Author Topic: Let's Design a Non-Vancian Casting system  (Read 30521 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

DavidWL

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 505
    • Email
Re: Let's Design a Non-Vancian Casting system
« Reply #220 on: August 27, 2009, 07:19:22 AM »
Super-duper rough draft.  In general, I'm suggesting something like shadowcasters or spheres from Frank K.

SPHERES

We have "spheres" of spells - very narrowly defined.  Examples:
  • Divination spells that gather information about the future (and do not give bonuses).  Augury, Divination, Commune, etc.
  • Fire spells that do damage
  • Long-distance teleporation spells
  • Tactical Teleporation spells
  • fog spells that are battlefield control

Fundamental Point - both theme and function are specified.  A sphere allows you to do one thing one way.  However, you can do it over many levels, and it grants access to many spells.

If you have access to a sphere, then you can cast spells of that sphere. As you level, you can access to those spells in that sphere.

FREQUENCY

Rules of thumb:
  • Spells used for combat are measured in terms of times per encounter and have a duration measured in minutes/lvl or less
  • Spells used for utility are measured in times per day (but with longer duration).  These have a duration greater than minutes per level
  • Spells that are uber (polymorph) are rituals, which require some sort of cost, and typically more time to perform.  Frequency is irrelevant, because we make the costs such that they are extremely unlikely to be used "too" often.

FREQUENCY PROGRESSION

At each level you get one sphere which can grant an existing sphere with usage of once per time period (encounter or day).  If you select a sphere a 2nd time it lets you use it 3 times.  If you select a sphere a 3rd time you can use it at will.

EXAMPLE

Example 6th level "Cleric"
  • HP Healing *2 (twice per enounter) - like cure critical
  • Negative Energy Wards * 1 (once per encounter or day) - like protection from evil and death ward
  • Attribute buffing * 1 (once per enounter) - like bull's strength
  • Combat summoning * 2 (once per encounter or day EDIT - twice per encounter or day - I mistyped) - like summon nature's ally

Note:  At later levels some of the planar summoning spells are so powerful, they are considered rituals, and require he expend an action point to cast them.

POTENTIAL PROBLEM

Right now there is no incentive to every use lower level spells ... all spells are cast at the highest level.

Best,
David
« Last Edit: September 06, 2009, 02:20:55 PM by DavidWL »
Some Cool Quotes:  [spoiler]
Quote from: unknown
Non-PC activities like out of combat healing should be left to wands and NPCs. It's not fun to play a walking wand of CLW. Likewise, being a combat wall is not a viable PC role. A Wall of Force could do that.

-Sort of, but you left out the important note that a Wall of Force does it better.

Quote from: Runestar / skydragonknight
The most powerful character is the one that you actually get to play.

Quote from: Operation Shoestring
I often have to remind people not to underrate divination.  The ability to effectively metagame without actually metagaming beats the ability to set things on fire more times than not.
[/spoiler]
DavidWL's Random Build Archive

dman11235

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1544
    • Email
Re: Let's Design a Non-Vancian Casting system
« Reply #221 on: August 27, 2009, 01:17:34 PM »
Before we get any further, is it to be assumed by this point that we are working with the revamp that was started in that Pathfinder thread over in D&D Deliberations?  And that the result of this will go there?

Also:

Quote
Perhaps you could compromise, creating a "seed" system and a 4e-style system.  What I would suggest is using the seeds as guidelines to develop spells and allowing players to use them to create their own spell effects.  That way you can combine the flexibility of the seeds system with the user-friendly spell system that we're familiar with.

I see no problem with creating both mechanics.  We don't HAVE to restrict ourselves to using one and only one system.  For instance, the Wizard could use the seed system (more spells available, I think the flavor fits better) and the Sorcerer could use the other option.  And then the Cleric uses another mechanic.  And so on.  Heck, this would give the Sorcerer a reason for existing.  AND if we have more than one mechanic we avoid one of the major failures of 4E, the sameness.  Incidentally, I heard something about 4E yesterday, and I shall expand on it further below.

