TheRPGSite

Both 5th edition D&D along with Pathfinder (the two last RPGs I've played) have a weird quirk regarding the key attribute for spell casting: anything new and it uses Charisma. Charisma for warlocks, summoners, oracles, sorcerers, etc. at here are some exceptions, but Charisma seems to be the most common casting attribute.

That strikes me as strange because in most cases, I don't really see Charisma as the thematic casting attribute. Wisdom has long been the Willpower related attribute, why does the sorcerer who casts with force of will not use Wisdom as his attribute? Why does a warlock who draws power from some Cthulhu-esque creature from beyond space and time need to be highly Charismatic to use such magic?

I know some people like the idea of Intelligence based warlocks, which makes sense if they are scholars who seek out forbidden knowledge to make their pacts with demons. Someone who draws power from faeries though, it kinda makes sense to have high Charisma to both please the faeries and because charm is a traditional faerie power.

So, what does anybody think of changing the casting attributes for various spell casting classes? Furthermore, which it seems open ended, what about letting the player select the mental attribute which will be linked to spell casting. A player could play a Charisma based cleric, whose social skills allow him to be the deity's representative on earth and whose presence seems to exude peace and goodness. Perhaps an Intelligence based bard, who studies spell books and seeks after forgotten lore to master magic. An Wisdom based warlock whose force of will and safeness lets him commune with the mysterious out creatures and draw upon their power without going mad.

There may be ways to abuse that, but maybe not any worse than things that can happen already.

Has anybody changed how casting attributes work or even allowed players to choose the casting attribute?

Intelligence makes the most sense, if magic can be learned.

If you have magic innately, that wouldn't be Intelligence.  It wouldn't be Wisdom, either.

Quote from: ShieldWife on January 23, 2022, 01:49:12 AM
Both 5th edition D&D along with Pathfinder (the two last RPGs I've played) have a weird quirk regarding the key attribute for spell casting: anything new and it uses Charisma. Charisma for warlocks, summoners, oracles, sorcerers, etc. at here are some exceptions, but Charisma seems to be the most common casting attribute.

That strikes me as strange because in most cases, I don't really see Charisma as the thematic casting attribute. Wisdom has long been the Willpower related attribute, why does the sorcerer who casts with force of will not use Wisdom as his attribute? Why does a warlock who draws power from some Cthulhu-esque creature from beyond space and time need to be highly Charismatic to use such magic?

I know some people like the idea of Intelligence based warlocks, which makes sense if they are scholars who seek out forbidden knowledge to make their pacts with demons. Someone who draws power from faeries though, it kinda makes sense to have high Charisma to both please the faeries and because charm is a traditional faerie power.

So, what does anybody think of changing the casting attributes for various spell casting classes? Furthermore, which it seems open ended, what about letting the player select the mental attribute which will be linked to spell casting. A player could play a Charisma based cleric, whose social skills allow him to be the deity's representative on earth and whose presence seems to exude peace and goodness. Perhaps an Intelligence based bard, who studies spell books and seeks after forgotten lore to master magic. An Wisdom based warlock whose force of will and safeness lets him commune with the mysterious out creatures and draw upon their power without going mad.

There may be ways to abuse that, but maybe not any worse than things that can happen already.

Has anybody changed how casting attributes work or even allowed players to choose the casting attribute?

Very good points. True 20 allows a player to pick what attribute they use for casting when they create their character.

I see Charisma as external force of personality, where Wisdom is internal force of personality. So for me it makes good sense as a casting attribute, imposing your will on reality.

Modern D&D makes Wisdom the perception/receptiveness stat, so it makes sense for 'wise men' and Ranger types to use it.

Intelligence is severely underpowered in 5e D&D, but reflects learning ability and logical thinking. It makes sense for erudite scholar-wizards.

TBH, I always felt that Wisdom was the ONLY attribute that made sense as the key ability for ALL magic, regardless of style, while Intelligence should be relegated to being the key attribute for learning new spells or handling arcane/occult/religious lore (as in checks to see if you know something and stuff like that). Though, this depends a lot on which ability scores/attributes should even be represented in the game. For example: Is there really that much conceptual difference between Wisdom and Intelligence? Do we really need separate scores for that, or could the differences be better represented with just skills and the like?

I'm not even sure D&D's six are the most effective layout, cuz there has always been at least one or two scores that felt useless and superfluous in every edition of D&D. In old D&D it was Charisma. Now it appears to be Intelligence. Strength is kinda useless or at least limited to, unless you're making a melee character not focused on finesse weapons, otherwise Dexterity trumps Strength by leaps and bounds.

Over time I've warmed up to the idea of reducing attributes in RPGs to just four: two for Physical and Mental Power (Might and Presence maybe), and another two for Physical and Mental Speed (Agility and Awareness). In such a layout STR and CON would be folded into a single attribute, while INT and the perception/mental agility aspects of WIS would be folded into the mental speed attribute, while CHA and the willpower aspects of WIS would be folded into a single mental power attribute. In such a layout, the mental power attribute might handle magic power, while mental agility might handle ability rolls.

Granted, none of this is the case in D&D. However Charisma seems to have been warped into a sort of mental power attribute with every passing edition, and there seems to be a kind of willpower/confidence overlap associated with CHA now.

Intelligence = what and how

Wisdom = when and if

It takes intelligence to craft a weapon, to determine what it can do and how to get it to work. It takes wisdom to understand when or if to use it. I have always looked at magic in the game through the same filter. Not perfect, sure, but easy to explain.

Charisma is tougher for me. I explain it away as force of personality, with magic on a cosmic level. Higher force of personality = ability to control/resist, etc. But meh, not a fan.

Plus those classes in 5e end up borking the game. Warlocks and Bards are already stupid strong with their abilities, and now they also get to completely shut down the social game as well. Poor design.

Charisma casting is way over done in fifth, but then magic is, well, pretty badly done in fifth all around.  I can see Bards having charisma casting if there's an order of bards that teaches a specialized form of magic but if bards just pick up a bit of arcane knowledge here and there and have the required education level to read a spell book then Intelligence makes more sense.  My biggest complaint about fifth edition is that magic is something you're entitled to instead of something you earn.  It goes back to the whole problem of treating everything as game objects in a game instead of treating them as elements that make up a world.  And magic is fifth edition's greatest offender.

Also, consider balance. In 3e+, there are fewer hirelings, reaction rolls, etc., so Charisma becomes kind of a dump stat: you need a "face" in the group and that's it. Giving Charisma magic powers balances this somewhat.

In 5e, Int is a bit like that too. Wis, on the other hand, is useful for everyone, being a "defensive" stat.

(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lqCNF6meF4E/WrxQz198AMI/AAAAAAAABcs/JKYCzRUyeFwGNDPiomWj5C9F-W-TFRpKgCK4BGAYYCw/s400/flower1.png)

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2018/03/more-flowers-for-d-5e-et-al.html

Thematically, I see Charisma as luck, favor from the gods, etc., which makes sense thematically, mechanically (paladins and warlocks use Cha), and etymologically ("The English term charisma is from the Greek χάρισμα (khárisma), which means "favor freely given" or "gift of grace".[2] The term and its plural χαρίσματα (charismata) derive from χάρις (charis), which means "grace" or indeed "charm" with which it shares the root.").

Eric Diaz brings up a strong point, the legacy of 3e-isms. The triumverate of saves in 3e (DEX, CON, WIS) has had lasting ramifications. I like that 5e decided to turn all the stats into saves, but even still the legacy lives on strong with many effects targeting those three and outliers targeting the other three.

Flex Mentallo from DC comics uses STR or CON for muscle magic?  ??? Wonder if there is an answer from the d20 glut?

Quote from: Eric Diaz on January 23, 2022, 10:09:18 AM
Also, consider balance. In 3e+, there are fewer hirelings, reaction rolls, etc., so Charisma becomes kind of a dump stat: you need a "face" in the group and that's it. Giving Charisma magic powers balances this somewhat.

In 5e, Int is a bit like that too. Wis, on the other hand, is useful for everyone, being a "defensive" stat.

