Quote from: RPGPundit;361221If a 1st level wizard has one spell (and maybe a couple of cantrips) within a very short time they will be out of any magical attack possibility.

That's one more than any other first level character.  Yet people still bitch.  I don't get it.

I suppose I'm too hung up on Vance (and Bellairs, and the second Amber series, and Susanna Clarke) but I don't want magic-users to have intrinsic, at-will, infinitely usable magical abilities. I want them to be ordinary humans and spells to be something difficult that require a lot of study, a lot of practice, and a lot of preparation, so that casting a spell, even a lowly "1st level" one, is a big fucking deal. The pre-4E D&D system isn't necessarily a great match for this feel (because there's no chance for spell failure, because high level casters have too many slots, and because there's no mechanism for trying to modify spells other than by creating entirely new spells*) but it's better than most -- better than mana/spell-point systems, and way better than 4E's system.

*quick & dirty house-rule suggestions: 1) the spell-levels in the book are what is guaranteed to work properly -- a prestidigitator can memorize and cast one 1st level spell and it will function as intended 100% of the time -- but mages can attempt to memorize more or higher-level spells with increased chance of failure -- so if that prestidigitator attempted to memorize 2 1st level spells instead of one each would only be 75% likely to function properly (+ 20% chance of fizzling and 5% chance of reversed/harmful effect); if he tried to memorize a 2nd level spell it would have 60% chance of functioning (+30% fizzle + 10% reversed) and so on; 2) the slots indicated on the charts are the maximum number of spells of that level that a mage can memorize (or memorize at 100% if you're also using #1 above) but he's further limited to a total number of spell-levels equal to his Int score -- so a sorcerer with 16 Int might be able to memorize up to 4 level 1, 4 level 2, etc. spells, but only up to 16 total levels, so if he chooses to memorize a 5th level spell and 2 4th level spells he only has 3 levels left, which could be a 3rd level spell, a 2nd and a 1st, or 3 1sts (option: mages with bound familiars can use their familiar's Int in addition to their own -- worth only 1-2 extra points in the case of a mundane familiar but potentially much more in the case of an imp or quasit; and of course spells on scrolls or stored in items don't count towards the total); 3) at the time the spell is being memorized the mage can decide he wants to memorize a "variant" version of the spell that functions slightly differently than what's described in the book in exchange for an increased chance of spell failure (at the GM's discretion, suggested around 10-25% depending on the degree of modification -- and the GM shouldn't tell the caster the failure chance until the spell is attempted); casting such a variant spell successfully makes memorizing that same variant again easier (by 5%) until eventually it can be used interchangeably with the base-spell -- thus most high-level casters will tend to have personal "trade mark" variants on most of the common spells.

I agree that if you can use magic every round it stops being, well, "magical".  If anything I would prefer if things moved in the other direction, with magic being even more difficult to use but having a larger effect, even from level 1.  Perhaps this is simply to suggest that all magic should be "ritual" magic and no magic should be combat magic.

Quote from: JRR;361231That's one more than any other first level character.  Yet people still bitch.  I don't get it.

Because people don't like it that way. What I don't get is why ya'all can't understand that if I don't like my fantasy game the way it is I'm gonna talk it out with folks and either change it or find a different game. That's just as valid an approach as sucking it up and accepting it the way it is, and for many of us more fun. As long as our approach isn't impeding the enjoyment of the other players in our games what the fuck's the problem with it? I thought talkin that shit out is part of the purpose of our damn forums anyway.

Quote from: T. Foster;361232I suppose I'm too hung up on Vance (and Bellairs, and the second Amber series, and Susanna Clarke) but I don't want magic-users to have intrinsic, at-will, infinitely usable magical abilities. I want them to be ordinary humans and spells to be something difficult that require a lot of study, a lot of practice, and a lot of preparation, so that casting a spell, even a lowly "1st level" one, is a big fucking deal. The pre-4E D&D system isn't necessarily a great match for this feel (because there's no chance for spell failure, because high level casters have too many slots, and because there's no mechanism for trying to modify spells other than by creating entirely new spells*) but it's better than most -- better than mana/spell-point systems, and way better than 4E's system.

