Forums of the Megaverse®

Sorry if a thread on this exists already.

I'm trying to get a rifts game rolling but something I always wanted to change was spell casting resolution and resistance. All my players right now are 100% new to roleplaying so they are not exactly the best play test group as far as feed back goes. So here are my house rules:

Spell casting: d20 roll plus stat modifier (I'm using the S/P/D bonus tree associated to PP but applying it to IQ for spell casting) plus 1 for every even level as a caster plus any class/race bonuses to "spell strength". For directed spells this is used exactly like a melee attack to be dodged (players don't make a separate attack roll) - nat 20 is a crit (double damage, double duration, double AOE, OR double targets). Nat 1 is a fumble lost PPE - and the casters total needs to be =/> spells level to succeed.

Resistance: roll 1d20 plus save vs spell bonus from PE plus 1 for every odd character level plus any Class or racial bonuses to save v magic. If targets resistance total is =/> the casters spell casting roll than he resists (equivelant effect to save v spell)

Same rules for psychic attacks but they use ME for their bonus instead of IQ

On paper and in my head this works pretty well. Races that are described as being stronger in magic abilities (ie dragons) tend to have very IQ making ituch more difficult to resist a spell cast by a dragon than by an equal level human and it's much more difficult to resist a level 10 LLW than it is to resist a level 1 LLW with equivelant stats

Any suggestions to make it better or obvious problems ease let me know. My goal is to make it so that it's much more likely a spell will work. Especially against a non spell caster and/or lower level characters.

spell casting (seeing if the spell was cast correctly) would be a skill roll ( a D%) if anything, staying with in the established PB system..
The strike roll would be separate from the 'does it work' roll. But not all spells work with having a 'strike roll' component. For most spells even if the mage char rolls a nat 1 or 20 does it effect the effects of the spell.

saving vs magic/spell str: sounds like you are making things much more complicated then you'd want for a bunch of Newb's.
the PB system started off based around the K.I.S.S. principle. So things that complicated things were simplified.
(recently somethings just got stupid simple while others got more complicated.)

suggestions: get rid of the randomness of the spell str and stick with a single number for it. same for the Psi str bit.

Get rid of the word Resistance and stick with 'save vs magic', because that is what it is.
For the saving vs level bonuses have it every odd level starting with Level 3

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:spell casting (seeing if the spell was cast correctly) would be a skill roll ( a D%) if anything, staying with in the established PB system..
The strike roll would be separate from the 'does it work' roll. But not all spells work with having a 'strike roll' component. For most spells even if the mage char rolls a nat 1 or 20 does it effect the effects of the spell.

saving vs magic/spell str: sounds like you are making things much more complicated then you'd want for a bunch of Newb's.
the PB system started off based around the K.I.S.S. principle. So things that complicated things were simplified.
(recently somethings just got stupid simple while others got more complicated.)


suggestions: get rid of the randomness of the spell str and stick with a single number for it. same for the Psi str bit.

Get rid of the word Resistance and stick with 'save vs magic', because that is what it is.
For the saving vs level bonuses have it every odd level starting with Level 3

I like the feed back. I definnately see the percentile issue, but my problem with it is using that logic everytime a GB pilot fires his gun he first would have to roll Pilot Robot percentile to make sure he's piloting correctly, so it just doesnt' seem consistent with melee combat which is ultimately my goal because I really like how non magic combat is resolved. And I think the last sentence of your first paragraph was meant as a question and yes all spells would have a potential to crit/fumble. So if a Temporal wizard casts D-Envelope and rolls a nat 20 the duration would double (or area of affect) and if he fumbles he loses a ton of PPE without any effect so he has to meditate for hours to cast it again, not a terrible resolution but definnately a penalty. For me having that potential makes magic a bit wilder, primal even, adding a little bit of flavor to magic that seem to be lacking with the mechanics as is.

As far as making it more complicated it deffinately is, but I'm trying to mirror melee combat almost exactly, so being the same mechanic, they only have to learn one rule for all combat resolution (melee, magic and psionic) so in essence it actually reduces the total number of mechanics making combat resolution in total more consistent and therefor less complicated. Having completely different mechanics for each type of attack just doesn't make sense. Also it seems patently unfair that a Juicer's ability to blast someone increases with level but a caster and psionic's don't, not to mention a Juicer always has a chance to crit/fumble but a caster doesn't.

Modifying the level bonuses will definately need tweaking to make sure it never get's to the point that resistance is impossible without rolling a nat 20. The model I'm using now is more for consistency than anything else as it follows the bonuses one get's from ancient WP's

piloting skill rolls are there for when they are doing tricky maneuvers, not things he does all the time. A gB pilot would only need a Pilot roll if he fire his BG w/o his pylons.

the rules you are purposing are just so "dice loving" in their concepts that you would be taking an already long combat into double time (taking twice as long).

and this bit about failing at a spell/psi "you !Know!! how to do" is very anti-K.I.S.S. it also unbalances what little balance there was between tech and magic/psi, in favor of tech. the only way to counter the new in balance is that mages can cast all spells with only one APM.