(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lqCNF6meF4E/WrxQz198AMI/AAAAAAAABcs/JKYCzRUyeFwGNDPiomWj5C9F-W-TFRpKgCK4BGAYYCw/s400/flower1.png)

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2018/03/more-flowers-for-d-5e-et-al.html

Thematically, I see Charisma as luck, favor from the gods, etc., which makes sense thematically, mechanically (paladins and warlocks use Cha), and etymologically ("The English term charisma is from the Greek χάρισμα (khárisma), which means "favor freely given" or "gift of grace".[2] The term and its plural χαρίσματα (charismata) derive from χάρις (charis), which means "grace" or indeed "charm" with which it shares the root.").

This seems interesting from a thought experiment POV, and I've gone through a similar analysis before trying to find relationships between different abilities. But aside from the possible issues mentioned in the blog (like increased complexity) one issue I found was that in practice it actually punishes characters, because now ALL abilities at least partially cover a potentially crucial function. Which means that you can no longer just ignore abilities you don't need (which aren't a thing anymore, cuz now you need ALL of them), so that you have to spread your attention across ALL of them.

So if you're building your character using point buy, for example, now you need to invest in at least two abilities related to your primary focus, while before you only needed one. And you will run into the same issue with secondary abilities as well, forcing you to spread yourself thin.

And if you're going with random generation, you now have two abilities you need to devote your highest rolls towards, not just one. You also need them both to be equally high to get the best bonuses, otherwise lower scores will always bring you down, not supplement you somehow, cuz bonuses are reliant on both scores now. And if you're going roll 3d6 in order? Congrats! Now you need to be twice as lucky as before, and can also be twice as unlucky as well. And any awesome roll can now be turned mediocre by rolling crap in the other score you need. In fact, ALL abilities can potentially turn mediocre now, cuz now you need to pump not just one, but two per related function.

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 23, 2022, 12:04:11 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on January 23, 2022, 10:09:18 AM
Also, consider balance. In 3e+, there are fewer hirelings, reaction rolls, etc., so Charisma becomes kind of a dump stat: you need a "face" in the group and that's it. Giving Charisma magic powers balances this somewhat.

In 5e, Int is a bit like that too. Wis, on the other hand, is useful for everyone, being a "defensive" stat.

(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lqCNF6meF4E/WrxQz198AMI/AAAAAAAABcs/JKYCzRUyeFwGNDPiomWj5C9F-W-TFRpKgCK4BGAYYCw/s400/flower1.png)

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2018/03/more-flowers-for-d-5e-et-al.html

Thematically, I see Charisma as luck, favor from the gods, etc., which makes sense thematically, mechanically (paladins and warlocks use Cha), and etymologically ("The English term charisma is from the Greek χάρισμα (khárisma), which means "favor freely given" or "gift of grace".[2] The term and its plural χαρίσματα (charismata) derive from χάρις (charis), which means "grace" or indeed "charm" with which it shares the root.").

This seems interesting from a thought experiment POV, and I've gone through a similar analysis before trying to find relationships between different abilities. But aside from the possible issues mentioned in the blog (like increased complexity) one issue I found was that in practice it actually punishes characters, because now ALL abilities at least partially cover a potentially crucial function. Which means that you can no longer just ignore abilities you don't need (which aren't a thing anymore, cuz now you need ALL of them), so that you have to spread your attention across ALL of them.

So if you're building your character using point buy, for example, now you need to invest in at least two abilities related to your primary focus, while before you only needed one. And you will run into the same issue with secondary abilities as well, forcing you to spread yourself thin.

And if you're going with random generation, you now have two abilities you need to devote your highest rolls towards, not just one. You also need them both to be equally high to get the best bonuses, otherwise lower scores will always bring you down, not supplement you somehow, cuz bonuses are reliant on both scores now. And if you're going roll 3d6 in order? Congrats! Now you need to be twice as lucky as before, and can also be twice as unlucky as well. And any awesome roll can now be turned mediocre by rolling crap in the other score you need. In fact, ALL abilities can potentially turn mediocre now, cuz now you need to pump not just one, but two per related function.

Well, it depends on how you choose to use this in practice, I guess. 4e let you dump one of each pair, and 13a IIRC lets you dump one physical and one mental. But using averages, for example, will allow you to have a good "will save" using Charisma OR Wisdom OR both.

As others have noted.

INT works for classes that need to study and learn their stuff.

Problem is that alot of classes have been shifted to be innate in one form or another and so INT does not fit.

Clerics, Druids and Rangers fit WIS as its more worldly as it were and in 5e tends to cover alot of perception based things. Hence alot of animals in 5e have fairly high WIS scores.

The Sorcerer is an odd one as it is the most innate of the set. And personally I think wisdom might have actually fit better.

CHA perfectly fits the Warlock on 5e as they must be fairly charismatic to have been able to catch the notice, or have bargained a deal, with a god-like force. And they have to keep currying favour with these beings to hold onto that power. Moreso than Clerics really. Though 5e Warlocks are essentially hedge clerics so WIS could work too.

Honestly you could change the needed stat on alot of classes and thematically still fit. And I believe one or maybe too class paths do this too.

I don't see any way of prying Intelligence away from manipulating magic as a property of the universe. That long association defines at least to me, what magic actually is, and how it is differentiated from gaining access to the power of the divine via Wisdom. Wisdom is a kind of understanding through surrendering, unlike the calculation of Intelligence or manipulation of Charisma.

Charisma for Warlocks, at least in my view, fits with the notion of 'transactional' power. A Warlock might submit, but doesn't surrender, and what they get is the product of negotiation.

I do buy into the notion of Charisma as a sort of source of personal power for Sorcerers, but I don't think its a great fit. Sorcerers are the entity or product of mystic blend. They don't negotiate. They just are. As weird as it might sound, a replacement for Charisma might be Constitution.

Quote from: Lynn on January 23, 2022, 07:18:17 PMI do buy into the notion of Charisma as a sort of source of personal power for Sorcerers, but I don't think its a great fit. Sorcerers are the entity or product of mystic blend. They don't negotiate. They just are. As weird as it might sound, a replacement for Charisma might be Constitution.

I thought about that too. CON as the source since their magic is supposed to be in the blood rather than something that you study. But CHA can work if you think of the Sorcerers magic as controlled and shaped by their own self image as it were. So one with less of a presence is going to have a slightly less effect than one who has some confidence in themselves and their power.

Its D&D and how you interpret and make use of the abilities can be flexible. A player could say their sorcerers powers are psionics and rename all the spells and quirks and it fits right in. Or say they are a priest whos power comes from some god, but just works differently and that works too. Same can be applied to the Warlock, etc.

One thing, as someone else mentioned, they really nerfed Intelligence. Which rubbed me the wrong way. It used to be that Intelligence gave all characters skill points per level, so it was useful for anybody to have more intelligence. Now, it's basically useless unless you need it for a specific class and only the wizard needs a high intelligence value. It's close to the best dump stat. I suppose in early editions of D&D it was pretty useless if you weren't a wizard - but at least the wizard was the master of arcane magic and so intelligence had that association. Now Charisma is the most common casting attribute and it is also valuable for more skills than Intelligence too.

I'm also not crazy about how they do saving throws in 5th edition, but that is a bit of a tangent.

I can understand thinking of the warlock as making deals with entities and so gaining power that way, and I don't necessarily object to that idea, but personally I see a warlock as more of an intelligence based caster - someone who looks up dark rituals and uses their intelligence and knowledge to make their dark pacts. That is why I was thinking that letting the player decide would be good.

I think that Charisma Baer clerics actually make sense. Because the cleric represents the deity and should be able to carry the message of the religion to the people. I also see a representative of a deity as having a holy aura or presence about them, literally being in the presence of a saint, and so that could go along with Charisma as a casting attribute. Then the cleric and paladin, thematically connected classes, both use Charisma.

I could certainly see a good case for Constitution as the casting attribute for sorcerers. I'm not sure how balanced that would be, but I don't think it would be that bad. If it were a mental attribute, I would personally say Wisdom makes more sense.

I can't yet feel comfortable with all of the things that newer editions are saying that Charisma has. Like force of personality, as though personality involved some kind of literal force, or an ability to impose one's will on the universe. It seems like a stretch to me. For casting classes that use Charisma, I would like to have some reason why being likable enhances that magic or why having magic of that kind makes you more likable.

