Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
what at-wills should spellcasters have
38 views
Skip to first unread message
David Lamb
Jun 1, 2012, 11:36:18 AM6/1/12
to
One of the things that sometimes bugs people about 3.5 and earlier magic
users (wizard, cleric, etc) was that with the Vancian limited number of
spell slots, they'd have to carefully manage their resources and thus
not cast spells all that much. I'm curious about what might be done to
alleviate this -- so that magic users could cast spells frequently, but
not "unbalance" the game (grab too much spotlight time in games run such
that game mechanics and character effectiveness have a fairly high
correlation with spotlight time).
Pathfinder (3.75?) modified cantrips slightly and made them at-will. For
those who use Pathfinder: how does that work out for you? Does it make
magic users feel more magical? Does it create any problems?
4e had at-will powers for everybody, and some people said it didn't feel
right (I think I recall a few people saying mages were fighters with
certain spells taking the place of darts or arrows). How did this
approach work out for people who liked it? As with the Pathfinder
approach, I'd like to know if it made magic users feel more magical, or
create any in-game problems?
I have just got the 5e documents so haven't had a chance to see what, if
anything, they say about this.
users (wizard, cleric, etc) was that with the Vancian limited number of
spell slots, they'd have to carefully manage their resources and thus
not cast spells all that much. I'm curious about what might be done to
alleviate this -- so that magic users could cast spells frequently, but
not "unbalance" the game (grab too much spotlight time in games run such
that game mechanics and character effectiveness have a fairly high
correlation with spotlight time).
Pathfinder (3.75?) modified cantrips slightly and made them at-will. For
those who use Pathfinder: how does that work out for you? Does it make
magic users feel more magical? Does it create any problems?
4e had at-will powers for everybody, and some people said it didn't feel
right (I think I recall a few people saying mages were fighters with
certain spells taking the place of darts or arrows). How did this
approach work out for people who liked it? As with the Pathfinder
approach, I'd like to know if it made magic users feel more magical, or
create any in-game problems?
I have just got the 5e documents so haven't had a chance to see what, if
anything, they say about this.
dr...@bin.sh
Jun 1, 2012, 12:32:48 PM6/1/12
to
Alien mind control rays made David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca> write:
> I have just got the 5e documents so haven't had a chance to see what, if
> anything, they say about this.
cantrips and orisons can be used at will.
> I have just got the 5e documents so haven't had a chance to see what, if
> anything, they say about this.
--
n_n n_n dr...@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
|"|n_n_n|"| ---------------------------------------------------------------
| | " " | | "Ryan Dancey put a portable hole inside a bag of holding,
|_|_[T]_|_| and no void appeared -- out of fear of Ryan Dancey."
-- der_kluge
David Lamb
Jun 1, 2012, 1:04:47 PM6/1/12
to
On 01/06/2012 12:32 PM, dr...@bin.sh wrote:
> Alien mind control rays made David Lamb<dal...@cs.queensu.ca> write:
>> I have just got the 5e documents so haven't had a chance to see what, if
>> anything, they say about this.
>
> cantrips and orisons can be used at will.
>
OK, so they apparently took the Pathfinder approach. I imagine whatever
> Alien mind control rays made David Lamb<dal...@cs.queensu.ca> write:
>> I have just got the 5e documents so haven't had a chance to see what, if
>> anything, they say about this.
>
> cantrips and orisons can be used at will.
>
experience people had with Pathfinder will be relevant to 5e.
Alcore
Jun 1, 2012, 1:07:14 PM6/1/12
to
On Friday, June 1, 2012 10:36:18 AM UTC-5, David Lamb wrote:
> One of the things that sometimes bugs people about 3.5 and earlier magic
> users (wizard, cleric, etc) was that with the Vancian limited number of
> spell slots, they'd have to carefully manage their resources and thus
> not cast spells all that much. I'm curious about what might be done to
> alleviate this -- so that magic users could cast spells frequently, but
> not "unbalance" the game (grab too much spotlight time in games run such
> that game mechanics and character effectiveness have a fairly high
> correlation with spotlight time).
[snip]
> One of the things that sometimes bugs people about 3.5 and earlier magic
> users (wizard, cleric, etc) was that with the Vancian limited number of
> spell slots, they'd have to carefully manage their resources and thus
> not cast spells all that much. I'm curious about what might be done to
> alleviate this -- so that magic users could cast spells frequently, but
> not "unbalance" the game (grab too much spotlight time in games run such
> that game mechanics and character effectiveness have a fairly high
> correlation with spotlight time).
This goes directly to the heart of a lot of the rift between 3.x and 4.x.
In 4e "balance" is a concept that applies to COMBAT TIME.
In 3e "balance" is a WORLD concept.
By this, I mean: There's a lot of "at will" stuff in 4e, that if it were applied outside of "combat space" would fundamentally wreck the cosmology of any universe. When there is no limit to how often something can be done, some player will figure out how to do it an infinite number of times in order to make a profit.
Vancian magic, on the other hand, but most any system with a finite "mana" base or other total resource expenditure and recovery mechanic, establishes use caps that not only affect combat power but also do things like preventing a wizard from freezing Lake Superior solid by continuing to use "Ray of Frost" "at will" forever. It really should be impossible to do that, you should fatigue or something and have to quit. If you want a bigger effect, you should have to use a larger and more expensive spell... and you can do those even less often.
I don't like "at will" anything. I am entirely ok, however, with power expenditure and recovery mechanisms that allow a lot of minor effects to be so cheap that you don't really worry about how much you use them... but if you used them an awful lot, they will still use up the resource pool.
Think of this like having 20 GB on your cell phone data plan. It's not unlimited. But it's a high enough cap that you probably won't hesitate to text (use cantrips/email) all you want to. You can even stream a lot of music (use a lot of low and mid level spells). And, if you need to, you can even download a few movies (NOVA a few big effects), but then you really will need some downtime to recover. If you like the cell data plan metaphor, you can even build in a mechanism to use more data (magic) than your plan (mana pool) allows for, at some nasty cost.
I think magic's power and limits should be consitent and include balance against non-combat applications.
I think the Sorcerer from 3e is a good compromise on the Vancian model. But I really think that the correct formula is a mana pool system, that preserves most of the Wizard's flexibility, while granting a limited amount of "at will" that balances big and small effects alike.
The Wiz can Nova, or the Wiz can pace himself. This is little different than how a fighter manages his hit-points. In either case, characters cannot, and should not, be able to be continuously and endlessly effective. There needs to be a limit that eventually shuts them down hard.
Justisaur
Jun 1, 2012, 1:42:42 PM6/1/12
to
now think it ruins the feel of magic, the more magic there is the less
magical it feels.
Let them use weapons, poorly, when they don't feel the situation is
right for the big guns.
1e you start off with one single slot, and often know only crappy
spells, btb. I don't feel this is a good idea either, being
completely useless until lv 2 (when you can chose a spell with a
percent chance at least). Starting with a useful spell works fine
usually though, which is a simple fix. Perhaps even being able to
cast it more than once, but for every added casting you have to
restrict the power, which again makes magic feel less magical.
I feel there's far too many spells at higher level as well, and think
a progression having only 1 added slot of the highest level works
better to keep magic magical.
- Justisaur
Loren Pechtel
Jun 1, 2012, 2:42:24 PM6/1/12
to
On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 11:36:18 -0400, David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca>
wrote:
One thing that I think would help--more lower-level spells. By the
time you're high level the cantrips at will are basically meaningless.
wrote:
time you're high level the cantrips at will are basically meaningless.
Keith Davies
Jun 1, 2012, 3:04:36 PM6/1/12
to
Alcore <alc...@uurth.com> wrote:
>
> I think magic's power and limits should be consitent and include
> balance against non-combat applications.
>
> I think the Sorcerer from 3e is a good compromise on the Vancian
> model. But I really think that the correct formula is a mana pool
> system, that preserves most of the Wizard's flexibility, while
> granting a limited amount of "at will" that balances big and small
> effects alike.
>
> The Wiz can Nova, or the Wiz can pace himself. This is little
> different than how a fighter manages his hit-points. In either case,
> characters cannot, and should not, be able to be continuously and
> endlessly effective. There needs to be a limit that eventually shuts
> them down hard.
One of the ideas I explored a little with my change to the hit point
>
> I think magic's power and limits should be consitent and include
> balance against non-combat applications.
>
> I think the Sorcerer from 3e is a good compromise on the Vancian
> model. But I really think that the correct formula is a mana pool
> system, that preserves most of the Wizard's flexibility, while
> granting a limited amount of "at will" that balances big and small
> effects alike.
>
> The Wiz can Nova, or the Wiz can pace himself. This is little
> different than how a fighter manages his hit-points. In either case,
> characters cannot, and should not, be able to be continuously and
> endlessly effective. There needs to be a limit that eventually shuts
> them down hard.
model is a similar model for magic points.
Certain things use your immediately-available mana. When you get a
chance to rest, you recover that mana.
Certain things use longer-term mana. A mere rest isn't going to do it
for you, you need to make more effort to recover (rest overnight, etc.).
Keith
--
Keith Davies "chain letter and chain mail...
keith....@kjdavies.org not the same thing, right?"
