Results 1 to 21 of 21
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Rogue Shadows's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default [3.5] Slower spell progression? PEACH

    Just a thought.

    As we all know, the big problem with the full spellcasting classes compared to the nonspellcasting classes is the fact that they can kind of warp all of reality with a few words.

    So here's my thought on that subject: drop the last two spell levels (8th and 9th) and make getting to the next spell level a slower affair, happening every 3 levels instead of every 2.

    Spoiler
    Show


    Once you actually gain a new spell level, spell progression for that level is the same. So for example, the Cleric has to wait until level 4 instead of level 3 to begin to cast 2nd-level spells, however, once he can, spells per day increase as normal (1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, etc).

    Sorcerers don't even notice the difference early on since they don't normally get 2nd-level spells until level 4, anyway (unlike the other three main casters).

    What This Means in Game Terms
    As near as I can tell it preserves the viability of noncasters and non-mainline casters for longer, since phenomenal cosmic power isn't available to casters as quickly. The effect is probably minimal or even nonexistant at the lowest levels (1-5) an only really starts to set it and around level 6.

    Casters have a harder time metamagic'ing up their spells to get obscene effects, but spells themselves are still as hard to resist as they used to be, since Caster Level is unchanged.

    Monsters with good saves or spell resistance are slightly deadlier since the spells hitting them are going to be somewhat lower-level than the system was balanced for, but I'm not certain that any special care needs to be taken per se.

    Healing becomes a little harder since, for example, clerics don't get cure serious wounds until level 7 instead of level 5, and cure critical has to wait for level 10 instead of level 7.

    True Dragons (and other monsters that gain spells like a member of a class) are slightly weaker.

    I don't think this has any effect on magic item prices, but I could be wrong. However, players do now have to spend more money to hire people to cast spells. Also the treasure tables might have to be changed to remove scrolls, wands, and whatnot that would normally allow for 8th and 9th level casting.

    The only major change I can think of is the Tarrasque. It is now impossible for even 20th-level characters to kill since it takes a wish or miracle to keep it dead according to its entry. Which doesn't seem like too great a loss: it just means that the Tarrasque now has to wait for epic levels.

    Bringing 8th and 9th level spells back
    Characters continue to gain spell levels every three levels and their spells progress as shown on the tables above. So in other words characters gain 8th level spells at 22nd level, and 9th level spells at 25th level.

    Final Thoughts
    The drawback is, of course, that these characters don't just lose high-level spells; they lose the number of spells they get per day.

    So it might not be a bad idea to increase all such character's spells per day maximum by one. So, for example, a sorcerer instead of capping out at 6 1st-level spells per day (plus Cha) at level 4, caps out at 7 1st-level spells per day at level 5. He gets 7 2nd-level spells per day at 8th level. And so on.

    Bards, rangers, and paladins might be slightly stronger than before, but I don't think so.

    I dunno, just a thought.
    Last edited by Rogue Shadows; 2011-06-27 at 08:37 PM.

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2009

    Default Re: [3.5] Slower spell progression? PEACH

    It's an option, but firstly will require a lot of rebalancing (for instance, getting Death Ward at level 10 instead of 7 can make a huge difference for the CR of certain monsters, and especially undead), and secondly is a pretty big change which still doesn't address things like the relative weakness of evokers.

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Orc in the Playground
     
    DruidGirl

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: [3.5] Slower spell progression? PEACH

    but spells themselves are still as hard to resist as they used to be, since Caster Level is unchanged.
    So I take it that the save DC against these spells relies on caster level rather than spell level? Because this isn't specified. Even if not, the difference would indeed not exist, because, at the moment, save DC's are spell level dependent.

    I propose to make the DC to save against a spell 10+half caster lvl+casting stat mod. This may prompt people to use low-level spells a bit more.