Charisma is a weird attribute because the term is ambiguous. The general way that 5E tends to interpret Charisma is "force of will," which ironically is also how 3E interpreted Wisdom (e.g. Will saves).



A different discussion:

It's probably fundamentally bad design for all of a character's spellcasting to key off of one attribute. Physical combat is [better] designed because there is inherently interplay between Str-Dex-Con.Magic, ironically, is modeled by D&D rules in a much more simplistic way than physical combat, and thus a key spellcasting attribute becomes more or less must-have for any primary spellcaster..

Some off-the-cuff alternatives:

* All spells define the key attribute for the spell's casting (& defense)
* Spell schools define a key attribute (e.g. Enchantment school = CHA)
* Give all spellcasters a primary & secondary spellcasting attribute. Secondary attribute may affect spell properties such as bonus damage, range, AOE, duration, etc.
* All spellcasters can cast spells using any primary attribute (Int-Wis-Cha) but the spellcasting 'stance' you use also affects your ability to counterspell or save opponents' spells

Quote from: ShieldWife on January 23, 2022, 11:54:44 PM
I can't yet feel comfortable with all of the things that newer editions are saying that Charisma has. Like force of personality, as though personality involved some kind of literal force, or an ability to impose one's will on the universe. It seems like a stretch to me.

It makes sense to me - high Charisma people IRL definitely do shape other people's sense of reality, even when they are widely disliked.

Perhaps a bit of a tangent, but I feel like the mental attributes have never quite worked properly. 

Physical attributes represent the character interacting with a fictional environment.  However, everything mental is done by the player.  Even more so if you are playing old school.  Giving the character mental attributes creates disconnect between the player and the character, and invites a lot of questions about who is supposed to be solving these puzzles, etc. 

I wish we had a non-mental attribute representing the character's spiritual/supernatural power.  That way we could have avoided the last 40 years debating what intelligence, wisdom, and charisma actually represent; and whether or not a wisdom 18 cleric should be charging heedlessly down dark corridors when helmed by an impatient player.   

Quote from: ShieldWife on January 23, 2022, 11:54:44 PM
I can't yet feel comfortable with all of the things that newer editions are saying that Charisma has. Like force of personality, as though personality involved some kind of literal force, or an ability to impose one's will on the universe. It seems like a stretch to me. For casting classes that use Charisma, I would like to have some reason why being likable enhances that magic or why having magic of that kind makes you more likable.

That's really the problem - stats that seemingly do too much or overlap. Charisma's dubious relationship with attractiveness has always been a problem. Also, as people with modern understanding of learning and psychology, that certain things treated as 'attributes' are learned behaviors.

Quote from: Lynn on January 24, 2022, 12:57:12 PM

Quote from: ShieldWife on January 23, 2022, 11:54:44 PM
I can't yet feel comfortable with all of the things that newer editions are saying that Charisma has. Like force of personality, as though personality involved some kind of literal force, or an ability to impose one's will on the universe. It seems like a stretch to me. For casting classes that use Charisma, I would like to have some reason why being likable enhances that magic or why having magic of that kind makes you more likable.

That's really the problem - stats that seemingly do too much or overlap. Charisma's dubious relationship with attractiveness has always been a problem. Also, as people with modern understanding of learning and psychology, that certain things treated as 'attributes' are learned behaviors.

Somewhat.  I think it's also the changing nature of the game.  The core six stats fit the early editions well enough, if you don't squint at them too close (and shouldn't).  Three core stats for three classes, Str, Int, Wis, then three stats that are useful to everyone, Dex, Con, Cha.  The introduction of the thief starts to break this, but since the thief is so weak, it isn't really notable yet.

Every change that drifts the meaning of those stats and the classes that need them pulls the game further away from the original six stats being a good fit.  The switch to Wis for perception in WotC versions is particularly bad in that respect, though hardly the only example. 

Arguably, the switch to Wis as awareness should have also had a switch of Cha to the clerical casting stat.  Made it pure force of personality.  It's not a great fit that all the clerics are somewhat capable at social interactions, but it's a much better fit than that they are all above average danger detectors. Or to split the difference, have Arcane powered by Int, Nature magic powered by Wis, and Divine magic powered by Cha.  Druid's being perceptive and not all that social is a good fit and preserves a link to the earlier game. 

There are several different ways to go from there (depending on goals).  For example, I'd send the Bard closer to their roots and say that they are still Int as an alternate Wizard that happens to also need a fair Cha for typical activities, not to cast spells.  However, it wouldn't be a killer to say that the Bard is Cha just to keep it simple, which opens up different ideas about arcane/divine/nature:

Wizard - arcane lore  (Int)
Cleric/Paladin - divine personality (Cha)
Druid/Ranger - nature perception (Wis)
Bard - arcane personality (Cha)
Warlock -  (un)natural perception :D  (Wis)
Sorcerer - arcane perception (Wis) (as a character that seems more archetypical magi)
Loremaster (instead of sorcerer, as a better fit to the game for the sorcerer mechanics) - divine lore (Int)

And so forth. 

Edit:  Fixed typos.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on January 24, 2022, 03:37:12 PM

Arguably, the switch to Wis as awareness should have also had a switch of Cha to the clerical casting stat.  Made it pure force of personality.  It's not a great fit that all the clerics are somewhat capable at social interactions, but it's a much better fit than that they are all above average danger detectors. Or to split the difference, have Arcane powered by Int, Nature magic powered by Wis, and Divine magic powered by Cha.  Druid's being perceptive and not all that social is a good fit and preserves a link to the earlier game.

This is precisely what I ended up doing in my system. Arcane magic (Wizards, Mechanists) is Intellect-based, Primal magic (Mystics) is Wits-based and Astral magic (Theurges) is Presence-based. Bards tend to fall under either the Social Wizard subtype (Intellect primary, but uses Presence for boosters) or the Clever Mystic (Wits primary and uses Presence for Boosters). Sorcerers are straight up Mystics (their magic is intuitive) while Warlocks are just Theurges who formed pacts with astral powers outside of approved channels (or with forbidden astral gods).

Empathy for Essence, Intuition for Channelling, Presence for Mentalism, the average of the three for Arcane, naturally.

Quote from: Dark Train on January 24, 2022, 12:42:50 PM
Perhaps a bit of a tangent, but I feel like the mental attributes have never quite worked properly. 

Physical attributes represent the character interacting with a fictional environment.  However, everything mental is done by the player.  Even more so if you are playing old school.  Giving the character mental attributes creates disconnect between the player and the character, and invites a lot of questions about who is supposed to be solving these puzzles, etc. 

I wish we had a non-mental attribute representing the character's spiritual/supernatural power.  That way we could have avoided the last 40 years debating what intelligence, wisdom, and charisma actually represent; and whether or not a wisdom 18 cleric should be charging heedlessly down dark corridors when helmed by an impatient player.

I don't think this solves the problem because fundamentally no one wants to be poor at <class-feature>. If you want players to mechanically care about Int-Wis-Cha, the game system needs to give you mechanical benefits for that.

A (marginally) better model: 3E Cleric has Charisma-based Turn Undead, and Wisdom-based spellcasting. In this case, there's competing motivations that allow for you to make [more] interesting decisions on attributes for other class features. Obviously, Turn Undead isn't by itself good enough to sacrifice higher saves (+other benefits) on spells. But the point is, this needs to actually be a choice, and it's really not most of the time.

Quote from: Omega on January 23, 2022, 08:32:42 PM

Quote from: Lynn on January 23, 2022, 07:18:17 PMI do buy into the notion of Charisma as a sort of source of personal power for Sorcerers, but I don't think its a great fit. Sorcerers are the entity or product of mystic blend. They don't negotiate. They just are. As weird as it might sound, a replacement for Charisma might be Constitution.

I thought about that too. CON as the source since their magic is supposed to be in the blood rather than something that you study. But CHA can work if you think of the Sorcerers magic as controlled and shaped by their own self image as it were. So one with less of a presence is going to have a slightly less effect than one who has some confidence in themselves and their power.

