Re: "Limiting" Corruption
Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:58 am
-editted... need to re-think what I wrote.
Fan Forums
http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/
http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=67&t=15470
Joseph,goodmangames wrote:I think I created a monster with those class dice. You guys really seem to like them.
Let me pose the question a slightly different way. Here's the challenge I'm trying to solve: the fact that a level 3 spell has a minimum success threshold of 16+ on the die, while a level 1 spell has a minimum threshold of 12+.
Should a level 3 spell be harder to cast than level 1?
Should a level 3 spell have proportionately more powerful results; i.e. a 19 on a level 1 spell is less powerful than a 19 on a level 3 spell?
What do you guys think?
I posted about the class die in one thread... here is my thoughts on the rest of the questions:goodmangames wrote:I think I created a monster with those class dice. You guys really seem to like them.
Let me pose the question a slightly different way. Here's the challenge I'm trying to solve: the fact that a level 3 spell has a minimum success threshold of 16+ on the die, while a level 1 spell has a minimum threshold of 12+.
Should a level 3 spell be harder to cast than level 1?
Should a level 3 spell have proportionately more powerful results; i.e. a 19 on a level 1 spell is less powerful than a 19 on a level 3 spell?
What do you guys think?
We aren't talking about the class die determining success. We're talking about the class die determining loss/retention independently of success/failure. You're chart was confusing until I realized you were calculating something entirely different. Working up the loss/retention percentages with the class die would be interesting.Hamakto wrote:Note: Top table is standard DCC %'s for # of times each spell can be successfully cast. Bottom table is using a class die to determine how many times a spell can be successfully cast. The %'s work out differently because the class die determines success.
But if you use the class die to determine spell retention/memory loss (not success/failure) at a target of spell level +2, a high level spell will be much more difficult to retain in your memory. If you don't take some lower level spells to balance things, you may quickly find you have no spells to cast. A fifth level wizard, rolling a d7 class die, needs a 5+ to retain a 3rd level spell every time they cast it (failure or not). That's not something I would bank on.Hamakto wrote: Because DCC RPG does not have spell slots, if the higher level spells are not more difficult then everyone will just stock up on higher level spells as they level up instead of doing a balance. Maximum bang for the buck!
Personally I think the cleric and wizard need the same mechanics here, it really feels like trying to be different for the sake of being different at this point.Hamakto wrote: I know we are not about unified mechanics, but it would be very weird to have higher DC's for Clerics and not for Wizards.
Thanks for explaining that, I wondered what was going on with the chart.jmucchiello wrote: You're chart was confusing until I realized you were calculating something entirely different. Working up the loss/retention percentages with the class die would be interesting.
No comments on my suggested chart?
Actually, my chart does not really do anything except use the class die for loss/retention. The %'s are calculated based on class_level+ability_modifier. *** SAME AS WHAT YOU SUGGESTED AFTER FURTHER READING --- I just think of it differently... % you keep vs % you lose ***jmucchiello wrote: We aren't talking about the class die determining success. We're talking about the class die determining loss/retention independently of success/failure. You're chart was confusing until I realized you were calculating something entirely different. Working up the loss/retention percentages with the class die would be interesting.
No comments on my suggested chart?
Honestly I think having a higher chance to cast once and lower chance to cast multiple times is a good thing. This is made doubly true in light of my above views on how corruption should be handled and low level spells de-powered. I don't see how this game can't be broken with high level casters who can cast almost limitless times per day. Corruption is supposed to be the limiting factor but I think it's being applied poorly and for the wrong reasons, to the detriment of the game.Hamakto wrote: So that when you fail the spell, you still have a chance to cast it again. This would be similar to have a 9-11 (fail but can cast again). I know people asked about that above, and I shot it down. Because it is does not have the unbalancing effect if you are successful.
You only have a 33% chance to successfully cast it again even if you are successful. So it this system significantly increases your chance of casting a spell once or twice, it will dramatically decrease casting the spell multiple times. Look at the %'s again... do you want to cast it at least once? Or do you want to have a higher chance for 2-3 times?