KJD-IMC: http://www.kjd-imc.org -- Naomi
Echelon: http://www.echelond20.org
David Lamb
Jun 1, 2012, 3:32:22 PM6/1/12
to
On 01/06/2012 2:42 PM, Loren Pechtel wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 11:36:18 -0400, David Lamb<dal...@cs.queensu.ca>
> wrote:
>> Pathfinder (3.75?) modified cantrips slightly and made them at-will.
> On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 11:36:18 -0400, David Lamb<dal...@cs.queensu.ca>
> wrote:
>> Pathfinder (3.75?) modified cantrips slightly and made them at-will.
> One thing that I think would help--more lower-level spells. By the
> time you're high level the cantrips at will are basically meaningless.
Once upon a time Keith suggested that when you're high enough level,
> time you're high level the cantrips at will are basically meaningless.
many first eventually second level spells might as well be "at will." I
think you'd have to be careful with them, just like Pathfinder had to
change "cure minor wound" (1hp) to "stabilize" (which was the main use
of the spell in the first place). At-will Sleep might be kinda cute
when you're 12th level; "sleeping" all the 1st level sentries to get to
where the real action might be.
Tetsubo
Jun 1, 2012, 4:05:34 PM6/1/12
to
limited selection that are almost all personal use. Absolutely an
awesome execution.
--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57
Harold Groot
Jun 1, 2012, 5:20:52 PM6/1/12
to
On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 15:32:22 -0400, David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca>
At that level you simply make a few wands and you're getting ALMOST
the same effect as having it be "At Will". My non-melee-oriented
cleric crafts wands. Those with spells that help the party (CLW, EBON
EYES and such) remain quite potent even now (currently 14th level).
Those that attack the enemy have become much less useful than they
were at 8th level (where the PC joined the party).
As for the original question - I'm soon going to be starting a PF
character pretty much designed to answer the original question here.
It's a 4th level campaign, and I'll be playing a 1/1/1/1 multiclass
with 3 spellcasting classes. So the PC will have 10 "Use at will"
orisons and cantrips each day (and also a fair number of 1st level
spells or similar class abilities). But he's already behind the
dedicated spellcasters (they have 2nd level spells now, and quite soon
they'll have 3rd level spells). His potential of advancing in any of
his spellcasting classes is rather low. He has poor prime stats in
all the spellcasting classes, so even if he devoted himself
exclusively to one spellcasting class he would quickly top out on the
level of spell he could cast. He's instead "Specializing in
versatility".
This follows my typical pattern of taking a theme and running with it,
even if it is not particularly efficient to do so. He also has a 2nd
theme of "Speed". It's an all-dwarf party, so the party movement is
going to be limited by movement 20. He has movement 40 (+10 from
Barbarian, +10 from Cleric/Travel Domain), so if the group is hustling
he can keep up with them and still take a standard action every round.
So he can, for example, be the lead scout and make an active
Perception roll each round, or cast DETECT MAGIC down the path they're
on, or keep various low-level buffs active (GUIDEANCE, etc.).
In terms of effectiveness, he'll probably be reasonably effective for
a few levels and then fall pretty far behind. In terms of how it
FEELS to play the character - well, I guess I'll find out starting
next week.
the same effect as having it be "At Will". My non-melee-oriented
cleric crafts wands. Those with spells that help the party (CLW, EBON
EYES and such) remain quite potent even now (currently 14th level).
Those that attack the enemy have become much less useful than they
were at 8th level (where the PC joined the party).
As for the original question - I'm soon going to be starting a PF
character pretty much designed to answer the original question here.
It's a 4th level campaign, and I'll be playing a 1/1/1/1 multiclass
with 3 spellcasting classes. So the PC will have 10 "Use at will"
orisons and cantrips each day (and also a fair number of 1st level
spells or similar class abilities). But he's already behind the
dedicated spellcasters (they have 2nd level spells now, and quite soon
they'll have 3rd level spells). His potential of advancing in any of
his spellcasting classes is rather low. He has poor prime stats in
all the spellcasting classes, so even if he devoted himself
exclusively to one spellcasting class he would quickly top out on the
level of spell he could cast. He's instead "Specializing in
versatility".
This follows my typical pattern of taking a theme and running with it,
even if it is not particularly efficient to do so. He also has a 2nd
theme of "Speed". It's an all-dwarf party, so the party movement is
going to be limited by movement 20. He has movement 40 (+10 from
Barbarian, +10 from Cleric/Travel Domain), so if the group is hustling
he can keep up with them and still take a standard action every round.
So he can, for example, be the lead scout and make an active
Perception roll each round, or cast DETECT MAGIC down the path they're
on, or keep various low-level buffs active (GUIDEANCE, etc.).
In terms of effectiveness, he'll probably be reasonably effective for
a few levels and then fall pretty far behind. In terms of how it
FEELS to play the character - well, I guess I'll find out starting
next week.
Loren Pechtel
Jun 1, 2012, 5:23:52 PM6/1/12
to
On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 15:32:22 -0400, David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca>
I also considered that but that would take a careful review of spells
to find abusable ones. Unfortunately, there's no trivial fix like
converting cure minor wound into stabilize as we need a real first
level healing spell.
Looking through the list of first level spells the big standout is
cure light wounds. I wouldn't like to see that at will at 10th level.
Charm person at will also worries me for what could happen in town.
At second level I see Cure Moderate Wounds, Zone of Truth and Detect
Thoughts worry me. (The latter two in town.)
After looking through the player's handbook I'm surprised, I thought
there would be more stuff that would bothe me. For everything higher
by the time it would make sense for it to be an at-will it doesn't
seem problematic.
to find abusable ones. Unfortunately, there's no trivial fix like
converting cure minor wound into stabilize as we need a real first
level healing spell.
Looking through the list of first level spells the big standout is
cure light wounds. I wouldn't like to see that at will at 10th level.
Charm person at will also worries me for what could happen in town.
At second level I see Cure Moderate Wounds, Zone of Truth and Detect
Thoughts worry me. (The latter two in town.)
After looking through the player's handbook I'm surprised, I thought
there would be more stuff that would bothe me. For everything higher
by the time it would make sense for it to be an at-will it doesn't
seem problematic.
Harold Groot
Jun 1, 2012, 8:14:02 PM6/1/12
to
On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 14:23:52 -0700, Loren Pechtel
<lorenp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 15:32:22 -0400, David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>On 01/06/2012 2:42 PM, Loren Pechtel wrote:
>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 11:36:18 -0400, David Lamb<dal...@cs.queensu.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Pathfinder (3.75?) modified cantrips slightly and made them at-will.
>>
>>> One thing that I think would help--more lower-level spells. By the
>>> time you're high level the cantrips at will are basically meaningless.
>>
>>Once upon a time Keith suggested that when you're high enough level,
>>many first eventually second level spells might as well be "at will." I
>>think you'd have to be careful with them, just like Pathfinder had to
>>change "cure minor wound" (1hp) to "stabilize" (which was the main use
>>of the spell in the first place). At-will Sleep might be kinda cute
>>when you're 12th level; "sleeping" all the 1st level sentries to get to
>>where the real action might be.
>
>I also considered that but that would take a careful review of spells
>to find abusable ones. Unfortunately, there's no trivial fix like
>converting cure minor wound into stabilize as we need a real first
>level healing spell.
>
>Looking through the list of first level spells the big standout is
>cure light wounds. I wouldn't like to see that at will at 10th level.
>Charm person at will also worries me for what could happen in town.
Wands of CURE LIGHT WOUNDS, while not ENTIRELY free of cost, pretty
<lorenp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 15:32:22 -0400, David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>On 01/06/2012 2:42 PM, Loren Pechtel wrote:
>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 11:36:18 -0400, David Lamb<dal...@cs.queensu.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Pathfinder (3.75?) modified cantrips slightly and made them at-will.
>>
>>> One thing that I think would help--more lower-level spells. By the
>>> time you're high level the cantrips at will are basically meaningless.
>>
>>Once upon a time Keith suggested that when you're high enough level,
>>many first eventually second level spells might as well be "at will." I
>>think you'd have to be careful with them, just like Pathfinder had to
>>change "cure minor wound" (1hp) to "stabilize" (which was the main use
>>of the spell in the first place). At-will Sleep might be kinda cute
>>when you're 12th level; "sleeping" all the 1st level sentries to get to
>>where the real action might be.
>
>I also considered that but that would take a careful review of spells
>to find abusable ones. Unfortunately, there's no trivial fix like
>converting cure minor wound into stabilize as we need a real first
>level healing spell.
>
>Looking through the list of first level spells the big standout is
>cure light wounds. I wouldn't like to see that at will at 10th level.
>Charm person at will also worries me for what could happen in town.
much give "At Will" curing right now in 3E. A cleric making a Wand of
CLW at 1st level caster can generate 50 x 5.5 = 275 hp of healing -
and under most circumstances can arrange to make one every day if
needed (a Ring Of Sustenance, allowing working through most of the
night, is quite helpful here).
And if most or all of the party has converted to be of the same
religion as the cleric, a Wand of FAITH HEALING at 1st level gives 450
hp of healing. Then there's the Wand of LESSER VIGOR - it takes a bit
longer to apply, but there's 550 hp of healing in it. If you happen
to have a week of down-time, that's 3850 hp of healing socked away.
Yes, there's a cost in both cash and XP - but the cost is low enough
that it's easily worth it. The cost of a Wand of CHARM PERSON or
SLEEP is likewise easily affordable at 12th level. And as long as
you're just taking on townsfolks or 1st level night-watchmen, quite
effective. At our levels in our campaign, almost anyone of any
signifigance has SR that routinely defeat wands that cast at first
level, and those enemies would make their saving throws routinely if
the spell has a save.
