WOW! That's some serious MAD.
quick note on 3.0 psionics -- while it was a cool idea (that, from a fluff angle, I really liked), I think the reason that it was bad in practice is that not all ability scores are created equal. I mean, who's
not going to take only CON/DEX -based disciplines?
As I think on it, if you wanted to make DCs dependent on several scores, my instinct would be to do it like this: fort = con ; refl = dex ; will = cha (and it looks like the fluff has already been discussed).
However, different stats for different saves seems a bit extreme -- under this, you'd only be casting spells of a single type of save. Initially, this seems like it might be pretty cool -- you'd definitely get a certain type of specialization that would narrowly define your character -- however, this seems like it'd be overly-redundant. Sorcerers (which would serve as my generalists) would get passed over completely .... if you're gonna be restricted to no-save spells, that means buffs and BFC; which necessarily means that you'd be better off going transmuter/conjurer. Specialists will typically be concentrating primarily on a single type of save anyway, so further diluting the save mechanic will completely disincentivize generalist casting.
Furthermore, in reference to further diluting the MAD -- unless you directly tie DCs to an ability that also supports another important casting aspect, then you will disproportionately encourage no-save spells (through discouraging save spells). Additionally, too much dilution will completely homogenize casters. They're gonna have to have at least a 19 in one stat, then boost the bonus spells/day stat next, followed by bonus spells known, and DCs last. In effect, what you're left with is a small list of no-save spells.
IOW, what veekie said.
Now to divine casters.
The druid seems to be an easy fix -- shapeshifter. done (well, in addition to dual-stat casting). Since they arguably have the weakest spell list of any of the Core full casters, chopping down their other key class features appears to do the job (on second thought, would the dual-stat casting even be necessary? I'm sure that there are some sort of shenanigans that I'm missing; probably involving fluff-inappropriate PrCs.).
Now I'm stuck on what to do about clerics. One thought was to make domain spells key off of different abilities, but then you're back at 3.0 psionics. Another thought was to completely ditch domains as an automatic class feature, and relegate them to feats .... but that doesn't work because it doesn't really address the problems -- it only further restricts them in the feat economy, which isn't the problem. Making them more MAD doesn't really do it either, since they're already a little MAD to begin with.
That being said, since there doesn't seem to be any "easy" or "convenient" fixes, I propose just doing a rebuild of the cleric by making the following changes:
- chassis = d4 HD, weak BAB, good WILL, 2 skill points/level.
- # of Turn attempts = 4 + 1/5 level (since dual-stat casting would necessarily and artificially inflate turn attempts otherwise).
- offer options for buffing the chassis at the expense of casting (similar to stalwart/battle sorcerer).
This is just brainstorming -- let me know what you think.
Note that Extreme MAD-ness is just as bad as mono-stat, ideally no more than 2 primary stats and a secondary before they start verging on nonfunctional.
That's precisely the idea. The caster can be a transmuter or a illusionist or whatever, but cannot be an omnipotent god with every damn magic school whitin easy reach. Wich is precisely what makes wizards and clerics so damn powerfull to begin with.
but there is such a thing as going too far.
And since we're at it, take away from conjuration all the stuff they stole and give it to the other schools. I'm looking at you orbs, teleport, ect, ect.
While the orbs probably should get kicked over to evocation (or, at least just tack on a save and/or SR -- if that gets done, then I'm fine with it staying in conjuration); teleport, however, originated in transmutation (called "alteration" in 2ndEd) -- yeah, like transmutation needs any more spells (never mind that the fluff of conjuration best fits teleport).
I'm just sayin'.
What school should teleports belong to?
fluff seems to indeed indicate conjuration.