*quick & dirty house-rule suggestions: 1) the spell-levels in the book are what is guaranteed to work properly -- a prestidigitator can memorize and cast one 1st level spell and it will function as intended 100% of the time -- but mages can attempt to memorize more or higher-level spells with increased chance of failure -- so if that prestidigitator attempted to memorize 2 1st level spells instead of one each would only be 75% likely to function properly (+ 20% chance of fizzling and 5% chance of reversed/harmful effect); if he tried to memorize a 2nd level spell it would have 60% chance of functioning (+30% fizzle + 10% reversed) and so on; 2) the slots indicated on the charts are the maximum number of spells of that level that a mage can memorize (or memorize at 100% if you're also using #1 above) but he's further limited to a total number of spell-levels equal to his Int score -- so a sorcerer with 16 Int might be able to memorize up to 4 level 1, 4 level 2, etc. spells, but only up to 16 total levels, so if he chooses to memorize a 5th level spell and 2 4th level spells he only has 3 levels left, which could be a 3rd level spell, a 2nd and a 1st, or 3 1sts (option: mages with bound familiars can use their familiar's Int in addition to their own -- worth only 1-2 extra points in the case of a mundane familiar but potentially much more in the case of an imp or quasit; and of course spells on scrolls or stored in items don't count towards the total); 3) at the time the spell is being memorized the mage can decide he wants to memorize a "variant" version of the spell that functions slightly differently than what's described in the book in exchange for an increased chance of spell failure (at the GM's discretion, suggested around 10-25% depending on the degree of modification -- and the GM shouldn't tell the caster the failure chance until the spell is attempted); casting such a variant spell successfully makes memorizing that same variant again easier (by 5%) until eventually it can be used interchangeably with the base-spell -- thus most high-level casters will tend to have personal "trade mark" variants on most of the common spells.

I'm actually really digging your vibe here. The potential for craziness and further adventure is awesome. Maybe add in another minor alteration that says after exhausting his spells for the day a mage can TRY to remember a non-memorized spell from his book out of desperation but the chance for failure and calamity is much greater then even the minor stretching you describe.

Quote from: 837204563;361234I agree that if you can use magic every round it stops being, well, "magical".  If anything I would prefer if things moved in the other direction, with magic being even more difficult to use but having a larger effect, even from level 1.  Perhaps this is simply to suggest that all magic should be "ritual" magic and no magic should be combat magic.

I'm kinda looking for a happy medium, where wizards don't have to start as one-hit-wonders, but also aren't all-day powerhouses either. I think maybe a couple spells... especially with T. Foster's simple house rule making fledgling wizards more prone to mishaps... combined with some less powerful rituals would be ideal. My solution for making some simple flavor oriented cantrips basically "at-will" is meant to help move that way too... just give the young mage a way to be "wizardly" without being more powerful. That's the one direction 4e went in that I appreciate.

Quote from: Sigmund;361241Because people don't like it that way. What I don't get is why ya'all can't understand that if I don't like my fantasy game the way it is I'm gonna talk it out with folks and either change it or find a different game. That's just as valid an approach as sucking it up and accepting it the way it is, and for many of us more fun. As long as our approach isn't impeding the enjoyment of the other players in our games what the fuck's the problem with it? I thought talkin that shit out is part of the purpose of our damn forums anyway.

No one minds how you change the game at your table, what I object to is changing the core rules to turn magic users into infinite laser cannons.

Foster, I'm just curious.  How are spell/mana points worse than fire-and-forget?  Fantasy Craft managed to use them in conjunction with making spellcasting a skill to help give melee users a significant edge without resorting to 'all-you-can-eat' low-powered bits.  The fact that they also refresh per scene rather than in an allotted amount of game-time means that spellcasters won't be sucking their thumbs later on in an adventure, either.  Also, from a fluff-perspective, I think spell/mana points can help give the feeling that you're channeling energy but that it's also limited rather than something you can just innately pull out of thin-air.