    Another proposition I would make is non-linear spell number progression. At the start of a game, one of the main problems with casters (which makes them very uninteresting) is that they generally have only 2-3 spells per day (which easily fail due to missed rolls and saves). Later on, this problem falls away as casters gain many, many spells.
    My proposition is to at least double a caster's first level spells. add about one half the current number of second level spells. Then one fourth of third level spells, and then keep it linear (and as it is right now) from there on.

    The combination of the two propositions (increase the number of early-level spells ánd level out the save DC's to benefit the lower level spells) will solve many of the problem that first-to-fifth level casters face at this moment. Trimming down the number of spell levels, however, and slow down the spell level progression solves many of the late-level problems.

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Rogue Shadows's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: [3.5] Slower spell progression? PEACH

    Quote Originally Posted by Dryad View Post
    So I take it that the save DC against these spells relies on caster level rather than spell level? Because this isn't specified. Even if not, the difference would indeed not exist, because, at the moment, save DC's are spell level dependent.

    I propose to make the DC to save against a spell 10+half caster lvl+casting stat mod. This may prompt people to use low-level spells a bit more.
    Well, no, I was thinking that it's still 10 + spell level + stat mod. My point was that fireball is still a 3rd level spell so its save DC is still 13+stat.

    My proposition is to at least double a caster's first level spells. add about one half the current number of second level spells. Then one fourth of third level spells, and then keep it linear (and as it is right now) from there on.
    So...for example, changing the Sorcerer table to look like...
    Spoiler
    Show


    Mmn...I'm not sure I like the idea of doubling casting outright. Some 1st level spells are really good at low levels...

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Orc in the Playground
     
    DruidGirl

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: [3.5] Slower spell progression? PEACH

    Mmn...I'm not sure I like the idea of doubling casting outright. Some 1st level spells are really good at low levels...
    True, but because of their severe limit of daily uses at low levels, people tend to be so conservative with their spells that they hardly use them at all. :P
    Even so, the powerful buffs have a short duration, and there are no useful offensive spells (apart from perhaps colour spray and/or sleep) in core.

    Well, no, I was thinking that it's still 10 + spell level + stat mod. My point was that fireball is still a 3rd level spell so its save DC is still 13+stat.
    This brings two problems, one of which already exists:
    1: It's not worth casting low-level spells, because they'll be saved against anyway (already exists). It's really not worth it to cast a second-level offensive spell against an 18th level enemy, because they'll make their save anyway (unless it's a (ranged) touch attack). This really is a shame, because you're effectively losing most of your spells.
    2: A lvl 20 caster can cast up to 7th level spells, so the save DC against a lvl 20 caster effectively drops by 10%, which is a lot.

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Hazzardevil's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    What's this planet again?
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: [3.5] Slower spell progression? PEACH

    Quote Originally Posted by Dryad View Post
    True, but because of their severe limit of daily uses at low levels, people tend to be so conservative with their spells that they hardly use them at all. :P
    Even so, the powerful buffs have a short duration, and there are no useful offensive spells (apart from perhaps colour spray and/or sleep) in core.


    This brings two problems, one of which already exists:
    1: It's not worth casting low-level spells, because they'll be saved against anyway (already exists). It's really not worth it to cast a second-level offensive spell against an 18th level enemy, because they'll make their save anyway (unless it's a (ranged) touch attack). This really is a shame, because you're effectively losing most of your spells.
    2: A lvl 20 caster can cast up to 7th level spells, so the save DC against a lvl 20 caster effectively drops by 10%, which is a lot.
    I agree with you there, I played a first level campaign as a pathfinder witch and only casted 2 spells, summon monster with a zombie that I thought would be a boss fight and got killed by the paladin in one hit and a CLW spell that was used to heal the paladin after an ambush with a hobgoblin.
    My extended signature.
    Thanks to the wonderful Ceika for my signature.
    Quote Originally Posted by Chained Birds View Post
    Just one of those guys vs girls things. Guys like giant, fighting robots that shoot lazerz out their eyes while girls like pretty jewelry that sparkle in the moonlight after having a romantic interlude with a charming gentleman.