I for one dislike all of the changes you purposed but gave my best advice. it is like going backward to D&D. if you want to play that then why are you playing PB?*sardonically*

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:piloting skill rolls are there for when they are doing tricky maneuvers, not things he does all the time. A gB pilot would only need a Pilot roll if he fire his BG w/o his pylons.

the rules you are purposing are just so "dice loving" in their concepts that you would be taking an already long combat into double time (taking twice as long).

and this bit about failing at a spell/psi "you !Know!! how to do" is very anti-K.I.S.S. it also unbalances what little balance there was between tech and magic/psi, in favor of tech. the only way to counter the new in balance is that mages can cast all spells with only one APM.

I for one dislike all of the changes you purposed but gave my best advice. it is like going backward to D&D. if you want to play that then why are you playing PB?*sardonically*

I appreciate your trying to help me, but I don't really understand you at all, and it seems like you're getting a little snarky and I'm not really even sure why. How are my rule changes more like D&D? In fact the mechanics as written in Palladium are almost word for word the mechanics of D&D, you elect to cast a spell you know, no roll necessary, and the target rolls a saving throw with a predetermined static target number. At least in 1st, 2nd and 3rd editions. May be it's different in 4th now but I've never played. In fact one of the most noteworthy deviations from d&d in the Palladium system is the attack roll vs dodge roll, that's actually a mechanic that is rare in table top RPG's in general, and it's one I really like. I like the idea of defenders getting a roll but I don't like the idea of the defenders success being a static arbitary number that is completely independent of the spell caster's level.

I agree it may be "dicey", but playing with my current group of new players it hasn't noticably slowed combat down at all, so I would be shocked if it would slow it down with experienced players at all. If you don't like "dicey" play that's fine, I'm not saying anyone has to use my changes, I'm just looking for suggestions as to how you'd tweak it to make more sense in the setting. Maybe you disagree that IQ makes sense, I'd love to hear why. For example, Mages casting spells for one APM is a great idea, in fact it's already what I'm doing, I never liked that spells took longer to cast, they are barely even competitive with tech as it is, so I've been using that rule since day one of playing palladium. Also at low level it does give non spell casters an advantage, but at high level it's much more difficult for non spell casters to make a save with these rules, that's the second benefit in my opinion, that way if a LLW casts trance on attacker, sure it's less likely to succeed at level 1 (about 50/50 if we assume comparable spell cast bonuses vs save vs magic bonus (save vs magic is PE so most non casters PE will be high) compared to 60/40 with the current rules (target needs a 12 on 20 sided die) if the target has no bonuses, most however will, using the juicer example again he'll be realistically around +4 making it 40/60, those numbers stand throughout the LLW career, with my house rules at level 10 the LLW would have a 70/30 advantage.

At this point I doubt you're very concerned because you don't like my house rules, that's fine, this is really more for my own benefit and maybe anyone else reading who wants to give me any suggestions.

Oh on a side note the bit about the caster being able to fail at something "you !Know!! how to do" is a terrible argument. Doesn't a juicer know how to fire a rifle, so why is it he can fail but the caster can't? And doesn't a GB pilot know how to pilot his glitter boy, so why is it he can fail at it but a caster can't? Is spell casting so super easy that it's impossible to fail? if it is why doesn't everyone cast spells all the time? Also you keep making this K.I.S.S. principal argument, I agree I think keeping things as simple as possible is a good idea, but only to a point. Your goal should be a mechanic that makes sense in the setting, resolves the event adequately and is fun. I think you are arguing that the simpler it is the better it is. Anyways, I really appreciate you trying to help me. And to be honest defending my ideas against your criticisms is really helping me hammer them out some, so I'd appreciate more feed back if your up for it, i'd also just appreciate a little less snark. If you're not up for that's okay too.

Hello Zaccheus, first I just want to say, don't mind Drewkitty, the only thing that can match his knowledge of the Palladium system is his arrogance.

Your system is not bad, just not one I would utilize. I just think that it could hurt the caster more then help. The caster could roll a 4, while the opponent rolls an 8. On the 8 he would of lost at the base of 12, following normal rules. But he/she wins following your house rule.

Also remember, that LLW and most men-of magic classes get +1 to spell strength at certain levels. LLW get +1 at levels 3,7,10,13. So by level 7 the LLW base spell strength would be 14, which is not too bad. As a side not, one of my house rules are, while on a ley line casters get a +1 to spell strength, on a nexus a +2.

Of course if you like your rule better then use it! , I just thought I would give my two cents.

Grug wrote:Hello Zaccheus, first I just want to say, don't mind Drewkitty, the only thing that can match his knowledge of the Palladium system is his arrogance.