On the seeds/augments debate there:

Seeds are not augments.  A seed system might use them, but ultimately a seed system would be similar to epic casting in that it IS like puzzle pieces.  An augment system is closer to psionics in that you have base effects and you augment them.  A combination would include augments for finished spells created by a seed system, something like having a general seed group not being seeds, but augments that do +xdy damage, increase range, etc. as was said.

Yesterday I was in Indy for a meeting, and on the way back me and the guy I was riding with (who plays 4E) were talking about D&D.  Apparently 4E psionics is going to be awesome.  I'll have more details later when he gives me the article, but the basics are: Psions have more at will powers and no encounter powers.  The instead have power points which recharge after a short rest.  These powerpoints can be used to, you guessed it, augment at will abilities.  Since I don't have the specifics, I can't say for sure, but from the sound of things, WotC has read this thread....from the future?  And various other threads.
My sig's Handy Haversack: Need help?  Want to see what I've done?  Want to see what others have done well?  Check it out.

RobbyPants

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 7139
Re: Let's Design a Non-Vancian Casting system
« Reply #222 on: August 27, 2009, 02:50:59 PM »
Before we get any further, is it to be assumed by this point that we are working with the revamp that was started in that Pathfinder thread over in D&D Deliberations?  And that the result of this will go there?
Personally I'd hoped not, but I haven't been too involved in this either.

For the scope of that project, at the current time, working on spells would be getting ahead of ourselves.
My balancing 3.5 compendium
Elemental mage test game

Quotes
[spoiler]
Quote from: Cafiend
It is a shame stupidity isn't painful.
Quote from: StormKnight
Totally true.  Historians believe that most past civilizations would have endured for centuries longer if they had successfully determined Batman's alignment.
Quote from: Grand Theft Otto
Why are so many posts on the board the equivalent of " Dear Dr. Crotch, I keep punching myself in the crotch, and my groin hurts... what should I do? How can I make my groin stop hurting?"
Quote from: CryoSilver
I suggest carving "Don't be a dick" into him with a knife.  A dull, rusty knife.  A dull, rusty, bent, flaming knife.
Quote from: Seerow
Fluffy: It's over Steve! I've got the high ground!
Steve: You underestimate my power!
Fluffy: Don't try it, Steve!
Steve: *charges*
Fluffy: *three critical strikes*
Steve: ****
Quote from: claypigeons
I don't even stat out commoners. Commoner = corpse that just isn't a zombie. Yet.
Quote from: CryoSilver
When I think "Old Testament Boots of Peace" I think of a paladin curb-stomping an orc and screaming "Your death brings peace to this land!"
Quote from: Orville_Oaksong
Buy a small country. Or Pelor. Both are good investments.
[/spoiler]

bkdubs123

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2724
    • Email
Re: Let's Design a Non-Vancian Casting system
« Reply #223 on: August 27, 2009, 03:07:11 PM »
Before we get any further, is it to be assumed by this point that we are working with the revamp that was started in that Pathfinder thread over in D&D Deliberations?  And that the result of this will go there?

No.

Quote
I see no problem with creating both mechanics.  We don't HAVE to restrict ourselves to using one and only one system.  For instance, the Wizard could use the seed system (more spells available, I think the flavor fits better) and the Sorcerer could use the other option.  And then the Cleric uses another mechanic.  And so on.  Heck, this would give the Sorcerer a reason for existing.  AND if we have more than one mechanic we avoid one of the major failures of 4E, the sameness.  Incidentally, I heard something about 4E yesterday, and I shall expand on it further below.

The Crusader, Swordsage, and Warblade all work off the same basic system. Would you say that any of those classes plays the same as each other, or feels so like the other that one or more has no reason to exist? The difference is between a mechanic and a system. Sure, the Wizard and the Sorcerer should have very different spellcasting mechanics, however, in my opinion, they should draw from the same spellcasting system.

Quote
Seeds are not augments.  A seed system might use them, but ultimately a seed system would be similar to epic casting in that it IS like puzzle pieces.  An augment system is closer to psionics in that you have base effects and you augment them.  A combination would include augments for finished spells created by a seed system, something like having a general seed group not being seeds, but augments that do +xdy damage, increase range, etc. as was said.

