| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 20 Nov 2014 : 10:29:03
I'm working on a new ruleset.
Its a new d20 ruleset, not a collection of homebrew rules. Built from the ground up around an Action-Reaction mechanic. The person performing the action rolls the dice, the person reacting does not (so it cuts down on the number of dicerolls). I've limited the bonuses so its not as much as 3.5 but nowhere near as few as 5e. I've got a number of core classes (fighter, cleric, wizard, druid, rogue, bard, ranger, knight (paladin), sorcerer, all of which are fully customisable with options so that you pick what abilities you gain at each level (down to whether you increase your casting ability or not and what spell list you use - so less need for multiclass).
I'm a bit under halfway there (spells mostly done, combat rules mostly done, skills in first draft, and classes still in the design stage, but im wondering about a few things once i'm finished.
1 - Anyone have any ideas how i can release/publish the rulebooks. I was thinking releasing word documents for free on the internet but charging £5 for a compiled pdf (maybe with artwork). Not sure how i could get printed copies - do companies print books for random people?
2 - Anyone know whether Kickstarter would make a suitable platform for funding releasing/printing an rpg ruleset. It says it can be used for games but requires a video (i'm not pretty enough to be on a video) and im not sure what rewards i could give (maybe naming a class option or getting them involved in the playtesting)
3 - Anyone interested in playtesting once i'm done (or indeed partway through).
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 30 Jul 2015 : 20:43:38
I've gone for moving Ranger, Bard, and Knight out to themes (along with the Monk and Barbarian which I already moved previously).
So for base classes there are Fighter, Rogue, Druid, Wizard, Cleric, and Sorcerer. A much more friendly number of classes for people to choose from.
Pick Fighter if you want to do fighting. Pick Rogue if you want to use skills. Pick Sorcerer for something exotic. Finally pick from Druid, Wizard, or Cleric according to what type of spells you want to cast.
That's the Classes and Combat finished, Skills just needs tidying up but its nearing a final draft.
I'm going to restart my gaming group again soon and try out the latest version of these rules (I had to take a break because of work problems).
I don't suppose anyone else fancies having a playtest for me. I'm more than happy to design races, magic items and monsters on request for people to use in any adventures they want to run? |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 27 Jul 2015 : 20:28:34
Pretty much finished the Combat section now.
Looking at Classes again and I'm wondering if I should take the simplification one step further.
I moved Monk and Barbarian out to a theme because they were more like a job or a person's background than a stereotypical grouping of adventurer. A barbarian is (ignoring the rage ability which not all barbarian people would have) really just a fighter that hasn't got access to expensive armours and shields (and so rely on light armour and bigger weapons. A bard is really just a rogue that can cast a few spells.
Using that logic, there are only really 3 types of classes: Rogue/Expert, Fighter, Prepared Magic User, and Spontaneous Magic User
So do I simplify it so that all the more complex classes (druid, cleric, wizard, ranger, bard, barbarian, monk) are merely just expanded themes for a base class. If so, what options should I give to the base class. I could use the base class to determine HD, spellcasting ability (caster level), and skills, then all options are from the themes.
The benefit is that when designing an NPC you use exactly the same base classes and process for creating an NPC as creating PCs (except that you wouldn't add a theme with all its complexities unless you wanted a major NPC).
The downside is that I either need to allow players to have multiple themes, or make the themes very broad and expansive to allow lots of customisation (so for instance a Wilderness Warrior theme that includes everything a ranger and druid can do, then a Holy Warrior theme that includes everything a paladin and cleric can do. Also there might be some problem with hybrid classes (i.e. if I had a ranger theme that did not have a caster level option then the player would need to pick a Magic User base class). Plus i'll also need to rewrite the Classes document, but it makes it simpler and smaller to deal with in the end. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 29 Jun 2015 : 19:23:48
Updated skills and combat to make them work with the idea of attacks, saves, and armour checks being skill based.
The skills document should be pretty much finished apart from a few examples and bits of tidying up. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 21 May 2015 : 14:59:32
Decided to go with option 3 and reworked the rules (only a minor rewrite taking 3 hours).
Now all attack checks, armour checks, and save checks use a skill modifier. Melee Attacks use the Melee Weaponry skill, Ranged Attacks use the Missile Weaponry skill, Armour checks use the Defence skill, Spell Attacks use the Arcana, Religion, or Nature skill (depending on the type of caster).
