Min/Max Boards

It might be outside of the scope of this, but I can list a few potential problems.

Wait! Hold up! I was interested in the ways you think that can be used against those problems.
I mean, I highly value your input, but we've already stated the problems that need to be addressed, in the previous chapter. Now we're trying to answer them.
Also, you're missing a few items such as the prominence of SoD spells. Magical Resistance and the obscurity of spellcaster check. Mages scrolls ad infinitum. 15 minute work day. etc.

One big combat aspect I see missing is crowd control. That's a very broad term that can be done in many ways, but it's very important. Also, mobility (flight and teleportation, specifically) would need to be addressed.

Well, crowd control is a term that is used outside of design to state a certain affect your character creates on the battlefield. I can see both charm and figment as creating Crowd Control effects.
Someone had argued that Summon can also be used for Crowd Control. Could be. personally, I don't buy that. What you mention as flight and teleport I called Shift. There are a number of short term, minor influence spells that already exist and can be connected to it. Jaunt, Fast retreat, Dimension Door, Knights Move. Whatever. For the more complex version where either the caster or the group travel to an entirely different location I thought that using the Ritual rules will be more fitting (and so, there is no need for blocks spellcasting).

As far as non-combat goes, you're probably going to want some utility in there. You can likely get some good utility from summon, figment, charm, shift, and know/detect. You may or may not want something to help bypass hazards, things to boost mundane tasks (be they boosts to normal skill checks, or things that work outside of the skill system), as well as stuff like reading thoughts or detecting lies. It's possible those effects could get added into boost and know/detect.

Pretty much most of what you mentioned is up there. Boost block can provide +2 to aim or something similar, an automatic skill success would probably fit more as a Ritual. Same with most other blocks provided. Do you think that there is something not covered by the blocks? Can you think of a specific example?

You weren't planning on each of those things as being a single effect, were you? I'm assuming each would contain a list of effects.

I wasn't planning on anything at all after that post. It's a catalyst for discussion. I thought of somethings and would like to hear others. Given what I wrote (or could also be - despite what I wrote) how do you see the system onward?

So fun fact, if you delete the word "epic" from creating Epic Spells you'd have 99.9% of the system Bronzebeard wants to make.

You know, It would have seemed wise of me to remember that 

Also as a fun fact, Mutants and Mastermind does things even better, and Risius is even less rule extensive!

And ars magicka, and blue rose.

This could potentially work if the Restore/Release/Replenish portion of a spell can be added on for free. If it is not (and requires you to gain another level, or whatever, before it can be used), you are going to have a situation where monsters of level X can hit the party with effect Y, and the party cannot counter/deal with effect Y until a level later than X.

And making it "free" could be workable. If each player has a certain number of "known effects" that it can stack, and can only stack so much based on their level

I wholeheartedly agree with you.
I would also include things like damage-types in certain scenarios. If you recall, there is this feat called Energy Substitution that swaps spell's elemental damage types. I read about GM's giving the feat pro-bono or a similar ruling so that the players would have his sorcerer in a "different colour", so to speak.
There's also the notion that if you know how to cast something, then you probably know how to undo it (I'm not sure that's a 100% true).

• Bottom line is that casting an 'on' effect should be as high level as casting an 'off' effect. This is for balance sake, as you mentioned.

The one side effect I see with this solution (I won't strictly call it a down side) is that then, in order for you to be able to counter X, you have to be able to do X.

I would view such a thing as negative attribute.
As much as it makes sense for it to exist that way - I would still like to have difference in types of casters, necromancer who knows how to sap strength and transmuter who knows how to enhance strength with no crossover between their powers.
That is why I'm not so inclined to use an "opposite" building block. Still, not so sure. Peers input will be greatly appreciated on the matter.

...the "clerics" would blow one of their known effects...

Thing is I never intended to include the clerics in this. I know that their spellcasting is the same, mechanically. Yet the class is treated differently for many aspects (Being granted turn undead that also fuel certain powers, Spontaneous godly casting, Domains, etc.). Therefore I'd say that they are outside the scope of this discussion.

...addressing the problems is another ... the second would yield "high level" games that (supposedly) work better than they do, now.

Any ideas?

I would like to see example characters for the groups mentioned.
Or created characters and where are they located within your groups.