I believe we agree here. I was saying that it ISN'T like puzzle pieces to mean that we do not want seeds for area or range or duration, etc. Seeds are a small, basic spell complete in itself, but that can be combined with another seed, or not, and augmented at the same time.

Quote
Yesterday I was in Indy for a meeting, and on the way back me and the guy I was riding with (who plays 4E) were talking about D&D.  Apparently 4E psionics is going to be awesome.  I'll have more details later when he gives me the article, but the basics are: Psions have more at will powers and no encounter powers.  The instead have power points which recharge after a short rest.  These powerpoints can be used to, you guessed it, augment at will abilities.  Since I don't have the specifics, I can't say for sure, but from the sound of things, WotC has read this thread....from the future?  And various other threads.

This is highly interesting. I had read some speculation that 4E Psionics could be that very thing, but it was not at all confirmed, and it seemed unlikely as it would mean that psionics diverges completely from their "EVERYFUCKINGONE IS THE SAME DAMMIT!!" design standard. I'm inclined to call bullshit actually, even though it would probably be an awesome subsystem.

AlterFrom

  • Donkey Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 561
  • Super Special Awesome
Re: Let's Design a Non-Vancian Casting system
« Reply #224 on: August 27, 2009, 07:15:55 PM »
Quote
Yesterday I was in Indy for a meeting, and on the way back me and the guy I was riding with (who plays 4E) were talking about D&D.  Apparently 4E psionics is going to be awesome.  I'll have more details later when he gives me the article, but the basics are: Psions have more at will powers and no encounter powers.  The instead have power points which recharge after a short rest.  These powerpoints can be used to, you guessed it, augment at will abilities.  Since I don't have the specifics, I can't say for sure, but from the sound of things, WotC has read this thread....from the future?  And various other threads.

This is highly interesting. I had read some speculation that 4E Psionics could be that very thing, but it was not at all confirmed, and it seemed unlikely as it would mean that psionics diverges completely from their "EVERYFUCKINGONE IS THE SAME DAMMIT!!" design standard. I'm inclined to call bullshit actually, even though it would probably be an awesome subsystem.

That's exactly how 4e Psionics work.

Psions get 3 at-wills (as opposed to 4) which they can augment with their per-encounter resource to per-encounter level power. They still have utilities (which can be /enc or /day) and dailies. It's 6 one way and half-a-dozen the other, but for some people that half-dozen just tastes so much better than the 6.
Siggy
[spoiler]TIRED OF TRYING TO MANAGE FILES ACROSS SEVERAL COMPUTERS? GET DROPBOX AND SIMPLIFY THE PROCESS!


xkcd. It Rocks.

Tick, tock, Tick, tock...

FYI: I lose a couple years off my life anytime I see I have a PM.

Quote
We're ALL rules lawyers here. The BEST at what we do, too. It's like a Tom Grisham novel in which everybody at the top law firm is a dirty crook, but they all know the rules so well that TECHNICALLY speaking, they aren't breaking them...:eh

[/spoiler]

dman11235

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1544
    • Email
Re: Let's Design a Non-Vancian Casting system
« Reply #225 on: August 28, 2009, 02:00:20 AM »
Quote
No.

Oh, I've been operating under the assumption that we were going to use it for that.  Well, we still might be.  I mean, it's not like much is going to get done at fixing casting completely without a total overhaul, we'd just end up with another Incarnum or ToB.  Great, great system, but suffers from the base problems of any system under these core rules.

Quote
The Crusader, Swordsage, and Warblade all work off the same basic system. Would you say that any of those classes plays the same as each other, or feels so like the other that one or more has no reason to exist? The difference is between a mechanic and a system. Sure, the Wizard and the Sorcerer should have very different spellcasting mechanics, however, in my opinion, they should draw from the same spellcasting system.

That's nice and all, but I'm thinking further ahead than just one system.  I mean, INcarnum, Binders, Psionics, ToB, they are all different systems entirely.  That's some good variety.  And, heck, three of those are incredibly well off design and balance wise.   As much as you would like to deny it, psionics is unbalanced.  Not anywhere near as much as casters, but it IS flawed.