    Completely sexist, yes! Completely true, pretty much...
    I have Steam cards and other stuff! I am selling/trading them.

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Rogue Shadows's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: [3.5] Slower spell progression? PEACH

    Quote Originally Posted by Dryad View Post
    This brings two problems, one of which already exists:
    1: It's not worth casting low-level spells, because they'll be saved against anyway (already exists). It's really not worth it to cast a second-level offensive spell against an 18th level enemy, because they'll make their save anyway (unless it's a (ranged) touch attack). This really is a shame, because you're effectively losing most of your spells.
    2: A lvl 20 caster can cast up to 7th level spells, so the save DC against a lvl 20 caster effectively drops by 10%, which is a lot.
    To the first point, that's true, but on the other hand I don't think I really want a high-CR monster or enemy to be just as vulnerable to color spray as he is to power word blind; since under your proposal both have the same save DC. It drastically increases the number of options available to casters, which seems counter-intuitive in a system trying to limit the options of spellcasters.

    To the second point, that doesn't seem like too much of a problem to me once you take things like Spell Focus (blah) and high casting stats into account. 10% isn't a lot when you're looking at a 7th level spell having a save DC of 26 anyway (10 + 7 + 7 [stat, not unreasonable when considering magic items] + 2 [spell focus and greater spell focus]).

    That'd mean that the creature has to have a base saving throw of +16 to have a 50% chance of making the save. The only monsters in the core rulebook that get that high are the really, really powerful ones anyway - the most powerful demons, dragons, devils, and celestials. And even then, not all of them. The Aboleth Mage from MMI, for example, has its saves cap out at +15 to Fortitude and Will (and +10 to Reflex) despite being CR 17.

    But I did consider that higher-level monsters might be harder. The solution is easy enough: use lower-level encounters.

    In the case of NPCs, all of the core classes aside from Monk have at least one bad save that could be targeted by casters. You'll never hit the Fighter's Fortitude, so target Reflex or Will instead. Sure, he's 10% more likely to make the save, but in all likelyhood that's 10% up from previously having a 0% chance.
    Last edited by Rogue Shadows; 2011-06-28 at 09:56 AM.

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Siosilvar's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    USA
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: [3.5] Slower spell progression? PEACH

    This is an idea I've had before, but I never really went anywhere with it. I don't think I have my original notes to share any more, though.

    Spell resistance isn't affected at all, because that's always been a straight caster level check.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rogue Shadows View Post
    Well, no, I was thinking that it's still 10 + spell level + stat mod. My point was that fireball is still a 3rd level spell so its save DC is still 13+stat.
    Mm.... I think you'll run into problems there.

    Namely, good saves are 2+1/2 level+stat, and DCs used to be 10+1/2 level+stat, assuming highest-level spell use. Now they're 10+1/3 level+stat - which makes targeting the "right" save all the more important for casters that use spells with saving throws, since DCs fall behind 1 point per 5 levels compared to standard 3.5. Spell Focus may see more use. No-save spells will almost assuredly see more use.
    she/her/her(s)

    Omnia Vincit Amor

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2009

    Default Re: [3.5] Slower spell progression? PEACH

    Quote Originally Posted by Dryad View Post
    I propose to make the DC to save against a spell 10+half caster lvl+casting stat mod. This may prompt people to use low-level spells a bit more.
    On the flip side, that greatly decreases the worth of the "limited spell slots" balancing feature...of course, the slower progression might make that unneeded anyway. It'd require a lot of playtesting to get right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dryad View Post
    and there are no useful offensive spells (apart from perhaps colour spray and/or sleep) in core.
    There's also direct damage. Sure, it's weaker than some other stuff, but that other stuff is the source of the overpowered problem.

    2: A lvl 20 caster can cast up to 7th level spells, so the save DC against a lvl 20 caster effectively drops by 10%, which is a lot.
    So cast something with a save for partial. Or just keep trying...a medium or high chance to win with a single spell is overpowered anyway.