Well... they're both locked behind a paypoint.

I'll need time to gather information.
*rolls d20*

Im going for restricting the RNG.  Bonuses will be smaller and stack less.  I'm also using BAB as a way of showing which classes are trained combatants and which ones arent, hence why its more difficult to pull off an opposed combat check against someone of a higher BAB.

Restricting RNG can't be done by smaller bonuses (afaik). Restricting RNG is done by decreasing die size, or using multiple dice to create a bell curve.
You can use the following calculator to see the chances for each result.


Also, I agree with RobbyPants on that using both penalty and delta are "needlessly complex".

All in all, it's something. But it needs more work.

What I did was swapping the whole BaB thing with +1 aB granted by fighter feats. Especially with the chained ones.

e.g. each of the feats in the manyshot feat (Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, etc') gives +1 bonus for attacking.

This reinforces fighters as the ones with weapon attack options. It seems to (mostly) work.
However, I think that you need to state what your aiming for. It would help understand your angle better.

How many groups are there is not something that really matters, for me. You can divide to a dozen as far as I'm concerned.

What I'm more critical of is the split between Support and Control.
Say, for example, that I summon Hobgoblin between my cleric and a lunging foe. Is the summoning / summoner a support (because the Hobgoblin, and by implication, the caster, absorbs the forthcoming damage )- or a Control character (because he just placed an obstacle on the fields)?

You see what I mean?

You havn't looked at the Bard's spell list have you? Bards get Cure as an Arcane spell... Heal and Remove Disease however are divine only... but cure could be used as a building block for heal... and potentially for remove disease too...

I have looked at the Bard class, and frankly? I think it's so much of a mess that a much bigger attention is required then what the changes in arcane spellcasting will be able to provide. But yes, you are right. Bard have cure and others as arcane spells. I would still look at the bard as a separate case.

As for cure as a building block; yes, theoretically I can write down a cure building block (something along the lines of cure minor wounds) that would be used for spells from the same family: Light, Moderate, Serious, Critical Wounds, Vigor, and Regenerate. Remove disease needs a different basis. It could use cure block as an additional ingredient for balancing purposes, perhaps.

This reminds me a bit of something I scribbled about a bit ago.

Maybe you can crib a little? Part D and E add a little extra bit of pomp to wizardry that's normally lost.

Mostly what was mention (including the original post from OSR blog) are designed as an in-game flavorful role-playing aspect. It doesn't relate to the book rules, to rolling dice, to the math behind the game. Which is what I'm mainly concerned about.

Also, I'm unable to find a copy of Arcana Evolved (there was another one - blue something?) for inspection.


As a sidenote - I always wondered why you need a feat in-order to write down on a scroll? Isn't craft (scribe) enough?

The spells that were mentioned could be based on smaller parts, IMO. Teleport is likened to Dimensional Door, Benign Transposition. Timestop resembles Haste. And Summon is an existing list of 9 spells, from 1st level to 9th.


I know there are spells that are more difficult to translate that way - like Wish.
There is, probably, a place for bigger basic blocks. For example: 3rd level spell for invisibility or something. I don't know.


In regards to spells countering monster's nasty effects; one way is to use the same spell to counter it. Just like the existing system. I just state I reverse the effect with the same power. Another way is to create a building block for 'restore', for 'release' or for 'replenish' and coupled with other building blocks have the ability to remove negative effects.

Keep in mind that this is all regarding arcane casting and as the current system works, there is no heal, cure or remove disease for arcanists. Whether it should be like that or not is another thing we could discuss.


The present practice where PC's are in danger of straight out dying is something I'm aiming to change. SoD spells are a notorious symptom for this.

Making all higher level effects be combinations of lower level effects is boring and limits character growth. All getting to higher level does in that system is let you do the same things you could do at level 1 faster and more efficiently.

Au contraire, my friend. Creating spells from combinations of low level parts is involving, creating and engaging. It stimulates tactical thinking and presents another layer of game-play. Getting to higher level means opening more options, creating spells with higher power ceiling and more influence on the world.

I would love to hear tips and suggestion on how to improve the draft.

Basically, yes. A plethora of 1st level spells exist as the smallest building blocks that you can combine as you wish. The more you use, the higher the spells level is for casting.

Can you give example as to how this won't keep up with monsters at higher levels?