Now, if you make it an At Will ability of an actual 12th-level caster
(so it's actually cast at 12th level, not 1st level), the SR goes from
"almost always defeats the spell" to "sometimes works, sometimes
doesn't." (Likewise, the Saving Throw is probably tougher from the
actual caster due to stat bonuses.) But I don't know of any PCs who
regularly make wands at their maximum caster level - that gets a bit
pricey.
>At second level I see Cure Moderate Wounds, Zone of Truth and Detect
>Thoughts worry me. (The latter two in town.)
no real difference between unlimited CURE LIGHT and CURE MODERATE.
The CMW wand at minimum (3rd) level is enough to be useful in battle -
but so is a FAITH HEALING wand made at 4th caster level (both average
12 hp).
As for ZONE OF TRUTH and DETECT THOUGHTS - a 12th level caster is
SUPPOSED to be able to walk all over townspeople. If it's being
abused, well, that's when parties of appropriately-leveled adventurers
get called in to deal with the situation. PCs are NOT immune to
having to face the consequences of their actions.
Loren Pechtel
Jun 1, 2012, 11:46:08 PM6/1/12
to
On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 00:14:02 GMT, que...@infionline.net (Harold
Groot) wrote:
>>Looking through the list of first level spells the big standout is
>>cure light wounds. I wouldn't like to see that at will at 10th level.
>>Charm person at will also worries me for what could happen in town.
>
>Wands of CURE LIGHT WOUNDS, while not ENTIRELY free of cost, pretty
>much give "At Will" curing right now in 3E. A cleric making a Wand of
>CLW at 1st level caster can generate 50 x 5.5 = 275 hp of healing -
>and under most circumstances can arrange to make one every day if
>needed (a Ring Of Sustenance, allowing working through most of the
>night, is quite helpful here).
As you say, it's not free of cost. Maybe it would be ok anyway but it
Groot) wrote:
>>Looking through the list of first level spells the big standout is
>>cure light wounds. I wouldn't like to see that at will at 10th level.
>>Charm person at will also worries me for what could happen in town.
>
>Wands of CURE LIGHT WOUNDS, while not ENTIRELY free of cost, pretty
>much give "At Will" curing right now in 3E. A cleric making a Wand of
>CLW at 1st level caster can generate 50 x 5.5 = 275 hp of healing -
>and under most circumstances can arrange to make one every day if
>needed (a Ring Of Sustenance, allowing working through most of the
>night, is quite helpful here).
seems scary.
>Yes, there's a cost in both cash and XP - but the cost is low enough
>that it's easily worth it. The cost of a Wand of CHARM PERSON or
>SLEEP is likewise easily affordable at 12th level. And as long as
>you're just taking on townsfolks or 1st level night-watchmen, quite
>effective. At our levels in our campaign, almost anyone of any
>signifigance has SR that routinely defeat wands that cast at first
>level, and those enemies would make their saving throws routinely if
>the spell has a save.
>
>Now, if you make it an At Will ability of an actual 12th-level caster
>(so it's actually cast at 12th level, not 1st level), the SR goes from
>"almost always defeats the spell" to "sometimes works, sometimes
>doesn't." (Likewise, the Saving Throw is probably tougher from the
>actual caster due to stat bonuses.) But I don't know of any PCs who
>regularly make wands at their maximum caster level - that gets a bit
>pricey.
going around and charming everyone of importance in town.
>>At second level I see Cure Moderate Wounds, Zone of Truth and Detect
>>Thoughts worry me. (The latter two in town.)
>
>Unless time is critical (such as in the middle of a battle), there's
>no real difference between unlimited CURE LIGHT and CURE MODERATE.
>The CMW wand at minimum (3rd) level is enough to be useful in battle -
>but so is a FAITH HEALING wand made at 4th caster level (both average
>12 hp).
>As for ZONE OF TRUTH and DETECT THOUGHTS - a 12th level caster is
>SUPPOSED to be able to walk all over townspeople. If it's being
>abused, well, that's when parties of appropriately-leveled adventurers
>get called in to deal with the situation. PCs are NOT immune to
>having to face the consequences of their actions.
on. It's more a problem for the DM than a real abuse.
Harold Groot
Jun 2, 2012, 12:32:36 AM6/2/12
to
society in your game. Quite a few players expect the game to have
21st century expectations of privacy, protections against unreasonable
search and seizure and so on. Others try to think about how it was
actually done in, say, the 14th century. The law back then just
didn't include the protections we take for granted. And there's not
only every shade in between, but also some gamers take things beyond
(in both directions). So you have to decide - is it Against The Law
to cast DETECT THOUGHTS, or merely very rude, or perfectly acceptable?
Will the peasants knuckle under, or will they get a gang together and
ambush/poison/whatever someone who does such things? Are they paying
Protection money to Someone, and will that Someone decide that he
can't allow OTHERS to do this sort of thing in HIS town? And so on
and so on.
With divination spells it can be really hard to design a mystery that
high-level PCs can't blast right through, so usually there has to be
some sort of nerfing of the spells (the evil god and the good god
agree not to act for or against the PCs, so divinations go unanswered
while the gods grab some snacks, sit down and watch the fun....)
dr...@bin.sh
Jun 2, 2012, 2:19:18 AM6/2/12
to
Alien mind control rays made Loren Pechtel <lorenp...@hotmail.com> write:
> I wasn't worrying about combat use. I was thinking of the problem of
> going around and charming everyone of importance in town.
well, its kinder than just killing them.
> I wasn't worrying about combat use. I was thinking of the problem of
> going around and charming everyone of importance in town.
> I was thinking of them using these spells to figure out what's going
> on. It's more a problem for the DM than a real abuse.
--
.--._.--.
|_/---\_| dr...@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
] |<3 | [ -----------------------------------------------------------------
|~\---/~| Please proceed to the chamberlock. Mind the gap.
`--'~'--'
tussock
Jun 2, 2012, 2:16:22 AM6/2/12
to
David Lamb wrote:
> One of the things that sometimes bugs people about 3.5 and earlier magic
> users (wizard, cleric, etc) was that with the Vancian limited number of
> spell slots, they'd have to carefully manage their resources and thus
> not cast spells all that much. I'm curious about what might be done to
> alleviate this -- so that magic users could cast spells frequently, but
> not "unbalance" the game (grab too much spotlight time in games run such
> that game mechanics and character effectiveness have a fairly high
> correlation with spotlight time).
You have to make the spells no better than a bow and arrow, and not even
> One of the things that sometimes bugs people about 3.5 and earlier magic
> users (wizard, cleric, etc) was that with the Vancian limited number of
> spell slots, they'd have to carefully manage their resources and thus
> not cast spells all that much. I'm curious about what might be done to
> alleviate this -- so that magic users could cast spells frequently, but
> not "unbalance" the game (grab too much spotlight time in games run such
> that game mechanics and character effectiveness have a fairly high
> correlation with spotlight time).
that because the Fighters and Rogues eventually run out of ammunition at
range. The thing about magic being /better/ than extraordinary physical
attributes is it needs to be used less often if physical characters are to
have any spotlight at all.
Like, Ars Magica has Wizards blast away at will, they just make it clear
that the Grogs are secondary characters, everyone plays a Wizard as their
primary. That's a valid form of balance between players.
> Pathfinder (3.75?) modified cantrips slightly and made them at-will. For
> those who use Pathfinder: how does that work out for you? Does it make
> magic users feel more magical? Does it create any problems?
you clear out the infinite buffs. But I got rid of it again too, it's
boring, weak, and ultimately devalues magic. When it works well, it's the
*opposite* of feeling magical.
> 4e had at-will powers for everybody, and some people said it didn't feel
> right (I think I recall a few people saying mages were fighters with
> certain spells taking the place of darts or arrows).
work like arrows and swords. When everyone is magic, no one is.
--
tussock
David Lamb
Jun 2, 2012, 7:31:03 AM6/2/12
to
On 01/06/2012 1:42 PM, Justisaur wrote:
> I thought for awhile that at-will powers for wizards was good, but I
> now think it ruins the feel of magic, the more magic there is the less
> magical it feels.
>
> Let them use weapons, poorly, when they don't feel the situation is
> right for the big guns.
For other people the issue is that magic user's don't feel magical if
> I thought for awhile that at-will powers for wizards was good, but I
> now think it ruins the feel of magic, the more magic there is the less
> magical it feels.
>
> Let them use weapons, poorly, when they don't feel the situation is
> right for the big guns.
they can't cast spells very often. I guess there's no way to achieve
both "feels magical" for everyone.
Matthew Miller
Jun 2, 2012, 6:20:15 PM6/2/12
to
Alcore <alc...@uurth.com> wrote:
> By this, I mean: There's a lot of "at will" stuff in 4e, that if it were
> applied outside of "combat space" would fundamentally wreck the cosmology
> of any universe. When there is no limit to how often something can be
> done, some player will figure out how to do it an infinite number of times
> in order to make a profit.