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Rogue Shadows's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: [3.5] Slower spell progression? PEACH

    Quote Originally Posted by Yitzi View Post
    There's also direct damage. Sure, it's weaker than some other stuff, but that other stuff is the source of the overpowered problem.
    A quick note that's somewhat related to this. I've been debating moving the cure and inflict spells from conjuration over to either evocation or necromancy (probably necromancy - but they are leaving conjuration). And in fact going over all the spells and re-schooling a lot of them. Cause fear? Enchantment.

    Thoughts?
    Last edited by Rogue Shadows; 2011-06-28 at 10:19 AM.

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Orc in the Playground
     
    DruidGirl

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: [3.5] Slower spell progression? PEACH

    To the first point, that's true, but on the other hand I don't think I really want a high-CR monster or enemy to be just as vulnerable to color spray as he is to power word blind; since under your proposal both have the same save DC. It drastically increases the number of options available to casters, which seems counter-intuitive in a system trying to limit the options of spellcasters.
    Actually, the example of Colour Spray has a HD limit, if I remember correctly. It doesn't work above 4HD.

    To the second point, that doesn't seem like too much of a problem to me once you take things like Spell Focus (blah) and high casting stats into account. 10% isn't a lot when you're looking at a 7th level spell having a save DC of 26 anyway (10 + 7 + 7 [stat, not unreasonable when considering magic items] + 2 [spell focus and greater spell focus]).
    As strange as it sounds, the d20 game does not take bonusses into account at all. You see, the whole point is to keep more-or-less the same chances throughout the game. That's why when you increase in power, so does the DM's choice of enemies.
    That's what bonusses do.
    However, when you lower certain bonusses, this has exactly the same effect as raising the bonusses of the enemies, in the case of saves vs. DC. When everything is added, the bonusses should roughly cancel one-another out, and then the resulting number should mimic a naked die-roll with a 50% chance to win out. Roughly. It's the trick to get your bonusses slightly better than the saves, so that you, the attacker, have a slight advantage over the defender, knocking your chances into the 60-40 area.
    This is why the resulting 'nerf' will always be roughly 10%. You could ask yourself: How good is an additional +2 to hit versus an equal opponent, in armour class things? It's pretty good. It knocks chances in your favour, with the whole 60-40 area thing. It changes 10+ to 8+.

    On the flip side, that greatly decreases the worth of the "limited spell slots" balancing feature...of course, the slower progression might make that unneeded anyway. It'd require a lot of playtesting to get right.
    I've mentioned this elsewhere, but this 'balancing' feature is part of what's wrong with the game. It should be balanced around power; not around economy. Not around allowance. This limit makes spellcasters boring despite their versatility, and while it still allows for enormous power, the power is fleeting. Making the entire picture unbalanced in power, to the caster's advantage. And this is what counts in the encounters.
    However, it also causes a short duration of their 'existence:' once the limited spells are all used, a caster just sits there, and, effectively, stops existing on the playing field.
    To be honest, it's not a balancing feature at all. It's a major disadvantage to excuse a major advantage. But while the caster has spells, she's too powerful. And when she runs dry, she's useless. Rather than making it balanced, it causes two separate balance problems. Characters should never be useless (unless dead), and their presence should never render other characters useless, either.

    There's also damage.
    A standard action to deal 5d6 damage is not damage at tenth level. It's pop-corn, especially if you can't hit the opponent, or they save (even if for half). Magic Missiles deals a max of what; 5d4+5, is auto-hit, and can, with the proper meta-magic feats, do some damage... But still not much.
    So cast something with a save for partial. Or just keep trying...a medium or high chance to win with a single spell is overpowered anyway.
    No.. A spell with even a medium chance of failure is simply a waste of time for everyone. Unless you do funky stuff with quickening spells and such, you only get a single spell each round (while the other person with a weapon can make up for failed rolls by making more rolls, because of the number of attacks per round), and it eats away at your limit without any kind of compensation.
    It's boring, and severely dissuading.

