D&D Spells [Rebalancing 3.5]

[veekie]

So, with that, the typical character gets faster as he levels? Particularly martial ones, casters fly/teleport well before that. Could be interesting, but you'd have to rebuild a hell lotta monsters.

[SiggyDevil]

Sorta. They get faster thanks to better STR and DEX, which can be a product of levels.
More from items, buffs, and race, though.

It would mean some work, but it's a houserule anyway. I just figured Medium races should have different speeds other than "everyone moves 6 squares", and reward warriors with high offensive stats.

[veekie]

Oh, I certainly approve of the mechanic(in particular, making martial characters inherently more mobile), only the trouble it will take to add to the system detracts from it.

[SiggyDevil]

Eh, only the usual problems of houseruling. Look at Robby's collection of changes. I mean, damn, that's a whole new game right there.

[RobbyPants]

The system reminds me a lot of the speed changes in 2E Combat & Tactics.  In that system, a high Str and Dex could boost your movement.  I think you could get up to a 50% increase in speed with an 18 in both.  It's not too far off from what you're suggsting.

I certainly don't think it'd break the game, and I think it might make certain aspects more fun.  My only hesitatin is what Veekie mentioned: all of the monsters would change.  This isn't a game breaking issue, but rather an annoying convert-on-the-fly issue.

[SiggyDevil]

The system reminds me a lot of the speed changes in 2E Combat & Tactics.  In that system, a high Str and Dex could boost your movement.  I think you could get up to a 50% increase in speed with an 18 in both.  It's not too far off from what you're suggsting.

I certainly don't think it'd break the game, and I think it might make certain aspects more fun.  My only hesitatin is what Veekie mentioned: all of the monsters would change.  This isn't a game breaking issue, but rather an annoying convert-on-the-fly issue.

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK
heh
Perhaps if I could find a way that requires less revision. A DM would look at a monster entry and say "Oh, the speed bonus from STR and DEX is X feet." That's what I'm going for.

[veekie]

You could, I suppose, just call monsters as having an arbritrary base speed such that the final speed is the same after the str/dex application.

[SiggyDevil]

You could, I suppose, just call monsters as having an arbritrary base speed such that the final speed is the same after the str/dex application.

Base speed, yes. Arbitrary, no.

[RobbyPants]

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK
heh

Aww, you don't like 2E Combat & Tactics?    I'm not commenting on the merit of the system, but rather that it's close to something I've already seen.

Perhaps if I could find a way that requires less revision. A DM would look at a monster entry and say "Oh, the speed bonus from STR and DEX is X feet." That's what I'm going for.

Well, the DM has all the info he needs in the monster entry.  It just takes a bit of work to do it is all.  Just look at the ability scores to get the modifiers, add them up, and divide by two to get the number of squares (multiply by 5 for feet).

It looks like a lot when written out, but it's not hard to do.  Of course, what it could be to some people is annoying.  You have to remember to do it, and it's an extra step.

You could, I suppose, just call monsters as having an arbritrary base speed such that the final speed is the same after the str/dex application.

This is certainly a fix, although it seems like a very lazy fix.  Still, it might be "good enough" for the DM who loathes extra work during combats.

[veekie]

To be precise, it's a 'field patch' so you can use that mechanic without rewriting the monster manuals. The big difference is with melee players mobility, pretty sure they'd appreciate that.

[RobbyPants]

Yeah.  I guess your typical MM orc would only gain 5 feet, which is no big deal.  What might concern players is dragons gaining 40' on all their modes of movement!

[SiggyDevil]

Aww, you don't like 2E Combat & Tactics?    I'm not commenting on the merit of the system, but rather that it's close to something I've already seen.

Don't like it? What!

I played AD&D for years. If anything, I was the one shoving that set of rules options in the other players' faces, getting it mostly rejected except for a few concepts.
My fear is that I didn't actually think this up, but instead merely dredged a lost memory from over a decade ago.


There's nothing wrong with gigantic dragons moving faster than small planes... 

IMO if it is a problem, it encourages gamers and the system as a whole to regulate stat boosts better.

[RobbyPants]

We've discussed modifying various auto-success spells to give boosts to relavent skills when appropriate.  Things like Escape Artist checks for Freedom of Movement and Open Locks checks for Knock.

What about Zone of Truth?  Should this auto-succeed or should it be a solid boost to Sense Motive checks?

Are the similar auto-success spells you can think of that might be converted into skill boosts?

[bkdubs123]

If you are changing some auto-succeeds you should change them all, shouldn't matter "how powerful" an auto-succeed is relative to another. Is seeing through Illusions wicked awesome compared to auto-detecting lies? Most of the time, but it depends on the campaign.

Now, I have this idea where evocation spells that deal energy damage can just deal whatever kind of energy damage the caster wants. Is this too powerful? Thoughts? I mean that a 1st level Wizard could cast Shocking Grasp but decide to deal cold damage with it today. Wizards would likely have to prepare it as a Icy Grasp, Sorcerers could maybe just on-the-fly, spur of the moment, Icy Grasp. The reasoning behind this is that NOBODY is going to waste spells known on all of the different energy types for all of the orbs, and balls, and grasps, and rays, and bla, bla. They're just going to pick the best one. So why not take it one step further and say that everyone always has the best one?

[RobbyPants]

Well, it's really no different than how psionics does it.  You might want to reduce the amount of damage a spell would do if converted to sonic damage.

[veekie]

Zone of Truth works best as a penalty to Bluff checks within it's span I believe. As for illusions and True Seeing, the simplest one I could see is opposed CL check to see through illusions, or alternatively, rework the Epic Spot rules for defeating illusions(which is currently automatic at DC 80 spot) and make it a situational spot bonus.

[RobbyPants]

I thought about a Bluff penalty, and I think you're right.  The spell isn't boosting someone's lie-detecting abilitiy, but rather hurting other's ability to lie.  Discern Lies might work better as a Sense Motive boost, as it just works for you.

Opposed caster levels might be the easiet way to work in True Seeing.  I can't think of a good way to oppose Spot and Caster Level.

[SiggyDevil]

We could probably achieve the simulation of many auto-win spells by a combination of penalties applied to enemies and bonuses applied to allies.
Between the 2 types, if used synergistically a character would have a tremendous advantage but requires much focus in one particular strategy.

For instance, Invisibility Purge (putting penalties on Hide) or Detect Magic + See Invisibility (altered to a sight-enhancing buff) would essentially equal an automatic invisibility detection, given the drastic distance between success of the hider and success of the seeker.
 

[RobbyPants]

I guess it depends on how many spells we want to change or create, but we could always make ones that counter.  So you could buff yourself with a bonus on a skill, and your opponent could try to nullify it with a penalty to the same skill or a bonus on their opposing skill.

That being said, as far as Invisibility goes, I have no problem with it simply making you invisible as opposed to giving you a Hide bonus, and I have no problem with Invisibilty Purge simply negating Invisibility.  These aren't so much "auto win" as one gives you a boost and the other counters it.  Really, Invisibility is only an "auto win" against deaf opponents.

[veekie]

Well, speaking of invisibility, what do you guys think of making the lack of  concealment, a penalty(say, -20?) on Hide instead of a flat 'can hide/cannot hide' thing? If it were that way, then you could conceivably make invisibility into a pure Hide bonus spell(which, it is anyway, given the DCs for seeing through invisibility).