I don't understand why that won't work, you just need to play with the numbers no? If you are off by .5 does it really matter? Or am I missing something...Hamakto wrote: Using a class die instead of a level modifier for calculation of spell craft checks will not work (as a side point). Each increase in a class die is = .5 bonus increase.
...
It provides a higher spell craft at low levels, but falls apart at the higher levels.
I did not quote all of your text as it was well written by lengthy. Looking at higher level play, I do not think you can eliminate the automatic corruption on a 1. That is the only thing that would make a Wizard pause at using magic for everything. (unless we go to using a class die for spell retention). If you look at that spreadsheet, a high level wizard could technically cast a first level spell QUITE a bit if he did not have a chance at failure.bholmes4 wrote:For certain dark spells, yes, I think corruption should be a real concern every time it is cast. But for most spells I disagree, where corruption should come in to play is seeking "forbidden knowledge" or boosting or taking short cuts to power. Thus I would first reduce the power of lower level spells, making them much less attractive though still allowing for the odd semi-powerful cast but I would allow the following:
-Casters can bargain to roll a d24 (possibly a d30) to cast individual spells like with mercurial magic
-Casters can learn spells up to two ranks higher (up to max spell level) and cast them, though due to a class die they would likely get one cast / day.
... snip ...
Lets look at the comparison:bholmes4 wrote:I don't understand why that won't work, you just need to play with the numbers no? If you are off by .5 does it really matter? Or am I missing something...Hamakto wrote: Using a class die instead of a level modifier for calculation of spell craft checks will not work (as a side point). Each increase in a class die is = .5 bonus increase.
...
It provides a higher spell craft at low levels, but falls apart at the higher levels.
I pointed out in my post the "success" level of spells would have to change if the class die was adopted. I read this:Hamakto wrote:This means a 1st level wizard averages one more spell check point at first level.Code: Select all
Bonus Bonus Class Level vs dx 1 2 2 2.5 3 3 4 3.5 5 4 6 4.5 7 5 8 5.5 9 6 10 6.5
2nd and 3rd levels... almost to exactly identical
4th level you start to fall behind the power curve.
By 7th level your spell check averages 2 full points less.
Since DC are 10+spell_level*2, the current DC mechanic becomes shot. I know someone is going to say just do DC12+spell level for the DC. But then ability score modifiers become exceptionally huge as opposed to just helpful.
The chart you refer to compares the d20+caster level > 10 +2*spell level versus class die > spell level +2 to determine success AND retention. My concept decouples the two items. Success would be d20+class die > ***10 + 2*spell level***. And retention would be class die > spell level + 2. You are missing the d20+class die chart. A 1 on the class die does not mean failed casting since the d20 can overcome the DC. Likewise a 3 on the class die retains a 1st level spell but does not mean the spell was cast successfully.Hamakto wrote:Actually, my chart does not really do anything except use the class die for loss/retention. The %'s are calculated based on class_level+ability_modifier. *** SAME AS WHAT YOU SUGGESTED AFTER FURTHER READING --- I just think of it differently... % you keep vs % you lose ***
Code: Select all
Class Class Bonus
Level Die avg Delta
1 d3 2 +1
2 d4 2.5 +0.5
3 d5 3 +0
4 d6 3.5 -0.5
5 d7 4 -1
6 d8 4.5 -1.5
7 d10 5.5 -1.5
8 d12 6.5 -1.5
9 d14 7.5 -1.5
10 d16 8.5 -1.5
Reading the General Principles of Wizard Spells and the Magic section of the beta, magic in and of itself would be forbidden knowledge and a shortcut to power in DCC. There is no normal or benign class of wizardly magic with which to compare a "forbidden" or extra-dark level of magic.bholmes4 wrote:But for most spells I disagree, where corruption should come in to play is seeking "forbidden knowledge" or boosting or taking short cuts to power.
