[note]If you want to skip ahead and miss 4 pages of discussion, click here (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?29899.90#post_34693)[/note]
My friend recently invited me to play in a game he was DMing, and when he mentioned that he had overhauled the magic system, I was a little dubious. However, after playing for a while, I found that his system worked quite well. I'm putting what I know of it here, since he asked for my help in perfecting the system, and I see quite a bit of potential in it.
Alright. First off, he's got one casting class that has the potential to learn all spells in the PHB (druid spells and some others are subject to his discretion), so there are no real balance issues in regard to inter-caster relations. It's what drew to this system as a candidate for my Dilandri setting. The only problem I see with this is that the spells of all the classes are learned at level, making some potentially very powerful for their level.
Spells are learned from scrolls and books, and each one has a point value. This value represents your knowledge of the spell and your ability to cast it. It can be increased when you level up, train in the spell, or successfully cast the spell. having 5 points represents that you have memorized the spell, so I assume that anything lower than this can only be raised through research. Like I said, all spells are fair game, and there are no maximum spells known (he also tells me that there is no reason you can't be trying to cast a fifth or sixth level spell at first level, but he still uses the spells per day system, so I'm a little confused here).
Casting the spell is a d20 roll consisting of your points in the spell you're casting plus your spellcraft bonus versus an unknown DC (I believe the DC for a first level spell to be around 30). A success casts as normal, and a failure does nothing. However, two failures of a level per day reduces your remaining spells by 1. So in effect, each spell slot is worth two failed castings.
He also has a system for researching a spell, but I haven't used it yet and my memory is rusty. I do know it uses some sort of mix of concentration and spellcraft checks to add points to a certain spell, and it uses up one spell slot of your highest level.
I didn't have a whole lot of time to discuss it with him there, but I do have some suggestions on how to alter it a bit. I would, instead of using spellcraft, assign a new skill for each school of magic. This would allow for greater specialization, but the skillpoints of the caster class would have to be increased. I would also scrap the spells per day system in favor of a mana point reserve or similar, since it seems to fit the concept better. I'm not certain how to handle the fact that the rolls of a spell will dramatically increase over time, so any suggestions are great for that. I'm also trying to think of a way to incorporate metamagic into this as a function of your points in the spell as well, though I'm in the dark on how to do this as well.
Credit for this concept goes to Hazzard. should he come on here and explain it more, all the better.
looks very interesting, if you can steal the rest of the info from your firend i would be very interested in using this in my campaign. it sounds better than the original system, mostly cause i grew up playing stuff like FF games where the magic was based of mana/MP.
Quote from: Uranium-238looks very interesting, if you can steal the rest of the info from your firend i would be very interested in using this in my campaign. it sounds better than the original system, mostly cause i grew up playing stuff like FF games where the magic was based of mana/MP.
As soon as I get it you will get it. I want to use it too.
It was one of those moments where I heard what he said, and the only thing I could say (after a good 15 seconds of speechlessness) was 'why hasn't anyone else thought of this?'
people probably have, just that they dont bother advertising...or, no.....wait, maybe...WOTC is "bumping" them off before they get a chance O_o!!! QUICK! get it out while you still can!!!!!!!!!!!!
I actually did have something like this once, though it was only for the Sorcerer class back when I was really worried about its inability to be as effective as the wizard. I don't remember really how I did it now, but it was almost identical. The idea behind it (and in the case of the ability to cast higher levels spells at lower levels as you mentioned) in my version was based entirely on the Spellcraft skill and DCs: there was a set DC for each level of casting. In addition to DCs just being higher than a caster could easily achieve (I designed it so that a caster who had maxed Spellcraft and had a good stat or Skill Focus(Spellcraft) could achieve a casting of the spell on a roll of 10-13 on average. Certain spells had higher DCs/changed levels due to the power they had to be cast much more often.
I still had "Spells Per Day", but these only measured how many spells you could cast without starting to add DCs to the level of spells (though I had started working out an alternative where you just had a number of spells per day you could cast regardless of level). After you exhausted the spells per day, you could keep casting but the DCs for casting each time would improve by +1, making almost any spell virtually impossible after a while. I had thought about making feats or special abilities that allowed you to take some damage to reduce the increasing DCs to let you cast longer, but due to various reasons the Spellcraft-casting system never really got off the ground.
EDIT: This was a very Wild Mage-type idea, as I also included that instead of metamagic a roll of 20 you could get a "Spell Critical (and you could take feats to improve "threat" range)", where a die would be rolled and depending on the number that came up one of the spell's traits would be improved (range, damage, duration, bonus value, etc.; if one was chosen that didn't affect the spell [for example, it dealt no damage] then it was rolled again until one came up that could be used. However, I also had the idea to make "Spell Fumbles" on rolls of 1, where you had to roll again after rolling a 1. If you got a second 1, the spell either affected you instead (fireball centered on you, polymorph affecting you), or if you couldn't be affected by it for whatever reason, you rolled on a traditional "Wild Magic table" that randomly generated some fairly nasty or embarrassing effect. I had considered as well that the feats like Improved Spell Critical would not only improve chances of getting a successful "critical spell", but also improved chances of "spell fumbles" (so a feat that improved Spell Critical range from 20 to 19-20 might also increase Spell Fumble range from 1 to 1-2). Of course, some of these ideas could've been made into a PrC or something. Hell, all of it could.
Hello everybody, first, I'd like to say that I'm glad people are interested in the system. I'm not going to call it "my" system, because like people have said, it's a combination of other systems and other people have had the idea. So, if I have to refer to it as anybody's system, I'd say refer to it as "The People's" system. Because it's a system the whole family can enjoy.
First I'm going to address how to learn spells. First you start off by rolling 1D20 + concentration. You treat this final number like you do an ability roll and add the "bonus" to your points. This sounds confusing already, I know, but bear with my and I'll give a couple examples. Next, you roll 1D20 + Spellcraft + Bonus from Concentration. Now, I'm going to give an example: Let's say you roll a 10 on your concentration and add 6. So, you're concentration roll comes to 16. Treat this like an ability roll (subtract 10 then divide by 2) and you'll have a +3. Next, let's say you roll another 10 on your second D20. Then you add your spellcraft (we'll say +5) and then you add your concentration bonus (+3) and you end up with 18. Now, because our brains doin't retain all of what we study I divide that number in half, giving us 9. I've based the system also on a 4 hour study period. So if the caster dedicated 4 hours to studying they just take the 9. If they study for 2 hours then they divide the 9 by 2. If they study 9 hours then they divide by 4, etc. Still confused? Don't worry, I'll give a full example. (assume 2 hour period)
Concentration Roll: 1D20=19 Spellcraft Roll: 1D20=14
Concentration Skill Points: +4 Spellcraft Skill Points: +4
Total: 23 (bonus=6) Concentration Bonus: +6
Total: 24
24/2=12 12*1/2=6 So, 6 points total are added to that spell (pm any questions).
Now, the first five points of a spell total are considered to be from what you can read out of the book. So, anything after that assumes the caster is practicing things like motions, pronunciation, and trying to manipulate the magical power itself. So, a 4 hour study period would take away one cast of a spell that level for that day (basically as if you had cast a spell of that level). So, if I'm learning light and I have 0 points the first five points are just me reading the text and it doesn't take away that cast. However, if I'm studying light and I have 10 points in it than a 4 hour study period takes away one 0-level cast for that day. However, with a mana system this will change (will explain later).
I'm going to adress the last line of the third paragraph "(he also tells me that there is no reason you can't be trying to cast a fifth or sixth level spell at first level, but he still uses the spells per day system, so I'm a little confused here)." Basically a caster could study and know spells of a higher level than he can cast, but just not be able to cast those spells. This is kinda tricky to make work with the spells-per-day system, so I'm 99.9% sure I'm going to say go ahead and change spells-per-day to some sort of mana pool(any suggestions on raw numbers would be appreciated). Originally, I had it as a four hour study period takes away one cast of that level for the day, but if you study a level 9 spell past the first 5 points and you can't cast 9th level spells you get off easy, right? Well, that's where I'd say that if you can't cast spells of a certain level than you can't do anything more than the text. So, at first level you can learn 9th level spells, but only up to 5 points. Now, if you're using the mana-pool suggestion (as I would) this becomes easier because you can just subtract the indicated number of mana away for learning a spell of that level. Again, I'm sorry if I confused anybody. Please, you'll have to trust me on this: it's not nearly as confusing as it sounds now. Once you use it for a little while it'll all click together and make sense. I'm just terrible at explaining it. So, if you have any questions PM me and I'll do my best to explain.
I'd like to than you all again (Stargate, those that have posted, and those that post in the future) for taking interest in this system, and that I'd like to take no more credit for this than being the one to piece it together (sharing that glory with all who make suggestions) and posting it (sharing that with Stargate mostly, but others as well). Any and ALL suggestions would be great. Enjoy the system, tweek it as necessary, and tell us how it goes (good AND bad).
P.S. To avoid confusion read like this:
Concentration Roll: 1D20 = 19
Concentration Skill Points: +4
Total: 23 (bonus = 6)
Spellcraft Roll: 1D20 = 14
Spellcraft Skill Points: +4
Concentration Bonus: +6
Total: 24
24/2=12
12*1/2 = 6 (2 hours out of four = 2/4 = 1/2)
So, 6 points total are added to that spell (pm any questions).