Right -- in 4E, by the clear intention and by the "Legitimate Targets"
> By this, I mean: There's a lot of "at will" stuff in 4e, that if it were
> applied outside of "combat space" would fundamentally wreck the cosmology
> of any universe. When there is no limit to how often something can be
> done, some player will figure out how to do it an infinite number of times
> in order to make a profit.
section of the rules, "at will" doesn't actually mean you can do it all day
long. It means "you can do this easily enough that you don't have to keep
track of your limits in combat". It's the same as not keeping track of the
number of arrows an archer has -- we assume you have enough for the combat,
but don't assume you could build a whole wooden fortress from your supply in
a pinch.
The ritual system is supposed to be the larger-scale magic system. That
maybe could have worked, but they did a terrible job supporting it, and a
terrible job integrating it with classes. It'd have been interesting if many
or most spells came with an at-will effect, a bigger but still limited
moderate-cost (n times daily, say), and a more expensive big-ritual effect
too.
> Vancian magic, on the other hand, but most any system with a finite "mana"
> base or other total resource expenditure and recovery mechanic,
> establishes use caps that not only affect combat power but also do things
> like preventing a wizard from freezing Lake Superior solid by continuing
> to use "Ray of Frost" "at will" forever. It really should be impossible to
> do that, you should fatigue or something and have to quit. If you want a
> bigger effect, you should have to use a larger and more expensive spell...
> and you can do those even less often.
it, and doesn't give any rule system.
> I don't like "at will" anything. I am entirely ok, however, with power
> expenditure and recovery mechanisms that allow a lot of minor effects to
> be so cheap that you don't really worry about how much you use them... but
> if you used them an awful lot, they will still use up the resource pool.
heroic or cool or fun. (For me. I understand that other people want a
different kind of game.)
--
Matthew Miller
Hadsil
Jun 2, 2012, 7:17:45 PM6/2/12
to
I'm casting Detect Magic, but with Prestidigitation, Mage Hand, Ghost
Sound I get to do minor magic in out of combat situations that makes
me feel like a spellcaster. It is a buff up for an already strong
class (Sorcerer in my case) than 3E, but it's a proper buff up. The
warrior class players are not objecting at all. With Detect Magic now
allowing for identifying things we get useful information. Skill Focus
(Spellcraft) is a worthwhile feat to take. The players are perfectly
fine with magic as my area of expertise and reason for spotlight time.
They have their own niches.
Gerald Katz
tussock
Jun 2, 2012, 10:54:49 PM6/2/12
to
Loren Pechtel wrote:
mystery with no clues other than a vague idea of who knows what happened,
and who might suspect they do. Which I have to know anyway, witnesses being
good hooks.
Hell, it's more polite than torture, which is what real medieval
investigators used.
--
tussock
> Harold Groot wrote:
>> As for ZONE OF TRUTH and DETECT THOUGHTS - a 12th level caster is
>> SUPPOSED to be able to walk all over townspeople. If it's being
>> abused, well, that's when parties of appropriately-leveled adventurers
>> get called in to deal with the situation. PCs are NOT immune to
>> having to face the consequences of their actions.
>
> I was thinking of them using these spells to figure out what's going
> on. It's more a problem for the DM than a real abuse.
I look at them as the opposite of a problem for the DM. I can design a
>> As for ZONE OF TRUTH and DETECT THOUGHTS - a 12th level caster is
>> SUPPOSED to be able to walk all over townspeople. If it's being
>> abused, well, that's when parties of appropriately-leveled adventurers
>> get called in to deal with the situation. PCs are NOT immune to
>> having to face the consequences of their actions.
>
> I was thinking of them using these spells to figure out what's going
> on. It's more a problem for the DM than a real abuse.
mystery with no clues other than a vague idea of who knows what happened,
and who might suspect they do. Which I have to know anyway, witnesses being
good hooks.
Hell, it's more polite than torture, which is what real medieval
investigators used.
--
tussock
dr...@bin.sh
Jun 4, 2012, 1:45:11 AM6/4/12
to
Alien mind control rays made Alcore <alc...@uurth.com> write:
> By this, I mean: There's a lot of "at will" stuff in 4e, that if it
> were applied outside of "combat space" would fundamentally wreck the
> cosmology of any universe. When there is no limit to how often
> something can be done, some player will figure out how to do it an
> infinite number of times in order to make a profit.
if a DM is fine with "at will" actually being "at will all day without
> By this, I mean: There's a lot of "at will" stuff in 4e, that if it
> were applied outside of "combat space" would fundamentally wreck the
> cosmology of any universe. When there is no limit to how often
> something can be done, some player will figure out how to do it an
> infinite number of times in order to make a profit.
rest or respite", he completely deserves whatever the PCs do to his
campaign world.
--
.--===-+---===--.
|> |\__|___/\---|= dr...@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
|| || ()= | | <| --------------------------------------------------------
|> |/~~|~~~\/---|= Orange and Black Forever
`--===-+---===--'
tussock
Jun 4, 2012, 5:18:38 AM6/4/12
to
Meteors have been giving players the /option/ for at-will magical attacks in
a combat situation for a long time now. You just have to choose to deal more
damage over time rather than kill more people on round one, which a lot of
players don't want to do.
That's all the game needs to keep everyone happy, a 1st level spell that
deals round-by-round damage with an ongoing action cost over the length of a
big fight.
--
tussock
tussock
Jun 4, 2012, 5:07:07 AM6/4/12
to
dr...@bin.sh wrote:
written, and your suggestion is to forbid at-will powers outside combat via
unstated rules changes, likely just a social contract to "not abuse broken
rules" with players.
There really is no need to Oberoni it.
--
tussock
> Alcore write:
>> By this, I mean: There's a lot of "at will" stuff in 4e, that if it
>> were applied outside of "combat space" would fundamentally wreck the
>> cosmology of any universe. When there is no limit to how often
>> something can be done, some player will figure out how to do it an
>> infinite number of times in order to make a profit.
>
> if a DM is fine with "at will" actually being "at will all day without
> rest or respite", he completely deserves whatever the PCs do to his
> campaign world.
By which you mean, yes, the 4e rules are broken outside combat as
>> By this, I mean: There's a lot of "at will" stuff in 4e, that if it
>> were applied outside of "combat space" would fundamentally wreck the
>> cosmology of any universe. When there is no limit to how often
>> something can be done, some player will figure out how to do it an
>> infinite number of times in order to make a profit.
>
> if a DM is fine with "at will" actually being "at will all day without
> rest or respite", he completely deserves whatever the PCs do to his
> campaign world.
written, and your suggestion is to forbid at-will powers outside combat via
unstated rules changes, likely just a social contract to "not abuse broken
rules" with players.
There really is no need to Oberoni it.
--
tussock
Matthew Miller
Jun 4, 2012, 8:54:22 AM6/4/12
to
tussock <sc...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
> By which you mean, yes, the 4e rules are broken outside combat as
> written, and your suggestion is to forbid at-will powers outside combat via
> unstated rules changes, likely just a social contract to "not abuse broken
> rules" with players.
Basically right, except that that "social contract" is part of the rules --
> By which you mean, yes, the 4e rules are broken outside combat as
> written, and your suggestion is to forbid at-will powers outside combat via
> unstated rules changes, likely just a social contract to "not abuse broken
> rules" with players.
this is all right there in the DMG.
--
Matthew Miller
Alcore
Jun 4, 2012, 10:00:37 AM6/4/12
to mattdm...@mattdm.org
This is one of those style things. I like 3.x becasue the same rules apply all the time, including not in combat. 4e folks like 4e because combat is a separate cleanly self-contained thing that doesn't interfere with their "role-play" outside of combat.
There ARE legitimate reasons I might want to use a combat-like power outside of combat. If I have a combat power that lets me hurl flaming darts at an opponent, I really should be able to use them to start a forest fire or burn down the local tavern too. The question is how to balance those out of combat applications since the "Combat Frame" that imposes practical limits on the use of such things doesn't apply.
3e had this answer built in. The practical use limit isn't just a function of combat. 4e relies on the DM and players simply not to get into this position by mutual agreement.
(Don't get me started about combat situations that never end... like a "Helm's Deep" style keep-defence pitched battle... Truly, should a hero be able to stand on the battlements and hurl flaming darts every round for 8 hours non-stop? There REALLY SHOULD be a built in fatigue limit for ANY use of magic. Even if you normally never encounter it.)
Keith Davies
Jun 4, 2012, 12:36:36 PM6/4/12
to
David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:
> On 01/06/2012 2:42 PM, Loren Pechtel wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 11:36:18 -0400, David Lamb<dal...@cs.queensu.ca>
>> wrote:
>>> Pathfinder (3.75?) modified cantrips slightly and made them at-will.
>
>> One thing that I think would help--more lower-level spells. By the
>> time you're high level the cantrips at will are basically meaningless.
>
> Once upon a time Keith suggested that when you're high enough level,
> many first eventually second level spells might as well be "at will."
Honestly, I'm pretty sure this was closer to an observation of how it
> On 01/06/2012 2:42 PM, Loren Pechtel wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 11:36:18 -0400, David Lamb<dal...@cs.queensu.ca>
>> wrote:
>>> Pathfinder (3.75?) modified cantrips slightly and made them at-will.
>
>> One thing that I think would help--more lower-level spells. By the
>> time you're high level the cantrips at will are basically meaningless.
>
> Once upon a time Keith suggested that when you're high enough level,
> many first eventually second level spells might as well be "at will."
works in practice more than a suggested change to the rules.
Though I suppose if I had observed that this is how it works, I may have
suggested we might as well formalize it.
