical disabilities.
Assimilate (+), Blindness/Deafness, Contagion, Delay Poison, Destruction, Ghoul Touch, Neutralize Poison, Power Word Blind, Ray of Clumsiness, Ray of Enfeeblement, Ray of Exhaustion, Remove Blindness/Deafness, Remove Disease, Restoration (Lesser/Greater), Symbol of Pain, Symbol of Weakness, Touch of Fatigue, Waves of Exhaustion, Waves of Fatigue
Life: A life spell manipulates the subject's life force directly.
Crush Life (Greater, Mass), Death Knell, Death Ward (Mass) (+), False Life, Finger of Death, Link Vitality (Mass), Power Word Kill, Share Pain (Forced) (+), Shield Other (Greater) (+), Slay Living, Spectral Hand, Transfer Suffering(Lesser/Mass), Symbol of Death, Vampiric Touch, Wail of the Banshee
Soul: A soul spell manipulates the subject's soul, either restoring it to its proper place or fragmenting it for terrible purposes.
Animate Dead (+), Astral Projection, Clone (+), Create Greater Undead (+), Create Undead (+), Reincarnate (+), Resurrection, Revivify, Soul Bind, Speak with Dead, Trap the Soul, True Resurrection
Vitalism: An vitalism spell channels positive or negative energy. This can be used to enhance or destroy a subject's life energy, or to manipulate creatures powered by negative energy.
Animate Dead (+), Chill Touch, Circle of Death, Command Undead, Control Undead, Create Greater Undead (+), Create Undead (+), Cure X Wounds (Mass), Disrupt Undead, Disrupting Weapon (+), Energy Drain, Enervation, Harm, Heal (Mass), Heal Mount, Inflict X wounds (Mass), Regenerate, Undeath to Death
No subschool:
Bestow Curse, Mark of Justice
Spell Changes:
Spells added from other schools: Death Ward (Mass) (+), Delay Poison, Cure X Wounds (Mass), Disrupting Weapon (+), Inflict X Wounds (Mass), Harm, Heal (Mass), Neutralize Poison, Power Word Kill, Raise Dead, Regenerate, Remove Blindness/Deafness, Remove Disease, Remove Paralysis, Restoration (Lesser/Greater), Resurrection, Trap the Soul, True Resurrection
Spells moved to other schools: Cause Fear, Fear, Gentle Repose, Symbol of Fear
New spells: Assimilate (+), Crush Life (Greater/Mass), Link Vitality (Mass), Ray of Clumsiness, Share Pain (Forced) (+), Shield Other (Greater only) (+), Transfer Suffering (Lesser/Mass), Revivify
Removed spells: Blight, Disrupt Undead, Doom, Eyebite, Halt Undead, Horrid Wilting, Magic Jar, Scare