Ooh! *rubs hands together* cant wait to use this.....we should give a name to this system, something special....i propose: Magic System V2.0
Quote from: Uranium-238Ooh! *rubs hands together* cant wait to use this.....we should give a name to this system, something special....i propose: Magic System V2.0
or perhaps Haphazzard casting?
That research system can be easily simplified. If we go with my suggestion of delegating the actual casting skill to a school skill, we can return spellcraft to its original purpose, which is learning spells. Axe the concentration and leave it for combat casting as normal. This simplifies the new uses that skills have to serve, and will cut down on the needed rolls for research significantly.
As for spell points, I would suggest we utilize the ones that Wizards has so kindly figured out for us. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm)
Yes,i concur Stargate. "Haphazzard Casting" it is!!! Well, until someone comes along with a cleverer name for it.
For the name, how about "Livre Casting." Livre is portuguese for "free." I thought about using the Italian "liberare," but that was a bit long and too complicated for me to pronounce at 8 a.m. on a Saturday morning. But, after saying it out loud, it does sound much better. Nice find on the points system Stargate. I like some parts of it, but others...not so much. I'd say that at this point, it's up to the DM's personal choice on what to use. Good job guys.
Liberare Casting? You can do better than that.
As for the mana points, I was suggesting using just the tables... We're going to have to hammer out a unified system for this eventually, so the loss of the other stuff really will not matter.
I'll see if I can't get a unified casting DC formula and a point chart for metamagic; I've got nothing better to do today.
EDIT: and, as par, I'm having trouble trying to reconcile each spell level's initial DC...
Alright, I think I may have something.
If you restrict the maximum number of points in a spell to be (your level x 5), you get a sliding scale that goes from 5(basic rote memorization) to 100(complete mastery of the spell).
Now to make the DCs obtainable but not easy at the appropriate levels, I've come up with the following list:
0 = DC 15
1 = DC 18
2 = DC 21
3 = DC 23
4 = DC 25
5 = DC 27
6 = DC 29
7 = DC 31
8 = DC 33
9 = DC 35
The problem with this is twofold. One, you will still need to restrict the maximum amount of mana points you can cast at a level, and once the new level is unlocked, mastery of the spell would come ridiculously fast. I don't know how to solve the first one, but I've got a hunch about the second. If you change the learning ratios from 1 casting = 1 point to (spell level castings) = 1 point, you'll be able to slow down the advancement of points into higher-level spells.
I based this off of the sorceror's progression and mana numbers. Advice would be great.
i suggest the caster being able to take ten except when something happens to him while casting. example: knight has got the enemy's attention, wizard takes ten on firebolt. example 2: Goblin minion starts attacking wizard, distracting him so he cant take ten. OR, if they pass their concentration roll by, i dunno.....an extra 5? they can still take ten. just thought there should be something in there about that
also, i believe those DC's are a bit too high, maybe bring them down by 2 or something....cause with optimal build, right now a 1st lvl wizard with full ranks in spellcraft/whatever the skill is, would have to roll something like a 12 or a 13, making them fail more than half the time.
Bumped the DCs down by three.
I also thought about metamagic applications. What if you took a feat the allowed you to know metamagic in general (all metamagic feats, this might be problematic as there are now quite a few. Perhaps only two or three), but you could only use a metamagic if your skill in the spell was at least (slot modifier x 10). So to use quicken, you would need 40 points in the spell. It increases the DC by the same number divided by 2; a quickened spell would have a +20 modifier to its DC. mana cost would be handled the same as in the SRD.
I hope that makes sense.
hmm....that means a DC 38 for a 1st level quickened spell, meaning that a 9th level wizard, in order to cast quickened magic missle, with full ranks in spellcraft has to get 38 or higher.
12 ranks from spellcraft
lets say 4 points from Int bonus.
that means he needs a 22 or above on a roll, which as we know is impossible. My suggestion is as such: make it slot modifier x 5, that brings it down to a 28 which is much more feasable, that is unless your goal is to make metamagic downright dangerous to cast.
Quote from: Uranium-238hmm....that means a DC 38 for a 1st level quickened spell, meaning that a 9th level wizard, in order to cast quickened magic missle, with full ranks in spellcraft has to get 38 or higher.
12 ranks from spellcraft
lets say 4 points from Int bonus.
that means he needs a 22 or above on a roll, which as we know is impossible. My suggestion is as such: make it slot modifier x 5, that brings it down to a 28 which is much more feasable, that is unless your goal is to make metamagic downright dangerous to cast.
Two things, you're forgetting the bonuses from points. in order to even cast a quickened spell he has to have 40 points in the spell, and since that's added to the roll it's an automatic success. Secondly, there is no difference between (4x10)/2 and 4x5, they both equal twenty.
Something else also occurred to me; if we make each school a different skill, they don't all have to be tied to int. We could have them across the board if we wanted to.
Oh, i must have not read the part about spell points giving bonuses. and for the record, i meant (4x5)/2. And there are, what, 8 different schools? that means a wizard with no focus can only cast around 6 schools at first level. it means no concentration skill if they want to be effective at all schools. Or, we could do that but change the schools around. For instance, abjuration would become a subschool of conjuration. But that leads to a hella lot of work on our part.
Quote from: Uranium-238Oh, i must have not read the part about spell points giving bonuses. and for the record, i meant (4x5)/2. And there are, what, 8 different schools? that means a wizard with no focus can only cast around 6 schools at first level. it means no concentration skill if they want to be effective at all schools. Or, we could do that but change the schools around. For instance, abjuration would become a subschool of conjuration. But that leads to a hella lot of work on our part.
ah. confusion understood. for the record, the entire roll is 1d20 + (points in spell) + (skill bonus), which is why figuring out those values was so devilishly hard in the first place.
Or we could simply give the casters more skill points. I don't think it's unwarranted, considering they're picking up an additional 8 class skills.
Well, i was just thinking we change spellcraft to
Spellcraft (Divine)
Spellcraft (Arcane) and make it so the governing att. is just your class' spellcasting att. The problem with making each school is a skill is thus: Casters focus on spells, making their time to learn how to be more skillfull (as in more bonus skill points) essentially means we are changing the flavor and basics of the class that WOTC intended it to be, meaning this will only fit in with a few campaign settings that use non-WOTC stuff.
I'm sorry, I couldn't understand you. Could you rephrase please?
If I understand you correctly, you think that giving them extra skill points will change the basics of their class. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we totally revamping the magic system anyway? Leaving the casters unchanged would be like rebuilding your computer but keeping the mono monitor.
Hmmm....i see your point. Eight spellcraft schools fits ell with other fantasy books, etc. I am going to be making a character sheet for this type of wizard soon. Any suggestions for what program to use?
Quote from: Uranium-238Hmmm....i see your point. Eight spellcraft schools fits ell with other fantasy books, etc. I am going to be making a character sheet for this type of wizard soon. Any suggestions for what program to use?
Sorry. I don't have anything that can do that well.
Quote from: Uranium-238Hmmm....i see your point. Eight spellcraft schools fits ell with other fantasy books, etc. I am going to be making a character sheet for this type of wizard soon. Any suggestions for what program to use?
If you are willing to invest some time, OOo Draw can create reasonable results with PDF export functionality available. I've made some quite well looking sheets for EverQuest d20 and Babylon 5 d20 (although I've lost the files, I could eventually make a scan and post that if you need something visual). You'd just need to work with transparent text fields a lot.
On the other hand, I've been toying around with the idea of using Paint.NET and its layers to make a charactersheet. Still not quite sure how that'd work out, as I haven't tried it yet. :-/
OOo Draw? Would this work better than Excel? And if so...:
link....gimme....please?
Quote from: Uranium-238OOo Draw? Would this work better than Excel? And if so...:
link....gimme....please?
Open Office (http://www.openoffice.org/)
Thank you
Quote from: Uranium-238Well, i was just thinking we change spellcraft to
Spellcraft (Divine)
Spellcraft (Arcane) and make it so the governing att. is just your class' spellcasting att. The problem with making each school is a skill is thus: Casters focus on spells, making their time to learn how to be more skillfull (as in more bonus skill points) essentially means we are changing the flavor and basics of the class that WOTC intended it to be, meaning this will only fit in with a few campaign settings that use non-WOTC stuff.
correct me if I'm wrong, but you said that "Casters focus on spells" and to give them more skill points would mean that they aren't "making their time to learn how to be more skillfull." Correct? If they're spending all their time making spells and not (in essense) gaining skill points then why don't we give them an extra 2+ int or 4+ int to put into only casting slots (spellcraft, concentration, etc.)?
yeah i just realized that now. my bad. just make their class skills knowledge (all skills taken individually), spellcraft (all skills taken individually), concentration, use magic device, decipher script, and craft (any)
Quote from: Uranium-238yeah i just realized that now. my bad. just make their class skills knowledge (all skills taken individually), spellcraft (all skills taken individually), concentration, use magic device, decipher script, and craft (any)
So you're saying make each school skill a spellcraft(evocation), for instance? I like that.
yes. and there should also be a prayer skill for divine casters, and that would be what the divine casters use for casting. but we also need a spellcraft(universal) and there should also be a craft (spell) for creating new spells. with the craft DC's as follow:
equation for non-epic = t + (n-1)2
where t = 12
and n = the spell level
epic would be just whatever the spellcraft DC for casting. haven't tested the numbers yet, so idk if its under/overpowered.