Matthew Miller
Jun 4, 2012, 1:10:42 PM6/4/12
to
Alcore <alc...@uurth.com> wrote:
>> Basically right, except that that "social contract" is part of the rules --
>> this is all right there in the DMG.
>> Basically right, except that that "social contract" is part of the rules --
>> this is all right there in the DMG.
> This is one of those style things. I like 3.x becasue the same rules
> apply all the time, including not in combat. 4e folks like 4e because
> combat is a separate cleanly self-contained thing that doesn't interfere
> with their "role-play" outside of combat.
Absolutely -- although of course it's worth noting that every game has to
> apply all the time, including not in combat. 4e folks like 4e because
> combat is a separate cleanly self-contained thing that doesn't interfere
> with their "role-play" outside of combat.
have some degree of that social contract, including 3.x, where by the rules
one can contrive silly situations like the "commoner railgun" or an army of
1000 first-level sorcerers.
Having this contract in place lets players do cool things in a fantasy
setting without having to get too bogged down in the model itself. Now,
where that line is drawn is absolutely a style thing, and I can appreciate
both sides. Either way, taken to extremes, it can get ridiculous -- which, I
guess, makes it particularly good for infinite internet arguments.
> There ARE legitimate reasons I might want to use a combat-like power
> outside of combat. If I have a combat power that lets me hurl flaming
> darts at an opponent, I really should be able to use them to start a
> forest fire or burn down the local tavern too.
saw my post on this, but they kind-of-almost had a starting point for what
to do in the ritual system, but failed to support it.
--
Matthew Miller
David Lamb
Jun 4, 2012, 2:55:07 PM6/4/12
to
On 04/06/2012 10:00 AM, Alcore wrote:
> (Don't get me started about combat situations that never end... like
> a "Helm's Deep" style keep-defence pitched battle... Truly, should a
> hero be able to stand on the battlements and hurl flaming darts every
> round for 8 hours non-stop? There REALLY SHOULD be a built in
> fatigue limit for ANY use of magic. Even if you normally never
> encounter it.)
This wouldn't be too hard to do in D&D if casting a spell caused some
> (Don't get me started about combat situations that never end... like
> a "Helm's Deep" style keep-defence pitched battle... Truly, should a
> hero be able to stand on the battlements and hurl flaming darts every
> round for 8 hours non-stop? There REALLY SHOULD be a built in
> fatigue limit for ANY use of magic. Even if you normally never
> encounter it.)
unrecoverable-until-you-rest HP loss. Lasts find in a few rounds of
combat, puts a severe limit on what happens during the day (aside from
heal sticks, of course, but that's a separate issue. Wands of X are
basically at-will X anyway).
Keith Davies
Jun 4, 2012, 4:28:01 PM6/4/12
to
adaptation of the change to the hit point model. You have a certain
amount of mojo, casting spells uses it, but much of it recovers between
fights... and pushing too hard for too long leaves you more vulnerable
to contrary effects.
Ken Arromdee
Jun 4, 2012, 5:53:34 PM6/4/12
to
In article <jqanhm$c5u$1...@dont-email.me>,
such. So you can cast lots of fireballs no matter what you have memorized,
but since it still costs resources to make the wands they are still somewhat
limited.
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
Obi-wan Kenobi: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes."
Yoda: "Do or do not. There is no 'try'."
David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:
>One of the things that sometimes bugs people about 3.5 and earlier magic
>users (wizard, cleric, etc) was that with the Vancian limited number of
>spell slots, they'd have to carefully manage their resources and thus
>not cast spells all that much. I'm curious about what might be done to
>alleviate this -- so that magic users could cast spells frequently, but
>not "unbalance" the game (grab too much spotlight time in games run such
>that game mechanics and character effectiveness have a fairly high
>correlation with spotlight time).
3.5 did something like this, but allow relatively easy creation of wands and
>One of the things that sometimes bugs people about 3.5 and earlier magic
>users (wizard, cleric, etc) was that with the Vancian limited number of
>spell slots, they'd have to carefully manage their resources and thus
>not cast spells all that much. I'm curious about what might be done to
>alleviate this -- so that magic users could cast spells frequently, but
>not "unbalance" the game (grab too much spotlight time in games run such
>that game mechanics and character effectiveness have a fairly high
>correlation with spotlight time).
such. So you can cast lots of fireballs no matter what you have memorized,
but since it still costs resources to make the wands they are still somewhat
limited.
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
Obi-wan Kenobi: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes."
Yoda: "Do or do not. There is no 'try'."
Gordon Burditt
Jun 4, 2012, 7:25:57 PM6/4/12
to
cantrip-like tricks in a non-combat situation only to show off for
a date. Pull a bouquet of flowers (or other things, like a
cigarette/cigar, a ring, condoms, his coin purse, candies, etc.)
apparently out of nowhere (actually, his backpack, which he's either
wearing or is nearby). Open doors for his date without touching
the door (assuming the door is not locked/stuck/being held shut).
Light cigarettes/cigars with a flame coming out of his finger.
Perform card tricks without touching the deck.
He could perform lots of simple tricks used by stage magicians,
although perhaps a bit more real (stuff a stage magician could walk
into a tavern and perform: no equipment he can't carry unnoticed
or advance preparation on-site allowed. Pulling a coin out of
someone's ear: yes. Pulling a *small* rabbit out of a hat: yes.
Pulling my brother's 25-pound rabbit out of a hat: probably not,
it's too big to hide. Card tricks: yes. Sawing a woman in half:
no. Levitating an elephant: no. Anything requiring a trap door
on a stage: no. ).
Does anyone think that allowing this, in this context, makes combat
magic less special?
Even in this context, there are ways to abuse it. The wizard
shouldn't be able to magically grab stuff out of someone else's
backpack, or put something in (e.g. substitute a live skunk for a
bouquet of flowers in a rival suitor's backpack).
tussock
Jun 5, 2012, 1:09:32 AM6/5/12
to
Keith Davies wrote:
> David Lamb wrote:
>> [At-will limits] wouldn't be too hard to do in D&D if casting a spell
defense costs. It always feels like spending it is just speeding up the
clock on a fight that's more likely to come out on my side if it runs
longer; increasing variation faster than favoritism by reducing the number
of key dice checks.
You know, over more events there's a natural regression to the mean,
which is that the players win. When the fight is quicker it can be a much
better average result and still be more likely that the players loose.
That's where the recent discussion about solid buffs vs nova tactics in
spell allocation comes out, the latter is much more powerful on average, the
former doesn't need to be because the fights last long enough to find the
average result almost all the time.
--
tussock
> David Lamb wrote:
>> [At-will limits] wouldn't be too hard to do in D&D if casting a spell
>> caused some unrecoverable-until-you-rest HP loss. Lasts find in a few
>> rounds of combat, puts a severe limit on what happens during the day
>> (aside from heal sticks, of course, but that's a separate issue. Wands
>> of X are basically at-will X anyway).
>
> As I (think I) said earlier, I explored this idea a little as an
>> rounds of combat, puts a severe limit on what happens during the day
>> (aside from heal sticks, of course, but that's a separate issue. Wands
>> of X are basically at-will X anyway).
>
> adaptation of the change to the hit point model. You have a certain
> amount of mojo, casting spells uses it, but much of it recovers between
> fights... and pushing too hard for too long leaves you more vulnerable
> to contrary effects.
I don't generally enjoy systems with a common pool for offense and
> amount of mojo, casting spells uses it, but much of it recovers between
> fights... and pushing too hard for too long leaves you more vulnerable
> to contrary effects.
defense costs. It always feels like spending it is just speeding up the
clock on a fight that's more likely to come out on my side if it runs
longer; increasing variation faster than favoritism by reducing the number
of key dice checks.
You know, over more events there's a natural regression to the mean,
which is that the players win. When the fight is quicker it can be a much
better average result and still be more likely that the players loose.
That's where the recent discussion about solid buffs vs nova tactics in
spell allocation comes out, the latter is much more powerful on average, the
former doesn't need to be because the fights last long enough to find the
average result almost all the time.
--
tussock
Keith Davies
Jun 5, 2012, 10:33:19 AM6/5/12
to
tussock <sc...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
> Keith Davies wrote:
>> David Lamb wrote:
>
>>> [At-will limits] wouldn't be too hard to do in D&D if casting a spell
>>> caused some unrecoverable-until-you-rest HP loss. Lasts find in a few
>>> rounds of combat, puts a severe limit on what happens during the day
>>> (aside from heal sticks, of course, but that's a separate issue. Wands
>>> of X are basically at-will X anyway).
>>
>> As I (think I) said earlier, I explored this idea a little as an
>> adaptation of the change to the hit point model. You have a certain
>> amount of mojo, casting spells uses it, but much of it recovers between
>> fights... and pushing too hard for too long leaves you more vulnerable
>> to contrary effects.
>
> I don't generally enjoy systems with a common pool for offense and
> defense costs. It always feels like spending it is just speeding up
> the clock on a fight that's more likely to come out on my side if it
> runs longer; increasing variation faster than favoritism by reducing
> the number of key dice checks.
I was talking about a similar mechanic, not same pool. I wasn't clear
> Keith Davies wrote:
>> David Lamb wrote:
>
>>> [At-will limits] wouldn't be too hard to do in D&D if casting a spell
>>> caused some unrecoverable-until-you-rest HP loss. Lasts find in a few
>>> rounds of combat, puts a severe limit on what happens during the day
>>> (aside from heal sticks, of course, but that's a separate issue. Wands
>>> of X are basically at-will X anyway).