That way people can train to be better at attacking in anything, rather than it being by virtue of what class they have chosen. The Weaponry and Defence skills have Expertise that approximate to the Weapon Group Feats, and when you take the Skill Training feat you can select an Expertise or gain a cumulative +1 bonus to the skill check (take it multiple times to get a higher bonus or become equally skilled with multiple weapon types). If you use a weapon or armour not within your area of expertise then you only apply half your skill modifier to the check. So now i've reduced the number of Feats (Universal Options) to less than a handful and made character creation much easier because you now get between 6 and 10 Skill Training feats at first level, and 2 class options per level, and thats it, nothing else.
When you take damage a Circumstance penalty is applied to all checks made that round equal to the amount of damage suffered in that round minus your Discipline modifier. That way not only spellcasters can have their attacks interrupted, and its never an outright failure, there is always a chance of success.
As far as armour checks go. All armour imposes an Item penalty (used to be Armour check penalty) that applies to all checks (including armour checks. This can be offset and even eliminated (even providing a bonus) by taking the Defence skill to show you are trained in using certain types of armour. That way characters with light armour, heavy armour, no armour, or just shields are just as easy/difficult to hit as each other and is dependent upon the skill level of the character in question. The only advantage for having armour is that it grants Damage Resistance to reduce the amount of damage you receive.
It adds an extra level of complexity without increasing workload too much (all combat actions now comprise of one dice roll and that should be it, the reaction check is just a value lookup and there is no need for spell check failures or discipline checks, its just a modifier to the action check). So should you employ hit and run tactics to reduce the damage you take, should you concentrate on big baddies to reduce their effectiveness, should you kill the minions first, should you work in pairs so one takes the damage while the other strikes at full effectiveness.
I'll be uploading the changes tonight for those that want to see. The Combat, Classes, and Skills documents have been altered. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 19 May 2015 : 19:28:00
As an alternative here is a much more radical idea that takes the implementation of a single unified framework one step further.
Make attack checks and armour checks operate as skill checks. So there would be a Missile Combat skill, and Melee Combat skill (with expertise for each of the Weapon Group feats).
For the saving throws I'd use Discipline instead of Willpower, Athletics instead of Fortitude, and Acrobatics instead of Reflex.
Then any "attack" check is actually a skill check that uses the appropriate attack skill against a corresponding defence skill, with a Circumstance penalty equal to the amount of damage taken minus your Discipline skill modifier.
It'd take a little bit of alteration of some options and spells (to make them all +1 modifiers) but it wouldn't require any testing because everything will operate on the same rules and so is immediately balanced.
|
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 19 May 2015 : 09:00:31
Idly musing over things while i'm at work (which is terminally dull).
It occured to me that the Discipline skill is now a bit underused and discriminatory against spell casters (especially since all classes now make attack checks for anything that affects another character, regardless of whether its a melee, ranged, or spell attack) because when a spellcaster is struck in combat he must make a check to continue his action or lose it, but if a fighter gets fireballed he is unaffected.
So i'm trying to think of how i could apply Discipline to all checks. After all, if you get a sword in the gut, it is as likely to prevent your ability to swing a sword or shoot a bow as it is to cast a spell (pain and leaking body fluids are a serious distraction to any activity).
Also i dislike the idea that you have to make another roll before your check in order to see if it succeeds. Extra checks tend to be forgotten or ignored by players and they interrupt the flow of play.
So here are a few ideas.
1 - All damage incurred in a round contributes towards a Circumstance penalty that is applied to all checks made that round (skill checks, save checks, attack checks, etc), and the Discipline modifier can be used to reduce that penalty.
2 - Everytime a character wishes to perform an action a passive Discipline check is made (i.e. compare your Discipline modifier +10, to the amount of damage received this round). If your Discipline check is lower then your action fails.
Number 1 has the bonus of being slightly more realistic, if you get punched in the face a lot you start to miss on your attacks and lose concentration, unless you are very disciplined, in which case the effects are negated. As a downside this reduces the usefulness of the Discipline skill so that it can only be used actively to resist vigorous motion and other types of non damaging distractions.
Number 2 is an all or nothing approach, i.e. your attack fails or it doesnt and still includes a check (although passive) that people may forget to apply.
Any thoughts on which method to use, or any other alternatives.
I kind of like the idea of combat flowing in particular ways, so the first character to strike in combat is at an advantage and can press that advantage until he misses at which point the other character has a chance to even the odds. It makes having allies aid you in combat much more important (the assisting characters may not have been hit and so can hinder your opponent).
|
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 07 Apr 2015 : 10:10:57
Been having a go at properly converting all characters and their items and spells in my ongoing campaign into the new rules (until now i've mostly been using it on the fly without officially burdening the players with new mechanics)
So here are a few items i converted using the formula in the Magic Items document. It seems to work well enough from a cost point of view. Potions are cheap, as are charged items, anything more permanent is very expensive even at low levels of enchantment.
