G&G: Magic v2 (Working Draft)

[Grod_The_Giant]

Posted more spell rewrites and realized I've been skipping too-weak blasty spells. Whoops. including blasty-spells.

[AttilaTheGeek]

I like a lot of your spell rewrites. Especially the polymorph line, but I worry about it being too dangerous to use as a buff for the BSF. Intentional?

I've also noticed a couple typos. You mentioned plants in Control Undead, and Cure Critical Wounds actually heals less than Cure Serious Wounds- 1d10 averages 5.5, which gives half a point more healing per caster level than the version one spell level higher.

One more thing- with Charm Person, if it grants the Mind Control condition, where are Suggestion and Dominate Person going to go to expand on that?

[Grod_The_Giant]

I like a lot of your spell rewrites. Especially the polymorph line, but I worry about it being too dangerous to use as a buff for the BSF. Intentional?

In-battle, it should work ok-- the danger doesn't kick in unless you're spending a significant amount of time rolling around as a dire bear or whatnot. A lot of the drawbacks are caster-only. Finally, the person who can remove/dispel the magic isn't the one losing their mind, soo... it's still dangerous, but, then, it's still a really good buff.

I've also noticed a couple typos. You mentioned plants in Control Undead, and Cure Critical Wounds actually heals less than Cure Serious Wounds- 1d10 averages 5.5, which gives half a point more healing per caster level than the version one spell level higher.

Whoops. (Although CCW does also cure some conditions)

One more thing- with Charm Person, if it grants the Mind Control condition, where are Suggestion and Dominate Person going to go to expand on that?

Check out the Conditions thread. As a first-level spell, Charm Person can't improve their attitude more than one step, and can't raise it above friendly. As a fifth-level spell, Dominate Person can improve their attitude by three steps, potentially all the way up to fanatic.

[Eldan]

Perhaps you should note that again in the spell description. It might help if someone only has the spell ready, but is not looking too closely at the condition tracks.

[Waargh!]

Allow me to give my two cents for spell casting checks. Sorry if what I say is irrelevant, i don't see all the rules in the first post of this thread. I assume they are written somewhere else but maybe a reference will help to get the whole picture!

On the subject of spellcasting checks: Pretty much every other action in the game has a roll. Climb a wall? Climb check. Talk to someone? Diplomacy (or Persuade, as the case may be). Swing a sword? Attack roll. Know what's trying to eat you? Knowledge check. Cast a spell?... yeah, no problem, you've got this.

I would agree on this especially for spells that are not offensive, thus never ever miss (like Fly). Maybe you could consider something in between similar to what I posted in Spell Mastery thread. So only high level spells require a check, lower do not.
This can be similar by taking 10 if the math works correctly, but I find that usually just explicitly ruling what you want to achieve rather than bending the math around it is better.

On the two roll subject... because you don't need DM feedback on the first one (the DCs are right there on your sheet), it's a pretty fast roll. Spellcasting-spell save is about the same amount of time as attack roll-damage roll. Maybe less. Especially since it spell resistance no longer involves its own roll. Damage spells will take a bit longer, but honestly, you don't play a blaster unless you like rolling fistfuls of d6s.

Its actually a two roll IF you succeed. So if you fail to cast a Fireball that is one quick roll, nothing more. If you succeed then indeed the first roll to cast is the less amount of time. More likely a player will spend the biggest amount of time to find the right area to cast a spell or simply even decide what spell to cast than the actual rolls involved. Bottom line is that I would expect indeed that one extra roll wouldn't make a big difference though play testing is the only way to tell.

Perhaps there should be an option to take 10 on spellcasting checks out of combat, but I think that it's both a logical and balance point. Magic will always trump mundane by some margin in 3.5, and I don't think we can rewrite things enough to change that. And... well... think back to the last new player you saw pick up a caster. How many times did he/she say "Ok, I want to cast fireball. What do I roll?"

Magic is most likely strongest outside of combat, where other classes are less useful. In that sense, I would be inclined to say that there shouldn't be a boost to cast magic outside of combat. There is a difference if you can always fly over the wall and if you can fly most of the time over the wall. For the rest of the times maybe the player with a high climb skill and a rope can feel also useful.

EDIT: One more word on the subject of casting checks: Making it easier to cast low-level than high-level spells also helps make it less attractive to "go nova" and blow all your spell points on your highest-level spells.

See my suggestion for Spell Mastery. I find that it is more appealing if you say "you don't need a check" rather "this is an easier check". The right math is great balance wise but if the motivation is for casters not to go nova then a more clean "push" for players to use lower level spells is better in my opinion.