>>
>> As I (think I) said earlier, I explored this idea a little as an
>> adaptation of the change to the hit point model. You have a certain
>> amount of mojo, casting spells uses it, but much of it recovers between
>> fights... and pushing too hard for too long leaves you more vulnerable
>> to contrary effects.
>
> I don't generally enjoy systems with a common pool for offense and
> defense costs. It always feels like spending it is just speeding up
> the clock on a fight that's more likely to come out on my side if it
> runs longer; increasing variation faster than favoritism by reducing
> the number of key dice checks.
in my earlier comment.
Each character has magic points that act much like hit points, except
that they fuel spells (and possibly other magic stuff, to be explored
later). Casting spells uses magic points. Many spells, the magic
recovers when you take a rest. Many spells have longer-term cost (the
ones you want to limit their use per day) that requires full rest, and
some (that you want to limit even more) take days to come back.
Just like a punch in the face costs you some hard to kill (you're mildly
dazed and your eyes are watering so you can't see well -- higher-level
characters can generally shake this off better) that comes back quickly
when you have time to get your act together and regroup, casting
/fireball/ might just use some temporary mana that comes back when you
can catch your breath. It may be that casting /cure light wounds/ is a
little more arduous and those magic points come back only when you've
had time to sleep and recover. At the risk of complicating things (who,
*me*?), maybe /gate/ is even more arduous and takes days to fully
recover from casting.
Actually, it occurs to me that I'm not actually offended by the idea of
some spells costing hit points. Maybe casting /gate/ is not only
exhausting enough to cost magic points, but could cost hit points as
well -- the body is so wracked by the casting that is suffers systemic
damage ('actual hit points') that take days to recover from, and it
might work better if they are not eligible for magic healing.
Even if it is fifty hit points damage, you're looking at about three
days' rest (or two of bed rest) to get over the damage, so it's just
enough that the spell's use becomes non-casual... and even then there
could be uses that are less arduous.
Nicole Massey
Jun 5, 2012, 2:46:55 PM6/5/12
to
"Keith Davies" <keith....@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
news:slrnjss65f.d4...@kjdavies.org...
points and cause a temporary drop in the Constitution Ability Score, like
Identify did in First Edition. These have to be rested up instead of healed.
By setting this up the right way you could eliminate the ability for all but
the most desperate to cast certain spells while on an adventure. This would
definitely crank up the drama in this situation, which would probably be a
good thing.
Magewolf
Jun 5, 2012, 3:09:07 PM6/5/12
to
On 6/5/2012 1:09 AM, tussock wrote:
there is only a 1 percent chance of them being hurt or killed by any
particular opponent the fact is that there are an unlimited number of
enemies and only one of them so it approaches certainty that they will
lose in the long run.
Suppose there was a one in a hundred chance of player character death
for every 3 rounds of combat.If you nova and end every combat in three
rounds you will average 1 death per every 100 encounters.On the other
hand if you let the combat drag on for nine rounds that cuts it down to
a 1 in 33 and a third average.
So with a hundred 3 round fights you are more likely to see a death in
the first 3 rounds but you are not on average going to have more deaths
per round and you get to live longer.
Now that does not mean that it would be possible to pull that off in
most games just that it almost always would be better to get through a
fight as fast as you can.
> Keith Davies wrote:
>
> I don't generally enjoy systems with a common pool for offense and
> defense costs. It always feels like spending it is just speeding up the
> clock on a fight that's more likely to come out on my side if it runs
> longer; increasing variation faster than favoritism by reducing the number
> of key dice checks.
>
> You know, over more events there's a natural regression to the mean,
> which is that the players win. When the fight is quicker it can be a much
> better average result and still be more likely that the players loose.
>
> That's where the recent discussion about solid buffs vs nova tactics in
> spell allocation comes out, the latter is much more powerful on average, the
> former doesn't need to be because the fights last long enough to find the
> average result almost all the time.
>
I disagree, the numbers are always stacked against the players.Even if
>
> I don't generally enjoy systems with a common pool for offense and
> defense costs. It always feels like spending it is just speeding up the
> clock on a fight that's more likely to come out on my side if it runs
> longer; increasing variation faster than favoritism by reducing the number
> of key dice checks.
>
> You know, over more events there's a natural regression to the mean,
> which is that the players win. When the fight is quicker it can be a much
> better average result and still be more likely that the players loose.
>
> That's where the recent discussion about solid buffs vs nova tactics in
> spell allocation comes out, the latter is much more powerful on average, the
> former doesn't need to be because the fights last long enough to find the
> average result almost all the time.
>
there is only a 1 percent chance of them being hurt or killed by any
particular opponent the fact is that there are an unlimited number of
enemies and only one of them so it approaches certainty that they will
lose in the long run.
Suppose there was a one in a hundred chance of player character death
for every 3 rounds of combat.If you nova and end every combat in three
rounds you will average 1 death per every 100 encounters.On the other
hand if you let the combat drag on for nine rounds that cuts it down to
a 1 in 33 and a third average.
So with a hundred 3 round fights you are more likely to see a death in
the first 3 rounds but you are not on average going to have more deaths
per round and you get to live longer.
Now that does not mean that it would be possible to pull that off in
most games just that it almost always would be better to get through a
fight as fast as you can.
tussock
Jun 6, 2012, 9:03:50 AM6/6/12
to
Magewolf wrote:
they fail, which is all part of the fun.
> Suppose there was a one in a hundred chance of player character death
> for every 3 rounds of combat. If you nova and end every combat in three
options to get bigger attacks, so instead of getting 6 hits before the
monsters get 12, you have to get 3 before they get 6 by going offensive. The
players are favoured, and as such their chance of losing /increases/ by
shortening the fight.
Proof simple in this contrived example, to win the latter as a football
game, you have to be ahead at full time *and* at half time, but scores are
always cancelled at the start of the 2nd half. You can see that's an
advantage to the opposition even when you get double reward for winning (as
long as you're better than them, which PCs essentially always are).
D&D is *much* more complex than that, but the principle will hold. The
more dice everyone has to roll to get anything done, the more often you'll
get the average result of "PC victory", assuming you're doing /something/
appropriate with your resources.
Halving the monster's attack is *better* than doubling the PC's.
> So with a hundred 3 round fights you are more likely to see a death in
> the first 3 rounds but you are not on average going to have more deaths
> per round and you get to live longer.
If you can shorten a fight without compromising a perfect defense too
much, so you get better and the monsters don't, yes. Great. Well done. The
thing is, some of those resources you spend on getting faster kills could
have been spent on slowing the monsters down. Which, in D&D, makes your
damage output cheaper (FB + FB is cheaper than FB + quickened MM), thus also
boosting your attacks across multiple fights.
> Now that does not mean that it would be possible to pull that off in
> most games just that it almost always would be better to get through a
> fight as fast as you can.
As long as it actually reduces the monster's ability to kill you, which
it may not. There's some things you want to nuke, because they will get
steady kills no matter what your defenses. But that mostly comes down to the
PCs being outclassed, in which case faster fights works better anyway, at
least until you gain an initial advantage.
--
tussock
> tussock wrote:
>
>> I don't generally enjoy systems with a common pool for offense and
>> defense costs. It always feels like spending it is just speeding up the
>> clock on a fight that's more likely to come out on my side if it runs
>> longer; increasing variation faster than favoritism by reducing the
>> number of key dice checks.
>>
>> You know, over more events there's a natural regression to the mean,
>> which is that the players win. When the fight is quicker it can be a much
>> better average result and still be more likely that the players loose.
>>
>> That's where the recent discussion about solid buffs vs nova tactics
>> in spell allocation comes out, the latter is much more powerful on
>> average, the former doesn't need to be because the fights last long
>> enough to find the average result almost all the time.
>
> I disagree, the numbers are always stacked against the players.
Yep. Massively in their favour, they just have to keep checking until
>
>> I don't generally enjoy systems with a common pool for offense and
>> defense costs. It always feels like spending it is just speeding up the
>> clock on a fight that's more likely to come out on my side if it runs
>> longer; increasing variation faster than favoritism by reducing the
>> number of key dice checks.
>>
>> You know, over more events there's a natural regression to the mean,
>> which is that the players win. When the fight is quicker it can be a much
>> better average result and still be more likely that the players loose.
>>
>> That's where the recent discussion about solid buffs vs nova tactics
>> in spell allocation comes out, the latter is much more powerful on
>> average, the former doesn't need to be because the fights last long
>> enough to find the average result almost all the time.
>
> I disagree, the numbers are always stacked against the players.
they fail, which is all part of the fun.
> Suppose there was a one in a hundred chance of player character death
> rounds you will average 1 death per every 100 encounters.On the other
> hand if you let the combat drag on for nine rounds that cuts it down to
> a 1 in 33 and a third average.
Yes, yes, cumulative probability. Look, if you have to spend defense
> hand if you let the combat drag on for nine rounds that cuts it down to
> a 1 in 33 and a third average.
options to get bigger attacks, so instead of getting 6 hits before the
monsters get 12, you have to get 3 before they get 6 by going offensive. The
players are favoured, and as such their chance of losing /increases/ by
shortening the fight.
Proof simple in this contrived example, to win the latter as a football
game, you have to be ahead at full time *and* at half time, but scores are
always cancelled at the start of the 2nd half. You can see that's an
advantage to the opposition even when you get double reward for winning (as
long as you're better than them, which PCs essentially always are).