White Dragonhide Breastplate (Enhancement Level 1): This dragonhide belonged to the last chieftain of the HewnHead tribe of orcs. This great old chief in his younger days sought out the white dragon Scaralagmydin that plagued the tribe in the mountains of the Spine of the World. In single combat the massive orc slew the white dragon with his signature adamantine double axe and took his skin. The best orcish smiths (and a few dwarven captives) spent 2 years working on the hide to produce this excellent quality breast plate for their great chieftain. This breastplate is completely immune to cold damage but otherwise is exactly the same as a steel breastplate
Properties:
- Masterwork – Grants +1 Item bonus to Check Penalty
Magic Properties:
- Shielding – Passive Activation, Enhancement Level 1, Permanent. Grants +1 Item bonus to Armour when worn.
- Agile – Passive Activation, Enhancement Level 1, Permanent. Grants +1 Item bonus to Check Penalty when worn.
Cost: 16,000 gp/xp
Bracers of Armour (Enhancement Level 1):
Magical Properties:
Shielding – Passive Activation, Enhancement Level 1, Permanent. Grants +1 Item bonus to Armour when worn
Cost: 12,000 gp/xp
Dracofoil (Enhancement Level 1): Forged by Grelg Farhammer of Underholme 20 years after the destruction of Underholme by the combined forces of orcs, drow, and dragon. Grelg witnessed his entire family fall in the city or during the flight into the Underdark. Sick with grief the dwarf desired to take his vengeance and so for 20 years he lived, mined, and forged in this cave to create the perfect instrument of his vengeance.
Unfortunately for Grelg, just as he finished the spear a huge many legged dragon like creature (behir) took up residence in the adjacent cavern and his courage failed him. And so he died of starvation in the place where Crag found him, paralysed with fear.
Properties:
- Folded Metal – Grants +4 bonus to Hardness of the item.
Magic Properties:
- Deadly – Use Activation, Enhancement Level 1, Permanent. Grants +1 Item bonus to Attack checks and damage rolls when wielded.
- Bane – Use Activation, Enhancement Level 1, Permanent. Grants +1d6 damage against shadow dragons when used to strike such creatures.
Cost: 20,000 gp/xp
Drow Shortsword (Enhancement Level 1): This shortsword is one of many thousands of mass produced blades crafted by the drow in centuries past. This blade disintegrates if it comes into contact with sunlight level of light and as a result this type of magic item has fallen out of favour in the current century as the drow make increasing forays to the surface.
Magic Properties:
- Deadly – Use Activation, Enhancement Level 1, Permanent. Grants +1 Item bonus to Attack checks and damage rolls when wielded.
- Drowcraft – Must succeed on a DC 10 Fortitude saving throw for every round it is in contact with sunlight levels of light or else be disintegrated.
Cost: 6,250 gp/xp
Ring of Jumping (Enhancement Level 1): A minor trinket enchanted by one of the dwarven priests of Underholme over many decades.
Magic Properties:
- Enspelled (Jump): - Use Activation, Enhancement Level 1, Permanent. As a Standard Action you may perform an immediate Acrobatics/Athletics (Jump) check with a +2 Item bonus to the skill check.
Cost: 5,000 gp/xp
Amulet of Sending (Enhancement Level 1): Property of the 1st Eternal Empire of the Great Chasm located on the Elemental Plane of Earth. It must have been carried by an agent of that empire who ultimately ended up as a snack for one of the many creatures in the Underdark.
Magic Properties:
- Enspelled (Sending): - Use Activation, Enhancement Level 1, Permanent. As a standard action send a 10 word message to anyone you know on the same plane as you.
Cost: 5,000 gp/xp
Elixir of Hiding (Enhancement Level 1): A potion brewed by the gnomes for the winner of the stealth contest.
Magic Properties:
- Enspelled (Invisibility): Destruction Activation, Enhancement Level 1, 1 Charge. Gain a +2 Item bonus to Stealth checks for 1 minute.
Cost: 120 gp/xp
Staff of Illumination (Enhancement Level 3): This staff is usually sheathed in silver and decorated with sunbursts.