I agree with the different skill for divine casters, but this sould open up a whole new thing for them. First, I don't think we should call it 'prayer,' as that sounds rather corny.
We could make each domain a different skill, and grant a bonus to all domains that match the cleric's deity. The problem with this is that you'll give clerics an (uneeded) power boost.
What would spellcraft (universal) be used for? I like the craft(spell) idea, but perhaps it should be changed to craft(magic), so we could include spells, items, whatever under it.
That would require a bit of a retooling of the crafting feats, but that might not be a bad thing.
uggh...lets save divine casting for another time, as in once we are done with arcane. its not as simple as arcane, as there are somewhere around, what 50 domains from sourcebooks alone, and then not to mention Deities, along with druids. Spellcraft (universal) is for the universal category spells, like Wish, etc. Cause what else would they fall under? I agree with the craft (magic), but we need to limit it to just enchanting the item. otherwise the wizard would get armormaking, weapon making, etc for the low price of 1 skill! although, this would help balance them out against divine casters. the one thing we have to ask ourselves is do we want to bring arcane casters up, or divine down. i also think, while on the topic of divine, we should add some sort of device that, when they cat completely out of nature with their deity//alignment, they get no spellcasting until they have someone use "atone" on them and they pray in regret to their favored deity for 1month to 1 year depending on the crime. But, if you are forced to doit, like people are being held hostage, nothing happens.
we should also add in soem effect along the lines of: if you do something sort of out of alignment/thingy with you divine caster, you may fall out of favor, giving you penalties on your casting, but if you are in favor with ur deity/ pantheon, you get a bonus. can't be too high, though.
hmm, but maybe there should be
spellcraft (domain)
and
spellcraft (divine). spellcraft (domain) is for whatever domains you have, and spellcraft (divine) is for general divine things.
moving on from divine casting....
I agree with the craft though, definately not the actual creation of the item.
hmm..we seem to be retooling the /entire/ magic system, while we are at it, you think we should maybe even delve into psionics :D. But seriously, i suggest we do arcane, divine, psionics, and maybe even get into incarnum eventually.
Quote from: Uranium-238hmm..we seem to be retooling the /entire/ magic system, while we are at it, you think we should maybe even delve into psionics :D. But seriously, i suggest we do arcane, divine, psionics, and maybe even get into incarnum eventually.
Once you get into psionics and incarnum, you're on your own.
lol. but seriously, how should we do divine? i think we should go with
Spellcraft (divine)
Spellcraft (domain)
but waddya think abouts the out/in favor of the deities? i think there should be something with that.
Quote from: Uranium-238lol. but seriously, how should we do divine? i think we should go with
Spellcraft (divine)
Spellcraft (domain)
but waddya think abouts the out/in favor of the deities? i think there should be something with that.
It sounds like a good idea having that many spellcrafts, but how many are we up to now? Divine, domain, plus the 8 catagories of spells, right? that makes 10, plus concentration, plus other skills, makes a lot of numbers for casters to have to worry about and look after. I like it, I find detailing fun, but I'm also afraid it may turn others away from casting just because of the complexity.
Quote from: Stargate525I agree with the different skill for divine casters, but this sould open up a whole new thing for them. First, I don't think we should call it 'prayer,' as that sounds rather corny.
We could make each domain a different skill, and grant a bonus to all domains that match the cleric's deity. The problem with this is that you'll give clerics an (uneeded) power boost.
What would spellcraft (universal) be used for? I like the craft(spell) idea, but perhaps it should be changed to craft(magic), so we could include spells, items, whatever under it.
That would require a bit of a retooling of the crafting feats, but that might not be a bad thing.
Perhaps instead of boosting the clerics we could take some of that away and then give them potential power boosts, thus evening things out. The way things are now with clerics...well...you know how I end up doing everything almost single-handedly and Fingor just tags along in that urban campeign.
WEll, Divine and Domains and the 8 schools arent for the same class. for instance, a Wizzard would not gain ranks in Spellcraft (Divine)
Quote from: HaphazzardPerhaps instead of boosting the clerics we could take some of that away and then give them potential power boosts, thus evening things out. The way things are now with clerics...well...you know how I end up doing everything almost single-handedly and Fingor just tags along in that urban campeign.
That's less because you're a cleric and more because he's both unoptimized and a follower.
Back :ontopic: . So, how many skill points do you think we should give wizards/sorcerors?
It depends on whether intelligence is going to be our dependant stat. If so, I'd say 4+int. If not, 6+int.
Quote from: Uranium-238WEll, Divine and Domains and the 8 schools arent for the same class. for instance, a Wizzard would not gain ranks in Spellcraft (Divine)
But you have to remember, with the way the system works it doesn't matter whether you're a cleric or a wizard, you can both learn each others' spells. As for the skills, I'd say 6+ int, but it seems a bit high, I guess it depends on where we end up putting the cast DC's and how many different things we'll have to put into.
As for what schools come from what stats, I'd put it like this:
INT-Conjuration, Divination, and Illusion
CON-Abjuration, Evocation, and Necromancy
WIS-Enchantment and Transmutation
I chose those based off of the school description in the PH. The CONs all were chosen because of some sort of life/death or something-to-nothing description. The INTs were based off of knowing things, and the WISs were almost left over, but they make sense that wise people would be better with those spells (based off of the description). That's my contribution until about 10:30, so have fun with it.
It would seem to me the only Con skill would be Necro. Anjuration seems like it should be base don Int, as well as Evoc. and anyways, you're forgetting that, while it still is possible, it would be retarded to put ranks into the spellcasting stats that aren't your class skills, when you could, instead of having half the skills a caster of the other class, you could have full skills in you're class ranks.
So I'm thinking there will be two spell-crafting skills.
One will be only useful for divine casters- Craft (Divine)
and one will be good fro arcane- Craft (Arcane).
Also, i'm thinking spellcraft skills as such:
Int-Conj, Illusion, Abj, Evoc
Wis-Ench, Trans, Div, Necro, Divine
Also, the domain's will be governed by wisdom. Tell me whatchya think.
illusion, conjuration, and maybe enchantment should be CHA based; you're trying to control, convince, or persuade another entitiy in all of them, so your force of personality should play a part.
@Stargate: why would you want to make conjuration Charisma-based? Controlling fiends called with the planar binding spell line already requires a Cha-check, and I really cannot see a high Charisma aiding you with killing stuff with cloudkill, razing cities with acid fog, or blocking passages with wall of stone. :?:
However, I agree with your proposal regarding illusion and enchantment. :)
Mostly becuase that's the spell I thought of, and I don't use conjuration that often.
So, then, how about this:
Int: Conjuration, Abjuration, Evocation
Wis: Transmutation, Divination, Necromancy
Cha: Illusion, Enchantment.
So, then, how about this:
Int: Conjuration, Abjuration, Evocation
Wis: Transmutation, Divination, Necromancy
Cha: Illusion, Enchantment.
You're missing universal.
Well, the few "universal" spells that exist could always be folded into the already existing schools. I personally found the "universal" school to be bothersome sometimes. It always struck me as a bit silly that some spells were of neither specific school, but rather all and none at the same time.
Or could you imagine a car that was neither a SUV, nor a pick-up, nor a combo, nor a coupé, but "just a car"? :huh:
I think universal is fine. Cause, the spells in it really do not go well with any other category, and it is kind of like the "powerful" school. By that, i mean the spells that can be used for the highest effect. And here is an example of why we don't collapse it. Take these two unive3rsal spells: Wish, and Permenancy. There is no right school for them. For me Universal is the powerful spells, and it kind of is like a school of its own. WOTC just doesn't allow you to specialize in it, cause thats more Wishes for everyone!
I think universal is fine. Cause, the spells in it really do not go well with any other category, and it is kind of like the "powerful" school. By that, i mean the spells that can be used for the highest effect. And here is an example of why we don't collapse it. Take these two unive3rsal spells: Wish, and Permenancy. There is no right school for them. For me Universal is the powerful spells, and it kind of is like a school of its own. WOTC just doesn't allow you to specialize in it, cause thats more Wishes for everyone!
also universal, i think, goes under Int.
@U-238: imho it would still be possible. [Limited] wish would fit well with transmutation, and permanency could go with evocation.
Well, evocation is "Spells that manipulate energy or create something from nothing" I do not see how permanency "makes certain other spells permanent." i do not see how making something permanent relates to either manipulating energy or creating something from nothing. Well, technically, one could argue that "spells are energy so making them permanent is manipulating them". However, i believe what WOTC means by "Manipulating energy" to be something like sending a fireball/chain lightning at someone/thing.
Well, contingency is already evocation, and that really doesn't fit in there as well. Therefore, one more or less doesn't make the cow fat in my opinion.
I don't see what the problem is with leaving universal in there.
Ra-Tiel, your analogy's flawed. I see magic more like flavors of icecream, and universal is vanilla.
Quote from: Stargate525I don't see what the problem is with leaving universal in there.