Giving every spell an on-save effect isn't really a problem (though for several spells it might not make sense) as long as you reduce the binary nature of other checks. In 3e you roll Tumble vs. DC 15 and avoid an AoO if you succeed, with nothing on a failure. You roll Climb vs. a certain DC and either move 1/4 your speed, move 1/2 your speed, move your speed, make no progress, or fall based on your check result. Why not make everything, both checks and spells, closer to the latter than the former?

I agree on this direction and this can be combined on what Eldan said on having something on a failure. For example, a "failed" casting of a Wall of Ice can make it only appear for 1 round. Casting Teleport can result in casting Dimensional Door instead if failed and so on. I find this more fun in general the downside being that you kind of have to right a failed scenario per spell, it is hard to generalize.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Hmm... perhaps something from the Dresden Files RPG? There, if you fail what's basically the casting roll, you have two options: you can take extra damage to get the spell off at full strength, or you cast a weakened version of the spell and have uncontrollable environmental effects (ie, the target gets blasted, but the backlash starts knocking down the building). So... if you fail your casting check by X, you could reduce your caster level by X to make the spell go off anyway?

[AttilaTheGeek]

I do like the "Spell Mastery" mechanic, but it means that full casters have always "mastered" all but their highest level spell, and 4th- or 6th- level casters have always mastered all their spells. Maybe change "twice spell level" to "two or three levels greater than when the first level when you could have cast the spell"?

Hmm... perhaps something from the Dresden Files RPG?

That seems like the right answer is to always take the damage and cast the spell at full strength regardless, thus negating the entire mechanic. Also, the "uncontrollable environmental effects" seem like they have to be adjudicated by the DM on a case-by-case basis, so they're hard to standardize.

Maybe if you fail, you have a small chance (another roll with a low DC) for it to rebound, causing massive damage or really bad conditions in accordance with the spell, and otherwise, it goes off as normal. But that just invalidates needing two rolls. Hm.

Maybe something like "Each spell has a certain inherent failure chance, around 5-10% for most spells. There are ways to lower it, but not negate it entirely, and they are rare. If the spell fails, it rebounds, causing something really bad to the caster". That seems to fit in a world where magic is more primal and not extensively studied, but in a magocracy that doesn't seem reasonable. Hmm...

[Waargh!]

The caster level is not equally important for all spells (i.e. Fireball vs Raise Dead). So I don't think that would work. I believe it is hard to generalize the rules for spells just because they are very different, they just have their own mechanics! So having a "failed" or "weakened" clause per spell seems for me the only good way to do it. Then you can have "subtract X from your spell caster level" and also "blast everyone in an area three times bigger" depending on what the spell does. At the end, if you do want the spell just to fail, then you can just state so. So you leave it open.

If there is also the goal to balance higher level and lower level spells provided this is not done in another way so the spells still don't progressed linearly (as they clearly don't in D&D), then you should consider to have a way to remove the chance of a "failed" spell entirely if you are a high enough level.

Regarding giving an option when a spell fails I think that will slow down then the round, no? I would say that if you fail then something just happens either you like it or not. That is the risk you take.

EDIT:

I do like the "Spell Mastery" mechanic, but it means that full casters have always "mastered" all but their highest level spell, and 4th- or 6th- level casters have always mastered all their spells. Maybe change "twice spell level" to "two or three levels greater than when the first level when you could have cast the spell"?

Indeed, the intend was to be a "light" change for the normal rules. So instead of having mastered all your spells now your higher level spells need some work. I think under these rules, though, they are indeed mastered way too soon. It could be possible that a "take 5 or 10 on magic check" is enough to guarantee that after a certain level you can always safely cast lower level spell so no need to put new specific rules. It really depends on the overall design and the balance between spells.

[Grod_The_Giant]

That seems like the right answer is to always take the damage and cast the spell at full strength regardless, thus negating the entire mechanic. Also, the "uncontrollable environmental effects" seem like they have to be adjudicated by the DM on a case-by-case basis, so they're hard to standardize.

It works due to Fate system maths. A caster isn't going to have more than 4 mental stress, and casting any evocation inflicts 1 stress. If you have to eat two more points of stress from a failed casting... the exact mechanic is of course not going to be importable to D&D.

D&D appropriate "make up the difference" options:

• Take a penalty to CL and save DC or lose the spell
• Spend extra spell points or lose the spell
• ???

But, again, there were fairly good arguments for not putting in a spellcasting roll. We're already doing a lot to write the most broken spells and reduce the binary nature of condition-inflicting abilities, so... the decision was made that, here as elsewhere, err on the side of not changing things for the sake of change.