Good point and I am prepared to have to house rule this heavily for my world where similarly magic was forbidden knowledge, but the use in and of itself is not corrupting.Eldric IV wrote: Reading the General Principles of Wizard Spells and the Magic section of the beta, magic in and of itself would be forbidden knowledge and a shortcut to power in DCC. There is no normal or benign class of wizardly magic with which to compare a "forbidden" or extra-dark level of magic.
The second table that I have utilizes the d20+class_level+ability to determine success. The class die is purely if the spell is retained (successful or not). So you are correct, I do not illustrate exactly what you are describing.jmucchiello wrote: The chart you refer to compares the d20+caster level > 10 +2*spell level versus class die > spell level +2 to determine success AND retention. My concept decouples the two items. Success would be d20+class die > ***10 + 2*spell level***. And retention would be class die > spell level + 2. You are missing the d20+class die chart. A 1 on the class die does not mean failed casting since the d20 can overcome the DC. Likewise a 3 on the class die retains a 1st level spell but does not mean the spell was cast successfully.
Actually, 1.5 is a fairly big effect over time. Especially since 1.5 = 7.5% on a d20 scale. Also, by compressing the DC's together you start to overvalue the benefits of having a higher intelligence. Right now it just helps, but if they are are sequentially numbered then a +1,+2, or +3 has a far larger effect.*** or 12 + spell level is you want to be fair to the diminishing effect of the class die (but I don't think that's necessary). The extended class die chart is d3, d4, d5, d6, d7, d8, d10, d12, d14, d16. At worst, the d16 averages 8.5 for a 10th level caster. Your fear about the diminishing effect is unfounded. At 6th level, the d8 average 4.5, only 1.5 below "average".
Hence the concept of creating tiers of corruption (minor, lesser, greater, (major? for a 4th tier)). So corruptions is part of the game, but picking up a few minor corruptions is not paralyzing. Even after a few corruptions, they still will have a chance of getting a lesser non-major corruption.bholmes4 wrote:Good point and I am prepared to have to house rule this heavily for my world where similarly magic was forbidden knowledge, but the use in and of itself is not corrupting.
Regardless I still say the 1 on d20 idea doesn't work well from a game mechanics stand point, especially when also used as a way to limit spell casting. If you reduce the chances of corruption it leads to increased casting and if you keep it as is, you make casters afraid to cast spells in campaign play and ruin the fun of them.
NO It doesn't. 1st 2nd and 3rd level spells fall into any range the designer wants them to. I was just suggesting that you could change the range if you wanted to. But the core of my concept is actually going to make casting high level spells harder. That's a plus I would think. There is no requirement that Success for spells move to 13, 14, 15, etc, they can stay 12,14,16,etc or 13, 15, 17 if you prefer.Hamakto wrote:It also has the flip side (on another thread) for comparable spell effects. By compressing spells together, a first, second, and third level spell would all fall into a 13-15 range of spell effects (1st DC12, 2nd DC13, 3rd DC14).
You can type that without laughing? What spells have to be redone? Like Fireball balance against Magic Missile? Please. The spell descriptions and their so called "balance" is based on eyeballing the numbers. Show me 100 spells of 1st to 5th level and prove to me the "balance" is thrown off if it becomes 7.5% harder to reach the 20-21 range of a 4th level spell and then prove that that same 7.5% means wizards are not viable classes afterward.I was asking for exactly what you wanted a few months ago, but changing to a class die for spell craft bonus for a Wizard is not a subtle change, but a major re-balance attempt to the game system. It works in combat for a warrior, because AC's are already depressed by design. But spells would have to be redone...
So the class die is not added to the d20 roll except as noted above? Nice, very different from MDoA and wizard spell loss. I assume that also means the cleric does NOT add his caster level to his spell caster rolls. EXCELLENT. Another great way to make the class die unique.meinvt wrote:My preference is still that Clerics work a bit differently than wizards for spell casting. For example, I'd like to see the following for a Cleric's class die roll with every spell:
1 - Faith tested, spell casting is resolved normally, but then spell or ability is lost until you give an offering or 12 hours pass.