TRANSMUTATION

Transmutation spells change the properties of creatures and objects. There are three subschools of transmutation spells.
Animation: An animation spell grants temporary "life" to an affected object.
Animate Objects, Animate Plants, Animate Rope, Changestaff (+), Entangle, Entangling Growth, Liveoak (+), Rope Trick (+), Shambler (+)
Alteration: An alteration spell changes the physical state of anything with a material form.
Arcane Mark, Changestaff (+), Disintegrate, Erase, Fabricate, Fertility/Infertility, Make Whole, Mending, Move Earth, Passwall, Plant Growth, Polymorph Any Object, Purify Food and Drink, Rusting Grasp, Secret Page, Shape Stone, Shape Wood, Shrink Item, Snare, Soften Earth and Stone, Spike Growth, Spike Stones, Transmute Flesh and Stone, Transmute Mud and Rock, Wall of Stone, Warp Wood
Augment: An augment spell enhances the existing physical or mental abilities of an object or creature.
Barkskin, Combat Transformation, Divine Favor, Divine Power, Expeditious Retreat, Glibness (+), Jump, Longstrider, Ironwood, Magic Fang (Greater), Magic Vestment, Magic Weapon (Greater), Righteous Might (+), Shillelagh, Stoneskin, Totemic Power (Mass), Totemic Mind (Mass)
Imbuement: An imbuement spell infuses an object or creature with magic, granting it new abilities.
Air Walk, Align Weapon (+), Arcane Lock (+), Backbiter, Bless Water (+), Bless Weapon (+), Disrupting Weapon (+), Feather Fall, Fire Seeds (+), Fly, Freedom (Mass), Overland Flight, Phantom Steed(+), Spellstaff, Spider Climb, Telepathic Bond (+), Vestments of the Mage, Water Breathing, Water Walk, Zephyr Blade (Greater) (+)
Polymorph: A polymorph spell changes a creature's body into a new form.
Animal Growth, Assimilate (+), Baleful Polymorph, Enlarge Person (Mass), Gaseous Form, Giant Vermin, Implosion, Iron Body, Meld into Stone, Oak Body, Reduce Person (Mass), Reincarnate (+), Righteous Might (+), Shadow Body (+), Statue, Tree Shape, Wind Walk
Temporal: A temporal spell manipulates time itself, speeding or slowing its passage for the subject.
Gentle Repose, Haste (Mass), Imprisonment (+), Slow (Mass), Temporal Stasis, Time Stop
Spell Changes:
Spells added from other schools: Arcane Lock (+), Arcane Mark, Divine Favor, Divine Power, Fire Seeds (+), Freedom, Gentle Repose, Implosion, Imprisonment (+), Phantom Steed (+), Shambler (+), Stoneskin, Telepathic Bond (+)
Spells moved to other schools: Blink, Control Water, Control Weather, Ethereal Jaunt, Etherealness, Heat Metal, Knock, Levitate, Mage Hand, Message, Open/Close, Pass without Trace, Reverse Gravity, Sculpt Sound, Telekinesis, Whispering Wind
New spells: Assimilate (+), Backbiter, Entangling Growth, Fertility/Infertility (merged from part of Diminish Plants and Plant Growth), Freedom (Mass only), Haste (Mass only), Oak Body, Shadow Body (+), Slow (Mass only) Totemic Power (Greater, Mass) (merged from Bear's Endurance, Bull's Strength, and Cat's Grace), Totemic Mind (Greater, Mass) (merged from Eagle's Splendor, Fox's Cunning, and Owl's Wisdom), Transmute Flesh and Stone (merged from Flesh to Stone and Stone to Flesh), Vestments of the Mage, Zephyr Blade (Greater)
Removed spells: Alter Self, Animal Shapes, Awaken, Bear's Endurance (Mass), Bull's Strength (Mass), Cat's Grace (Mass), Chill Metal, Command Plants, Control Plants, Control Winds, Diminish Plants, Eagle's Splendor (Mass), Flame Arrow, Flesh to Stone, Fox's Cunning (Mass), Goodberry, Keen Edge, Mage's Lucubration, Magic Stone, Mnemonic Enhancer, Owl's Wisdom (Mass), Polymorph, Pyrotechnics, Quench, Reduce Animal, Repel Wood, Shapechange, Stone to Flesh, Transformation, Transmute Metal to Wood, Virtue, Wood Shape
Renamed spells: Combat Transformation (formerly Transformation), Shape Stone (formerly Stone Shape), Shape Wood (formerly Wood Shape)

The Complete Spell Reformation (http://goo.gl/TsuoUh)
That's it. I'm sure I forgot some changes, but this essentially concludes the Spell Reformation. The only piece left is to actually post the completed work - all 86 pages worth. I have a PDF with everything in it (http://goo.gl/TsuoUh). If you want to see it in all of its glory, I strongly encourage you to download the PDF and spend some time reading through it. For the moment, that's the only way to look at the finished version.

However, I love you guys so much that I went to the trouble of converting every single spell into a forum-friendly format. It will take eight posts to avoid breaking the character limit, but it's done. It doesn't include rituals, arcane invocations, or anything that isn't a spell, but it's done. However, adding an extra nine or so posts in a row would be a fairly bizarre interlude into this thread. Therefore, I will soon create a new thread, the Complete Spell Reformation, which will contain all of the components of the Spell Reformation: the 75 Theses thread that started it, each of the five parts, and the eight or nine posts devoted to replicating the spells in a forum-friendly format. Once everything is in one place, it will be easier for newcomers to understand. Soon it will be complete...

For now, enjoy the complete Spell Reformation in PDF form (http://goo.gl/TsuoUh). I hope you like what you see.

UPDATE: The new thread, featuring the entirety of the Spell Reformation in a slightly less cluttered format, is up (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=307778). I apologize that I've posted so many separate threads on this topic; this is my first time creating a project of this scope on these forums, so I'm still learning how to organize things. I encourage you all to check it out - particularly the actual spells themselves!