It's an additional skill to worry about. ;) And for what? For like 5 spells in the SRD? And I doubt there are much more "universal" spells in other supplements, at least by far not enough to warrant an extra skill imho.
Quote from: Stargate525Ra-Tiel, your analogy's flawed. I see magic more like flavors of icecream, and universal is vanilla.
Well, if we're going by that, let's see...
Abjuration = Apple
Conjuration = Banana
Divination = Lemon
Enchantment = Strawberry
Evocation = Coffee
Illusion = Coconut
Necromancy = Chocholate
Transmutation = Maple walnut
Universal = Frozen milk :-/
:P
Quote from: Ra-TielQuote from: Stargate525I don't see what the problem is with leaving universal in there.
It's an additional skill to worry about. ;) And for what? For like 5 spells in the SRD? And I doubt there are much more "universal" spells in other supplements, at least by far not enough to warrant an extra skill imho.
Well the problem with folding them in is that you can exclude them when you specialize, and some of those are necessary.
We could just have it be a non-skill, using base spellcraft. That would also handle scribing and reading scrolls and whatnot, so the skill could be defined as 'magic 101.'
See, the problem with that is we're basically saying the advanced spells that bend reality to your wishes are basic magic.
The universal school should be there, just as long as it contains the most powerful spells. Not most damage, no. Evocation is there for that. But Universal should be the reality-bending school. Permanency is sortof like a loophole in the time-space continuum that allows you to continuously loop certain spells. OOH! New epic spell idea: Advanced Permanency. It allows you to make most self target spells permanent, but has a very long casting time, requires multiple participants, expensive materials, and mucho experience.
Quote from: Uranium-238See, the problem with that is we're basically saying the advanced spells that bend reality to your wishes are basic magic.
No, we're saying that the advanced spells that bend reality to your wishes is ADVANCED plain magic. Gourmet Vanilla bean ice cream, to use the analogy.
Well, ignoring the discrepancy, i still think Universal should be its own school, and that is because the magic it has is powerful. So, because its so powerful, the wizards need to spend skill points. Skill ranks represent the dedication and training the character has. So, if the wizard/whatever wants to bend reality to their will, they have to be proficient in reality bending.
Well, ignoring the discrepancy, i still think Universal should be its own school, and that is because the magic it has is powerful. So, because its so powerful, the wizards need to spend skill points. Skill ranks represent the dedication and training the character has. So, if the wizard/whatever wants to bend reality to their will, they have to be proficient in reality bending.
To chime in again, I've just taken a look at the spells from the SRD that are from the "universal" school:
Arcane Mark (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/arcaneMark.htm)
*
Prestidigitation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/prestidigitation.htm)
*
Permanency (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/permanency.htm)
*
Limited Wish (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/limitedWish.htm)
*
Wish (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wish.htm)
[/list]
Arcane Mark and
Prestidigitation are but minor cantrips.
Arcane Mark would fit perfectly well with either divination or transmutation, and
Prestidigitation would go very well with either evocation or transmutation.
Permanency does modify other spells no more or less than
Contigency (which is evocation), and therefore it could go with evocation just as well.
Wish and
limited wish are undoubtedly powerful, but have a very costly XP component, preventing their use on a regular base. Therefore, it seems sort of a "double-punishment" to require a caster to pump skillpoints into a skill, just to be able to bleed XPs like no tomorrow. Also, these two would fit well with evocation or transmutation.
Why don't we move Contingency to Universal then? And with the double punishment, you have to keep in mind, we are talking about the bending of the universe to the player's will, so don't you think it sohuld be very difficult to do? And not be able to be used on a regular basis?
Quote from: Uranium-238Why don't we move Contingency to Universal then?
Of course, that would be completely possible. If that made sense, however, I'm not so sure. There are already quite some spells that should be "universal" but aren't (like the various
symbols, imho). Making one of them "universal" instead of ditching the universal school and focus completely on the 8 schools is quite the opposite of my idea, and doesn't really help the issue at hand. You'd now have an extra school for 6 singular spells instead of 5. In my eyes still not enough to warrant that hassle and [possible] skillpoint investment.
Quote from: Uranium-238And with the double punishment, you have to keep in mind, we are talking about the bending of the universe to the player's will, so don't you think it sohuld be very difficult to do? And not be able to be used on a regular basis?
Well, but that is already represented by the XP component, don't you think? It'd be like making the fighter put ranks in Craft(basketweaving) to be able to use the +3 keen holy greatsword he just bought with his wealth. :P
I'm sorry, but thats a VERY poor analogy. :D
I know. But I'm soooo tired. x. Please bear with me. :P
Yeah, why dont we just go w/ stargate's idea and put it in with base spellcraft that governs scrolls, etc. ooh! maybe we can add in some sort of bonus mana for ranks in base spellcraft, because that shows that the wizard is skilled in harnessing arcane energy.
Quote from: Uranium-238Yeah, why dont we just go w/ stargate's idea and put it in with base spellcraft that governs scrolls, etc. ooh! maybe we can add in some sort of bonus mana for ranks in base spellcraft, because that shows that the wizard is skilled in harnessing arcane energy.
*ahem*
ugh. More numbers to keep track of, more of everything...
I had another thought. What if the maximum spell level was tied to the number of ranks in the governing skill?
hmmm...that could work, maybe something like the (ranks+ability mod)/2? or maybe not...i dunnno....to tired to do math. but yeah, i think we should go for that.
Quote from: Uranium-238hmmm...that could work, maybe something like the (ranks+ability mod)/2? or maybe not...i dunnno....to tired to do math. but yeah, i think we should go for that.
That means at first level, you could be learning and casting third level spells...
well, yes. *looks at part after equation*
sleepiness is NO EXCUSE! :-p
So, to review,
SKill based spellcasting*spellcraft skills for each school, (Conj, abj, ench, illusion, evoc, necro, trans, and div)*divine skillls (domains, and regular divine)*the long thing about learning spells in the first few posts*and, finally, mana points as given in some SRD or other thingy.
I had a thought about adjusting the level of spells depending on what caster you were.
[th]Class[/th][th]Bard[/th][th]Cleric[/th][th]Druid[/th][th]Paladin[/th][th]Ranger[/th][th]Sorc/Wiz[/th]
[th]Bard[/th]| +0 | +2 | +1 | +2 | +2 | +1 |
[th]Cleric[/th]| +2 | +0 | +1 | +1 | +2 | +2 |
[th]Druid[/th]| +2 | +1 | +0 | +2 | +0 | +2 |
[th]Paladin[/th]| +2 | +1 | +2 | +0 | +3 | +3 |
[th]Ranger[/th]| +1 | +2 | +0 | +3 | +0 | +2 |
[th]Sorc/Wiz[/th]| +1 | +1 | +1 | +3 | +2 | +0 |
Those are just off the top of my head. The left column is the class you are, and the table is the level increase spells take from being on a particular list.
Umm..kinda confused ovr here...what is this chart?
Ok, I'll give an example, as that's probably the best way to demonstrate.
Tim the Wizard wants to learn and cast Warp Wood, the second level druid spell. He consults the chart, going across along the sorc/wiz line until it intersects with the Druid column. That number is the 'level adjustment' that the spell has. Tim will have to learn Warp Wood as a third level spell sue to the fact that it's not on his original spell list.
It solves the problem of a casting class becoming uber off of spells it was never designed to cast, but I see a couple problems with this that need to be smoothed out. It doesn't take into account spells that are on multiple lists, nor does it explain why Tim's casting of the above spell will have duration, saves, and DCs appropriate for a third level spell, making his casting more powerful than a druid's. It might make more problems than it solves, but I decided to at least put it up there.
I see now. Heh heh...Clerics with Permanency and Wish...heh heh
@Stargate: you are right that this would make spells from other lists inherently more powerful (higher base save DCs, able to penetrate globes of invulnerability, et al) - something I guess you didn't intend.
However, why not - instead of increasing the spell's level - impose a [significant] penalty to its caster level? This would probably work with most spells off the box, and only leave those to "manually correct" that create effects not based on casterlevel.
hmm..yes that would work better. I think you should just change the + to a - and subtract another 1 or 2.
Just something else that came to my mind: there is a problem with some spell lists. Eg the bard has several spells on a lower level than the wizard. While it has some consequences (lower saves, most likely), it would still allow a wizard to gain access to powerful spells earlier than intended. Even with the lower casterlevel, I'm not so sure about this.
Well that can be solved by setting some rules for selecting duplicates, such as a caster uses the version on his spell list first, then the one that is his type (arcane/divine). If neither of those apply, then you use the highest level version there is.
Seems like the best way to balance it to me.
OOhkay. Never saw this thread. Near and dear to my scummy little heart, though. Going to have to read over this whole thread, now.
But I am going to offer something right now.
ANyone mention any spell success% yet?
No, we were making some progress, but we never got that far.
I got word from my friend, the original DC was 23+ spell level...
something I have used is spell success %, which is analogous to a dc roll Making harder soell succ % with spells outside your won scholls might give you the mechanism to simulate a somewhat incomplete understanding of a spell type,/
Quote from: LordVreegsomething I have used is spell success %, which is analogous to a dc roll. Making harder spell success % with spells outside your own schools might give you the mechanism to simulate a somewhat incomplete understanding of a spell type.