    A quick note that's somewhat related to this. I've been debating moving the cure and inflict spells from conjuration over to either evocation or necromancy (probably necromancy - but they are leaving conjuration). And in fact going over all the spells and re-schooling a lot of them. Cause fear? Enchantment.
    Completely agreed. I never understood why cure and inflict spells were moved out of Necromancy in the first place. And uhuh; Fear should be Enchantment. :D
    Last edited by Dryad; 2011-06-28 at 10:25 AM.

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Rogue Shadows's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: [3.5] Slower spell progression? PEACH

    Quote Originally Posted by Dryad View Post
    Actually, the example of Colour Spray has a HD limit, if I remember correctly. It doesn't work above 4HD.
    Alright, color spray's a bad example. Hang on, let me get some other 1st-level examples: grease, charm person, ray of enfeeblement, and reduce person are, under your proposal, just as effective as insanity, power word blind, prismatic spray, finder of death, symbol of weakness, and reverse gravity against any given opponent.

    So again: drastically more options in any given fight.

    However, it also causes a short duration of their 'existence:' once the limited spells are all used, a caster just sits there, and, effectively, stops existing on the playing field.
    Y'know, to be fair, the caster still has a weapon and could help set up flanks.

    Plus the caster doesn't stop being useful once all spells are cast; he stops being useful once all the spell's durations have expired, which is slightly different.

    Besides, that's kind of the point of the caster, isn't it? At the start of the day the caster can out-damage anyone; that's the whole point. But as the day wears on they become less and less useful, while the Fighter or Rogue still remain at more or less 100% combat effectiveness.

    Wandering monsters and all that jazz.

    To be honest, it's not a balancing feature at all. It's a major disadvantage to excuse a major advantage.
    We call those balancing features, dear.

    No.. A spell with even a medium chance of failure is simply a waste of time for everyone. Unless you do funky stuff with quickening spells and such, you only get a single spell each round (while the other person with a weapon can make up for failed rolls by making more rolls, because of the number of attacks per round), and it eats away at your limit without any kind of compensation.
    It's boring, and severely dissuading.
    Uh, no. A spell with a 50% chance of failure and a 50% chance of success sounds like a perfectly good spell to me. And shouldn't it sound like a good spell to you as well? What happened to that whole "50-50" thing you were talking about?

    Also, the Fighter's attacks are simply attacks; a spell, however, goes beyond simple damage. So you can do less per round but do more with those actions. Sounds good.
    Last edited by Rogue Shadows; 2011-06-28 at 10:46 AM.

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Orc in the Playground
     
    DruidGirl

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: [3.5] Slower spell progression? PEACH

    Alright, color spray's a bad example. Hang on, let me get some other 1st-level examples: grease, charm person, ray of enfeeblement, and reduce person are, under your proposal, just as effective as insanity, power word blind, prismatic spray, finder of death, symbol of weakness, and reverse gravity against any given opponent.

    So again: drastically more options in any given fight.
    I see your point. A lot of spells would become useless.
    Maybe a good reason to get rid of them, then.

    We call those balancing features, dear.
    It isn't, though.
    To give an example:
    I'm creating a class that starts out with 2d6 Sneak Attack damage, and can dual-wield greatswords without penalties. Pretty powerful at level 1, right? So it needs a weakness. Right. Let's give this class a HP progression of 1 per level.
    That's not balance, now is it? That's making up an excuse to have an überpower.
    To balance things out, there has to be internal balance as well as external balance. That means that abilities need to be toned down in order to make them acceptable; that offensive abilities have a hidden scaling with defender's sterdiness. Mundane creatures tend to have this to some extent; weapon dice have synergy with the defender's hit dice, and their modifiers have synergy with the defender's modifiers.

    Giving someone a ridiculous power (like ninth level spells as they are now) cannot be rectified by giving someone a handicap elsewhere. Instant-kills will still be instant-kills. Sure; you can only be a deity for a minute straight, but since the huge opponent won't be there after six seconds to take revenge, the draw-back is completely academical. Sure; it's easy to kill a caster once she runs out of spells, but by that time, everyone who could kill her is already dead, so that really doesn't matter.