Magic Properties:
- Enspelled (Dancing Lights): - Spell Trigger Activation, Enhancement Level 1, 10 charges
- Enspelled (Illumination): - Spell Trigger Activation, Enhancement Level 1, 10 charges
- Enspelled (Daylight): - Spell Trigger Activation, Enhancement Level 2, 10 charges
- Enspelled (Sunburst): - Spell Trigger Activation, Enhancement Level 3, 10 (7) charges
Cost: 13,600 gp/xp
Wand of Magic Missile (Enhancement Level 1):
Magic Properties:
- Enspelled (Magic Missile): - Spell Trigger Activation, Enhancement Level 1, 50 (31) charges
Cost: 1,200 gp/xp
3 Potions of Cure Wounds (Enhancement Level 1):
Magic Properties:
- Enspelled (Cure Wounds): - Destruction Activated, Enhancement Level 1, 1 charge
Cost: 120 gp/xp
Ring of Protection (Enhancement Level 1):
Magic Properties:
- Shielding: - Passive Activation, Enhancement Level 1, Permanent. Grants +1 Item bonus to Armour
Cost: 12,000 gp/xp
Bead of Fangs (Enhancement Level 1):
Magic Properties:
- Enspelled (Summon Nature’s Ally – 1d6 snakes): - Spell Trigger Activation, Enhancement Level 1, Permanent. Summons 1d6 snakes
Cost: 4,200 gp/xp
|
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 17 Mar 2015 : 20:11:19
Updated lots of races (orc, Halfling, gnome are now available and you can make true halfbreeds by taking one race option from each class), some classes, and plenty more themes. Move paladin and blackguard out to a theme now so you can become a blackguard if you are any evil alignment and you can become a paladin if you are any good alignment. Obviously some classes make better paladins or blackguards since its primarily a combat class.
|
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 17 Mar 2015 : 08:49:33
Thanks for the words of support. After i've finished, spells, themes, classes, magic items, monsters and rituals i will head straight to unearthed arcana and check out that failed spell effects.
I figure if i mix the wild magic table, the wand of wonder table, and now that failed spell effects detail i should be able to come up with a decent random magic table for when you roll a natural 1 on a spell attack. After all if you can critically fumble with a weapon and drop it (or give it the broken condition) then why not have spells go awry on a critical fumble.
Of course there is a lot more to do before i get that far but its coming along slowly. Apart from a lack of monsters i think the system is at least usable now. |
| Matt James |
Posted - 16 Mar 2015 : 21:34:25
I admit to not reading the entire thread, so if this was mentioned, forgive me. In 2e, there were alternate spell effects for failed spelled. I believe in Unearthed Arcana. Great idea, and one I support. Good thread. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 16 Mar 2015 : 08:52:47
Well in this system every character is unique, not because of the feats they possess but because of the class they design (each class is full of abilities and the player picks which one he wants to have so no two characters of the same class should ever be the same).
I will have an Improved Counterspell class option (available for an Incantatrist Theme i think) where you can use any spell of the same level or higher (regardless of school) to counter any other spell.
And you just gave me an idea for two more class options. One for the wizard where if the spell attack roll on the counterspell is within the critical threat range then he doesnt expend the spell energy (keeps the spell/slot). And then another one for the Incantatrist (which also gets the one mentioned for the wizard) where if the counterspell is successful then he doesnt expend the spell energy.
The whole reason i changed the counterspell mechanic to be like this is because in native pathfinder your chance of ever using a counterspell is equal to 1/the number of spells in existence (which is an ever increasing number) unless you fill all your spell slots with dispel magic.
Not only that but you have to ready an action first in order to use the counterspell so very often your action will be wasted because there is such a small chance of you having the spell memorised.
In this version there is a 1/9 (or however many schools of magic there are) chance of you being able to counterspell, and almost every magic user will have memorised a variety of spells for a variety of situations. That chance is static rather than ever decreasing (as more spells are released) and i'm hoping that i will actually see at least one person attempt to counter a spell in a campaign i am running (so far i have run 4-5 campaigns of varying length using 3.5/pf and no one has ever used a conterspell).
Then of course there is the spell attack roll to see if your counterspell succeeds so no action is ever guaranteed success. And finally like native counterspell you have to try and figure out what your opponent is casting in order for you to counter it. If you fail that arcana check then you can still guess what type of spell from a school of magic to cast with at least some chance you will succeed (as opposed to having to guess what exact spell to cast from all spells in existence).
However everyone has their own personal tastes, and it would take very little work to houserule it so that you need to use the exact spell in order to counterspell. Personally i prefer mechanics that are available to as many people as possible and usable in almost every encounter (otherwise whats the point of them if they never get used). Thats why fighters, archers, and spellcasters can disarm with a spell that targets AC and deals damage. Thats why fighting defensively is part of an action to attack (melee, ranged, or spell). Thats why i've tried to make all the actions operate in the same framework so they can have all the same rules apply to them (such as critical hits, critical misses, opportunity attacks, etc).
I've tried to make these rules similar to pathfinder and 3.5 to make them more accessible, but they are fast evolving into something different (and hopefully better, but i guess that depends upon your taste). |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 16 Mar 2015 : 00:33:22
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
Well its a matter of usefulness. The chances of you knowing the exact spell to counter it are relatively small given the number of spells available (i have trimmed out a lot of spells by allowing a spell to be cast at any level so cure light wounds and cure moderate wounds no longer exist, only cure wounds) and there are still over 100 pages of spells.