Its D&D and how you interpret and make use of the abilities can be flexible. A player could say their sorcerers powers are psionics and rename all the spells and quirks and it fits right in. Or say they are a priest whos power comes from some god, but just works differently and that works too. Same can be applied to the Warlock, etc.

there were specific subclasses in PF that would allow a Sorcerer to swap the CHA requirement for CON.  The bloodhunter in 5E uses CON for it's saves as you are literally using your own blood to power your abilities.

Charisma stands on its own in early edition D&D. Henchmen, loyalty score adjustments, price adjustments, and capture versus kill situations. Countless dead characters in my games have either downplayed or failed to leverage it.

While I have been able to explain it away in more modern games, this thread has given me a chance to reflect, and I am moving from "not a fan" towards actively disliking charisma as a casting attribute.

I prefer the Fantasy Craft method - where casters have to make a skill-check to cast their spells.

Intelligence - Modifies the Skill check to cast spells (as well as dictating how many skill points you accrue/level)

Wisdom - Presumes that spells requires understanding more than just the rote formula of harnessing magic. Dictates the number of spells known and understood by level. It also dictates your Spell saves.

Charisma - Force of will that impresses itself upon the spells cast. Modifies Saving throw penalties to any saves.

This means that all stats are important. Regardless of caster.

Edit: The added benefit of spellcasting requiring a check, also closes the mechanical gap of casts/non-casters where there is an implicit chance for failure.

I like how Action! did it. https://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/srd/srd_action/index.html
Instead of tying magic to existing attributes, it let you make a new set of attributes to represent magical ability.

QuoteFor example, let's say you're adding a Psi Group. You could create the new attributes Prowess (PRW), Control (CON) and Mental Defense (MEN).

Quote from: tenbones on January 25, 2022, 10:56:11 AM
I prefer the Fantasy Craft method - where casters have to make a skill-check to cast their spells.

I agree and I find it weird that the presumption is you must roll to see whether you can do any number of mundane things -- break down a door, climb an obstacle, navigate the wilderness -- but casting a spell has no check, it just happens..

Having actual mechanics for spellcasting would go a long way toward addressing the issue, since once there are actual mechanics you can justify attributes playing roles in that.

Quote from: Zelen on January 26, 2022, 11:19:39 AM

Quote from: tenbones on January 25, 2022, 10:56:11 AM
I prefer the Fantasy Craft method - where casters have to make a skill-check to cast their spells.

I agree and I find it weird that the presumption is you must roll to see whether you can do any number of mundane things -- break down a door, climb an obstacle, navigate the wilderness -- but casting a spell has no check, it just happens..

Having actual mechanics for spellcasting would go a long way toward addressing the issue, since once there are actual mechanics you can justify attributes playing roles in that.

None of those other activities relies on you having enough "slots" to engage in them, though. You can try to do them any number of times a day. It isn't like casters are having a free ride with all this roll-less spellcasting.

Not that I'm 100% against casting checks, but casting checks don't exist for a reason: you only have a limited number of spells a day (and at lower levels in particular its EXTREMELY limited). If casting checks are necessary then slots shouldn't be. It's either one or the other.

One concern I have about roll-based casting without slots is Healing magic. If you can cast unlimited times a day as long as you pass your casting check that would inevitably lead to characters trying consecutive healing till everyone is 100% healed at the end of every combat. I suppose you could address that by adding a cumulative penalty (call it "Strain" or whatever) per spell cast that day. But I wonder to what extend that would stop ceaseless Healing attempts per battle.

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 26, 2022, 12:12:03 PM
None of those other activities relies on you having enough "slots" to engage in them, though. You can try to do them any number of times a day. It isn't like casters are having a free ride with all this roll-less spellcasting.

Not that I'm 100% against casting checks, but casting checks don't exist for a reason: you only have a limited number of spells a day (and at lower levels in particular its EXTREMELY limited). If casting checks are necessary then slots shouldn't be. It's either one or the other.

One concern I have about roll-based casting without slots is Healing magic. If you can cast unlimited times a day as long as you pass your casting check that would inevitably lead to characters trying consecutive healing till everyone is 100% healed at the end of every combat. I suppose you could address that by adding a cumulative penalty (call it "Strain" or whatever) per spell cast that day. But I wonder to what extend that would stop ceaseless Healing attempts per battle.

My hybrid answer to that is that caster don't have a check to cast the spell.  Instead, they have a check to not use up the slot.  This interjects some uncertainty to the process, where slots are still limited, but the caster never knows for sure how the slots will hold up.  Of course, you have to adjust the number of slots with the rest of the game to make the average number of spells still be reasonable.  I don't mind that if the slots start out more like the early D&D progressions (i.e. very limited) because, among other things, it discourages slot inflation. 

Tweak the check to fit your goals.  Want lots of cantrips and few high level spells?  Have the difficulty of the check scale with the level of the spell, maybe even severely.  Want to tie this "slot efficiency" mechanic to a particular ability score separate from other aspects of the caster?  No problem.  Want to introduce more complicated recovery of slots?  Not such a big deal now, because there aren't as many slots, and each one represents multiple spells.  Want to cut down the fiddly preparation but still like specific spells tied to slots?  No problem, because there are a lot less slots and each one represents possibly multiple castings.  Want to move towards a mana-point system without going whole hog?  This kind of does that, depending on your other choices.

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 26, 2022, 12:12:03 PM

None of those other activities relies on you having enough "slots" to engage in them, though. You can try to do them any number of times a day. It isn't like casters are having a free ride with all this roll-less spellcasting.

It's an interesting point. Let's look at it closer...

A Warrior can do the Attack Spell. I.e. they Swing or Shoot their weapon. The weapon is a Slot. Different weapons are different "Spells" by analogy. The other abstractions that make the quality of the attack are merely a mechanical dispersal of what spells already have cooked into them by D&D standards, and by the numbers far more poorly. A Longsword's d8 damage ain't scaling in D&D like a Fireball spell.

It is true you aren't casting as many times as you can swing/shoot a weapon. But I'd counterpoint that with the fact that you only do those things in actual combat 99% of the time. Meanwhile when OUT of combat spellcasters have MASSIVE utilitarian capacities no non-spellcaster could ever hope to match and anything they did try would still require a skill-check. Smoke-signals vs. Message spell, heh.

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 26, 2022, 12:12:03 PMNot that I'm 100% against casting checks, but casting checks don't exist for a reason: you only have a limited number of spells a day (and at lower levels in particular its EXTREMELY limited). If casting checks are necessary then slots shouldn't be. It's either one or the other.

My counterpoint stands - most spellcasting is combat and when out of combat casting occurs the effects are orders of magnitude more utilitarian than non-caster skill-checks. There is a reason LFQM and the 15-minute spellcasting day exists for adventurers. If anything I'd say you're making a stronger case of WHY spells should have checks associated with their use, since they produce more effect than any non-spellcasting analogous action which we tend to agree that magic is "harder" to learn than say, swinging a sword, or learning Survival.

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 26, 2022, 12:12:03 PMOne concern I have about roll-based casting without slots is Healing magic. If you can cast unlimited times a day as long as you pass your casting check that would inevitably lead to characters trying consecutive healing till everyone is 100% healed at the end of every combat. I suppose you could address that by adding a cumulative penalty (call it "Strain" or whatever) per spell cast that day. But I wonder to what extend that would stop ceaseless Healing attempts per battle.

Definitely a good question. I think this is handled at a "Setting" level. In Fantasy Craft, not all Clerics can Heal. Wizards can actually heal, if they take the spell. But Fantasy Craft is *extremely* lethal. It's conceits are far different than say 5e.

5e already has the problem, in my opinion, of being too difficult to die/easy to recover. So rather than demand people play the rules differently, I'd approach it from a setting conceit and simply limit who has the capacity to Heal and under what circumstances.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on January 26, 2022, 01:01:48 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 26, 2022, 12:12:03 PM
None of those other activities relies on you having enough "slots" to engage in them, though. You can try to do them any number of times a day. It isn't like casters are having a free ride with all this roll-less spellcasting.

Not that I'm 100% against casting checks, but casting checks don't exist for a reason: you only have a limited number of spells a day (and at lower levels in particular its EXTREMELY limited). If casting checks are necessary then slots shouldn't be. It's either one or the other.