D&D is *much* more complex than that, but the principle will hold. The
more dice everyone has to roll to get anything done, the more often you'll
get the average result of "PC victory", assuming you're doing /something/
appropriate with your resources.
Halving the monster's attack is *better* than doubling the PC's.
> So with a hundred 3 round fights you are more likely to see a death in
> the first 3 rounds but you are not on average going to have more deaths
> per round and you get to live longer.
much, so you get better and the monsters don't, yes. Great. Well done. The
thing is, some of those resources you spend on getting faster kills could
have been spent on slowing the monsters down. Which, in D&D, makes your
damage output cheaper (FB + FB is cheaper than FB + quickened MM), thus also
boosting your attacks across multiple fights.
> Now that does not mean that it would be possible to pull that off in
> most games just that it almost always would be better to get through a
> fight as fast as you can.
it may not. There's some things you want to nuke, because they will get
steady kills no matter what your defenses. But that mostly comes down to the
PCs being outclassed, in which case faster fights works better anyway, at
least until you gain an initial advantage.
--
tussock
tussock
Jun 7, 2012, 2:05:08 AM6/7/12
to
Gordon Burditt wrote:
> I don't see much harm in letting a wizard use at-will cantrips or
> cantrip-like tricks in a non-combat situation only to show off for
> a date.
<snip, spontanious stage magic>
> I don't see much harm in letting a wizard use at-will cantrips or
> cantrip-like tricks in a non-combat situation only to show off for
> a date.
> Does anyone think that allowing this, in this context, makes combat
> magic less special?
level folk looking to bilk the locals out of that quest reward. Real Wizards
have more of an uncontrollable touch of their top few spells, real magic
being hard to hold in all the way. Static cling that won't go away.
AD&Ds 1st level Druid spells are a pretty good model of where cantrips
should be. Almost all their spells are one level higher than normal for
Wiz/Clr, so their 1st level spells are really cantrips (also explaining why
they get "3rd level" spells at level 3, in that they don't really).
Which work better as quick-recovery effects than at-will.
--
tussock
Harold Groot
Jun 7, 2012, 5:42:45 AM6/7/12
to
On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 21:20:52 GMT, que...@infionline.net (Harold
Groot) wrote:
>As for the original question - I'm soon going to be starting a PF
>character pretty much designed to answer the original question here.
>It's a 4th level campaign, and I'll be playing a 1/1/1/1 multiclass
>with 3 spellcasting classes. So the PC will have 10 "Use at will"
>orisons and cantrips each day (and also a fair number of 1st level
>spells or similar class abilities). But he's already behind the
>dedicated spellcasters (they have 2nd level spells now, and quite soon
>they'll have 3rd level spells). His potential of advancing in any of
>his spellcasting classes is rather low. He has poor prime stats in
>all the spellcasting classes, so even if he devoted himself
>exclusively to one spellcasting class he would quickly top out on the
>level of spell he could cast. He's instead "Specializing in
>versatility".
Update - the players already in the game just leveled up, so I'll be
joining it at 5th level. I added another spellcasting class, so now
he'll have 14 "At will" orisons/cantrips every day. Some are locked
in (Sorcerer and Bard), some can be changed each day (Cleric and
Wizard). I join them later this week.
His versatility was given a boost by the Breadth Of Knowledge Feat (+2
on all Kn and Prof skills, can use untrained) and now by Bardic
Knowledge (+1 on Kn skills, can use untrained), and aside from 3 ranks
in acrobatics (for better Total Defense when needed) everything so far
is 1 rank per skill. Everything is a Class Skill for him (he picked
up Disable Device from the Vagabond Child Trait). He's moderately
good at practically everything, but isn't maxed out (or even close) on
anything. CRAFTER'S FORTUNE and BORROW SKILL help keep him as the
versatile skill monkey.
Of course, when joining up with a group he will understandably
evaluate where they might need a skill or two maxed out, so in a level
or two he might have a couple skills like that. If they don't have a
rogue and need trap-finding, well, he took the Bard/Archivist so he
could be ready for that. Taking a 2nd level will let him disarm even
magical traps. (It will also let him Take 20 on a Knowledge Skill
Check once a day.) But for now he's broad spectrum, not specialist.
Hmmmm... probably Oracle next. Lore, Focused Trance (+20 circumstance
bonus once per day on an Kn check, with the Luck Domain letting him
roll twice and take the best one. Added to the Take 20 above, could
really help the group solve some tough questions each day). Lore also
has Think On It, letting one re-try a failed Int check AND getting a
+10 competence bonus on the 2nd try. So maybe some "specializing"
will mean 2 levels of bard and 3 of oracle in his future....
>This follows my typical pattern of taking a theme and running with it,
>even if it is not particularly efficient to do so. He also has a 2nd
>theme of "Speed". It's an all-dwarf party, so the party movement is
>going to be limited by movement 20. He has movement 40 (+10 from
>Barbarian, +10 from Cleric/Travel Domain), so if the group is hustling
>he can keep up with them and still take a standard action every round.
>So he can, for example, be the lead scout and make an active
>Perception roll each round, or cast DETECT MAGIC down the path they're
>on, or keep various low-level buffs active (GUIDEANCE, etc.).
Getting the level of bard lets him add SIFT (usable as above while the
group is hustling) and UNWITTING ALLY (combat) as cantrips that may
see frequent use. It also added SUMMON INSTRUMENT and LULLABY, but
those will be for roleplaying rather than "effective play". His only
Perform ranks so far are in Singing and Acting (which cover all his
bardic performance categories), so he'll be summoning up various
instruments that he is NOT (yet) proficient in. Each one only lasts a
minute, so he might be doing scales on a trumpet one minute and then
trying a tune (poorly) on a bagpipe the next. If they yank the
bagpipe away, or puncture the bag, he can just summon up a new one....
He would EVENTUALLY get a single skill rank in each perform category
(if I play him long enough), but probably no more than 1 perform
category per level.
>In terms of effectiveness, he'll probably be reasonably effective for
>a few levels and then fall pretty far behind. In terms of how it
>FEELS to play the character - well, I guess I'll find out starting
>next week.
4th level was probably the "sweet spot" for this as the other casters
hadn't gotten 3rd level spells at that point. But 5th and even 6th
level should be playable. By 7th, though, I may need to find him a
heroic death or otherwise retire him. We'll just have to see how it
goes. Maybe making those Super-tough KN checks (along with all the
cantrips) would be worth having a pretty weak character in the other
aspects of the game. (We're trying to research Ancient Thassilonian
Magic, so someone who can make high difficulty Kn: Arcane checks may
come in very handy.)
In the higher-level section of the campaign (8th level), I need to
bring in a 2nd character. Though I fully realize how many people
(including the game designers) think that the class is woefully
underpowered, I'm considering bringing in an 8th-level Monk. Why?
Well, that's just the class I feel like playing right now. Maybe
regular, maybe Zen Archer, haven't really looked at it in detail.
Groot) wrote:
>As for the original question - I'm soon going to be starting a PF
>character pretty much designed to answer the original question here.
>It's a 4th level campaign, and I'll be playing a 1/1/1/1 multiclass
>with 3 spellcasting classes. So the PC will have 10 "Use at will"
>orisons and cantrips each day (and also a fair number of 1st level
>spells or similar class abilities). But he's already behind the
>dedicated spellcasters (they have 2nd level spells now, and quite soon
>they'll have 3rd level spells). His potential of advancing in any of
>his spellcasting classes is rather low. He has poor prime stats in
>all the spellcasting classes, so even if he devoted himself
>exclusively to one spellcasting class he would quickly top out on the
>level of spell he could cast. He's instead "Specializing in
>versatility".
Update - the players already in the game just leveled up, so I'll be
joining it at 5th level. I added another spellcasting class, so now
he'll have 14 "At will" orisons/cantrips every day. Some are locked
in (Sorcerer and Bard), some can be changed each day (Cleric and
Wizard). I join them later this week.
His versatility was given a boost by the Breadth Of Knowledge Feat (+2
on all Kn and Prof skills, can use untrained) and now by Bardic
Knowledge (+1 on Kn skills, can use untrained), and aside from 3 ranks
in acrobatics (for better Total Defense when needed) everything so far
is 1 rank per skill. Everything is a Class Skill for him (he picked
up Disable Device from the Vagabond Child Trait). He's moderately
good at practically everything, but isn't maxed out (or even close) on
anything. CRAFTER'S FORTUNE and BORROW SKILL help keep him as the
versatile skill monkey.
Of course, when joining up with a group he will understandably
evaluate where they might need a skill or two maxed out, so in a level
or two he might have a couple skills like that. If they don't have a
rogue and need trap-finding, well, he took the Bard/Archivist so he
could be ready for that. Taking a 2nd level will let him disarm even
magical traps. (It will also let him Take 20 on a Knowledge Skill
Check once a day.) But for now he's broad spectrum, not specialist.
Hmmmm... probably Oracle next. Lore, Focused Trance (+20 circumstance
bonus once per day on an Kn check, with the Luck Domain letting him
roll twice and take the best one. Added to the Take 20 above, could
really help the group solve some tough questions each day). Lore also
has Think On It, letting one re-try a failed Int check AND getting a
+10 competence bonus on the 2nd try. So maybe some "specializing"
will mean 2 levels of bard and 3 of oracle in his future....