Given the improbability of possessing the spell required to perform the action it then seems nearly pointless to have the action in the first place.
Using your Harry Potter analogy, there is no way Harry possessed the spell that Voldemort was casting at him (most likely Avada Kedavra), it was just a magical energy in reverse that cancelled it out.
So you dont actually cast Cure Wounds in order to cancel out that Summon Monster spell. You expend the energy of the spell (energy from a conjuration spell) and alter it slightly on the fly in order to counter the spell being hurled at you.
Now the action is able to be used much more often, in almost every encounter in fact. Spell and counterspells will be flying all over the map. A wizard no longer becomes solely a magical cannon, instead he is a means of nullifying enemy casters, not by obliterating them, but instead by countering their spells.
To make a bit of a challenge you usually have to know what school of magic the spell is (thats where the skill check comes in) in order to counter it, but for powerful wizards you can get an ability that allows you to counter any spell with any spell of the same level or higher.
The flavour as to why in this case is of lesser important in favour of building what is hopefully a fun and useful mechanic (how many people used counterspell in native pathfinder or 3.5, i've never seen it used?). And its not just wizards that can do it, so that cleric that normally stands around casting healing spells can do countering as well.
This make the improved counterspell feat less applicable. Therefore, while your idea has merit, I'd prefer it not in my games. Thus, for the average person.... they CAN counterspell IF they happen to know the spell, OR they can use dispel magic. Personally, I'd rather few people pursuing counterspelling, thus them having to take something like improved counterspell. What I would like to see though is something along the lines of energy conservation through counterspelling. For instance, if you used improved counterspell to counter a spell, perhaps there's a small chance that you don't expend your own magic if you are highly successful? Throw this in with certain class abilities or feats that will allow you to counterspell one spell per round as a certain type of action (forget which type, but its in response to another person's action) and you have an interesting character.... but you had to build to it. It makes your character a bit unique, just like someone who focuses on attuning gems, crafting contingent spells & spell mantle along with magic artisan (attune gem, craft contingent spell) is a bit unique, or someone who focuses on persistent and extended spells is a bit unique. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 15 Mar 2015 : 14:39:38
Added a Themes document for a few ideas on the method of multiclassing I intend to use.
Its bare bones at the moment, but if anyone has an idea for a theme then let me know. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 13 Mar 2015 : 14:50:26
Well I will upload the latest versions tonight. If ever you feel like giving it a try I woul#271; be most grateful to hear what worked, what u liked, what u didnt and what is missing.
Most of all thanks for taking the time to look and give ur opinion |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 13 Mar 2015 : 14:23:08
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
Well the whole point of the system I've designed...
Sounds pretty cool. I like me some flexible character design options.  |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 13 Mar 2015 : 09:27:20
Decided to do away with Max Dex completely and make Armour Check Penalty apply as an Item penalty to all checks. So that is Attack, Save, Armour, Skill, all checks (damage roll isnt classed as a check).
Initially that might seem counter intuitive to how the game worked previously. By wearing full plate armour you now immediately lower your Armour check result by -2 (and all your attacks and saves and skill checks by -6). Remember that full plate armour provides a +4 bonus to armour checks but has a -6 check penalty.
So it would initially seem like a bad idea to wear super armour. However such armour is really heavy, wearing it all day is tiring, and it takes a while to get in and out so you would normally only wear it if you knew you were going into battle.
Being proficient in the armour merely makes you able to perform basic tasks in it.
However the big point of armour is not to make you harder to hit, it is to reduce the damage of the blows against you. So full plate armour provides a DR of 4 which reduces all physical damage (except Bludgeoning) by 4 which is a god send if you are a squishy and frail humanoid.
Taking Armour Training reduces your ACP for wearing the armour.
So a fighter or knight can become unhindered while wearing full plate (take Armour Training six times), and indeed anyone can take Armour Training with a universal option or by selecting certain themes. A rogue wearing a chain shirt will find their Dex score counters the check penalty to armour and most of their skills and even there attack checks (but fort and will saves will suffer).
Your high quality armours are now more useful (masterwork reduces ACP as do some special materials) and magic armour bonuses are going to be the dogs danglies of treasure. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 12 Mar 2015 : 19:54:20
Well the whole point of the system I've designed is that you have the freedom to define your class how you want it. Now admittedly a wizard is limited to either basic weapons (dagger, staff, etc) or crossbows in the beginning and he has no armour, but with a universal option (feat) he can easily acquire proficiency in any weapon he wants, and indeed in armour as well.