One concern I have about roll-based casting without slots is Healing magic. If you can cast unlimited times a day as long as you pass your casting check that would inevitably lead to characters trying consecutive healing till everyone is 100% healed at the end of every combat. I suppose you could address that by adding a cumulative penalty (call it "Strain" or whatever) per spell cast that day. But I wonder to what extend that would stop ceaseless Healing attempts per battle.

My hybrid answer to that is that caster don't have a check to cast the spell.  Instead, they have a check to not use up the slot.  This interjects some uncertainty to the process, where slots are still limited, but the caster never knows for sure how the slots will hold up.  Of course, you have to adjust the number of slots with the rest of the game to make the average number of spells still be reasonable.  I don't mind that if the slots start out more like the early D&D progressions (i.e. very limited) because, among other things, it discourages slot inflation. 

Tweak the check to fit your goals.  Want lots of cantrips and few high level spells?  Have the difficulty of the check scale with the level of the spell, maybe even severely.  Want to tie this "slot efficiency" mechanic to a particular ability score separate from other aspects of the caster?  No problem.  Want to introduce more complicated recovery of slots?  Not such a big deal now, because there aren't as many slots, and each one represents multiple spells.  Want to cut down the fiddly preparation but still like specific spells tied to slots?  No problem, because there are a lot less slots and each one represents possibly multiple castings.  Want to move towards a mana-point system without going whole hog?  This kind of does that, depending on your other choices.

This seems like an interesting approach I might have to check out. It allows for some degree of potentially open ended skill-based casting without making it potentially unlimited. I've also considered using Spell Level (or some equivalent in other systems) as a basis for determining casting difficulty, so that's kind of a given for me. I think that's how all skill-based casting alternatives for D&D I've read handle it.

Quote from: tenbones on January 26, 2022, 01:22:55 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 26, 2022, 12:12:03 PM

None of those other activities relies on you having enough "slots" to engage in them, though. You can try to do them any number of times a day. It isn't like casters are having a free ride with all this roll-less spellcasting.

It's an interesting point. Let's look at it closer...

A Warrior can do the Attack Spell. I.e. they Swing or Shoot their weapon. The weapon is a Slot. Different weapons are different "Spells" by analogy. The other abstractions that make the quality of the attack are merely a mechanical dispersal of what spells already have cooked into them by D&D standards, and by the numbers far more poorly. A Longsword's d8 damage ain't scaling in D&D like a Fireball spell.

It is true you aren't casting as many times as you can swing/shoot a weapon. But I'd counterpoint that with the fact that you only do those things in actual combat 99% of the time. Meanwhile when OUT of combat spellcasters have MASSIVE utilitarian capacities no non-spellcaster could ever hope to match and anything they did try would still require a skill-check. Smoke-signals vs. Message spell, heh.

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 26, 2022, 12:12:03 PMNot that I'm 100% against casting checks, but casting checks don't exist for a reason: you only have a limited number of spells a day (and at lower levels in particular its EXTREMELY limited). If casting checks are necessary then slots shouldn't be. It's either one or the other.

My counterpoint stands - most spellcasting is combat and when out of combat casting occurs the effects are orders of magnitude more utilitarian than non-caster skill-checks. There is a reason LFQM and the 15-minute spellcasting day exists for adventurers. If anything I'd say you're making a stronger case of WHY spells should have checks associated with their use, since they produce more effect than any non-spellcasting analogous action which we tend to agree that magic is "harder" to learn than say, swinging a sword, or learning Survival.

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 26, 2022, 12:12:03 PMOne concern I have about roll-based casting without slots is Healing magic. If you can cast unlimited times a day as long as you pass your casting check that would inevitably lead to characters trying consecutive healing till everyone is 100% healed at the end of every combat. I suppose you could address that by adding a cumulative penalty (call it "Strain" or whatever) per spell cast that day. But I wonder to what extend that would stop ceaseless Healing attempts per battle.

Definitely a good question. I think this is handled at a "Setting" level. In Fantasy Craft, not all Clerics can Heal. Wizards can actually heal, if they take the spell. But Fantasy Craft is *extremely* lethal. It's conceits are far different than say 5e.

5e already has the problem, in my opinion, of being too difficult to die/easy to recover. So rather than demand people play the rules differently, I'd approach it from a setting conceit and simply limit who has the capacity to Heal and under what circumstances.

Weapons aren't really analogous with Spells, though. Weapons are concrete items you can use over and over again, and share with someone else, which anyone can use. While Spells are bits of magical energy that go away the moment they're used up, and are unique to the caster. Plus weapons are implements that serve as an extension of your body and work as force multipliers, but your body itself is a weapon you can use over and over again, even if you don't have another weapon. You don't have an equivalent of that with Spells unless you count unlimited Cantrips, which are really a recent thing in 5e (maybe 4e, can't recall), but don't exist in earlier editions.

They're really not the same thing, other than some spells also being able to inflict damage.

I'm also not sure how most spellcasting happening in combat negates the fact you can use a weapon over and over again, but spells only have limited spell slots that go away when used. Or how the utility of out of combat spells negates any of this either, or reaffirms the need for requiring casting check on top of spell slots, when all that combat casting ensures you won't have many slots left for utility stuff.

Even if the utility of out of combat spells is greater than what you can do with non-magical skills (which is somewhat debatable, depending on what you can build using skills) the limited spell slots already serve as a balancing factor. I'm not sure how adding a casting check on top of a spell slot fixes a balancing issue that's already addressed by requiring slots that are limited in number and take a whole night's rest to recover.

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 26, 2022, 02:49:20 PM
Weapons aren't really analogous with Spells, though. Weapons are concrete items you can use over and over again, and share with someone else, which anyone can use. While Spells are bits of magical energy that go away the moment they're used up, and are unique to the caster.

We're talking about mechanics that dictate how Casters "do things". Pragmatically, a warrior is just a guy that can attack/shoot a weapon. A caster is someone that can blast spells.

In game - this is why emergent qualities have come up in modern DnD play as Damage Per Round, and Builds, the 15-minute casting day. And GM design goes by Encounters Per Day.

Mind you - we're not talking about narrative roleplaying theories on what a Fighter does when he's not fighting - that comes into play too. We're talking about the practical realities of what PC's do in game. That means 90% of it combat.

So sure I can swing my sword at 5th level once per round. Maybe twice? And hit you for 1d8+Str. in damage. Meanwhile the Wizard can shoot his fireball a couple of times (maybe squeeze more depending on the edition) for 5d6 area effect. The reality is when the monsters are dead, the combat is over. The key thing we're talking about here are the mechanics used to engage in the classes actions are not simpatico in expression OR effect. That a warrior can swing a sword over and over says nothing about HOW he swings a sword. He's not guaranteed to hit, and if he does, as a singular action, it pales to what a Mage can do with a singular spellcast that has no chance of failing on its own.

The weird thing that I don't get is - this isn't exactly NEW NEWS - spellcasters have traditionally (especially since 3e) been radically more powerful than non-casters. This is a real thing.

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 26, 2022, 02:49:20 PMPlus weapons are implements that serve as an extension of your body and work as force multipliers, but your body itself is a weapon you can use over and over again, even if you don't have another weapon. You don't have an equivalent of that with Spells unless you count unlimited Cantrips, which are really a recent thing in 5e (maybe 4e, can't recall), but don't exist in earlier editions.

They're really not the same thing, other than some spells also being able to inflict damage.

The reason why I bring it up is because Spells are *radically* more effective, yet require no check to execute. The only reason according to you is because "Swords are reusable" seems thin to me based on how people actually play. I'm not sure if you're being argumentative, or rhetorical. I can't count the numbers of pages on this forum dedicated to threads where I've raged about how ineffective non-casters are compared to casters, across multiple editions of D&D at varying degrees... only to find this (and I'm actually giggling as I write this) - that the big win for non-casters is they can keep swinging their swords?... LOLOL this is good.

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 26, 2022, 02:49:20 PMI'm also not sure how most spellcasting happening in combat negates the fact you can use a weapon over and over again, but spells only have limited spell slots that go away when used. Or how the utility of out of combat spells negates any of this either, or reaffirms the need for requiring casting check on top of spell slots, when all that combat casting ensures you won't have many slots left for utility stuff.