I think I translated that correctly... So you're saying we ditch the d20 roll and make it a % dice roll, with varying difficulty modifiers based on where you got the spell?
...That might actually work. If we add the skill bonus into the roll (maxes out at 30ish at 20th level) and average skill with the spell (additional 50), that gives you a roll of between 81 and 180. So we need to figure out how often we want them to succeed at different levels before I can cement the numbers, but this might make things a whole heck of alot easier.
Like SG said, that might actually work. I think we should gie it a try, at least.
I use a different system than any of you do, so I'll not devolve this posting into a needless statistical discourse.
I have a spell success roll with every spell attempt, even spells in a character's area of expertise. The tougher the spell, the bigger the -% (or DC). Also, spells cast from outside the caster's area of expertise have a -%. Spell casting % is a skill in my world, so there are modifiers on both sides. Also, the more energy over the cost a caster pours into a spell increases the success %. And if they have the ritual magic ability (witchcraft), they can spend more time on it and increase the spell %
For those of you with spell slots, I'd recomend inxcreasing the spell success% if they burn extra slots to cast a spell, symbolizing more spell energy being poured into the spell.
Interesting. Maybe we could work this in somehow.
Yeah, give a bonus equal to the number of levels spent into it, and level zero counts as a half.
Makes it so that you could theoretically pull off that uber ninth level spell, but you'll probably have to trash all your spell slots.
I like it. Look for a consolidated list some time this week.
Now we're talking.
Energy is energy, and pouring more into a spell has got to help. I like rules that allow a PC to think strategically, like'"do I blow extra slots and make sure this works, or do I try to save some for later and hope I can pull this stupid Fireball off".
If you want to convolute this further, look at my Ritual Magic posting, on the Celtricia HomeBrew.
So, I crunched some numbers and this is what came out:
if the DC for a lvl 1 spell is a 12 on a 20 sided die, that's a 60% chance. If it's a 13, it's a 65% chance. I had two ideas: If we treated casting as a skill we could either add that number as a % or multiply it by 2 and add THAT as a %.
Example: I'm a sorc. with INT 13. I have two skills in Evocation (this is all assuming evocation is based off of INT of course). That'll give me a +3 x 2. That means I add 6% to my casting rolls. With a 60% base I add the 6 and it becomes a 66%. 66 or lower on my die roll means I cast the spell. I checked it and I had a 38% failure rate. For first level, that's not bad (in my opinion)
Same situation, but with the base at 65% (aiming for 71%) I had a 18% failure. Could do better failure wise.
If I don't multiply the skills by 2, but keep the situation the same I get a 34% failure rate at base 65% and a 46% failure rate at base 60. Quite frankely I think the last one was the best, a solid set-it-in-stone sort of number. less than half, but no where close to never. That's a base 65% and add skill points to that % again, that's only at lvl one.
For the matter of mana-per-level, I used the link in the first couple posts ( This (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm) ) and modified a little bit. I say we drop their suggested mana-per-lvl and use my own. Basically, add one to each of the numbers on the spell point costs. That makes lvls 0-9: 1,2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18 points per-spell respectively. Now, take your PH and go to pg 52 (chart of Sorc. spells-per-day) and apply the numbers above to that chart.
First lvl gets 11 points (5 0's//3 1st)
Second lvl gets 14 points (6 0's//4 1st)
Fifth lvl gets 34 points (6 0's//6 1st//4 2nd)
Make sense?
Ok, as if that wasn't enough to digest, I have more. Casting spells that are a different level: divide the highest level spell you can cast by the lvl spell your trying to cast, turn that into a percent, then subtract that percent from the cast percent. Lets say a lvl 1 sorc. is trying to cast a lvl 5 spell. You would take 1 (highest lvl spell he can cast in PH) and divide it by 5. That's a 20% Subtract that from 63% (assuming base 60, INT 13, and 2 Skills) and only a 43 or lower makes it. That may not seem like much, but he'll be left with 1 lvl 0 spell that whole day. Not to mention he'll have had to learn that spell. Plus failure still takes some of that mana away (so he only has one shot with a 43% chance of success).
P.S. I like the idea of adding mana to increase your percentage, so I thought maybe 5% per mana point, or 2% per mana point. I haven't had the chance to try this out, that's why I didn't put it in the post above. Suggestions?
My God... :huh:
Quote from: Haphazzard
Quote from: Haphazzardif the DC for a lvl 1 spell is a 12 on a 20 sided die, that's a 60% chance. If it's a 13, it's a 65% chance. I had two ideas: If we treated casting as a skill we could either add that number as a % or multiply it by 2 and add THAT as a %.
You're backwards. You're assuming that the goal is to scoot under the determined number, when the rest of the system is designed to beat it. Your percentages should be 40 and 35, respectively.
Quote from: HaphazzardExample: I'm a sorc. with INT 13. I have two skills in Evocation (this is all assuming evocation is based off of INT of course). That'll give me a +3 x 2. That means I add 6% to my casting rolls. With a 60% base I add the 6 and it becomes a 66%. 66 or lower on my die roll means I cast the spell. I checked it and I had a 38% failure rate. For first level, that's not bad (in my opinion)
Two skills? You mean ranks? And resetting this so that it runs the same as the rest of the d20 system, you've got a DC 34 on a d100 roll to beat, aka you can cast with relative certainty.
and your math has to be wrong. 38+66=104%
Quote from: HaphazzardIf I don't multiply the skills by 2, but keep the situation the same I get a 34% failure rate at base 65% and a 46% failure rate at base 60. Quite frankely I think the last one was the best, a solid set-it-in-stone sort of number. less than half, but no where close to never. That's a base 65% and add skill points to that % again, that's only at lvl one.
I agree with you. A 40-50% success rate sounds good, especially for new, unpracticed spells.
Quote from: HaphazzardFor the matter of mana-per-level, I used the link in the first couple posts ( This (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm) ) and modified a little bit. I say we drop their suggested mana-per-lvl and use my own. Basically, add one to each of the numbers on the spell point costs. That makes lvls 0-9: 1,2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18 points per-spell respectively. Now, take your PH and go to pg 52 (chart of Sorc. spells-per-day) and apply the numbers above to that chart.
First lvl gets 11 points (5 0's//3 1st)
Second lvl gets 14 points (6 0's//4 1st)
Fifth lvl gets 34 points (6 0's//6 1st//4 2nd)
Make sense?
Yes it does.
Quote from: HaphazzardOk, as if that wasn't enough to digest, I have more. Casting spells that are a different level: divide the highest level spell you can cast by the lvl spell your trying to cast, turn that into a percent, then subtract that percent from the cast percent.
I'm certain there's a more elegant way to do this, as what you've got right now is either going to require some guesswork or a calculator.
Quote from: HaphazzardPlus failure still takes some of that mana away (so he only has one shot with a 43% chance of success).
So does failure cost the full amount of the spell, or some lesser number, maybe half?
Also, you didn't address how the spell's level affects the spell... I got it. For each level below your maximum, you get a cumulative +4 to your roll. So a level 10 spellcaster (who can cast 5th level spells) casting a 2nd level spell gets a +12 to the roll.
Also, are we scrapping the 1-100 range of spell mastery? It's not figured in here, and that makes it much easier. In its place, Might I suggest something kinda similar to the item system, where you've got (essentially) 7 levels (normal, masterwork, then +1 - +5)? Learning a spell up to a certain level would net you an additional bonus to the check, or perhaps allow it to use less mana...
Quote from: HaphazzardP.S. I like the idea of adding mana to increase your percentage, so I thought maybe 5% per mana point, or 2% per mana point. I haven't had the chance to try this out, that's why I didn't put it in the post above. Suggestions?
Yeah, make it a reduction of 5% per spell level (0-level spells do squat in this version, you'll see why in a sec), but you have to pay your way up. That way, you get something like this;
percent reduction = additional mana
5%=3
10%=7
15%=13
20%=21
25%=31
30%=43
35%=57
40%=73
45%=91
So to get a 25% reduction, you've got to spend the equivalent of one spell from every level 5th and below, plus metamagic plus the spell's base cost. The way I see it, you'd quickly start to get to the point of diminishing returns where most of the energy you're pumping into the spell is there to keep what's already there contained rather than to increase the casting chance. The reason a 0-level spell doesn't count is that it would only cost 1 extra mana point, which would be utterly silly.
Quote from: Stargate525My God... :huh:
Quote from: Haphazzard
Quote from: Haphazzardif the DC for a lvl 1 spell is a 12 on a 20 sided die, that's a 60% chance. If it's a 13, it's a 65% chance. I had two ideas: If we treated casting as a skill we could either add that number as a % or multiply it by 2 and add THAT as a %.
You're backwards. You're assuming that the goal is to scoot under the determined number, when the rest of the system is designed to beat it. Your percentages should be 40 and 35, respectively.
