G&G: Magic

[Eldan]

Okay, slightly longer suggestion.

There are spell points, power points, whatever we call them.

Wizards have few power points, more powers, but they have to prepare their spells. Their spells are prepared, which takes, say, a few minutes per spell, then they are triggered as a full-round action for their highest-level spells, then progressively faster for lower-level spells.

Sorcerers have more power points, fewer powers and cast spontaneously without preparing. Their spells are cast with a full round casting time (that's longer than a full-round action), then going slower.

Clerics, I'm not sure about. I could see both prepared or spontaneous.

Paladins, I think, should be divine half-casters with spontaneous spells. Same for rangers.

Bards.. I'm not sure. I'm actually tempted to make them prepared casters. It seems to fit with their loremaster status.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I suggest that, in the interests of comparability and not rewriting every spell in the game, we use the spell point mechanic from my sorcerer fix.

Arcana- A sorcerer doesn’t use spell slots, as most spellcasters do. Instead, he has a certain number of arcana points per day, as indicated on the table above. Each time he casts a spell, he must pay a certain number of arcana points, based on the level of the spell he is casting, as indicated on the table below. If he does not have sufficient points, he cannot cast the spell. While waking and active, a sorcerer regains a number of arcana points per hour equal to his Constitution modifier. Eight hours of sleep (or trancing, or meditating, if the sorcerer is of a race that doesn't normally sleep) is sufficient to regain all expended arcana points. If awakened prematurely, a sleeping sorcerer can be judged to have regained Contitution modifier points per hour, as normal, plus an additional 10 points per hour spent sleeping.

A sorcerer may apply metamagic feats to his spells. If he does, he must pay the arcana cost for a spell of the modified level (although he does not increase the casting time). For example, an empowered magic missile would normally use up a 3rd level slot, so a sorcerer must pay 5 arcana points to cast the spell.

0-level spells (cantrips) do not cost any arcana to cast, and a sorcerer can cast all 0-level sorcerer spells he knows at will. However, if he casts more than (Constitution Modifier) cantrips in a single minute, he must spend one arcana point.

{table]Spell Level|0 lv|1st|2nd|3rd|4th|5th|6th|7th|8th|9th
Arcana Cost|0|1|3|5|7|9|11|13|15|17[/table]

Arcana points may only be used to cast sorcerer spells. Any prestige class that advances spellcasting also advances arcana. Items or abilities that grant bonus spell slots grant an equivalent amount of bonus arcane, as shown on the table above.

Basically, the spells auto-scale.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Okay, slightly longer suggestion.

There are spell points, power points, whatever we call them.

Wizards have few power points, more powers, but they have to prepare their spells. Their spells are prepared, which takes, say, a few minutes per spell, then they are triggered as a full-round action for their highest-level spells, then progressively faster for lower-level spells.

Sorcerers have more power points, fewer powers and cast spontaneously without preparing. Their spells are cast with a full round casting time (that's longer than a full-round action), then going slower.

Clerics, I'm not sure about. I could see both prepared or spontaneous.

Paladins, I think, should be divine half-casters with spontaneous spells. Same for rangers.

Bards.. I'm not sure. I'm actually tempted to make them prepared casters. It seems to fit with their loremaster status.

I veto extending casting times on the basis of fun. A few spells can be longer-- summons and the like-- but for common spells? No. We're nerfing magic in and boosting non-mages in enough ways that we don't need to do that.

Sorcerer/Wizard split, yes. Clerics, let's see a similar split-- a spontaneous (from domains only?) and a prepared caster. Paladins and rangers as spontaneous, yes. Bards... I don't see prepared. They're not loremasters, they just know things because they're been everywhere and talked to everyone.

[Eldan]

I think longer casting times only become problematic once it takes more than a round. What's the problem with a spell taking all round?

[Grod_The_Giant]

Well, you were talking about all sorcerer spells taking one round or longer to cast. Full-round actions are... OK, at least for the top level or two of spells, but it strikes me as being too similar to the full-attack problem.

I dunno, maybe I'm having a knee-jerk reaction because of my experience as a caster in Exalted, but... I think that the nerfs we're putting in-- casting checks, condition tracks, 5-foot step nerf and spell rewrites-- will be enough to balance things with the non-crappy mundane classes we'll be making. And the more we gimp casters in things like action economy, the more pressing the urge to optimize to subvert it will be.

[Eldan]

Well, I'm still against casting checks, really. And so far, the casters are still far more versatile than anyone else.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Here's the thing about casting checks: for literally every other action in the game, you need to roll a die. Attacking a dude with a sword? Roll for it. Climbing a wall? Roll for it. Want to know what that thing with all the teeth and tentacles and tooth-tentacles is? Roll for it. Why should magic be the exception? And how many new players have you seen say "I cast this spell" and start rolling a die?