Seriously? When has this EVER been a problem? Even at 1st Level its not a problem. A Magic User at 1st level can still shoot a bow almost as good as a Fighter after he drops his Sleep spell (which ironically would probably stop most Fighters cold). Even now, I don't play D&D and people will rest to get their spells back. This is not a function of mechanical reality as much as it's an emergent form of play by bad design.

I'm not saying you're wrong either - I'm saying you're correct on a position that underscores mine. Spellcasting IS MORE POWERFUL - therefore it's reasonable that it requires a check. That's all I'm saying.

Your contention runs contrary, in appearance, to a many years of lots of people that love non-caster classes.

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 26, 2022, 02:49:20 PMEven if the utility of out of combat spells is greater than what you can do with non-magical skills (which is somewhat debatable, depending on what you can build using skills) the limited spell slots already serve as a balancing factor. I'm not sure how adding a casting check on top of a spell slot fixes a balancing issue that's already addressed by requiring slots that are limited in number and take a whole night's rest to recover.

Damn, LOL you're serious! Okay you convinced me.

/robot voice Fighters have always been more powerful than Magic Users.

By the way - I should add, "balancing" casting would require a whole lot of other things than just making a check.

I'm generally in agreement with how Fantasy Craft handles it. Spells can end fights in a round. In FC - so can non-casters, by bypassing HP entirely with a good attack.

Also non-caster Feats in FC are BEEFY. Pound for pound they equal Spellcasting - but in FC spellcasters get all their spellpoints every encounter. So there you go.

Quote from: tenbones on January 26, 2022, 03:27:12 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 26, 2022, 02:49:20 PM
Weapons aren't really analogous with Spells, though. Weapons are concrete items you can use over and over again, and share with someone else, which anyone can use. While Spells are bits of magical energy that go away the moment they're used up, and are unique to the caster.

We're talking about mechanics that dictate how Casters "do things". Pragmatically, a warrior is just a guy that can attack/shoot a weapon. A caster is someone that can blast spells.

In game - this is why emergent qualities have come up in modern DnD play as Damage Per Round, and Builds, the 15-minute casting day. And GM design goes by Encounters Per Day.

Mind you - we're not talking about narrative roleplaying theories on what a Fighter does when he's not fighting - that comes into play too. We're talking about the practical realities of what PC's do in game. That means 90% of it combat.

So sure I can swing my sword at 5th level once per round. Maybe twice? And hit you for 1d8+Str. in damage. Meanwhile the Wizard can shoot his fireball a couple of times (maybe squeeze more depending on the edition) for 5d6 area effect. The reality is when the monsters are dead, the combat is over. The key thing we're talking about here are the mechanics used to engage in the classes actions are not simpatico in expression OR effect. That a warrior can swing a sword over and over says nothing about HOW he swings a sword. He's not guaranteed to hit, and if he does, as a singular action, it pales to what a Mage can do with a singular spellcast that has no chance of failing on its own.

The weird thing that I don't get is - this isn't exactly NEW NEWS - spellcasters have traditionally (especially since 3e) been radically more powerful than non-casters. This is a real thing.

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 26, 2022, 02:49:20 PMPlus weapons are implements that serve as an extension of your body and work as force multipliers, but your body itself is a weapon you can use over and over again, even if you don't have another weapon. You don't have an equivalent of that with Spells unless you count unlimited Cantrips, which are really a recent thing in 5e (maybe 4e, can't recall), but don't exist in earlier editions.

They're really not the same thing, other than some spells also being able to inflict damage.

The reason why I bring it up is because Spells are *radically* more effective, yet require no check to execute. The only reason according to you is because "Swords are reusable" seems thin to me based on how people actually play. I'm not sure if you're being argumentative, or rhetorical. I can't count the numbers of pages on this forum dedicated to threads where I've raged about how ineffective non-casters are compared to casters, across multiple editions of D&D at varying degrees... only to find this (and I'm actually giggling as I write this) - that the big win for non-casters is they can keep swinging their swords?... LOLOL this is good.

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 26, 2022, 02:49:20 PMI'm also not sure how most spellcasting happening in combat negates the fact you can use a weapon over and over again, but spells only have limited spell slots that go away when used. Or how the utility of out of combat spells negates any of this either, or reaffirms the need for requiring casting check on top of spell slots, when all that combat casting ensures you won't have many slots left for utility stuff.

Seriously? When has this EVER been a problem? Even at 1st Level its not a problem. A Magic User at 1st level can still shoot a bow almost as good as a Fighter after he drops his Sleep spell (which ironically would probably stop most Fighters cold). Even now, I don't play D&D and people will rest to get their spells back. This is not a function of mechanical reality as much as it's an emergent form of play by bad design.

I'm not saying you're wrong either - I'm saying you're correct on a position that underscores mine. Spellcasting IS MORE POWERFUL - therefore it's reasonable that it requires a check. That's all I'm saying.

Your contention runs contrary, in appearance, to a many years of lots of people that love non-caster classes.

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 26, 2022, 02:49:20 PMEven if the utility of out of combat spells is greater than what you can do with non-magical skills (which is somewhat debatable, depending on what you can build using skills) the limited spell slots already serve as a balancing factor. I'm not sure how adding a casting check on top of a spell slot fixes a balancing issue that's already addressed by requiring slots that are limited in number and take a whole night's rest to recover.

Damn, LOL you're serious! Okay you convinced me.

/robot voice Fighters have always been more powerful than Magic Users.

EVERYONE can attack/shoot a weapon. The real difference is a warrior is better at it than everyone else, either by getting better attack accuracy and/or by getting more attacks per round (and maybe Weapon Specialization or something). And also that warriors get more HP, making them more durable.

But a Spell is more like a special ability that you can only use X times a day, like Rage. Only spells are broken down into multiple "Spell Levels" where you get multiple uses per day for each spell level, and can also swap which ability you use for that usage. But mechanically they're essentially a type of X/day ability. Some may cause damage, but they don't work like weapons, which are objects that operate under a different set of assumptions than X/day abilities.

Spellcasters are also not THAT powerful until they hit higher levels. And any vulgar displays of power that occur at low levels (like hitting a group of orcs with a Fireball at level 5) are limited and incidental, occurring only limited times a day (exactly one time at level 5 in older editions) and relying on strategic conditions (Fireballs can fry your group too, and enemies don't always line up in a bunch waiting to be taken out by a single spell), before the wizard becomes a sitting target waiting to get killed by any surviving opponents. And if that wasn't the only combat that day, or enemies had reinforcements coming up, good luck with your dagger, cuz that's all you've got then.

The effectiveness of a Spell depends a lot on the spell and the caster's and/or opponent's level. Magic Missile is practically garbage at low levels in older editions of D&D. It only does 1d4+1 if you're level 1, then you're back to using your 1d4 dagger for the rest of the day. Do I really need to make a casting check to use my only 1d4+1 Magic Missile for that day in order to make warriors shine?

And yeah, low level mages running out of spells can be an issue. I used to play a lot of mages back in the day, starting since level 1 (haven't started since level 1 in ages, usually start at level 3+ now), and they were always a pain and boring AF, cuz they SUCK at direct confrontations and have crap HP. So the moment you run out of your single level 1 spell you become a liability for the rest of the party, even if you can technically risk an attack in between the rest of your group doing all the real work.

Part of the reason I think non-casters are comparatively weak is cuz they get NO cool powers of their own, which IMO maybe they should. Like maybe get a "Power Attack" that works like an actual power and can do a ton of extra damage X/day. Warriors in movies tend to do a lot of martial arts stunts that aren't quite encapsulated by a simple "attack roll" or having higher attack accuracy and more HP.

Another issue might be that while mages get crap number of spells at low levels, the situation reverses at higher level, when you eventually end up with more spells than you can use (plus actual decent spells, as opposed to low level weak sauce), unless you run a LOOOONG session with lots of combat and no chances for rest in between.

Greetings!