Quote
For the scope of that project, at the current time, working on spells would be getting ahead of ourselves.

Well, to a point, yes.  We can still have base mechanics worked out that can be tweaked to fit the system.  Or if we needed to we could still try a different mechanic.  Well, let me put it this way: We'll see.
My sig's Handy Haversack: Need help?  Want to see what I've done?  Want to see what others have done well?  Check it out.

AlterFrom

  • Donkey Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 561
  • Super Special Awesome
Re: Let's Design a Non-Vancian Casting system
« Reply #226 on: September 06, 2009, 01:59:24 PM »
BUMP with a system summary!

DavidWL's Spheres System
  • Spells are divided into rigidly defined spheres; things like "Fire", "Divination", or "Long Distance Teleportation."
  • Frequency decided by spell use. Combat < Utility < "Uber" Rituals
  • Lower Level spells are forgotten entirely. Higher Level spells are explicitly better than lower level ones.


Veekie's Seeds System
  • Seeds are things like "Charm," "Flare," or "Blind."
  • Seeds have base effects, basic augments, and greater augments. All can be affected by expenditure of /enc or /day points
      • Base effects are damage, low statuses, etc. Point effects increase potency of the base effect, but don't change its core.
      • Basic augments add minor changes to the core of the seed. Things like adding targets, changing the AoE, improving/changing the status, etc. Accomplished with /enc points.
      • Greater augments add major changes to the core of the seed. Often have the best status effects, or give unique effects. Accomplished with /day points.
  • Augments can be cast with another spell in some way. (I assume by merely adding it on)

bkdubs' Seeds System
  • Seeds are highly "essence" based in terms of spell themes. Abjuration, Conjuration, etc.
  • Currently proposed at 8 School Seeds, with a strong lean towards 3 base effects per seed to open up customization.
    • The effect of each seed or effect would be whatever the group deems the "Essence" of that seed/essence.
  • Augments start with a base of the effects on the Epic Spell Factors table: Range, Duration, Targets, Components, etc.




I've summarized the 3 most prominent proposals in the last couple pages. If the authors of the proposals want to clarify something I've written (or correct it, if I've misjudged), please do so. I'm hoping we can back off from mechanics for a minute and look at the broad picture of which system we might prefer.

What I do notice between all three is that we don't seem to like micromanagement. All three feature broad generalizations of spell effects, eliminating the spell-hunting process in favor of complexity through combination. I like this a lot; it trades mindless searching of dozens of books for the most ridiculous spells for having a centralized list that is easy to reference as you check in combination in turn. bkdubs' system seems to be a more "pure" representation of this than Veekie's, but there isn't a whole lot of mechanics fleshed out yet. I like the promise of the elegance-with-complexity, but I need more concrete descriptions of the mechanics before I can really sign on to it.
Siggy
[spoiler]TIRED OF TRYING TO MANAGE FILES ACROSS SEVERAL COMPUTERS? GET DROPBOX AND SIMPLIFY THE PROCESS!


xkcd. It Rocks.

Tick, tock, Tick, tock...

FYI: I lose a couple years off my life anytime I see I have a PM.

Quote
We're ALL rules lawyers here. The BEST at what we do, too. It's like a Tom Grisham novel in which everybody at the top law firm is a dirty crook, but they all know the rules so well that TECHNICALLY speaking, they aren't breaking them...:eh

[/spoiler]

DavidWL

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 505
    • Email
Re: Let's Design a Non-Vancian Casting system
« Reply #227 on: September 06, 2009, 02:30:19 PM »
DavidWL's Spheres System
  • Spells are divided into rigidly defined spheres; things like "Fire", "Divination", or "Long Distance Teleportation."
  • Frequency decided by spell use. Combat < Utility < "Uber" Rituals
  • Lower Level spells are forgotten entirely. Higher Level spells are explicitly better than lower level ones.