Then for class options he can choose to improve his companion to make it a viable combatant (he can also choose a familiar from any animal or magical beast). At the moment most of a wizard's abilities relate to spells because that is their area of focus, but as I go along more will be added. As of now they can use a curse a number of times per day to reduce an opponents checks (attack, save, AC etc).
I have added a few themes as well which is kind of like a subclass but can be used for lots of classes, so a wizard choosing the monster hunter theme (think Witcher) could select options that allow him to wear armour and cast spells. (this is actually possible anyway since Armour Check Penalty now applies to spell attacks instead of an arcane spell failure so all wizards can wear leather armour and cast spells, but if they aren't proficient they suffer the usual -4 penalty on all checks).
Then there is the idea I have been toying with to make wands actual weapons that deal 1d6 nonlethal damage (range 5 squares) as long as a character has any spells left.
And finally there are skills. Any character can heal hit point damage and remove conditions with the heal skill. The knowledge skill can be used to find weaknesses in monsters to exploit (all monsters have at least one vulnerability which is very important in this system).
So hopefully no one should ever feel useless. Even a wizard with a dex of 10 would stand a chance of hitting most enemies with a crossbow since there is no BAB or save progression and natural armour is linked to size instead of scaling according to its CR.
And all that is without the need to multiclass. I haven't written the system with multiclass in mind but I have no intention of stopping it. |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 12 Mar 2015 : 17:10:19
Ah, okay. I like the "expending energy" rather than casting a spell to counter, and I support the goal of making it more possible for PCs to use. I can dig the image of wizards counterspelling each other too. At least until they run out of spellcasting power. Are they stuck using daggers and staffs after that point, like older editions' wizards? |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 12 Mar 2015 : 16:41:57
Well its a matter of usefulness. The chances of you knowing the exact spell to counter it are relatively small given the number of spells available (i have trimmed out a lot of spells by allowing a spell to be cast at any level so cure light wounds and cure moderate wounds no longer exist, only cure wounds) and there are still over 100 pages of spells.
Given the improbability of possessing the spell required to perform the action it then seems nearly pointless to have the action in the first place.
Using your Harry Potter analogy, there is no way Harry possessed the spell that Voldemort was casting at him (most likely Avada Kedavra), it was just a magical energy in reverse that cancelled it out.
So you dont actually cast Cure Wounds in order to cancel out that Summon Monster spell. You expend the energy of the spell (energy from a conjuration spell) and alter it slightly on the fly in order to counter the spell being hurled at you.
Now the action is able to be used much more often, in almost every encounter in fact. Spell and counterspells will be flying all over the map. A wizard no longer becomes solely a magical cannon, instead he is a means of nullifying enemy casters, not by obliterating them, but instead by countering their spells.
To make a bit of a challenge you usually have to know what school of magic the spell is (thats where the skill check comes in) in order to counter it, but for powerful wizards you can get an ability that allows you to counter any spell with any spell of the same level or higher.
The flavour as to why in this case is of lesser important in favour of building what is hopefully a fun and useful mechanic (how many people used counterspell in native pathfinder or 3.5, i've never seen it used?). And its not just wizards that can do it, so that cleric that normally stands around casting healing spells can do countering as well. |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 12 Mar 2015 : 16:32:47
I like the idea of using counterspell to take control of someone else's spell. I visualize it as a priori incantatem -- the neat thing where Harry's wand opposed Voldemort's. Counterspell to actually dispel the other spell might be like clashing and holding light sabers against each other.
That said, expanding counterspell to let casters use any spell of the same school breaks suspension of disbelief for me. In theory it's awesome, but how does it make sense to cast bull's strength to counter darkvision? Especially in the context of wresting control of it away from the caster... that means you cast bull's strength and end up gaining the benefit of darkvision.
I can wrap my head around overriding the magic with similar magic, but I can't see letting a player cast waves of fatigue to counter animate dead.
Not trying to be a jerk! Maybe I'm just missing something? |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 12 Mar 2015 : 15:21:39
Okay here is what i have for wresting control of an existing spell from the original caster using the counterspell action.
So in order to counterspell you need to identify the spell school and use a spell of the same school to counter the magical energy. If successful you can cancel out the spell while it is being cast, or wrest control of the spell if it is currently in effect.
It makes counterspell a much more usable option in combat, and could lead to scenarios like the wizard battle seen in Conan the Destroyer. It also means that magic users can end pretty much any magic in effect providing they get a high enough roll (dispel magic gives a bonus to that roll so is still useful).
Counterspell: A Counterspell is a special form of Spell Attack that allows a character to cancel out a spell being cast by an opponent as it is being cast, or attempt to steal control of the spell from the current controller.