With low-level Mage characters, I have always tried to make the character well-rounded, and useful beyond the magical spell abilities. Being intelligent, highly-educated and literate has a good number of advantages. Being fluent in several foreign languages can be very helpful, as well as having some ability in reading maps, creating maps, and understanding strange arcane symbols and runes.

On a combat-related note, beyond any spells, I tend to seek to load up on several bags of fire-globes. Get an iron-shod quarterstaff, a fierce trained war-dog, and you are set. One character had a giant armadillo-skinned Rat that could breathe fire several times per day. Light up a cigar, and jump into the action!

Yes, it's an aggressive style of play, but so what? He who dares, wins! My Mage characters aren't sitting still, but wading into action. Clubbing enemies to death with their staves, burning enemies alive with flaming oil, shoving flaming torches into the Orc's gaping mouth as they scream.

My Mage characters always rock. They are always dynamic and active characters. My Mage characters also tend towards being good thinkers and planners, making optimal use of the party's other characters, resources, and abilities, and ordering their deployment to maximize their tactical impact. Player characters that don't listen usually end up dying. Characters that listen and get with the fucking program tend to do well, and the party succeeds.

This all just carries over from my crew in the Marine Corps. Everyone played their characters well, maximized every resource, and developed force-multipliers so that a party could unleash fucking hell on most any environment, against any opponent. Many restrictions that people labour under is more due to a lack of imagination and creativity, and a lack of daring and boldness.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 26, 2022, 12:12:03 PM

Quote from: Zelen on January 26, 2022, 11:19:39 AM

Quote from: tenbones on January 25, 2022, 10:56:11 AM
I prefer the Fantasy Craft method - where casters have to make a skill-check to cast their spells.

I agree and I find it weird that the presumption is you must roll to see whether you can do any number of mundane things -- break down a door, climb an obstacle, navigate the wilderness -- but casting a spell has no check, it just happens..

Having actual mechanics for spellcasting would go a long way toward addressing the issue, since once there are actual mechanics you can justify attributes playing roles in that.

None of those other activities relies on you having enough "slots" to engage in them, though. You can try to do them any number of times a day. It isn't like casters are having a free ride with all this roll-less spellcasting.

Not that I'm 100% against casting checks, but casting checks don't exist for a reason: you only have a limited number of spells a day (and at lower levels in particular its EXTREMELY limited). If casting checks are necessary then slots shouldn't be. It's either one or the other.

I agree, there's different concerns between certain types of actions / skills and spells.

I think a casting check where a player has a roll where he can completely flub his spell is really shite. I'm open to casting checks where certain things occur. If we're limiting ourselves to the 5E framework, then maybe you still cast the spell, but at a lower level, give advantage to the target of the spell, something of that nature.

What I'd really like though would for spellcasting to be a push-your-luck mechanic where you can more-or-less cast safely, but you can also expend certain resources to empower spells (preferably keyed to attributes other than primary casting stat).

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 26, 2022, 02:46:14 PM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on January 26, 2022, 01:01:48 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 26, 2022, 12:12:03 PM
None of those other activities relies on you having enough "slots" to engage in them, though. You can try to do them any number of times a day. It isn't like casters are having a free ride with all this roll-less spellcasting.

Not that I'm 100% against casting checks, but casting checks don't exist for a reason: you only have a limited number of spells a day (and at lower levels in particular its EXTREMELY limited). If casting checks are necessary then slots shouldn't be. It's either one or the other.

One concern I have about roll-based casting without slots is Healing magic. If you can cast unlimited times a day as long as you pass your casting check that would inevitably lead to characters trying consecutive healing till everyone is 100% healed at the end of every combat. I suppose you could address that by adding a cumulative penalty (call it "Strain" or whatever) per spell cast that day. But I wonder to what extend that would stop ceaseless Healing attempts per battle.

My hybrid answer to that is that caster don't have a check to cast the spell.  Instead, they have a check to not use up the slot.  This interjects some uncertainty to the process, where slots are still limited, but the caster never knows for sure how the slots will hold up.  Of course, you have to adjust the number of slots with the rest of the game to make the average number of spells still be reasonable.  I don't mind that if the slots start out more like the early D&D progressions (i.e. very limited) because, among other things, it discourages slot inflation. 

Tweak the check to fit your goals.  Want lots of cantrips and few high level spells?  Have the difficulty of the check scale with the level of the spell, maybe even severely.  Want to tie this "slot efficiency" mechanic to a particular ability score separate from other aspects of the caster?  No problem.  Want to introduce more complicated recovery of slots?  Not such a big deal now, because there aren't as many slots, and each one represents multiple spells.  Want to cut down the fiddly preparation but still like specific spells tied to slots?  No problem, because there are a lot less slots and each one represents possibly multiple castings.  Want to move towards a mana-point system without going whole hog?  This kind of does that, depending on your other choices.

This seems like an interesting approach I might have to check out. It allows for some degree of potentially open ended skill-based casting without making it potentially unlimited. I've also considered using Spell Level (or some equivalent in other systems) as a basis for determining casting difficulty, so that's kind of a given for me. I think that's how all skill-based casting alternatives for D&D I've read handle it.

Dcc also has a good method where if you fail a spell you can't cast it again that day for mages and clerics have an auto failure range that increases each time they fail any spell. Theres also mutation and all that for mages.

Quote from: tenbones on January 26, 2022, 03:29:47 PM
By the way - I should add, "balancing" casting would require a whole lot of other things than just making a check.

I'm generally in agreement with how Fantasy Craft handles it. Spells can end fights in a round. In FC - so can non-casters, by bypassing HP entirely with a good attack.

Also non-caster Feats in FC are BEEFY. Pound for pound they equal Spellcasting - but in FC spellcasters get all their spellpoints every encounter. So there you go.

I sort of missed this in my last reply and was thinking about this since then. And I think that D&D spellcasting balancing issues definitely would take more than requiring a check to address. I remember thinking back in the day (playing 2e, before 3e came out) that most D&D damage spells were crap, with the exception of Fireball/Lightning Bolt. But then you hit level 5 mage and got access to level 3 spells, including Fireball/Lightning Bolt, those spells ruled the day (assuming you could use them to take out multiple enemies without hurting your group) because almost everything else was weaker than a fighter with multiple attacks wielding magic weapons. And the main exception were spells like Chain Lightning and Delayed Fireball, which were 2-3 whole spell levels higher than Fireball/Lightning Bolt, yet did only marginally more damage, which always seemed off to me.

The issue with this is that the degree of power of spells by spell level was extremely inconsistent and didn't seem to progress evenly, but rather you had a bunch of crap spells mixed in with good ones, then you suddenly got two of the strongest combat spells in the game by spell level 3, and didn't get anything that significantly surpassed that beyond that point, which skewed the game's power curve. Spells like Fireball/Lightning also had a damage progression that seemed to take into account the game's ever increasing HP, but none of the rest of the attacks in the game seemed to do the same. Regular weapon attacks didn't get a boost by level, and most other damage spells seemed to be targeted at low level enemies. This was somewhat addressed in 5e for spells, which seem more even spread in terms of damage across spell levels now, but regular weapon attacks still lag.

So addressing this would probably require a whole system overhaul, including addressing regular weapon attacks and non-caster abilities. Fantasy Craft would probably provide some insights into how to do it, but I never really became aware of it till like a year or two ago, and only skimmed through it for ideas a few times since then, but never really got into it or delved too deep. Some of FC's approaches to feats and such are definitely better than D&D.

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 27, 2022, 06:31:20 AM
I sort of missed this in my last reply and was thinking about this since then. And I think that D&D spellcasting balancing issues definitely would take more than requiring a check to address. I remember thinking back in the day (playing 2e, before 3e came out) that most D&D damage spells were crap, with the exception of Fireball/Lightning Bolt. But then you hit level 5 mage and got access to level 3 spells, including Fireball/Lightning Bolt, those spells ruled the day (assuming you could use them to take out multiple enemies without hurting your group) because almost everything else was weaker than a fighter with multiple attacks wielding magic weapons. And the main exception were spells like Chain Lightning and Delayed Fireball, which were 2-3 whole spell levels higher than Fireball/Lightning Bolt, yet did only marginally more damage, which always seemed off to me.