If the authors of the proposals want to clarify something I've written (or correct it, if I've misjudged), please do so. I'm hoping we can back off from mechanics for a minute and look at the broad picture of which system we might prefer.

What I do notice between all three is that we don't seem to like micromanagement. All three feature broad generalizations of spell effects, eliminating the spell-hunting process in favor of complexity through combination. I like this a lot; it trades mindless searching of dozens of books for the most ridiculous spells for having a centralized list that is easy to reference as you check in combination in turn.

I do like your summary of my very tentative proposal. 

The one thing I would change would be the frequency comment.  Really, combat spells have frequency measured in times per encounter, while non-combat spells have frequency measured in times per day.

I do agree with your summary - generalized spell effects. 

That said, one reason I went the way I did was because it didn't necessarily require that we ever create spells - it is very easy to just use existing spells.  I did this for 2 reasons. 
  • Creating spells is time consuming.  It would take much longer to create a functional system if we need to create spells or even well-define a system for spell creation. 
  • The other reason is for backwards compatibility - it would integrate much better with the existing system.

Best,
David


Some Cool Quotes:  [spoiler]
Quote from: unknown
Non-PC activities like out of combat healing should be left to wands and NPCs. It's not fun to play a walking wand of CLW. Likewise, being a combat wall is not a viable PC role. A Wall of Force could do that.

-Sort of, but you left out the important note that a Wall of Force does it better.

Quote from: Runestar / skydragonknight
The most powerful character is the one that you actually get to play.

Quote from: Operation Shoestring
I often have to remind people not to underrate divination.  The ability to effectively metagame without actually metagaming beats the ability to set things on fire more times than not.
[/spoiler]
DavidWL's Random Build Archive

bkdubs123

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2724
    • Email
Re: Let's Design a Non-Vancian Casting system
« Reply #228 on: September 06, 2009, 02:36:34 PM »
I'll try and write up some concrete rules in the next couple of days. :)

Sneak Peek!

Abjuration Seed
Protection - Bonuses to Armor Class or Saving Throws.
Counterspell - Dispel Magic and Dismissal.
Wards - Fields of protective or preventative magic.

vermithrx

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 64
    • Email
Re: Let's Design a Non-Vancian Casting system
« Reply #229 on: September 26, 2009, 09:58:58 PM »
Common Spell Variables:[spoiler]Components: What the spell can require to be performed.
  • Focus (1)
  • Implement
  • Somatic
  • Verbal

Initiating Action: How long the spell can take to cast. (2)
  • Full-Round
  • Standard
  • Move
  • Swift
  • Immediate

Origin:
  • Self
  • Close (25 ft. +5 ft./Level)
  • Medium (100 ft. +10 ft./level)
  • Long (400 ft. +40 ft./level)
  • X Feet
  • X Miles
  • Unlimited

Shape: What the spell can affect.
  • Target
    • Objects
      • Number
      • Size
      • Weight
      • Type/Exclusion
      • All
    • Creatures
      • Self
      • Hit Dice
      • Number
      • Size
      • Weight
      • Type/Exclusion
      • All
  • Area
    • Squares or Cubes
      • Number
      • Length
      • Width
      • Height
      • Defined/Shapeable (3)
      • All
    • Line
      • Length
      • Width
      • Height
    • Cone or Sphere
      • Radius
    • Cylinder
      • Radius
      • Height

Range: Where the spell can effect.
  • Self
  • Touch
  • Close (25 ft. +5 ft./level)
  • Medium (100 ft. +10 ft./level)
  • Long (400 ft. +40 ft./level)
  • X Feet
  • X Miles
  • Unlimited

Duration: How long the spell's effect can last.
  • Instantaneous
  • 1 Round
  • Concentration
  • Save Ends (1/Round, otherwise permanent)
  • Save Persists (1/Round, otherwise 1 minute) (4)
[/spoiler]

----------
Actual effects will be unique to the seed itself and should probably scale with Caster Level.

(1) Do Implements replace foci, as well as material components?

(2) I assume from the previous conversation that no spells will have casting times longer than a full-round action or shorter than an immediate action (no free or X round actions).