I'm not talking about anything really complicated. Just a simple d20+CL verses 10+ spell level *2. On a fail, you waste the action but not the spell. Just like a mundane can fail to connect with a sword strike, you can fail to bend reality to your will.

[Eldan]

Ah, well. Fair enough then.

[Eldan]

Okay, then. To sum up: Spell points, spell checks, minimal casting times, different recharge times based on activity.

Questions: do we want to base it on constitution? I think we already said that we want to take wisdom or charisma into it, that would make the total three attributes. Plus, what about negative constitution modifiers?

As for metamagic: I think we might go with the psionic approach of adding a fixed higher PP cost. That would make metamagic a bit more playable.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I was thinking it could be a function of wisdom and constitution, representing mental and physical endurance, but it can vary by class, if we want.

Also, I do like Deepbluediver's "Base Magic Bonus" as a substitute for Caster Level.

[Eldan]

And why can't we just call that "Caster level"? It's almost the same, after all.

As for stats: I'd say two per class.

Wizard: Intelligence/Wisdom or Intelligence/Charisma?

Sorcerer: Charisma/constitution.

Cleric: Wisdom/Charisma.

Paladin: charisma/constitution.

Ranger: wisdom/constitution.

Bard: Charisma/intelligence.

Things that depend on attribute:
Number of points. Point regeneration. Highest level spell. DCs. Four things, two stats. Which two do we group? Number of Points and Regeneration need to be separated. So, regeneration/DC and number of points/spell level?

[Deepbluediver]

Well, discussion in the main thread seems to be almost back to square one. Questions we need answered:

Unlimited spells per day, slots or points?
Casting checks, yes or no?

I see that the discussion has gone on a little bit from this point, but I want to jump in with a few comments anway, before I get to the more recent stuff.

I don't know if you are going to include psionics in your new version of 3.5, but I would say that if some one really wants to use a point system then I would encourage them to just use a psionic character. I don't mind scrapping something traditional if it mechanically doesn't work, but I'm reluctant to let go of the established system just because you don't like the fluff (or can't think of any good fluff, because admitedly there is a a lot of "it just is" in core).
Overall though I wouldn't consider this a deal breaker.

What I really would object to is unlimited spells per day. To me, one of the biggest checks on a caster's power, and part of the reason I condede the versatility battle to them is that they can't do everything all the time. Yes, some things in the game have (theoretically) no limits, most of them are balanced in other ways. For example, it's rare in my experience that you can break a campaign with unlimted skill checks (ignoring Diplomacy as so obviously broken I wonder how it ever got past QC). Most skill checks are used once, or used until you suceed, and then the quest moves on. Also, short of epic uses (and again, not counting Diplomacy) most skills are weaker than spells available at the same level.
Skills let you jump over a pit trap, spells let you fly.
Skills keep you from drowning, spells let you breathe underwater.
Skills can stop some one from bleeding to death, spells fix their crushed ribs and get them back in the fight.
When it's really necessary for some reason, spells even let you boost skills. The inverse is rarely true.

The other often-quoted "unlimited" action is attack rolls. While there is no published limit on how long you can smack things with a sword, assuming your party is involved in appropriate encounters, eventually the melee-players start to run low on HP. If your "unlimited spells" version includes divine casters, you can heal up and keep going just about forever, which I think tends to break things in the other direction. Do you really want to turn every adventuring party into a 24/7 murder-machine that never needs to stop or rest? That's practically begging for a Tippyverse style scenario.
Mental fatigue is a very real thing, and I have no problem limiting just how long a player can manipulate magical energy.

If you don't like the "limited spell slots" or "per hour/day regeneration" style of casting, then at least make it a soft cap. Essentially, you can cast easily up to a certain level, and everything beyond that starts pushing up the check you need to pass and/or increases a chance for magical-backlash (ability damage or something).

And on what Deepbluediver wrote : please no extra feat tax on sorcerers. Let every class use their own abilities. For inherent magic, intelligence makes little sense.

There's no feat-tax on my sorcerer. Any caster is required to spend a feat if they want to use Charisma instead of Wisdom for casting checks, and no caster is penalized if they don't.

I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with me, but why do you consider Charisma a much better attribute to determine inherent casting than Intellect? On the SRD, Charisma is described as "a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness". None of that, to me, says "magical apptitude". In addition, Wizard's and Sorcerers are both arcane casters with similar abilities and limitations, so why would they function so differently?

For determining most things, each number corresponds to a different but specific attribute. Attack and Damage rolls are Strength, AC and some attack rolls are Dex, HP is Constitution, each Skill has a specific ability it's linked to, etc. Why does spellcasting rely on 3 different stats, each of which does effectively the same thing? It's like having a basket full of golden delicious, macintosh, and granny smith; at the end of the say they are all still just apples.
The approach I took was that all magic is significantly mental in nature, and so I picked the 2 most mental-related stats (Int & Wis) and made all casting reliant upon them to some degree. (exceptions are made on a class-by-class basis, but the core rules stay the same)

And why can't we just call that "Caster level"? It's almost the same, after all.

