Houserules Collection: are these a 3 or an 18? Magic

[lucky9]

I will be posting one change, or group of changes, at a time to hopefully allow for a little more discussion/ tweaks/ general thoughts, if you would be so kind:smallsmile:

A note before starting: I am aware that this edition is.. unstable, especially at higher levels. My rules don't necessarily aim to completely eliminate that issue, too large a task. What I'm going for is general playability, a certain feel I have about things, and of course, fun for all players including those running muggles. With that said, do let me know if I've horribly broken anything. Also, feel free to ask for any clarification.

Some tweaks for the magic system. Dangerous thing to play with indeed.. Anything I may not have considered? I don't believe making things slightly more difficult for full casters is necessarily the worst thing...
First up, my little beef with a certain rule. What do you think?
When casting a spell or spell-like ability, a character must use their flat-footed armor class, they may not cast defensively, and they do not threaten adjacent squares until the casting time has ended. No casting defensively rule.

Next, another thing I thought would make some sense for those directly manipulating the laws of space/time.
When casting spells with somatic components, the caster must have at least one hand free; however, the off hand is limited to holding a weapon with which the caster is proficient, or the specified spell focus, or a wand or a rod (not being used while casting the spell). Either of the caster's hands may handle any material components for the spell being cast.

I believe people may start counterspelling more often. Would this be alright, especially in light of my Sorcerer tweaks?
Counterspelling only requires that the caster expend a spell slot of a level equal to or greater than the spell to be countered, including metamagic increases of both spell slots; not a specific spell. The counterspell must however also have an equal or greater spell save DC. A Spellcraft check must still be made as normal.

Lastly, a clarification of a common-sense thing. Am I at all correct in that this is never explicitly written anywhere but maybe should be?
Voluntary summoning and/or shapeshifting spells and effects require the caster to have specific knowledge of the desired form. Roll appropriate Knowledge checks as if to identify the desired form when using it for the first time; or have previously encountered it.


Links to other rule sections:

General Rules
No xp Loss
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?584101-Houserules-Collection-are-these-a-3-or-an-18

Massive Damage Variants
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?584140-Houserules-Collection-are-these-a-3-or-an-18-Item-2

Size/ Space Sharing
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?584141-Houserules-Collection-are-these-a-3-or-an-18-Item-3
Races
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?584144-Houserules-Collection-are-these-a-3-or-an-18-Races

Classes
Multi-Classing
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?584145-Houserules-Collection-are-these-a-3-or-an-18-Classes

Classes w/ Minor Change
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?584150-Houserules-Collection-are-these-a-3-or-an-18-Classes-w-minor-tweaks

Bard Overhaul
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?584153-Houserules-Collection-are-these-a-3-or-an-18-Class-overhaul-Bard

Monk Overhaul
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?584154-Houserules-Collection-are-these-a-3-or-an-18-Class-overhaul-Monk

Sorcerer Overhaul
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?584155-Houserules-Collection-are-these-a-3-or-an-18-Class-overhaul-Sorcerer
Skills
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?584156-Houserules-Collection-are-these-a-3-or-an-18-Skills

Feats
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?584160-Houserules-Collection-are-these-a-3-or-an-18-Feats

[nonsi]

Spells with somatic components require that the caster have both hands free, other than the spell focus or material components; they may not wield a weapon, hold a buckler, etc. in either hand.

This kinda kills the image of a wizard and his trusty staff.
It can also be very annoying to have to sheath you dagger or throw away your staff in order to cast any spell with the somatic component.
Could lead to antagonism for both reasons. I strongly advise to think long and hard about this one.





Counterspelling only requires that the caster expend a spell slot of a level equal to or greater than the spell to be countered, including metamagic increases of both spell slots; not a specific spell. The counterspell must however also have an equal or greater spell save DC. A Spellcraft check must still be made as normal.

I'm not sure if finding more ways to make spellcasters significantly better than noncasters is a good design goal.
IIRC, officially, it takes an investment of about 4 feats (or PrC; not sure) to gain that capability.