Quote from: HaphazzardExample: I'm a sorc. with INT 13. I have two skills in Evocation (this is all assuming evocation is based off of INT of course). That'll give me a +3 x 2. That means I add 6% to my casting rolls. With a 60% base I add the 6 and it becomes a 66%. 66 or lower on my die roll means I cast the spell. I checked it and I had a 38% failure rate. For first level, that's not bad (in my opinion)
Two skills? You mean ranks? And resetting this so that it runs the same as the rest of the d20 system, you've got a DC 34 on a d100 roll to beat, aka you can cast with relative certainty.
and your math has to be wrong. 38+66=104%
Quote from: HaphazzardIf I don't multiply the skills by 2, but keep the situation the same I get a 34% failure rate at base 65% and a 46% failure rate at base 60. Quite frankely I think the last one was the best, a solid set-it-in-stone sort of number. less than half, but no where close to never. That's a base 65% and add skill points to that % again, that's only at lvl one.
I agree with you. A 40-50% success rate sounds good, especially for new, unpracticed spells.
Quote from: HaphazzardFor the matter of mana-per-level, I used the link in the first couple posts ( This (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm) ) and modified a little bit. I say we drop their suggested mana-per-lvl and use my own. Basically, add one to each of the numbers on the spell point costs. That makes lvls 0-9: 1,2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18 points per-spell respectively. Now, take your PH and go to pg 52 (chart of Sorc. spells-per-day) and apply the numbers above to that chart.
First lvl gets 11 points (5 0's//3 1st)
Second lvl gets 14 points (6 0's//4 1st)
Fifth lvl gets 34 points (6 0's//6 1st//4 2nd)
Make sense?
Yes it does.
Quote from: HaphazzardOk, as if that wasn't enough to digest, I have more. Casting spells that are a different level: divide the highest level spell you can cast by the lvl spell your trying to cast, turn that into a percent, then subtract that percent from the cast percent.
I'm certain there's a more elegant way to do this, as what you've got right now is either going to require some guesswork or a calculator.
Quote from: HaphazzardPlus failure still takes some of that mana away (so he only has one shot with a 43% chance of success).
So does failure cost the full amount of the spell, or some lesser number, maybe half?
Also, you didn't address how the spell's level affects the spell... I got it. For each level below your maximum, you get a cumulative +4 to your roll. So a level 10 spellcaster (who can cast 5th level spells) casting a 2nd level spell gets a +12 to the roll.
Also, are we scrapping the 1-100 range of spell mastery? It's not figured in here, and that makes it much easier. In its place, Might I suggest something kinda similar to the item system, where you've got (essentially) 7 levels (normal, masterwork, then +1 - +5)? Learning a spell up to a certain level would net you an additional bonus to the check, or perhaps allow it to use less mana...
Quote from: HaphazzardP.S. I like the idea of adding mana to increase your percentage, so I thought maybe 5% per mana point, or 2% per mana point. I haven't had the chance to try this out, that's why I didn't put it in the post above. Suggestions?
Yeah, make it a reduction of 5% per spell level (0-level spells do squat in this version, you'll see why in a sec), but you have to pay your way up. That way, you get something like this;
percent reduction = additional mana
5%=3
10%=7
15%=13
20%=21
25%=31
30%=43
35%=57
40%=73
45%=91
So to get a 25% reduction, you've got to spend the equivalent of one spell from every level 5th and below, plus metamagic plus the spell's base cost. The way I see it, you'd quickly start to get to the point of diminishing returns where most of the energy you're pumping into the spell is there to keep what's already there contained rather than to increase the casting chance. The reason a 0-level spell doesn't count is that it would only cost 1 extra mana point, which would be utterly silly.
Quote from: 104%
[/quoteOk, as if that wasn't enough to digest, I have more. Casting spells that are a different level: divide the highest level spell you can cast by the lvl spell your trying to cast, turn that into a percent, then subtract that percent from the cast percent.
I'm certain there's a more elegant way to do this, as what you've got right now is either going to require some guesswork or a calculator.
[/quote]
Also, are we scrapping the 1-100 range of spell mastery?
[/quote]
Me likey.
Quote from: HaphazzardRanks, skills, whatever. And my math isn't wrong. Those percents are different. I did a test where I rolled 5 trials of 10 rolls, averaged the number of failures, and turned that into a percent.
Which isn't the way to do it. The fact of the matter is that at the end of the day it has to add up to 100.
Quote from: HaphazzardNo, you just calculate all of that when you lvl up and then keep the % you need to succeed for a spell of that lvl written down on your character sheet.
Fair enough. I still think there's a more elegant way to do it.
Quote from: HaphazzardI would say a failed cast would eat up half. In the case of failed 0 lvl spells I would say just keep track of how many times you've failed. Ever other time just take away 1 mana.
I'd say make it one for a 0-level. You won't be screwing those up much anyway.
Quote from: HaphazzardNo, that's the whole thing this is based off of. Basically we change it so that instead of adding the number of points you've learned you make what you've learned a %. We can keep the point system, so we don't have to redo how to learn spells. Basically this:
It takes 23 points to learn a spell. I have 20. That means I have 87% of the spell memorized. However, It's not complete. That means I add the remaining % I don't know, to my cast DC. Example: I have to beat a 37. I have the spell memorized as above (87%). I ad 13 to the DC. Thereby making the cast DC for THAT save a 50.
The reason I left that out in the last post is because I didn't know how to incorperate it in, and I hadn't tested it yet. Seems to work so far...
Where did you get the 23 points? I don't like this business of 'incomplete' spells. Learning the spell enough to cast it should be a complete spell. The bonus from casting it, I think, should represent the tweaks you've made to it to get it to run better, faster, whatever.
Also, what you've got means that a wizard doesn't completely learn a single spell until it gets to 100, which is silly. He continually fine-tunes it, that I could see...
The way I suggested makes sense to me.
Quote from: Stargate525I'd say make it one for a 0-level. You won't be screwing those up much anyway.
I don't like this business of 'incomplete' spells. Learning the spell enough to cast it should be a complete spell. The bonus from casting it, I think, should represent the tweaks you've made to it to get it to run better, faster, whatever.
Also, what you've got means that a wizard doesn't completely learn a single spell until it gets to 100, which is silly. He continually fine-tunes it, that I could see...
[/quote]
We could do it the way I said and have incomplete spell knowledge increase the dc, but the caster could also learn the spell over 100% and have the % over 100 lower his dc. The number over 100 shows that he's working on bettering the spell. Like a cook. You follow the recipe until you know enough to alter it and make it taste better.
By the way, is anybody making a Character sheet for this?
Quote from: HaphazzardThat's the original spell DC I had chosen for a lvl 0 spell.
And that has to do with an arbitrary 100% learning mark how exactly?
Quote from: HaphazzardWe could do it the way I said and have incomplete spell knowledge increase the dc, but the caster could also learn the spell over 100% and have the % over 100 lower his dc. The number over 100 shows that he's working on bettering the spell. Like a cook. You follow the recipe until you know enough to alter it and make it taste better.
yeah, or you could combine the two. Using a raw percentage thing like yours is far too complex to have to continually change it after aver few castings, and mine might be too simple.
What is you have a hierarchy of spells (we'll call them circles for now) that determines the complexity and mastery of the spell. Every spell a caster learns starts at circle zero, which comes with a negative modifier to the roll. It's a rote spell, unoptimized for the caster's particular style, like breaking in a new pair of shoes. To advance that spell up the hierarchy (and gather ever-increasing bonuses to it), you need to cast it a number of times equal to spell's level x 5 x circle you're trying to reach, with 0 counting as 1/2. So if we want to bump our zero level spell into the first circle, we need to successfully cast it three times (.5x5x1 rounded up). To get it to the second circle, you'd need to do it five times (.5x5x2), and so on. This way, cantrips become secondhand very, very quickly while higher level, more complex spells might take dozens or hundreds of castings to get past the first two or three circles.
Something completely unrelated to that just occurred to me. Since this entire system is based on how you actually do things in game, how will you be able to artificially level up a character? We need some sort of table with castings that you can spend on spells to get a 5th level sorceror, for instance.
Quote from: HaphazzardBy the way, is anybody making a Character sheet for this?
Once we get the thing cemented I could probably cobble one together.
Quote from: Stargate525What is you have a hierarchy of spells (we'll call them circles for now) that determines the complexity and mastery of the spell. Every spell a caster learns starts at circle zero, which comes with a negative modifier to the roll. It's a rote spell, unoptimized for the caster's particular style, like breaking in a new pair of shoes. To advance that spell up the hierarchy (and gather ever-increasing bonuses to it), you need to cast it a number of times equal to spell's level x 5 x circle you're trying to reach, with 0 counting as 1/2. So if we want to bump our zero level spell into the first circle, we need to successfully cast it three times (.5x5x1 rounded up). To get it to the second circle, you'd need to do it five times (.5x5x2), and so on. This way, cantrips become secondhand very, very quickly while higher level, more complex spells might take dozens or hundreds of castings to get past the first two or three circles.
I actually really like that idea. Couple questions:
Where are we starting with that? Basically once a caster learns the spells to 100% they go into the 0 circle? Or are all spells in the 0 circle? How does it tie in that way? How many circles will there be? How will each circle effect the spell?
Quote from: HaphazzardOk, the DC to cast a 0 lvl spell is 23. (on the old system with the D20 + points in the spell etc.) Let's say I've studied that spell and aquired 20 points in it (using the system in the first post I put into this on the first page). That means that I have the spell 87% complete. Pay attention, cuz I think that's where I lost you. We take the points we have at the beginning, and turn it into a %.
I understood what you did, I'm just confused why you took the DC to cast and made that the '100%' mark, since you'll get a 100% success rate far sooner.
Quote from: HaphazzardI actually really like that idea. Couple questions:
Where are we starting with that? Basically once a caster learns the spells to 100% they go into the 0 circle? Or are all spells in the 0 circle? How does it tie in that way?
All spells start at circle zero with no points. This represents a base, unmodified spell. Brand new shoes, a clean notebook, choose your analogy.
Quote from: HaphazzardHow many circles will there be?
I figured we could just mirror the spell level system, and have circles 0 through 9, with 'circle 10' being the absolute limit and represents complete perfection of the spell.
Quote from: HaphazzardHow will each circle effect the spell?
I'm not certain yet. I'd say we start with a negative -4 to the roll at circle 0, then give a cumulative four for every circle, to a max of +36 at circle 9. If we do a perfect circle 10, that bonus would be 40.
Quote from: Stargate525I'm not certain yet. I'd say we start with a negative -4 to the roll at circle 0, then give a cumulative four for every circle, to a max of +36 at circle 9. If we do a perfect circle 10, that bonus would be 40.
That part I'm fine on, and we can detail at another time AFTER we get this "circle" thing worked out.
Quote from: HaphazzardIt was a number everybody knew, that way I wasn't pulling a number out of nowhere and making people go "Wait, where did he get that 15 from?" That's what we in the biz like to call "an example."
har. har. har. look at me laugh. :dots:
Quote from: HaphazzardBut then a caster could just randomly take a poke at any spell he wants. Thereby defeating the whole "Learning spells" idea. I still think that a PC should spend time researching the spell before being able to have a go at it. It's like your chemistry teacher putting you in a lab with a bunch of chemicals that aren't labeled, no book, and saying "Make Sulfer Diiodide."
Well you have to learn the spell first. I thought you were asking if they had to cast the spell a number of times before 'knowing' the spell, which they don't. Before this, you had a percentage of knowing, so my confusion is justified. In this system, you would learn (as in obtain) a spell in the normal way, by grabbing it out of a book or scroll. You would learn (as in climb the ranks of circles) by casting.
[blockquote=Stargate]Well you have to learn the spell first. I thought you were asking if they had to cast the spell a number of times before 'knowing' the spell, which they don't. Before this, you had a percentage of knowing, so my confusion is justified. In this system, you would learn (as in obtain) a spell in the normal way, by grabbing it out of a book or scroll. You would learn (as in climb the ranks of circles) by casting.[/blockquote]
Just avoid the damn learn word. 'Obtain' and 'improve' are the two operative terms, right?
And based on what you are trying to do, I'd just dump the levels of spells altogether, and go with what you are doing and assign them % DC.
Oh, and by the way...
[blockquote=stargate525 the illuminated]I didn't have a whole lot of time to discuss it with him there, but I do have some suggestions on how to alter it a bit. I would, instead of using spellcraft, assign a new skill for each school of magic. This would allow for greater specialization, but the skillpoints of the caster class would have to be increased. I would also scrap the spells per day system in favor of a mana point reserve or similar, since it seems to fit the concept better. I'm not certain how to handle the fact that the rolls of a spell will dramatically increase over time, so any suggestions are great for that. I'm also trying to think of a way to incorporate metamagic into this as a function of your points in the spell as well, though I'm in the dark on how to do this as well.[/blockquote]
My system does do all of the above, at least in one way that may not be the way you'd like to go. I will mention only cuz I know you've at least scanned my scattered and diffuse Homebrew. I think you need to assign each spell a mana cost and a success % DC, and I personally think that a fail should cost the Mana...start getting casters into the habit of using extra points as well as magical helpers.
Quote from: LordVreegJust avoid the damn learn word. 'Obtain' and 'improve' are the two operative terms, right?
QFT. I'll be using those in the future.
Quote from: LordVreegAnd based on what you are trying to do, I'd just dump the levels of spells altogether, and go with what you are doing and assign them % DC.
We did. It got a little lost in there, but the DC is currently 60 an undetermined modifier for level. the levels of spells was to represent a bonus to the roll, not a DC to cast.
Quote from: LordVreegMy system does do all of the above, at least in one way that may not be the way you'd like to go. I will mention only cuz I know you've at least scanned my scattered and diffuse Homebrew. I think you need to assign each spell a mana cost and a success % DC, and I personally think that a fail should cost the Mana...start getting casters into the habit of using extra points as well as magical helpers.
Please refresh my mind or post a link, I'm hazy on what it was you did. As it stands, a failed spell eats half of what would have been expended. We mey have to bump that number up after playtesting.
Okay, Happhazzard casting in one east to read post! I've marked things in red that I'm not certain on.
Obtaining Spells
Spells are acquired as is normal for your class (scribe into spellbooks, automatically known, whatever). If you're using this to replace each caster individually, nothing else happens.
If you're using the system to replace casters, all spells are available. obtaining one that is not on your normal spell list requires an adjustment of your caster level, as is shown below.
[table=Caster Level Penalty] [tr][th]Class[/th][th]Bard[/th][th]Cleric[/th][th]Druid[/th][th]Paladin[/th]
[th]Ranger[/th][th]Sorc/Wiz[/th][/tr]
[tr][th]Bard[/th] [td]0[/td][td]2[/td][td]2[/td][td]2[/td][td]1[/td][td]1[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]Cleric[/th] [td]2[/td][td]0[/td][td]1[/td][td]1[/td][td]2[/td][td]2[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]Druid[/th] [td]2[/td][td]1[/td][td]0[/td][td]2[/td][td]0[/td][td]2[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]Paladin[/th] [td]2[/td][td]1[/td][td]2[/td][td]0[/td][td]3[/td][td]3[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]Ranger[/th] [td]1[/td][td]2[/td][td]0[/td][td]3[/td][td]0[/td][td]2[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]Sorc/Wiz[/th][td]1[/td][td]2[/td][td]2[/td][td]3[/td][td]2[/td][td]0[/td][/tr]
[/table]
For instance, a level 8 sorceror wishing to obtain a Paladin spell will cast it as though he were a 5th level sorceror for all statistics regarding the spell. In addition, the spell has a (CL penalty x 10) increase in its base casting DC.
Because some spells appear on multiple lists, the guidelines for taking them are to use the version on your spell list first, then from the class that matches your magic type, either divine or arcane. If neither of those apply, take the highest level example of the spell.
Casting and Improving Spells
Spells are cast off of a mana point system, where spells per day are broken into a mana pool, allowing any combination of spells to be cast. Each level of spell has a different base cost, as shown below;
[table=Spell cost][tr][th]Level[/th][th]Cost[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]0[/td][td]1[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]1[/td][td]2[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]2[/td][td]4[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]3[/td][td]6[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]4[/td][td]8[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]5[/td][td]10[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]6[/td][td]12[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]7[/td][td]14[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]8[/td][td]16[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]9[/td][td]18[/td][/tr]
[/table]
Converting the amount of points a class gets is easy. Simply take the spells cast per day and convert them into points. For example, a 5th level sorceror would get 34 points; six for each of his 0 level spells, 12 for his first level slots, and 16 for his second level slots. For levels 10-20, divide that total by 1/10th of the level. For example, the total mana at 18th level would be divided by 1.8
Casting a spell now requires a roll of a d%, against a DC of 50 + (spell level x 10). This DC can be adjusted by the use of additional mana, shown in the table below;
[table=metamagic][tr][th]Additional points[/th][th]DC reduction[/th][/tr]
[tr][th]3[/td][td]5[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]7[/td][td]10[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]13[/td][td]15[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]21[/td][td]20[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]31[/td][td]25[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]43[/td][td]30[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]57[/td][td]35[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]73[/td][td]40[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]91[/td][td]45[/td][/tr][/table]
The roll made against this DC is as follows;
1d100 + (Skill Bonus in the governing school) + (Spell Mastery Bonus)
Each school of magic is now its own skill, whose bonus goes towards your roll. The Universal Skill is folded into spellcraft. A large number of ranks will get you a certain number of bonus points to use on spells in that school.
Spell Mastery represents your affinity for the articular spell you're casting. Spell Mastery is divided into 9 different levels, called circles, of magic. Each circle provides a cumulative +4 bonus to the roll, starting at -4 at circle zero. For instance, a spell being cast at circle 4 provides a +12 to your roll.
Circles are reached by multiple castings of the spell. To reach a new circle, it needs to be cast a number of times equal to spell's level x 5 x circle you're trying to reach, with 0 counting as 1/2. So to get a zero level spell into the first circle, we need to successfully cast it three times (.5x5x1 rounded up). To get it to the second circle, you'd need to do it five times (.5x5x2), and so on.
Metamagic
Casting metamagic in this system is slightly different. To determine the number of points, simply boost the spell level as normal for spells-per-day casting as normal. The difference comes in with the casting check. Using metamagic increases the Dc to cast the spell, as follows;
[table=metamagic][tr][th]Level increase[/th][th]DC increase[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]+0[/td][td]0[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]+1[/td][td]15[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]+2[/td][td]30[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]+3[/td][td]45[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]+4[/td][td]60[/td][/tr][/table]
I've been trying to catsh back up, but the text was toomuch. Tables ftw!