Semantics, mostly. I called it something different so that players will more easily realize it's a specific number in it's function like BAB, or a skill bonus, or a save bonus, or anything else that can be modified from a variety or sources and isn't (inherently) shackled to just your level. Also, it helps break the connection of the previous rules associated with Caster Level.
If you don't like it don't use it.

As for stats: I'd say two per class.

This seems like it's getting a little complicated, but if you feel it will work, here's my opinion:
Some of the stat-combinations you picked wouldn't have been my first choice, but I'd rather make progress than argue in circles so I stuck with them. If no one else disagrees with your selections, I'll consider myself outvoted.

Bard: Charisma/intelligence

I left Bard off the table intentionally, because I'm not sure he should be a caster at all. I admit to not having a lot of experience with Bards, but their magic seems to be very much just Wizard-lite. I would rather scrap the Bard's spells per day, and re-engineer more bardic-music to have magical effects. Sort of like a Warlock's invocations.
Maybe that's more than you wanted for your fix, but if you're going to go all-out, that's what I would do.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I don't know if you are going to include psionics in your new version of 3.5, but I would say that if some one really wants to use a point system then I would encourage them to just use a psionic character. I don't mind scrapping something traditional if it mechanically doesn't work, but I'm reluctant to let go of the established system just because you don't like the fluff (or can't think of any good fluff, because admitedly there is a a lot of "it just is" in core).
Overall though I wouldn't consider this a deal breaker.

Yeah, fair point. I really have no preference either way.

unlimited spells

I don't think anyone really wants those?

I left Bard off the table intentionally, because I'm not sure he should be a caster at all. I admit to not having a lot of experience with Bards, but their magic seems to be very much just Wizard-lite. I would rather scrap the Bard's spells per day, and re-engineer more bardic-music to have magical effects. Sort of like a Warlock's invocations.
Maybe that's more than you wanted for your fix, but if you're going to go all-out, that's what I would do.

Ooh, I like that. None of this silly spells and songs/day, just invocations.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Right. So.

• I think we're agreed that all classes will use spell points in some manner-- prepared casters will pre-spend the points to prepare their spells, and spontaneous casters will spend them on the fly.
• Spell points will regenerate over time-- slow while awake, and faster while sleeping.
• To cast a spell, you'll need to make a caster level check, with a DC of 10 + twice the spell level. There are no consequences to the failure except for the wasted action.
• Spell save DCs may need to be edited slightly, to unify progressions. The simplest way is to have them be 10 + twice spell level, probably.
• Casters should be dual-stat dependent. I'm thinking one stat for spell save DCs/highest level spell (skill) and one stat for total points/regeneration (power) might be the easiest to remember. The exact breakdown can be determined in the class write-ups.
• Casting times... well, I vote for standard actions for everything, but no more than one spell per turn. Maybe two, if we allow swift/immediate action spells and quicken metamagic (which should reduce to a swift action, not a free).

Savvy?

[Eldan]

Swift action spells should be rare, and quicken spell pricey. Then it can work.

[Dsurion]

I left Bard off the table intentionally, because I'm not sure he should be a caster at all. I admit to not having a lot of experience with Bards, but their magic seems to be very much just Wizard-lite. I would rather scrap the Bard's spells per day, and re-engineer more bardic-music to have magical effects. Sort of like a Warlock's invocations.

That's what I did in my personal Bard revision. Basically, I cherry picked a bunch of abilities from Prestige Classes that I thought would be cool for a Bard to be able to produce with music, made them all (Ex), added on a few token class features (Ex. Vivace: As long as you are performing, you and allies who can hear you gain +X ft. to all movement speeds they possess) and called it a day.

[Eldan]

Should work. The people who eventually do the bard should also look into the various mythological sources for magical song. THere's tons.

[Yitzi]

Swift action spells should be rare, and quicken spell pricey. Then it can work.

Better idea for quicken spell: Make it somewhat cheap (+1 or maybe +2), make it turn the spell into an immediate action, and the caster loses his standard action on the following round.

Now instead of a way to break action economy, it's a valuable (but difficult to use) tactical tool.

[Eldan]

That sounds like a different feat, really.

Question: metamagic isn'tall that good in core, is it? I mean, how often are the high costs worth it without reducers?

[Yitzi]

That sounds like a different feat, really.

Question: metamagic isn'tall that good in core, is it? I mean, how often are the high costs worth it without reducers?

Yeah, eliminating reducers makes it pretty balanced or even somewhat weak. (Well, except for maybe for some damage spells, since they go by caster level rather than spell level.) And yes, what I described would be a very different feat...it's a good approach if you want to make the action economy more difficult to break but still want some idea of a quickened spell, though.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Might we copy the metapsionic mechanism, with focus and the like?