Quote from: StormBringer;361212Very nice.  I would probably beef up their hit points if I were to use such a system, as it seems a bit unfair that they weak in hit points to begin with, and are then penalized further for casting spells.  Although, I would imagine it depends on the play style of the group.  Skulking around the ruins and keeping the Magic User well away from combat would be the order of the day.

I've used a Hit Point/Body Point system for years. Hit points as in the books but 1st level characters always get the maximum roll. Body Points represent real damage and generally equal CON. Hit points recover rapidly (75% of max HP per full night sleep) provided the character has no BP damage. BP damage is taken when one runs out of HP or on critical hits (natural 20 that would otherwise hit).

All character classes can spend HP for benefits. Magic-users use HP as spell points, fighting classes can spend HP to put extra effort into their blows, etc.

Quote from: JRR;361244No one minds how you change the game at your table, what I object to is changing the core rules to turn magic users into infinite laser cannons.

I don't recall anyone seriously proposing that.

Quote from: RandallS;361255I've used a Hit Point/Body Point system for years. Hit points as in the books but 1st level characters always get the maximum roll. Body Points represent real damage and generally equal CON. Hit points recover rapidly (75% of max HP per full night sleep) provided the character has no BP damage. BP damage is taken when one runs out of HP or on critical hits (natural 20 that would otherwise hit).

All character classes can spend HP for benefits. Magic-users use HP as spell points, fighting classes can spend HP to put extra effort into their blows, etc.

Damn, that's actually not bad either.

Quote from: StormBringer;361209You will now need to explain how the hobby can be 'advanced'.  Presumably, you mean 'improving the rules', in which case you will have a very difficult assignment in showing that a specific set of rules can be objectively improved, and further that it has been objectively improved.

A point to dwell on before you start:  card games and board games don't get near-complete overhauls every five years.

Yes...I mean that the rules have largely improved over time.

Objectivitely improved?

There are always a few random nutjobs out there who obstinately refuse to believe that things like streamlining core mechanics and consolidating disparate subsystems is a good thing.

Take the d20 system's core mechanic of d20+modifiers vs. ascending target number representing difficulty. All in all a lot more elegant than AD&D's old way of percentage roles, high rolls, low rolls, d10 rolls for initiative. Or looking everything up amidst numerous fucking charts.

Anyone who can't agree that this is an improvement has been sticking their fingers in their ears and arguing "LALALALALA" for the past 20 years.

Quote from: Shazbot79;361262Yes...I mean that the rules have largely improved over time.

Objectivitely improved?

There are always a few random nutjobs out there who obstinately refuse to believe that things like streamlining core mechanics and consolidating disparate subsystems is a good thing.

Take the d20 system's core mechanic of d20+modifiers vs. ascending target number representing difficulty. All in all a lot more elegant than AD&D's old way of percentage roles, high rolls, low rolls, d10 rolls for initiative. Or looking everything up amidst numerous fucking charts.

Anyone who can't agree that this is an improvement has been sticking their fingers in their ears and arguing "LALALALALA" for the past 20 years.

Instead of a d20, they could have used any other die instead.  A d100 + modifiers vs. target number system, wouldn't have been much different other than adding together larger numbers.

Quote from: ggroy;361263Instead of a d20, they could have used any other die instead.  A d100 + modifiers vs. target number system, wouldn't have been much different other than adding together larger numbers.

Could have used a D10, could have used a D100.

My point is that the challenge resolution mechanic which has formed the core of the game system since third edition is a definite improvement over the older systems to all but the most delusional TSR holdouts.

Quote from: Shazbot79;361269My point is that the challenge resolution mechanic which has formed the core of the game system since third edition is a definite improvement over the older systems to all but the most delusional TSR holdouts.

Of course, this is a matter of opinion and not an objective fact.  (BTW, I agree with you here.)