(3)(4) Save Persists had me confused for a while because I thought it was meant to work with buff spells, not debuffs (fail save, lose buff / succeed save, buff persists). I suggest you rename it Save Suppresses
  • Concentration
  • Concentration (Full-Round)
  • Concentration (Standard)
  • Concentration (Move)
  • Concentration (Swift)

The idea being certain spells can take more, or less, time to maintain each round. Say as a balancing point, a low-level version of Fly takes a standard action to maintain each round, so you can only use it to run away. Mid-level it takes a swift action, so you can cast with it. Finally, at later levels, its duration becomes Save Suppresses and you can do what you like, turning it on and off at will over the course of 1 minute. (I assume success is automatic if the spell is your own and suppression would be a free action, yes?)

(5) It is my strong opinion that, any spell with a Range and/or Origin that cannot be expressed with three decimal places or less when measured in feet, is not meant for use in combat and should become a ritual.

« Last Edit: September 26, 2009, 10:12:21 PM by vermithrx »

minmax

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 16
Re: Let's Design a Non-Vancian Casting system
« Reply #230 on: October 11, 2009, 01:47:52 PM »
So, something on the last few pages got me excited about having a spell system that can be easily memorized or fit on to a page (or two).  I used my own assumption for "what do we want magic to do?".  I tried to capture the functionality of the core spells, but leave out effects that just gave "+x" to something, and leave out spells that aren't cast in battle... these can become rituals.  I hashed out a pair of spell systems:

1)  I started out by making one spell for each school/subschool, then added a couple more spells I needed so I ended up at about 24.  Each spell has 3 tiers of power (based on CL) and a cantrip aspect that can be used at-will.  This system would have 72 spells plus 24 cantrips, but I haven't been able to completely fill every part yet, and some spell affects have been excluded.

2) I wanted to try a system where you have spell "seeds" that can be cast as-is, or combined with another seed for a better effect.  Each spell "seed" would also have a cantrip aspect here, too.  When making up the table, I eliminated redundancies down to 12 seeds, but still had to arbitrarily fill some gaps in the table.  This system would have 12 spells + 66 combinations = 78 spells plus 12 cantrips.

Things learned so far: 
-each system has about the same number of spells
-both have a minimal amount of spell text
-In D&D, the magic just doesn't work like seed-combination.  It was hard to rationalize how some effects fit into a combination of two seeds, and some combinations didn't make much sense.  Also, it's harder to control access to higher powered abilities because once you have access to two seeds, you can get the more powerful effect.  Using a system like this would require re-flavoring the D&D spell casting to suit.


gilch

  • Noob
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Let's Design a Non-Vancian Casting system
« Reply #231 on: May 03, 2010, 05:07:37 AM »
Vancian Magic. 1. Magic is in the form of distinct spells that do exactly one predetermined thing. 2. Spells must be prepared well in advance of use. 3. Each prepared spell can be used only once. (Though you may prepare the same spell multiple times.) 4. Mages have a finite capacity of prepared spells.

This is the Vancian system as I understand it. Break even one of these rules and the system is no longer Vancian. When you say you want a Non-Vancian Casting system, you should specify which exactly of these rules we should break.

limitation on amount of magic
-----------------------------

For game balancing reasons, there have to be limitations to how much magic a wizard can use, but the limits need not be exactly Vancian. Here's a brainstorm of limitation ideas from various sources, including this thread. Most of these variants preserve Vancian rule #1 (you probably use seeds for this, which needs its own brainstorm section) but break one or more of the other 3.

[you might want a default basic "eldrich blast" type power, so a wizard isn't completely useless after running out of magic. Variations on each idea are listed with a + mark.]

Slot system: as SRD. like Baulder's gate, SRD slots have levels, however, you may also put a lower level spell in a slot. This is basically like the Vancian system.
 + spontaneous casting (cure/inflict/nature's ally. UA domain/school?) I love this mechanic, especially with the spontaneous domain spell casting for clerics and school spell for specialist wizards variant. Not truly Vancian now, but close.