Voluntary summoning and/or shapeshifting spells and effects require the caster to have specific knowledge of the desired form. Roll appropriate Knowledge checks as if to identify the desired form when using it for the first time; or have previously encountered it.


I'm all for it. Will significantly tone down the potential of shapeshifting-versatility abuse.

[Ashtagon]

I think a suitable workaround for the "hands free" wizard is that they should be able to invest a single object (typically a dagger or staff) as a personal focus. For purposes of spellcasting somatic components, that object no longer counts as occupying a hand, and as an added bonus, it could be used to deliver a spell that requires a touch attack. Naturally, a character can only have one of these at a time.

What the investment cost for making one of these, and whether clerics can have one, I leave as an open exercise.

[rferries]

When casting a spell or spell-like ability, a character must use their flat-footed armor class, they may not cast defensively, and they do not threaten adjacent squares until the casting time has ended. No casting defensively rule.

At low levels this is a bit unfair (wizards aren't yet overshadowing fighters at that point), and at high levels it encourages wizards to be even more over-optimised with protective buffs. Not really critical of it, just can't think of a better solution. I definitely salute the originality and flavour though!


Spells with somatic components require that the caster have both hands free, other than the spell focus or material components; they may not wield a weapon, hold a buckler, etc. in either hand.

Another clever and flavourful solution, though it clashes with the traditional staff-wielding Gandalf archetype.


Counterspelling only requires that the caster expend a spell slot of a level equal to or greater than the spell to be countered, including metamagic increases of both spell slots; not a specific spell. The counterspell must however also have an equal or greater spell save DC. A Spellcraft check must still be made as normal.

Very nice - anything that encourages wizards to support/protect their teammates rather than winning encounters themselves is always good. The =/> DC clause seems a bit awkward though.


Voluntary summoning and/or shapeshifting spells and effects require the caster to have specific knowledge of the desired form. Roll appropriate Knowledge checks as if to identify the desired form when using it for the first time; or have previously encountered it.

I love it - simple common sense and requires a build investment. Kudos!

[lucky9]

I'm not sure if finding more ways to make spellcasters significantly better than noncasters is a good design goal.
IIRC, officially, it takes an investment of about 4 feats (or PrC; not sure) to gain that capability.

Sorry, what have I quite likely overlooked? How does the ability to simply negate a spell, especially at the cost of an opponent's spell, make spellcasters even better?

***
Alright, you've all convinced me on the hands free:smallbiggrin: Rewording it

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Sorry, what have I quite likely overlooked? How does the ability to simply negate a spell, especially at the cost of an opponent's spell, make spellcasters even better?

Because it gives them an option they didn't have before, and makes characters who rely on other characters for spell support more vulnerable. Currently, investing in counterspelling takes a lot of resources so it's rarely used, and noncasters can rely on their allied casters to generally be able to help them out with spells without too much interference.

If more people can counterspell easily, yes, that's annoying for the casters, but it also means that PC noncasters are more at the mercy of enemy casters. Parties generally tend to run into either single powerful caster villains (who would have a higher save DC than the party casters, and so could easily counterspell PC casters but not be easily counterspelled themselves) or bunches of mook casters (who would be easily counterspelled by PC casters, but would be able to counterspell PC casters' lower-level spells and would have a lot more slots and actions to burn to do so). If a rogue needs some help getting out of a black tentacles but the Lich King keeps countering the party wizard when he tries to dispel it, or the fighter is in single-digit hit points and the half-dozen demon cultists keep counterspelling the party cleric's cure X wounds, the party noncasters are kinda screwed.

From a play perspective, too, I wouldn't recommend making counterspelling easier. It definitely sounds appealing to allow the stereotypical fire mage vs. ice mage duel or wizard vs. wizard beam spam, but having run for 3e parties with dedicated counterspellers and 5e parties with multiple casters who know counterspell, easy counterspelling tends to just make things frustrating for everyone involved more than it adds thematic depth.