In order to perform a Counterspell first you must be able to act while the spell is being cast or is in effect. Typically this requires the Ready action to gain an Immediate Action so that you may act while the enemy is casting a spell (some options allow characters to perform the Counterspell Action as an Immediate Action without the use of a Ready Action), but if a spell is already in effect (because it has a duration greater than Instant) then you may still use the Counterspell action against it.
The person performing the Counterspell must select a spell he has prepared of the same school and of equal level or higher than the spell being cast by the opponent (Arcana, Religion, and Nature skills allow this information to be identified as a Free Action and may be performed as part of the Counterspell Action.).
The person performing the Counterspell must then perform a Spell Attack check (action) against the opponent spellcaster’s Spell Attack check (reaction). If the Counterspell check is equal to or higher than the opponent then the Counterspell is successful.
If a Counterspell is successful the enemy spell is expended without effect and the spell chosen as part of the Counterspell is likewise expended (although its effect is to cancel out the enemy’s spell).
If the Counterspell fails then the spell chosen as part of the Counterspell is expended without effect and the enemy’s spell functions as normal.
A Counterspell action can only be performed if the counterspeller is within Close Range (5 squares + 1 square/Saturated modifier) of the enemy spellcaster or is the current target of the opponent’s spell (Target = Area does not count).
A Counterspell action takes place during the spellcasting of the opponent’s spell. It intercepts the opponent’s spell as it is en-route to the target or just before it takes effect, cancelling it out in a harmless puff of smoke.
Alternatively if the counterspeller wishes, and the spell to be countered has a Duration greater than Instant (and is still in effect) then the counterspeller may wrest control of the spell from the person currently in control of the target. If the Counterspell check is successful then they are now in control of the spell and may Redirect it or Dismiss it. If the Counterspell check fails then they current controller remains in control of the spell.
Opportunity Actions: Performing a Counterspell Action provokes Opportunity Actions from all opponents who have you within their threatened area.
|
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 12 Mar 2015 : 15:03:26
Well in order to work the spells into the new mechanics the spells are slightly different.
Charm now allows the cast to make an immediate Diplomacy check (with a bonus depending on the level the spell is memorised at) to influence the character and make him like them. That way a wizard is only doing what any other character can do (which i much prefer as it means a wizard isnt essential but makes life easier if they are around).
Command allows the caster to force the target to perform a very simple action (and can continue to do so for a number of rounds).
I guess they still fit into the stereotypical uses you mentioned and the reasoning is sound enough. Command is a cleric only spell. Charm is a druid (dryads and other fey use it and they are nature creatures) and wizard spell.
Thanks for the help. |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 12 Mar 2015 : 14:55:29
I like charm person as an arcane spell and command as a divine spell.
Charming can be several things, but at it's core it's simple deception. You're taking on certain mannerisms or tones of voice, you're changing your appearance or the target's perception of you, in order to win them over. Charming someone forms a relationship, which gives the target something they didn't have before... even if it's all in their own mind. The aim of a charm is to make someone like you; once that happens they're naturally inclined to submit to your will.
Effective evangelists are charismatic, but they don't win your favor through sweet-talking or negotiation... they brainwash you, browbeat you into submission, and compel your obedience. It's not charming at all; it's domination. Intimidation is perfectly valid here, where it isn't in charms. The only goal that matters here is obedience; it doesn't matter at all how the target feels about it. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 12 Mar 2015 : 12:43:42
Doing spell lists at the moment.
Should Charm be a cleric spell. Charismatic proselytisers certainly have call for it. At the moment it is a wizard and a druid spell, but i can't think of a reason for it not to be cleric as well. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 11 Mar 2015 : 20:20:45
Thats not a bad idea as well. I already have an attack roll to determine if a summoning spell is successful (it is against the summoned creature's willpower but is only used if the creature and summoner don't get on or the creature is summoned against its will or the summoner keeps sending it into impossible situations).
So maybe I can work the Spell Attack roll contest to also be against the summoned creature's willpower. Beat both and you get control, beat only the spell attack and it runs amok.
What is a quandary is once you have control of the spell, should you be able to dismiss it. I'm leaning towards the controller being the one to dismiss it. That way if you usurp control of a spell you are less likely to dismiss the spell because you can use it, whereas if the caster can dismiss it then as soon as someone usurps control they will cancel the spell.
And should this contest of wills for control of a spell apply to spells like alarm that have a long lasting effect (I'm thinking no because it makes dispel magic less useful). |
| Delwa |
Posted - 11 Mar 2015 : 17:13:44
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
Also looking at allowing casters to usurp the control of spells from other casters using the Redirect Spell action.
As a Move Action you can redirect any spell that allows it (according to the spell details) that you are the controller of.
