Expanding the Siege Engine to include spell casting

[adaen]

I was intrigued by the variety of interesting ideas in the Spell Recovery Idea thread:
http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

and thought I'd throw something else out there. What if spell casting used the Siege Engine too?
Here's how I would envision it working:

Casters can cast any spell in their book/pantheon/etc. (no memorization, preparation, etc.).

Casters would Roll d20 + Caster Level + Attribute Bonus (if any) each time they cast a spell (Make a Siege Engine Check vs. their ability).

The DC for spells would be 18 + spell Level + any extra modifiers (high or low magic region, etc.).

If they make the Siege Roll, they cast the spell. End of story.

If the caster fails the Siege Roll, he/she still casts the spell, but loses a Caster Level until resting a solid 8 hours. If the effective caster level ever dips below zero.....something bad happens (e.g., Burnout, Magical Coma, HP reduced to half of current, etc.). Note that once a caster fails the first one, they're more likely to miss the next one as effective caster level is now lower.

This can be tweaked to increase or decrease the magic in your game by adjusting the base DC, the consequences of failing the Siege Roll, and the impact of a Burnout.

Any thoughts?

~AoB
_________________
~Adaen of Bridgewater, www.highadventuregames.com

[wolfpunk]

I was actually talking about something like this last night.

The idea we were talking about is that casters gain a number of slots equal to their attribute bonus modifier for each level of spells they can cast. These slots are used during combats.

Outside of combat, a caster may caster any spell they know. They must have any necessary matericals components etc. The caster must make a siege check CL (18+spell level).

If they fail the check, they lose a number of hit points equal to the level of the spell they were trying to cast.

If a spell is used and it starts a combat, it is counted against spell slots designated for combat.

[adaen]

wolfpunk wrote:
I was actually talking about something like this last night.

The idea we were talking about is that casters gain a number of slots equal to their attribute bonus modifier for each level of spells they can cast. These slots are used during combats.

Outside of combat, a caster may caster any spell they know. They must have any necessary matericals components etc. The caster must make a siege check CL (18+spell level).

If they fail the check, they lose a number of hit points equal to the level of the spell they were trying to cast.

If a spell is used and it starts a combat, it is counted against spell slots designated for combat.

Your's definitely makes spell-casting quite a bit more dangerous.
_________________
~Adaen of Bridgewater, www.highadventuregames.com

[wolfpunk]

Yes it does, which is why I think we didn't go much farther with it.

[adaen]

wolfpunk wrote:
Yes it does, which is why I think we didn't go much farther with it.

One of the points of mine is not tracking "how many spell points, spells/level, etc." one has left, but rather just tracking raw capability (i.e., effective caster level). In my proposed mod, a caster never really runs out of spells.

~AoB
_________________
~Adaen of Bridgewater, www.highadventuregames.com

[Treebore]

A system like this can work, its used in Legend of the 5 Rings.

I wouldn't make it so likely to fail, plus a spell caster is supposedly a "master of magics" so why would their base TN start at 18 when TN 12 is for Prime types stuff.

So to me, your saying they aren't trained in casting magic.

Your saying a first level spell caster with a 16 INT can only cast a first level spell by beating a TN 19 with only a +3 to their roll. Which means they will fail 75% of the time. TN 13 will still fail 50% of the time.

A bit too steep a chance of failure in my opinion.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[adaen]

Treebore wrote:
(snip) I wouldn't make it so likely to fail, plus a spell caster is supposedly a "master of magics" so why would their base TN start at 18 when TN 12 is for Prime types stuff.

So to me, your saying they aren't trained in casting magic.

Your saying a first level spell caster with a 16 INT can only cast a first level spell by beating a TN 19 with only a +3 to their roll. Which means they will fail 75% of the time. TN 13 will still fail 50% of the time.

A bit too steep a chance of failure in my opinion.

Oops, I forgot to mention that I use the +6 variant for Primes (rather than the target of 12). That being said, failing the Siege roll does not mean that the spell fails....the caster still gets the spell, but loses a temporary caster level.
_________________
~Adaen of Bridgewater, www.highadventuregames.com

[vegabond]

I like your idea. I'm going to file it away for later thought.

[adaen]

Thanks. I use it for my own Aega Mythea homebrew system. It will change the dynamic of spell casters in C&C quite a bit, but that's really the point....to change things in a good way (or at least to my preferences...I've never been a fan of the core D&D/"Vancian" magic system).

I'll be interested to hear your thoughts once it comes back out of the file.