    Uh, no. A spell with a 50% chance of failure and a 50% chance of success sounds like a perfectly good spell to me. And shouldn't it sound like a good spell to you as well? What happened to that whole "50-50" thing you were talking about?
    The 50-50 thing is still there. Like I also pointed out: The trick is to get the numbers to work in your favour.

    Also, the Fighter's attacks are simply attacks; a spell, however, goes beyond simple damage. So you can do less per round but do more with those actions. Sounds good.
    Maybe, but at least the fighter gets to do something every round. Statistically, the caster would, apart from fail-saves like buffs, spend HALF of her turns doing... Nothing.

    That is, at least to me, a much less than appealing play-style. It's too all-or-nothing. It offers the reward of being absolutely godly awesome when it works, but at the same time, there's the drawback of being absolutely useless when it doesn't.
    Last edited by Dryad; 2011-06-28 at 10:59 AM.

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Orc in the Playground
     
    DruidGirl

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: [3.5] Slower spell progression? PEACH

    *Double post; please delete*
    Last edited by Dryad; 2011-06-28 at 10:59 AM.

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Rogue Shadows's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: [3.5] Slower spell progression? PEACH

    Quote Originally Posted by Dryad View Post
    Giving someone a ridiculous power (like ninth level spells as they are now) cannot be rectified by giving someone a handicap elsewhere. Instant-kills will still be instant-kills. Sure; you can only be a deity for a minute straight, but since the huge opponent won't be there after six seconds to take revenge, the draw-back is completely academical. Sure; it's easy to kill a caster once she runs out of spells, but by that time, everyone who could kill her is already dead, so that really doesn't matter.
    A fair point, I suppose. But that brings up a fundamental flaw that goes beyond simply the gaming table and any mechanical rules.

    An 18th level wizard should be able to warp all of reality with their spells. That's the whole point of the class. If I was 20th level - if I was one step removed from becoming a demigod - I had better be able to cast things like control weather and limited wish.

    But, D&D is not meant to be an accurate portrayal of the life and times of a fantasy world. It's a game, which means that there needs to be a certain amount of balance between an 18th level Fighter and an 18th level Wizard.

    So how do you go about achieving that balance using the 3.5 Vancian magic system?

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Orc in the Playground
     
    DruidGirl

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: [3.5] Slower spell progression? PEACH

    I think the first step in that is...
    Changing our attitude towards Vancian (Arcane) magic and what it should or should not do.
    Personally, I like the idea that mages can do all sorts of things, change all sorts of things, do magic!
    But.. Warp reality the way they do in DnD? That's a bit too much for my liking. I don't see why anyone should ever attain demi-god status, or even come close to that.
    It's a problem I have with DnD, to be honest... Maybe even a pet-peeve. I refer to it as the 'superhero-complex,' since I really really hate superheroes or other means of Deus Ex Machina. Being able to do anything you want kind of strips the world of it's immersion-qualities, or its wonder, and therefore, of its magic. Too much magic makes worlds very dull.

    IF you would agree with me on that, it's a far easier deal: Make magic simply less powerful in scaling. Smaller steps in increasing their power. Limit the use of it, limit the number of spells that overlap anyway, remove a lot of spells, and have spells set up in four distinct schools: Buff, Crowd Control, Damage, Utility. Utility would be things like magic item creation, conjuring materials, travelling spells and so on. Buffs would just increase player's stats/AC/damage output, Crowd Control would limit enemy's movements, charm...
    Well; basically, much like it is right now, but more distinct than it is now.
    Also, make magic less... Mundane.
    As it is now, you can summons phantom steeds, monsters, castles... I see absolutely no reason why (or how) magic could do that. Bending reality; sure. Summoning a horse? That's a different kind of tea. I don't know if you're at all aware of the Wheel of Time roleplaying game? I would propose magic to be more like the One Power (sans balefire, obviously).