If you attempt to redirect a spell that another caster is in control of then you need to succeed on a Spell Attack check against the controllers Spell Attack check. If you succeed then you become the controller and can move it as you wish.
Now this is useful for spells like Flaming Sphere, and could result in a battle of wills for control of the ball of fire as they send it back and forth across the battlefield.
I'm wondering if i should extend the option to work over summoned creatures. At the moment i'm thinking no because summoned creatures have a relationship with the caster and obey them for various reasons, plus they are free willed entities in their own right.
I like this idea. Maybe you could extend it to work over summoned creatures if you added in a third level to this equation.
You already have two casters fighting for control over a flaming sphere, which has no will of its own. If you extend this to , say, a summoned imp, the imp should have a say in whether it surrenders to you as well. You need to overcome the summoner, and convince the imp it's worth its while.
If you overcome the summoner, the imp is now free. In order to stay instead of be dismissed to it's place of origin, it has to choose to submit/be bound to the new controller.
If, for example, the party the imp is facing is likely going to crush the imp, it's probably not going to have much motive to stay. Poof, it goes home.
If, however, the imp sees a benefit, it submits and turns. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 11 Mar 2015 : 16:26:09
Also looking at allowing casters to usurp the control of spells from other casters using the Redirect Spell action.
As a Move Action you can redirect any spell that allows it (according to the spell details) that you are the controller of.
If you attempt to redirect a spell that another caster is in control of then you need to succeed on a Spell Attack check against the controllers Spell Attack check. If you succeed then you become the controller and can move it as you wish.
Now this is useful for spells like Flaming Sphere, and could result in a battle of wills for control of the ball of fire as they send it back and forth across the battlefield.
I'm wondering if i should extend the option to work over summoned creatures. At the moment i'm thinking no because summoned creatures have a relationship with the caster and obey them for various reasons, plus they are free willed entities in their own right. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 11 Mar 2015 : 15:18:35
Ooh, i like those ideas.
I'm pretty sure there is a random magic mishap table somewhere on the internet (like the wand of wonder for 2e) and they usually have horrific consequences at later levels). Of course this table would only be if you rolled a critical failure (and i think i might make it for advanced play only).
I like the idea of those at higher level having less chance of a screw up.
Since its all about options rather than level i can make the option increase the failure range by 1 everytime it is taken so at level 10 (because its an advanced option) you can start taking this which means if you initially fail by 1 or less then you dont waste the spell and dont suffer something horrid. Take the same option again and its 2 or less, then 3 or less, etc.
I can use the same random magic mishap table for when people goon a ritual badly (which is an Arcana skill check). |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 11 Mar 2015 : 15:12:22
I might make the margin increase with level, rather than a flat 5. A higher level caster has more experience, and is logically more able to avoid negative consequences when something goes wrong. Maybe something like 1/4 of level. So "trained caster" would mean someone at least 4th level, to have a 1 point margin where missing doesn't mean failure. At level 20 it reaches 5 points, which is a pretty big margin.
On the other hand, the consequences of something going wrong should ramp up quickly from minor for 1st level spells to horrific for 9th level spells. You probably already thought of this, but I'll toss out an idea anyway. Cuz I ramble like that sometimes. 
Rather than having to come up with many different tables, I think I'd make it one big table, starting with tiny little hiccups at the top and progressing to horrific consequences at the bottom, and the level of the spell being cast (metamagic feats included) shapes the possible outcome. It's up to you of course, since it's your idea, but if it was me I'd have the spell level control the range rather than be a modifier to the roll, so that the vast majority of the time the consequences of a failed cast would be minor, small, or moderate for low/middle/high level spells. High level spells, though, carry the risk of worse consequences that won't be seen with lower level fails.
Your magic missile misfires? Eh, roll 1-10. Oh, you blew an air walk spell... ouch, roll 1-40. But if you mess up an enlarged and widened (13th level) wail of the banshee... well, that's gonna suck. Roll 1-130, and pull out a blank character sheet. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 11 Mar 2015 : 14:42:48
Just had a rather unusual idea which makes spellcasting more like a skill check.
What if the spell being cast wasnt wasted if the attack roll missed.
For most skills i have it that untrained users who fail suffer undesirable consequences, while trained users own suffer undesirable consequences if they fail the check by 5 or more (fail by 4 or less and you simply get to try again later).
So what if the attack missed by 4 or less for a spell caster. They manage to cease casting the spell at the last split second and thereby do not expend the energy of the spell so that it can be used again. Fail by 5 or more and its expended as normal.
Of course i would make this an advanced option for the pure spellcasting classes (wizard, sorcerer, druid, and cleric). |
|
|