Best,

~AoB
_________________
~Adaen of Bridgewater, www.highadventuregames.com

[Treebore]

My point is they will fail often, and probably run out of levels often enough. If you also did like L5R and took away saves versus spells I might like it better. As it is too much is stacked against the mage being effective without getting screwed too often.

If you scaled it to fail 25% of the time, without any INT bonus, then it may become acceptably risky. As it is I doubt I would bother playing a spell caster.

I would stick with a reliable fighter type.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[adaen]

I got ya. I think just a 25% failure rate at a caster's highest spell level would drastically increase the amount of magic in a campaign. A L6 Caster would never fail for a 1st Level spell. A L9 Caster would never fail for a 3rd Level spell. Fireballs every round anyone.

I think just using the primes would be enough (roughly 50% failure rate). To each his own, of course and thanks for the input.

~AoB
_________________
~Adaen of Bridgewater, www.highadventuregames.com

[pactmaster]

The only time I use a SIEGE roll for spellcasting is when two or more spellcasters work together, blending spell elements (raw magic) to make a combined spell (ala the Black Company novels). Otherwise I run magic like Gideon, mages cast as many spells as they can per level, without using a Vancian system, they still carry their spellbooks, which come in handy for teaching their spells to others for a fee or trading spells.

Spellcasters begin knowing more spells than they can cast and must choose which spells to cast with restriction to their level/spells per day. I have blended in spells from the Atomik Grimoire to add variety and specialization.
_________________
Deserve has nothing to do with it, if you think you're entitled. You're not.

--Stephen Chenault

Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens.

J. R. R. Tolkien

[Fizz]

I use Siege checks for spellcasting myself. However, for the CL i use a value of spell level x 2. I find that CL equalling spell level enables high level spells too easy to cast at lower levels.

Quote:
The DC for spells would be 18 + spell Level + any extra modifiers

In your case, a 9th level spell would have a CL of 9. That's a CC = 18 + 9 = 27. A 9th level wizard would roll d20 + 6 (Int prime) + 9 = d20 + 15. That means a 9th level spell could be cast by a 9th level wizard successfully 45% of the time. And i'm not even counting Int modifiers here. That is too easy, imo, considering the power of high level magic.

So, i just change the CL of the spell to be spell level x 2. That keeps in still in line with vancian magic. That is, 9th level spells won't be feasible until the character gets to much higher levels.

-Fizz

[adaen]

Fizz wrote:
I use Siege checks for spellcasting myself. However, for the CL i use a value of spell level x 2. I find that CL equalling spell level enables high level spells too easy to cast at lower levels. (snip)

-Fizz

I see your point. I also find it interesting that some think it makes magic too hard and some makes it to easy. We all like our game a bit different and C&C seems to be up to the task.

~AoB
_________________
~Adaen of Bridgewater, www.highadventuregames.com

[serleran]

I would have suggested spell level x 2 for the exact reasons noted about ease of casting high level spells... but, I would also suggest something to restrict the "spell battery" effect that is the healer-tank. It requires a little more bookkeeping, but perhaps a cumulative penalty to the check for any subsequent casting of the same spell. Something simple like a -2.

For example, let's take Bubba Ho-Tep the 1st level 18 Wisdom Cleric:

Bubba (no cumulative penalty) casting CLW --

d20 + 1 +3 >= 12 +2 = 10 or 55% success [this is every casting.]

With cumulative penalty --

d20 + 1 +3 >= 12 +2 = 10 or 55% (first casting only)

d20 + 1 +3 >= 12 + 2 + 2 = 45% (second casting)

d20 + 1 +3 >= 12 + 2 + 4 = 35% (third casting)

... and on until at 5th casting there is only a 5% of success. This naturally limits the spellcasting to a reasonable level (as far as casting specific spells are concerned) and makes the attribute modifier incredibly important.

[Fizz]

Another check on numbers you could have is a -1 penalty for every spell you cast. Then you wouldn't have to worry about keeping track of individual spells, just the total number cast each day.

-Fizz

[rabindranath72]

I went for something similar in my Middle-earth adaptation.

Basically, the CL is equal to the level of the spell, but if the roll fails, the character loses the spell-level (in hps) from exhaustion (these are treated as subdual damage).

[adaen]

rabindranath72 wrote:
I went for something similar in my Middle-earth adaptation.

Basically, the CL is equal to the level of the spell, but if the roll fails, the character loses the spell-level (in hps) from exhaustion (these are treated as subdual damage).

I like this. I'd like to see your adaptation too, if you're willing to share. Have you posted it already?

AoB
_________________
~Adaen of Bridgewater, www.highadventuregames.com

[Omote]

Check the Middle-Earth thread. Lots of RD72 stuff in yonder.

-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society