Point system: recover all mp after 8 hours rest. Psionics are like this, UA had a spell point magic variant that also had slots.
 + psionic augment; spend more points for better effect.
 + fatigue UA variant; become fatigued/exhausted if you spend too much of your pool. Recover partial pool along with stamina.

Point buy uses per day. (my system, playtested at low levels) spells have mp cost, but you must buy uses in advance, makes it similar to, but simpler than slot system. Just add tally marks next to spell in your known spells list.
 + spontaneous casting (cure/inflict/UA variants etc.) still works. expend a use of a spell of required level or higher.

4e system: daily, encounter, at will.

Split point system. [from this thread] Similar flavor to 4e system. Encounter pool is recovered any time you could take 20 on spellcraft check (not in combat.) Daily pool is recovered after 8/h rest. You may draw from either or both pools freely; an MP is an MP. (you want to draw from encounter pool first obviously).
 + psionic-style augment still works here.

Utility roll per round, winds of magic [warhammer?]. GM rolls d20 at beginning of every round You (and other casters) can only cast a spell of the level rolled?

School roll per round, winds of magic. GM rolls d8 at beginning of every round, each # corresponds to one of the 8 schools of magic by a table. spells from rolled school are free. others cost MP.
 + organize table by properties? schools 1 step away from rolled school get a discount.
 + opposite school can't be used?
 + no MP at all, you can only use the roll

Seed roll per round, winds of magic. GM rolls something. Corresponds to spell seed system by a table. This is the "environment seed". You have prepared seeds in advance. Number you can prepare is limited by level. You may combine the current environment seed with a prepared seed on the fly to cast a spell.
 + You may take a feat to cast a spell spontaneously using environment seed alone
 + store the environment seed for later with a full round action?

UA recharge. has tedious temporal bookkeeping

Utility roll variant to UA recharge? My idea, to avoid the bookkeeping issue. GM rolls d20 every round, each spell recharges on certain numbers. Spells with more numbers recharge more quickly. Average number of rounds to recharge = 20/[number of recharge numbers]. So if you wanted something to recharge in 5 rounds on average, give it 4 numbers.

[backlash variants may let you cast higher level spells than you would normally have access to.]

HP Backlash. (Like epic factor?). Magic consumes HP not MP. Spellcraft check may be required. At higher levels, you're more resistant to backlash damage. 5th level wizard might pull off a 8th level horrid wilting, but backlash would kill him. 20th level wizard might only take 5 damage from the same spell? (arbitrary numbers here)

Paradox backlash. (like mage: ascension?) Take a wild surge (d% chart of spell perversions) if you fail spellcraft check? Higher level spells are more difficult, obviously.

Paralysis backlash. (like pokemon hyper beam: 2 round move, but damage is in first round) You can cast any spell in 1 round, but become helpless afterward for 1 round + [1 round per spell level] while you recover from magical shock.
 + get a (will?) save to avoid the backlash. Saves improve with level obviously. Save DC based on spell level.

Sanity backlash. Using UA sanity rules; loss of sanity: casting spells. And read the recovering sanity section too. You don't have to prepare spells, you can cast all of them you know at will, but it's dangerous to your mental health.

Stored casting time. This is nearly Vancian. The more difficult spells simply take longer to cast. Cantrips can be done in 1 round, so are effectively at will. Each level adds 1 minute casting time (arbitrary. maybe 1 min per level squared is better?). You can store a certain number of minutes worth of spells, by preparing them in advance. This number improves with level. When you want to cast it, you simply complete the final round worth of casting. It takes as many minutes to prepare the spell as it would to cast it outright.
 + stored casting time in slots. These Slots don't have level. You get one more slot whenever class says you get access to a new spell level. (and maybe a bonus slot for high int or something). You can store any number of minutes worth of spell per slot, but it takes that long to prepare it. You could then naturally prepare per-day type spells per day, and re-prepare easy spells in freed slots per encounter.