2 - Your deity is silent, spell casting is resolved normally, but then the spell is lost for four hours or until you give an appropriate offering if it is the highest level spell you can cast.
3 - Minor boon, add +2 to spell check.
4 - Major boon, add +4 to spell check and you have a faint glow or aura appropriate to your deity for 1d8 rounds.
5 - Aspect of Power, add +6 to spell check and you prominently take on the appearance of your deity in some significant feature for 1d4 turns.
6 - Minor Visitation, add +8 to spell check. You also recover a spell previously lost today. An aspect of your deity manifests strongly as a breeze, light, darkness or scent around you for 1d6 rounds.
7 - Major Visitation, add +10 to spell check. You also are healed as though laying hands upon yourself with a check equal to your spell check result. An avatar of your deity appears and manifests your spell and then embraces you as it disappears.
*grins* Yes I can type that. I think that I am having a problem explaining all of the permutations that I see. You are just the 7.5% the spell check roll.jmucchiello wrote: You can type that without laughing? What spells have to be redone? Like Fireball balance against Magic Missile? Please. The spell descriptions and their so called "balance" is based on eyeballing the numbers. Show me 100 spells of 1st to 5th level and prove to me the "balance" is thrown off if it becomes 7.5% harder to reach the 20-21 range of a 4th level spell and then prove that that same 7.5% means wizards are not viable classes afterward.
The average for a caster with +1 bonus is 45/55 (fail/success). That seemed to be Joseph's target number so keeping that inline so it scales to all spell levels is what I am trying to statistically accomplish.The only change that "must" be done is to move success at 1st level to 13+ to maintain the 50/50 chance at 1st level to cast a first level spell for an "average" wizard of 13-15 Intelligence. Did I really say "must"? When did I drink the Kool Aide? 50/50 is not writ in stone from some faceless patron. It just sounds nice. It does not mean that a 5th level wizard casting a 3rd level spell MUST have a 50/50 chance of success.
Besides, you could equally argue that 12+ makes more sense. Sure spell casting becomes "easier" at low levels. That is the patron sucking the fool in. With a d3 class die, he can't cast the spell more than once a day 2 out of 3 days.
If you want to continue this discussion, I would suggest re-posting on a second thread so this does not get too cluttered.meinvt wrote: My preference is still that Clerics work a bit differently than wizards for spell casting. For example, I'd like to see the following for a Cleric's class die roll with every spell:
1 - Faith tested, spell casting is resolved normally, but then spell or ability is lost until you give an offering or 12 hours pass.
2 - Your deity is silent, spell casting is resolved normally, but then the spell is lost for four hours or until you give an appropriate offering if it is the highest level spell you can cast.
3 - Minor boon, add +2 to spell check.
4 - Major boon, add +4 to spell check and you have a faint glow or aura appropriate to your deity for 1d8 rounds.
5 - Aspect of Power, add +6 to spell check and you prominently take on the appearance of your deity in some significant feature for 1d4 turns.
6 - Minor Visitation, add +8 to spell check. You also recover a spell previously lost today. An aspect of your deity manifests strongly as a breeze, light, darkness or scent around you for 1d6 rounds.
7 - Major Visitation, add +10 to spell check. You also are healed as though laying hands upon yourself with a check equal to your spell check result. An avatar of your deity appears and manifests your spell and then embraces you as it disappears.
The spell check results for clerics could then remain the same, just without losing a spell on failure.
Which is not a bad thing necessarily.Hamakto wrote: I will leave you with one more thought on using the combination of class die for spell checks and retaining spells. I have not done the full statistical analysis on this... but from rough calculations... if you roll low on the class die, you are most likely to fail. If you roll high on the class die, you have a much higher chance of successfully casting a spell. So by using the same die for both results, you are more often than not... rewarding spell casters that successfully cast spells and not those that fail.