>This follows my typical pattern of taking a theme and running with it,
>even if it is not particularly efficient to do so. He also has a 2nd
>theme of "Speed". It's an all-dwarf party, so the party movement is
>going to be limited by movement 20. He has movement 40 (+10 from
>Barbarian, +10 from Cleric/Travel Domain), so if the group is hustling
>he can keep up with them and still take a standard action every round.
>So he can, for example, be the lead scout and make an active
>Perception roll each round, or cast DETECT MAGIC down the path they're
>on, or keep various low-level buffs active (GUIDEANCE, etc.).
Getting the level of bard lets him add SIFT (usable as above while the
group is hustling) and UNWITTING ALLY (combat) as cantrips that may
see frequent use. It also added SUMMON INSTRUMENT and LULLABY, but
those will be for roleplaying rather than "effective play". His only
Perform ranks so far are in Singing and Acting (which cover all his
bardic performance categories), so he'll be summoning up various
instruments that he is NOT (yet) proficient in. Each one only lasts a
minute, so he might be doing scales on a trumpet one minute and then
trying a tune (poorly) on a bagpipe the next. If they yank the
bagpipe away, or puncture the bag, he can just summon up a new one....
He would EVENTUALLY get a single skill rank in each perform category
(if I play him long enough), but probably no more than 1 perform
category per level.
>In terms of effectiveness, he'll probably be reasonably effective for
>a few levels and then fall pretty far behind. In terms of how it
>FEELS to play the character - well, I guess I'll find out starting
>next week.
4th level was probably the "sweet spot" for this as the other casters
hadn't gotten 3rd level spells at that point. But 5th and even 6th
level should be playable. By 7th, though, I may need to find him a
heroic death or otherwise retire him. We'll just have to see how it
goes. Maybe making those Super-tough KN checks (along with all the
cantrips) would be worth having a pretty weak character in the other
aspects of the game. (We're trying to research Ancient Thassilonian
Magic, so someone who can make high difficulty Kn: Arcane checks may
come in very handy.)
In the higher-level section of the campaign (8th level), I need to
bring in a 2nd character. Though I fully realize how many people
(including the game designers) think that the class is woefully
underpowered, I'm considering bringing in an 8th-level Monk. Why?
Well, that's just the class I feel like playing right now. Maybe
regular, maybe Zen Archer, haven't really looked at it in detail.
Jim Davies
Jun 10, 2012, 7:14:58 PM6/10/12
to
On the grave of David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca> is inscribed:
>Pathfinder (3.75?) modified cantrips slightly and made them at-will. For
>those who use Pathfinder: how does that work out for you? Does it make
>magic users feel more magical? Does it create any problems?
So far, not an issue. I've fudged it a bit so that casting a lot
causes some fatigue, along the same lines as running. So you can cast
cantrips for something like (level+con) rounds before getting puffed.
The only time it's come up at all is when the sorc cast Ray of Frost a
lot to help put out a big fire before it engulfed a whole village, and
that was just background flavour.
--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim
D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.aaargh.org
There is no God. But there is pudding!
>Pathfinder (3.75?) modified cantrips slightly and made them at-will. For
>those who use Pathfinder: how does that work out for you? Does it make
>magic users feel more magical? Does it create any problems?
causes some fatigue, along the same lines as running. So you can cast
cantrips for something like (level+con) rounds before getting puffed.
The only time it's come up at all is when the sorc cast Ray of Frost a
lot to help put out a big fire before it engulfed a whole village, and
that was just background flavour.
--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim
D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.aaargh.org
There is no God. But there is pudding!
azothath
Aug 28, 2012, 1:26:07 AM8/28/12
to
On Friday, June 1, 2012 12:07:14 PM UTC-5, Alcore wrote:
> On Friday, June 1, 2012 10:36:18 AM UTC-5, David Lamb wrote:
>
> > [snip] I'm curious about what might be done ...
> [snip]
>
> I think magic's power and limits should be consitent and include balance against non-combat applications.
> I think the Sorcerer from 3e is a good compromise on the Vancian model. But I really think that the correct formula is a mana pool system, that preserves most of the Wizard's flexibility, while granting a limited amount of "at will" that balances big and small effects alike.
> The Wiz can Nova, or the Wiz can pace himself. This is little different than how a fighter manages his hit-points. In either case, characters cannot, and should not, be able to be continuously and endlessly effective. There needs to be a limit that eventually shuts them down hard.
well - there exists a way to do that in all eds of DnD... magic items. Of course that costs money, lots of money. lol...
Besides wands, scrolls, and rings of Wizardry, think about Pearls of Power, Amulet of Spell Cunning, Spell Store for weapons. There's a lot of ways to cache power. At a recent AD&D convention I used an Oblivax to store all of my PC's previous day's spells.
So there are ways to hoarde and cache magic power in the game.
Secondly, Wizards could always multiclass int Sorcerer.
and Lastly - review Mage of the Arcane Order and Spell Pools.
On a larger scope, and more to the point you want answered, the main problem is how much power (game wise) is in a spell and spell level. This has always been done by trial and error. I don't see this changing much as "balance" threads never resolve. This tells you it's not scientific, but a matter of taste.
Mana systems that used the existing DnD 2.0 spell set never really worked. The same would be true of 3.0. I don't consider a Sorcerer a mana user - but I can see your point. The system allowed him variability in spell choice at the moment of usage. Sadly there was no theme to the sorcerer's magic use - it was pretty much done by choosing what most useful.
The official solution as I recall is for wizards to leave "open" slots in their spell lists and memorize spells later in the day (15min*Spell Level of the highest spell memorized). Not quick.
Not many people complain about the mage's bonded object in Pathfinder. I'd take the hint from that and extend it. For example some options are;
1) Wizards cast their extra "INT" bonus spells as any spell they know in that spell level.
2) Wizards choose up to a total of their INT bonus in spell slots, at most one per spell level, that they can cast as any spell (in that spell level) they know and Specialist wizards forgo the above and can cast their "extra" specialist slot as any one of their known specialist spells.
3) Wizards choose up to a total of their CHA bonus in spell slots, at most one per spell level, that they can cast as any spell (in that spell level) they know.
1) Casting spontaneously for Wizards adds a move action to casting time of the spell. Applying metamagics to a spontaneous spell does not take extra time (though it does use a higher spell slot as appropriate).
2a) Applying metamagics to a spontaneous spell does take extra time (see Sorcerer).
======
azothath
Juggling shuggoths (or do they juggle themselves?) on the Multiverse's Got Talent...
> On Friday, June 1, 2012 10:36:18 AM UTC-5, David Lamb wrote:
>
> > [snip] I'm curious about what might be done ...
> > so that magic users could cast spells frequently, but not "unbalance"
> > the game.
> [snip]
>
> I think magic's power and limits should be consitent and include balance against non-combat applications.
> I think the Sorcerer from 3e is a good compromise on the Vancian model. But I really think that the correct formula is a mana pool system, that preserves most of the Wizard's flexibility, while granting a limited amount of "at will" that balances big and small effects alike.
> The Wiz can Nova, or the Wiz can pace himself. This is little different than how a fighter manages his hit-points. In either case, characters cannot, and should not, be able to be continuously and endlessly effective. There needs to be a limit that eventually shuts them down hard.
well - there exists a way to do that in all eds of DnD... magic items. Of course that costs money, lots of money. lol...
Besides wands, scrolls, and rings of Wizardry, think about Pearls of Power, Amulet of Spell Cunning, Spell Store for weapons. There's a lot of ways to cache power. At a recent AD&D convention I used an Oblivax to store all of my PC's previous day's spells.
So there are ways to hoarde and cache magic power in the game.
Secondly, Wizards could always multiclass int Sorcerer.
and Lastly - review Mage of the Arcane Order and Spell Pools.
On a larger scope, and more to the point you want answered, the main problem is how much power (game wise) is in a spell and spell level. This has always been done by trial and error. I don't see this changing much as "balance" threads never resolve. This tells you it's not scientific, but a matter of taste.
Mana systems that used the existing DnD 2.0 spell set never really worked. The same would be true of 3.0. I don't consider a Sorcerer a mana user - but I can see your point. The system allowed him variability in spell choice at the moment of usage. Sadly there was no theme to the sorcerer's magic use - it was pretty much done by choosing what most useful.
The official solution as I recall is for wizards to leave "open" slots in their spell lists and memorize spells later in the day (15min*Spell Level of the highest spell memorized). Not quick.
Not many people complain about the mage's bonded object in Pathfinder. I'd take the hint from that and extend it. For example some options are;
1) Wizards cast their extra "INT" bonus spells as any spell they know in that spell level.
2) Wizards choose up to a total of their INT bonus in spell slots, at most one per spell level, that they can cast as any spell (in that spell level) they know and Specialist wizards forgo the above and can cast their "extra" specialist slot as any one of their known specialist spells.
3) Wizards choose up to a total of their CHA bonus in spell slots, at most one per spell level, that they can cast as any spell (in that spell level) they know.
1) Casting spontaneously for Wizards adds a move action to casting time of the spell. Applying metamagics to a spontaneous spell does not take extra time (though it does use a higher spell slot as appropriate).
2a) Applying metamagics to a spontaneous spell does take extra time (see Sorcerer).
======
azothath
Juggling shuggoths (or do they juggle themselves?) on the Multiverse's Got Talent...
0 new messages