The issue with this is that the degree of power of spells by spell level was extremely inconsistent and didn't seem to progress evenly, but rather you had a bunch of crap spells mixed in with good ones, then you suddenly got two of the strongest combat spells in the game by spell level 3, and didn't get anything that significantly surpassed that beyond that point, which skewed the game's power curve. Spells like Fireball/Lightning also had a damage progression that seemed to take into account the game's ever increasing HP, but none of the rest of the attacks in the game seemed to do the same. Regular weapon attacks didn't get a boost by level, and most other damage spells seemed to be targeted at low level enemies. This was somewhat addressed in 5e for spells, which seem more even spread in terms of damage across spell levels now, but regular weapon attacks still lag.

So addressing this would probably require a whole system overhaul, including addressing regular weapon attacks and non-caster abilities. Fantasy Craft would probably provide some insights into how to do it, but I never really became aware of it till like a year or two ago, and only skimmed through it for ideas a few times since then, but never really got into it or delved too deep. Some of FC's approaches to feats and such are definitely better than D&D.

Heh!  I suspect our preference on the exact fix are different, because of how we want the game to work.   Fantasy Craft is yet another route.  However, what you just described is why in my D&D-like game (not really a clone), I did exactly what you said.  It became clear very early that the only way to get to where I wanted to be was to do a complete rewrite of the spells from the ground up, to smooth out the progression and add/remove concepts to fit my game.  In my case, I also wanted to basically delay the progression somewhat, since part of the idea in roughly balancing overall caster and non-caster effectiveness was to delay some of the more effective spells.

I've got 8 levels of spells, mirroring typical D&D cantrips through 9th level spells, with what would be a third level spell in D&D usually occurring anywhere from 3rd to 5th depending on its powers.  Quite a few of the spells are geared down or up, too. 

Note that most of these issues in D&D are--like a lot of other issues in later editions--because of sticking to the surface formula while not addressing how changes to the game have moved things.  For example, damage spells built into a system with save or die effects don't always translate 1:1 to a system without those effects.  Don't get me wrong.  Getting fireball in AD&D or RC is a big boost.  It's also a lot of fun for many players.  It's not a system breaker, though, when those games are played in the expected modes.

At the risk of repeating myself endlessly, this is the overall big knock on all WotC versions of D&D.  They try to have their cake and eat it too, when it comes to changing the game and keeping traditional elements.  If you change a thing, then you have to ruthlessly follow the implications of that change throughout the whole system, which is going to require moving away from traditional elements.  Of if that cost is too high, then you don't change that particular thing, no matter how big a pet idea it might be. 

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 26, 2022, 02:49:20 PM
Even if the utility of out of combat spells is greater than what you can do with non-magical skills (which is somewhat debatable, depending on what you can build using skills) the limited spell slots already serve as a balancing factor.

To me, limited spell slots is about the equivalent of the fighter's limited hit points. Sure, technically the magic-user also has limited hit points, but in my experience magic-users don't use them -- at least not to the extent that they become a limiting resource. Whereas I regularly see fighters' actions constrained by hit points.

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 27, 2022, 06:31:20 AM

I sort of missed this in my last reply and was thinking about this since then. And I think that D&D spellcasting balancing issues definitely would take more than requiring a check to address. I remember thinking back in the day (playing 2e, before 3e came out) that most D&D damage spells were crap, with the exception of Fireball/Lightning Bolt. But then you hit level 5 mage and got access to level 3 spells, including Fireball/Lightning Bolt, those spells ruled the day (assuming you could use them to take out multiple enemies without hurting your group) because almost everything else was weaker than a fighter with multiple attacks wielding magic weapons. And the main exception were spells like Chain Lightning and Delayed Fireball, which were 2-3 whole spell levels higher than Fireball/Lightning Bolt, yet did only marginally more damage, which always seemed off to me.

The issue with this is that the degree of power of spells by spell level was extremely inconsistent and didn't seem to progress evenly, but rather you had a bunch of crap spells mixed in with good ones, then you suddenly got two of the strongest combat spells in the game by spell level 3, and didn't get anything that significantly surpassed that beyond that point, which skewed the game's power curve. Spells like Fireball/Lightning also had a damage progression that seemed to take into account the game's ever increasing HP, but none of the rest of the attacks in the game seemed to do the same. Regular weapon attacks didn't get a boost by level, and most other damage spells seemed to be targeted at low level enemies. This was somewhat addressed in 5e for spells, which seem more even spread in terms of damage across spell levels now, but regular weapon attacks still lag.

So addressing this would probably require a whole system overhaul, including addressing regular weapon attacks and non-caster abilities. Fantasy Craft would probably provide some insights into how to do it, but I never really became aware of it till like a year or two ago, and only skimmed through it for ideas a few times since then, but never really got into it or delved too deep. Some of FC's approaches to feats and such are definitely better than D&D.

See? Now we're both talking from the same frame. The whole point of "casting attributes" cracks open the hood to see the real underlying problems and the means by which we can examine what is really going on. You restated my entire position (correctly!) - and I agree with you. Your previous points were valid - but they're differences of conceptual mechanical practice rather than actual ones.

I can't even begin to count the number of pages worth of posts I've made on LFQM. And 5e does make things a little better, but not much. In fact it's one of the things that broke me from 5e early on.

FC is an insanely well crafted system. It's the ultimate Fantasy Heartbreaker version of D&D. It fixes 99% of 3.x's problems but no one showed up to play it because of Pathfinder.

I always felt that Con would make for a great casting attribute.  Sort of like drawing ipon your own life energy.  In Kevin Crawford's Sci-fi game: Stars Without Number, a Psychic (basically a space wizard) can opt to use Wisdom or Constitution as the attribute that powers their abilities. 

It would be cool to have an innate caster use Con.  Maybe call them a "Sourcerer"?

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on January 27, 2022, 08:11:23 PM
I always felt that Con would make for a great casting attribute.  Sort of like drawing ipon your own life energy.  In Kevin Crawford's Sci-fi game: Stars Without Number, a Psychic (basically a space wizard) can opt to use Wisdom or Constitution as the attribute that powers their abilities. 

It would be cool to have an innate caster use Con.  Maybe call them a "Sourcerer"?

Thematically - I could see this for Necromantic or "Life" based magic. See the issue for me is not about The Stat, it's about the "theme" of what magic is, and what you're actually doing, and does the game's setting and mechanics reinforce one another. The mere act of saying "I cast Magic Misslie" rarely gets into "wonder" or mystery of the act itself. I think GM's and players should be going into the windup with their spells and how they look.

And a big part of it is because there's not much mystery to it at all - casting a spell in D&D is little more than playing a Magic Card from your deck in MtG in most games.

I think there is a happy medium a game should/could produce mechanically where the act of casting spells is more than saying I toss a fireball. D&D does have all the thematic parts, I think they're used weakly. Schools of magic, different ways to work magic, interchangeability? Cross pollination? Dangers? I want magic to be art and science and be represented mechanically in the game, and thematically in the setting.

Imagine D&D if each spell had difficulties attached to them by school, method, and type. A Necromantic Magic Missile might behave differently than the classic Invoker Magic Missle - but have extra modifications you can add based on Stat used, or if you play with Feats - options learned because you studied at a specific Academy of magic.

Some spells would naturally be more difficult to master for some people than others - which would track thematically across the mechanical levers we've introduced into the system. Spell backlash tables, spell critical tables could be introduced - and be as specific as we need for School/Method of casting. There are a host of things that could be done to make magic personal and engaging, while keeping it Vancian.

One gripe I have with 5e the 4e I felt got right was the Warlock class using different attributes to cast spells depending on what they were casting.  I always felt that a 5e Warlock's Pact should determine their casting stat.  It might look something like this:
* Pact of the Tome - Intelligence
* Pact of the Blade - Choose Int or Charisma
* Pact of the Chain - Charisma

Something like that.

The martial arcane subclasses in the PHB (Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight) use Int as their casting stat, which is good and bad.  Good because they're "studying" magic, and that maintains the theme.  Bad because it suffers from multiple attribute deficiency.  I run an epic level campaign and our Arcane Trickster does rather well.  The 7th level ability Magical Ambush greatly offsets their MAD and lets them land power spells like Hold Person.