Your system is not bad, just not one I would utilize. I just think that it could hurt the caster more then help. The caster could roll a 4, while the opponent rolls an 8. On the 8 he would of lost at the base of 12, following normal rules. But he/she wins following your house rule.

Also remember, that LLW and most men-of magic classes get +1 to spell strength at certain levels. LLW get +1 at levels 3,7,10,13. So by level 7 the LLW base spell strength would be 14, which is not too bad. As a side not, one of my house rules are, while on a ley line casters get a +1 to spell strength, on a nexus a +2.

Of course if you like your rule better then use it! , I just thought I would give my two cents.

I deffinately appreciate your opinion. And I deffinately see your point about the 4 and 8 rolls, that's also assuming the target has no bonuses. With the rules as is, in rifts most players have it because they have a decent PE stat given how many classes give bonuses to PE and how many physical skills also give bonuses, so a roll of 8 is fairly routinely modified to a 12 even at level 1. I think I need to tweak the caster's bonuses a bit to compensate a bit more, making saving even more difficult to work the way I want it to.

I think maybe part of the problem is that I'm not really making myself clear. So for an example, if a man of arms OCC is in melee combat with a mage and attacks him with a vibro sword, at level one the chance of the mage dodging/parrying are fairly slim, the man at arms simply has a much higher bonus than the mage. Now if the mage then casts a spell on the man at arms, the man at arms with the rules as written is actually in most cases going to be more likely to save than fail. I just don't like that, and to further frustrate me if the mage is level 10 and the man at arms is level one, that dynamic barely changes, the fighter maybe goes from 60/40 his advantage to 40/60 mages advantage, when in my mind it should be significantly more difficult for him to save; and to even further illustrate say that caster is a dragon, sure he'll fair better in the combat side, but he's still just as easy to resist (maybe a 5% difference at best), even if it's an ancient dragon. In my mind that's just absurd. I want combat between two high level mages to roll out similar to combat between two high level juicers, and I want a mage to have a magical advantage over a juicer that a juicer has over a mage in physical combat (maybe not the exact same advantage given the enviroment, the type of mage etc etc, but at least one that is similar). The other option I guess would be to make melee combat more like the magic system with no attack roll and defender makes saves, but just stating that it seems like to me it's dripping with absurdity, so with that context, the magic system as it stands seems equally as broken as it would be to use that mechanic for combat. At least in my mind...absolutely no offense to anyone who likes the mechanic as is. I think I have to add a base spell cast bonus, maybe even make something like a WP spell casting, or even HTH magic...that's just starting to be more work than I like...right now I'll probably just put a flat bonus to pure casters (LLW, Shifter's etc) a slightly lower one for hybrid/semi casters (mystic, temporal warrior, tatooed man etc) and go from there. Not sure ATM what numbers will work and thats really just trying some playing and adjusting.

Anyways, thanks a lot, you make a really good point that I need to sort out. But one thing I want to ask about the roll a 4 roll an 8 mechanic. Why is it that that's okay for a samurai with a sword but not okay for a mage with a spell? Is swinging a sword at some poor blokes head significantly more complicated than casting blinding flash on him? So why isn't there the possibility for a mage to muff it, because to me the spell is actually far more complicated, more akin to say surgery then to swinking a scimitar, and as a surgeon I can say it's very easy to make a mistake (note I'm not saying I've killed or harmed one of my patients I haven't, but every surgeon has at least one operation where he nicks something he shouldn't and there is a scarey amount of bleeding before he stops it, at least not a surgeon I've ever met and I"ve met alot...sorry really digressing). Let me know what you think about my theories at least, and if you have tips about numbers, bonuses that should apply etc please let me know.

And if any experienced groups are willing to play test a couple of mock combat sessions to see how this goes that would be great. It's working fine with my group now, but all my players are 100% new to roleplaying so I'm not sure they'd recognize a failing/imbalance even if it was glaring...but you never know I guess.

Your system is simple and effective. It's just being hit with a sword is a one time effect, you soak the damage and carry on. But a spell that could blind someone for one minute per level, giving that character a -9 to strike, parry and dodge. For the whole duration, should be alittle easier to avoid. I will think on this more and post later!

Grug wrote:Your system is simple and effective. It's just being hit with a sword is a one time effect, you soak the damage and carry on. But a spell that could blind someone for one minute per level, giving that character a -9 to strike, parry and dodge. For the whole duration, should be alittle easier to avoid. I will think on this more and post later!

So yeah you're totally right. There will be several unforeseen consequences of the change. The one you pointed out is really a benefit in my mind. It makes magic more dangerous in the world and for me that makes more sense, if it were 1:1 with straight melee combat why would anyone pour their very life energy into casting a spell when they can just swing a sword. The other benefit I see is if the caster fumbles he can internalize the spell adding some in game risk to using magic. I think right now it's just getting the numbers right so it's never impossible to save but also not too easy to save either which will mostly bear out in playing and tweaking as we go.