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.