    Anyway; yeah.. That's kind of my take on magic. In order to keep it special, it can't be too much, or too bizarre.

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Rogue Shadows's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: [3.5] Slower spell progression? PEACH

    Quote Originally Posted by Dryad View Post
    It's a problem I have with DnD, to be honest... Maybe even a pet-peeve. I refer to it as the 'superhero-complex,' since I really really hate superheroes or other means of Deus Ex Machina. Being able to do anything you want kind of strips the world of it's immersion-qualities, or its wonder, and therefore, of its magic. Too much magic makes worlds very dull.
    Part of this might stem from the fact that people have lost sight of the fact that a 5th level character is, in real world terms, really, really powerful. Einstein was probably only 5th level. Even Aragorn was probably only 5th level, based on what he's shown as being able to do in the books.

    More emphasis needs to be placed on the lower levels and how special achieving 6th level really is.

    Well; basically, much like it is right now, but more distinct than it is now.
    I think there basically needs to be less combat-useful reality warping spells. More spells with long casting times (on the order of minutes or hours or even days). Lots of rituals. A lot more focus on spell components.

    As it is now, you can summons phantom steeds, monsters, castles... I see absolutely no reason why (or how) magic could do that. Bending reality; sure. Summoning a horse? That's a different kind of tea. I don't know if you're at all aware of the Wheel of Time roleplaying game? I would propose magic to be more like the One Power (sans balefire, obviously).

    Anyway; yeah.. That's kind of my take on magic. In order to keep it special, it can't be too much, or too bizarre.
    To some extent. To another extent, to be perfectly honest my favorite of the published campaign settings is Eberron.

    Although, having said that, in Eberron, low-level magic is everywhere. High-level magic is considerably rarer. 6th level is a major achievement.

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Orc in the Playground
     
    DruidGirl

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: [3.5] Slower spell progression? PEACH

    More emphasis needs to be placed on the lower levels and how special achieving 6th level really is.
    I.. Can only agree.
    I think there basically needs to be less combat-useful reality warping spells. More spells with long casting times (on the order of minutes or hours or even days). Lots of rituals. A lot more focus on spell components.
    This could actually be the key to the caster problem. Magic should take skill and concentration, so the really powerful stuff is simply too hard to do in combat.
    It might make casters rare in a group of adventurers, but...
    I would really love this.
    Maybe minus the focus on spell components. I never got why you needed special materials in order to warp reality with your mind.

  19. - Top - End - #19
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Rogue Shadows's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: [3.5] Slower spell progression? PEACH

    Quote Originally Posted by Dryad View Post
    Maybe minus the focus on spell components. I never got why you needed special materials in order to warp reality with your mind.
    Well, for wizards anyway, you're not precisely using just your mind, are you? You're exploiting loopholes in the rules of the universe. Bugs. That kind of thing.

    Basically you've found out that if you take this and take that and do this in just the right way, you can create flame without flint or tinder.
    Last edited by Rogue Shadows; 2011-06-28 at 11:55 AM.

  20. - Top - End - #20
    Orc in the Playground
     
    DruidGirl

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: [3.5] Slower spell progression? PEACH

    That's.. Fair enough, I guess.

  21. - Top - End - #21
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2009

    Default Re: [3.5] Slower spell progression? PEACH

    Quote Originally Posted by Rogue Shadows View Post
    A quick note that's somewhat related to this. I've been debating moving the cure and inflict spells from conjuration over to either evocation or necromancy (probably necromancy - but they are leaving conjuration). And in fact going over all the spells and re-schooling a lot of them. Cause fear? Enchantment.

    Thoughts?
    Much of the time it doesn't make that much difference (IIRC, cure was necromancy back in 2E, and inflict still is necromancy.) Making fear effects into enchantment rather than necromancy does make quite a bit of sense.
    There are also a few others that could use changes; Death Ward probably makes more sense as abjuration than as necromancy, for instance. Just make sure that unless you're moving a whole subschool you make sure you know the reason for the old placement before fiddling.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •