I made a public post over at the Autarch Patreon with a new spell or power I'm working on. Please discuss, here or there!
https://www.patreon.com/posts/7754772
[quote="Alex"]
I made a public post over at the Autarch Patreon with a new spell or power I'm working on. Please discuss, here or there!
https://www.patreon.com/posts/7754772
[/quote] The text says damage reduction is 2 points per caster level per spell level, but the example is 1 point per CL per SL.
I don't think I would use this in my game as currently written. I'm uneasy about the damage prevention outpacing damage spells. A sixth-level caster throwing a third-level fireball spell does 21 damage on average, so a sixth-level caster only needs to expend a second-level spell to negate the damage (2x2x6=24). I don't feel that an average damage roll should be able to be negated by a lower-level spell slot from a same-level caster. I'm also iffy on the damage prevention being so much greater than a Ruinguard's healing, which is 1d6 per spell level flat, and only triggers on a kill.
One thing I think I'd like better is to split it into two proficiencies, one for counter-spelling (expend spell slot to gain save bonus) and one for warding (expend spell slot for damage prevention). This would allow some classes to gain one but not the other (I think warding works better for a Ruinguard than counter-spelling, for example). If split, I think each would be half a class power to a class with Arcane or Divine 1 or 2, and one class power for a class with Arcane 3 or 4, due to the number of slots available at different build levels.
reposting my thoughts here, which I wrote before reading TheDark's post:
1. I wouldn't make a new class to showcase it, but if there were a way to provide it to existing classes I would give that option
2. Since everything is powered by sacrificing spell slots, it doesn't seem that powerful. I would say 1 or 2 at most, possibly 1 for those with partial arcane/divine casting and 2 for full casting, since it's more useful the more spellslots you have.
3. At 1 turn in duration, you're essentially only going to use it for 1 combat. At that point the important part isn't the duration but how quickly you can cast it. still, 2nd or 3rd is probably right. it would be an odd spell to give to a level 1 mage who can only cast 1 spell to begin with.
4. 6th is probably right, but it's hard to evaluate such high level spells. also i'm not sure many mages would be willing to give up their precious few spells.
5a. In general I find effects that have to be powered by using up spell slots to be weak/underwhelming, with a similar reaction from my players. Giving up getting to cast the actual spell, especially when you have access to obviously overpowered spells like sleep or fireball, makes it hard to justify.
5b. Depending on how you feel about the 5e advantage mechanic, taking the better of 2 rolls might be more appealing than +3, although I'm not sure how to scale that with the use of higher level spells.
to respond to Antiquities's post: I see your point about damage vs. prevention, but I feel like fireball is a bad example because it specifically is AOE while this seems to deal predominantly with protecting just the mage/cleric. Woe to his allies nearby who get fried just the same, unless there are some future tweaks that address actually stopping total damage done by a spell.
[quote="Jard"]
to respond to TheDark's post: I see your point about damage vs. prevention, but I feel like fireball is a bad example because it specifically is AOE while this seems to deal predominantly with protecting just the mage/cleric. Woe to his allies nearby who get fried just the same, unless there are some future tweaks that address actually stopping total damage done by a spell.
[/quote] True, but the 1d6/level is pretty normal for spells, and I was thinking in terms of Alex referring to it as a spell duel. To use a more duel-like example, even if you change it to a custom spell doing 1d12/level, that sixth level caster does an average of 33 damage, which is negated by a third-level spell (2x3x6=36). To get such a spell requires a lot of limitations - d12 is 52 points, so we need around x.5 modifiers to get it down to third-level. That's not that hard, so we can go with 1d12 damage/level (52), no cap (x1), 1 creature (x1), 30' range (x0.6), Instantaneous (x1), save for half (x0.75) for a 23.4 point spell that's third level and can on average be negated by a third-level spell. Getting it down to a second level spell requires either cutting it to touch range, requiring an attack throw, or allowing a save for no damage. Without at least one of those limitations, I don't see a way to create a blast spell that's lower level than the spell slot required to completely negate its damage.
As a 1 turn spell I would be very tempted to call it 1st level, but I have a bias towards making the interesting things accessible at low levels, and I'm not certain I've thought this one through.
I see what Alex is going for - my broader hangup is I'd like magical duels to be a thing that can just happen between any two arcane casters. As written up here, you have to buy into it with a spell pick or class power pick [first thing I'd do is make it a class proficiency for mages and warlocks if I used it at all, but still].
Could you frame it as a subsystem rather than as a power or spell? So that two arcane casters, while casting spells in the same round, drop into being able to spend spell slots as described. Spellwarding might then be a separate, possibly cheaper class power or spell that gave you the benefits outside of spellcasting.