I've got an idea for arcane spell failure. What if we double the numbers, then apply it as a penalty to the roll to cast?
Quote from: HaphazzardFor the matter of mana-per-level, I used the link in the first couple posts ( This (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm) ) and modified a little bit. I say we drop their suggested mana-per-lvl and use my own. Basically, add one to each of the numbers on the spell point costs. That makes lvls 0-9: 1,2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18 points per-spell respectively. Now, take your PH and go to pg 52 (chart of Sorc. spells-per-day) and apply the numbers above to that chart.
First lvl gets 11 points (5 0's//3 1st)
Second lvl gets 14 points (6 0's//4 1st)
Fifth lvl gets 34 points (6 0's//6 1st//4 2nd)
That won't work. I've done the math, and that gives a sorceror over 546 mana at 20th level, enough for 30 level nine spells. Obviously this is far too powerful. Cut that in half, and you're close to what the original points per day is on the chart in the SRD. I think we need to go with that.
I think you are right. For those campaigns that have the high level casters, the hope is to create a more flexible system, not a more powerful one.
Like your simple streamline of the arcane spell failure.
okay, I've got a chart!
[spoiler]
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v220/stargate525/chart.jpg) [/spoiler]
Type 1 is the first recommended spell point idea, simply converting spells per day into points and adding them together.
Type 2 is the same as type 1 until level 10, at which point it is (type 1 / (level/10)). So for 18th level it's divided by 1.8.
Type 3 is that same concept applied to the entire 1-20 range.
Type 4 is a linear progression based on 1/2 of type 1's maximum.
Quote from: Stargate525I've got an idea for arcane spell failure. What if we double the numbers, then apply it as a penalty to the roll to cast?
Wouldn't it be better to just take the number? It's already hard as heck to cast spells. I mean, I only spend about 1/3 of my mana in a day casting SUCCESFULLY. We went over that in the playtest, remember?
My vote goes to type 2.
Yeah, and sixty is a little insane. We keep the spell failure doubling (casters still shouldn't be in armor), and bump the base DC to 50. How's that?
Liking that. We don't want to deter players from being casters cuz the fancy new system we just spent GOD knows how long on makes it next to impossible. I do like the circles idea. At first I thought it was just complicating things, but it does make the casting of particular spells that the caster always uses easier. That way you can still cast spells that you need, but you don't make it easier to cast a spell that you haven't used in years.
I believe 2 would be best, as well.
*Casts raise thread*
*narrowly makes Dc roll*
Anyone else have comments on this?
I will, but its been so long I have to do some massive re-reading.
To avoid too much re-reading I give you...
Quote from: Stargate525Okay, Happhazzard casting in one east to read post! I've marked things in red that I'm not certain on.
Obtaining Spells
Spells are acquired as is normal for your class (scribe into spellbooks, automatically known, whatever). If you're using this to replace each caster individually, nothing else happens.
If you're using the system to replace casters, all spells are available. obtaining one that is not on your normal spell list requires an adjustment of your caster level, as is shown below.
[table=Caster Level Penalty] [tr][th]Class[/th][th]Bard[/th][th]Cleric[/th][th]Druid[/th][th]Paladin[/th]
[th]Ranger[/th][th]Sorc/Wiz[/th][/tr]
[tr][th]Bard[/th] [td]0[/td][td]2[/td][td]2[/td][td]2[/td][td]1[/td][td]1[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]Cleric[/th] [td]2[/td][td]0[/td][td]1[/td][td]1[/td][td]2[/td][td]2[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]Druid[/th] [td]2[/td][td]1[/td][td]0[/td][td]2[/td][td]0[/td][td]2[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]Paladin[/th] [td]2[/td][td]1[/td][td]2[/td][td]0[/td][td]3[/td][td]3[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]Ranger[/th] [td]1[/td][td]2[/td][td]0[/td][td]3[/td][td]0[/td][td]2[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]Sorc/Wiz[/th][td]1[/td][td]2[/td][td]2[/td][td]3[/td][td]2[/td][td]0[/td][/tr]
[/table]
For instance, a level 8 sorceror wishing to obtain a Paladin spell will cast it as though he were a 5th level sorceror for all statistics regarding the spell. In addition, the spell has a (CL penalty x 10) increase in its base casting DC.
Because some spells appear on multiple lists, the guidelines for taking them are to use the version on your spell list first, then from the class that matches your magic type, either divine or arcane. If neither of those apply, take the highest level example of the spell.
Casting and Improving Spells
Spells are cast off of a mana point system, where spells per day are broken into a mana pool, allowing any combination of spells to be cast. Each level of spell has a different base cost, as shown below;
[table=Spell cost][tr][th]Level[/th][th]Cost[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]0[/td][td]1[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]1[/td][td]2[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]2[/td][td]4[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]3[/td][td]6[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]4[/td][td]8[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]5[/td][td]10[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]6[/td][td]12[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]7[/td][td]14[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]8[/td][td]16[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]9[/td][td]18[/td][/tr]
[/table]
Converting the amount of points a class gets is easy. Simply take the spells cast per day and convert them into points. For example, a 5th level sorceror would get 34 points; six for each of his 0 level spells, 12 for his first level slots, and 16 for his second level slots. For levels 10-20, divide that total by 1/10th of the level. For example, the total mana at 18th level would be divided by 1.8
Casting a spell now requires a roll of a d%, against a DC of 50 + (spell level x 10). This DC can be adjusted by the use of additional mana, shown in the table below;
[table=metamagic][tr][th]Additional points[/th][th]DC reduction[/th][/tr]
[tr][th]3[/td][td]5[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]7[/td][td]10[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]13[/td][td]15[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]21[/td][td]20[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]31[/td][td]25[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]43[/td][td]30[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]57[/td][td]35[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]73[/td][td]40[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]91[/td][td]45[/td][/tr][/table]
The roll made against this DC is as follows;
1d100 + (Skill Bonus in the governing school) + (Spell Mastery Bonus)
Each school of magic is now its own skill, whose bonus goes towards your roll. The Universal Skill is folded into spellcraft. A large number of ranks will get you a certain number of bonus points to use on spells in that school.
Spell Mastery represents your affinity for the articular spell you're casting. Spell Mastery is divided into 9 different levels, called circles, of magic. Each circle provides a cumulative +4 bonus to the roll, starting at -4 at circle zero. For instance, a spell being cast at circle 4 provides a +12 to your roll.
Circles are reached by multiple castings of the spell. To reach a new circle, it needs to be cast a number of times equal to spell's level x 5 x circle you're trying to reach, with 0 counting as 1/2. So to get a zero level spell into the first circle, we need to successfully cast it three times (.5x5x1 rounded up). To get it to the second circle, you'd need to do it five times (.5x5x2), and so on.
Metamagic
Casting metamagic in this system is slightly different. To determine the number of points, simply boost the spell level as normal for spells-per-day casting as normal. The difference comes in with the casting check. Using metamagic increases the Dc to cast the spell, as follows;
[table=metamagic][tr][th]Level increase[/th][th]DC increase[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]+0[/td][td]0[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]+1[/td][td]15[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]+2[/td][td]30[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]+3[/td][td]45[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]+4[/td][td]60[/td][/tr][/table]
I just went through the whole thread again and came up with two things: A lot of suggestions were about to be covered, but we moved on too quickly, and there were things that may be important that weren't covered in the recap in my last post.
More Recaps
-Int: Conjuration, Abjuration, Evocation (Universal?)
Wis: Transmutation, Divination, Necromancy
Cha: Illusion, Enchantment
-we're using skill based spellcasting
-spellcraft skills for each school, (Conj, abj, ench, illusion, evoc, necro, trans, and div)
divine skills (domains, and regular divine)
-the long thing about learning spells in the first few posts
Things I Would Like to Talk About Again (these are mostly things copy-pasted from prior posts)
-I suggest the caster being able to take ten except when something happens to him while casting. example: knight has got the enemy's attention, wizard takes ten on firebolt. example 2: Goblin minion starts attacking wizard, distracting him so he cant take ten. OR, if they pass their concentration roll by, i dunno.....an extra 5? they can still take ten. just thought there should be something in there about that
-What if you took a feat the allowed you to know metamagic in general
-I had another thought. What if the maximum spell level was tied to the number of ranks in the governing skill?
-The workings of metamagic in general
The caster should be able to take ten only when he does not know if he is being attacked, or if he his not threatened/being threatened. A general metamagic feat should exist, but you would have to do certain things to unlock them. Sort of like legacy weapons.
I'd say that since it's a skill, the caster should be able to take ten whenever the take 10 rules for skills dictate. It's really quite simple.
As for metamagic, my brain refuses to function at such a high level this late...
maximum level tied to skill ranks... hmmm.
[table=Chart do dah...][tr][th]ranks at level (s/w)[/th][th]level[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]4/4[/td][td]0[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]4/4[/td][td]1[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]7/6[/td][td]2[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]9/8[/td][td]3[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]11/10[/td][td]4[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]13/12[/td][td]5[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]15/14[/td][td]6[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]17/16[/td][td]7[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]19/18[/td][td]8[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]21/20[/td][td]9[/td][/tr]
[/table]