Spell levels per round channeling. Choose a number of rounds to channel. You can't channel again for the same number of rounds afterward (cooldown). 1st level sorcerer maybe generates 1/2 spell level worth of magic per round if doing a "channeling" action. That's enough for a cantrip after 1 round of casting, or level 1 spell after 2 rounds of casting. Get another 1/2 level/round per level up. So an 18th level sorcerer generates 9 spell levels/round channeling, so could cast level drain in 1 round. Or could cast magic missile 9 times in 1 round. A spell probably shouldn't improve with a higher level caster with this variant. So that's like 9 level 1 magic missiles. You could mix-and match, so at 9/round you could cast 2 fireballs, 2 magic missiles and 2 rays of frost in the same round. 2*(3+1+1/2)=9.
 + take a feat to halve cooldown time?

Pseudo-logarithmic MP. Like a perfect20 wealth check. Spells have a base cast DC of 20 + [2 x spell level]. (arbitrary numbers here, may need tweaking). You have a reserve of MP, which you add as a bonus to your d20 "casting check" to cast a spell. If you pass the check but the DC exceeded your MP reserve number you lose 1 MP per 5 DC over the reserve (round up, 1 over still costs 1 MP). Also, 7th level spells automatically drain 1 MP, 8th drain 2 and 9th drain 3. (that's in addition to MP loss if you exceed reserves.). You don't expend MP at all on a failed check or if MP reserve was at DC or better. So a high level mage with full MP can spam magic missiles all day without expending any MP, but that same mage will use up MP to cast magic missile if reserves are low enough. Also the lower your reserve, the less likely you'll pass the casting check. Magic becomes progressively harder and harder the lower your reserves. (So you can see a magic point is more valuable the more MP you have, that's why MP score is like a logarithmic scale. 1 MP may be worth a magic missile, or a finger of death, depending.)

Para-magic draw (like FF VIII). Magic isn't prepared, it is collected. From monsters. Mages have the "draw magic" ability, which they can use at will. As a full round action at close range, make an opposed charisma check to one target monster. Gain 1 magic bead for passing the check, plus 1 for each point in excess of the monster's roll (after modifiers). Magic beads come in 10 levels (0 to 9) and 8 flavors (the schools of magic.) You can expend a bead to cast a spell of the appropriate school of equal level or lower. For example you could use a level 9 necromancy bead to cast energy drain or chill touch. What kind of beads you get depends on what kind of monster. The monster type determines the flavor (like aberration/transmutation, undead/necromancy, etc. from a lookup table) and the CR (or hit dice?) determines the level. I call them beads because you can use colored beads instead of pencil marks to keep track of your magical stock, but in the game world the beads are just magical energy stored in the mage's body, it has no real substance. Higher level mages have a higher capacity. Normal monsters have a limited supply of only 5 beads, you can't draw more than that. (they recover after resting, not that it matters usually, since adventurers tend to kill them first.) You can steal beads by drawing from a magic user, so magic-using monsters may have more than 5.
 + willing mages can trade beads like psionic tattoos
 + "drawcast" feat lets you draw one bead from a monster and expend it as a spell the same round.
 + "improved draw" feat extends the range you can draw to medium and adds a +2 bonus to your draw checks.
 + some types of monsters may have more than one flavor of bead. You could draw them (it) randomly from a bag of beads appropriate for that monster.
 + beads may be an ingredient for crafting magical items.
 + beads evaporate over time. Mages "leak" a certain number of beads per week. Randomly. Once a week, put your bead collection in a bag and pull out and discard the required number.
 + magical energy springs. Certain areas or natural features may accumulate magical energies. You may be able to draw level 3 necromancy beads from a certain gravestone, for example. They form a small pool of beads like a spring accumulates water. Bead evaporation keeps such pools fairly small, they contain only 5-10 beads at most, almost always of fairly low level. If you draw from a pool it will take a few days to fill up again. Springs are nearly invisible, so you usually have to use detect magic or the like to find them. The location of known springs is usually a closely guarded secret, but some may be willing to sell such information...
 + you can add an expensive gem as a material component to increase the effective level of a bead, letting you cast a higher level spell than otherwise possible. (use the price of a scroll for a reasonable value?)
« Last Edit: May 03, 2010, 03:06:09 PM by gilch »