I would and have argued that 1d6/level is very much not normal for damage spells, as historically it only shows up on area-of-effect spells with a high potential for indoor friendly fire (see http://wanderinggamist.blogspot.com/2016/07/friendly-fireball.html ). I would probably not allow a defense in my game which outscaled the “danger-close” d6/level spells.
the DCC rules for spell duels seem needlessly complex, but the core idea that:
1) you can use either the same spell being cast or an appropriate defensive spell to start a spell duel
2) you keep track of who's doing better during the spell duel
3) there are random tables to roll on with increasingly powerful results for either attack or defender depending on how much better you're doing.
might be worth scraping some ideas from.
A level 14 caster can ignore 28 points of damage per spell level slot expended. Expending all his slots would ignore about 2000 points of damage (2044 for mage with 73 spell levels, 1988 for cleric at 71). That’s a mind-boggling amount of damage.
Reducing it to 5 points per spell level reduces it to about 360 damage. Still a lot of damage. High level casters have a lot of spell slots.
At level 7, we’re looking at 17 spell levels for mage and 21 for cleric. At 5 per spell level thats still 85 and 105 points of damage, compared to around 20 to 30 hit points.
In my opinion, it’s too good for soaking damage.
I would suggest something modeled a bit on the damage resistance of resist cold and the like:
Save bonus +3 as written. Soaking damage = spell slot level per die of incoming damage, minimum damage 1 point per die. If save successful, concentration / casting is maintained regardless of damage suffered. Both effects from same spell slot.
Maybe also limit to 1 spell slot, more painful choice, so a high-level caster doesn’t just burn his low-level spell slots.
Example:
Quintus, a 6th level caster, is in a magical duel! He is in the midst of casting battering ram when his opponent strikes him with an ice storm that deals 27 points of damage. Quintus expends one 2nd level spell slot to gain a +6 bonus on the saving throw. His save then succeeds, halving the damage to 13 points. He reduces the damage by 2 points per die, to a minimum of 1. So he reduces damage by 10 points, but as ice storm deals 5d6 of damage the minimum damage is 5.
In my vision this caster duel would then be casters slinging spells for a couple of rounds, gradually weakening both their slots and hit points. Not only draining spell slots until they are out. I think this would be more playable in a non-mage duel environment.
it seems like the problem here is scaling. high level casters can effortlessly negate attacks but low level casters get very little effect at all. maybe flatten the per level effect scale from 1-14 to 3-12 or something, or make it care more about the level of the spell expended, like it prevents the square of the spell level's damage (1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36)
Here's a slightly different take, created in response to feedback. What ought the duration of spellward be? I'm thinking 6 turns - long enough to be useful in a battle or high-intensity dungeon delve, but not so long that a mage can keep it up all the time.
Spellward (Level 3)
This spell creates a defensive ward around the spellcaster. The spellward has a number of layers equal to the caster's level of experience. When the caster makes a saving throw against a spell, elemental effect, or spell-like effect, he can expend one or more layers of the spellward to gain a +1d4 bonus per layer to the saving throw. After the saving throw (if any) is resolved, the character can expend one or more layers of the spellward to reduce the damage by 1d4 points per layer. If the damage is reduced to 0 or less by the spellward, the character does not suffer an interruption of concentration or other effects that may accrue upon being hit. If a spellwarded caster is subjected to a dispel magic spell, he can expend one or more layers from the ward to increase his effective caster level by 1d4 per layer, making it harder to dispel his magic. Spellward expires when all of the layers are expended, or after 6 turns, whichever comes first.
EXAMPLE: Quintus, a 6th level caster, is in a magical duel! He had previously cast spellward, and as a 6th level caster his ward has 6 layers. He is in the middle of casting lightning bolt when his opponent strikes him with a fireball that deals 21 points of damage. Quintus expends one layer of the ward to gain a +1d4 bonus on the saving throw. His save then succeeds, halving the damage to 10 points. He then expends the last five layers of the ward to reduce the damage by 5d4 points. He rolls the dice and the result is a 12! The damage has been reduced to 0 or less, and his spell is not interrupted. On his initiative number, he blasts his opponent with lightning bolt!
If we assume Spellward cost 30 spell points to build, and has a duration of 6 turns, then that suggests that the value of the effect (including its attritional nature) is (30 / (1 x 1.33 x 0.75 x 1) = 30. That puts Spellward on par with "resistance to all normal weapons" (30 points), "resistance to two elemental damage types" (30 points), "+4 bonus to armor class and saving throws against evil opponents" (30 points), and " "invulnerability to all 1st and 2nd level spells cast by evil opponents" (31 points). That seems reasonable to me. Note that one spellward can more or less protect a single target against a single fireball-type spell, which feels right and good as well.
Spellward Other would be one spell level higher.
Thoughts?
When trying to come up with a cost for Spellward would the fact (I think it's a fact) that Fireball and Lightning Bolt are really more like 5th level spells that had their costs reduced due to a breakthrough come into account? Or I guess you could say that Spellward also benefitted from similar experimental breakthroughs.