How Mages SHOULD work...
malachi151
Member Posts: 152
I'm going into this as a video gamer, not as a D&Der. IOW, this isn't in relation to D&D rules, it's just how I think Mages would work better implemented in the BG computer game.
I never liked the "chance to learn a spell" mechanic, and I still don't think it's implemented correctly, but I never go by it anyway. I typically save up my scrolls, then set the difficulty to Normal and scribe everything, then set it back to whatever I was using.
Here is how I would like to see INT implemented for Mages. Instead of giving you a higher chance to learn spells, it should have an impact on casting itself.
I think it should have an impact on saving throws. I'd do it something like:
Level - Saving throw bonus
1-4 : +3
5-7 : +2
8-9 : +1
10-15 : +0
16-17 : -1
18-19 : -2
20-22 : -3
23-24 : -4
25 : -5
You could tweak the numbers one way or the other I'm sure, but I'd like to see something like that. This would make INT actually meaningful and also make things like potion of Genius actually cool.
This would also apply to SORCERERS, and would thus make INT meaningful for them, as it should be.
It would also makes Gnomes much more attractive, since with a tome of INT you would be able to get -3 to savings throws with Gnomes (on top of -2 for Illusions).
Ideally, to do this you would first add 1 to the base saving throw modifiers of every spell, so that castes with 16-17 INT would basically have the same saving throw mods that they currently do, while casters with 18 INT would be 1 better than current.
I never liked the "chance to learn a spell" mechanic, and I still don't think it's implemented correctly, but I never go by it anyway. I typically save up my scrolls, then set the difficulty to Normal and scribe everything, then set it back to whatever I was using.
Here is how I would like to see INT implemented for Mages. Instead of giving you a higher chance to learn spells, it should have an impact on casting itself.
I think it should have an impact on saving throws. I'd do it something like:
Level - Saving throw bonus
1-4 : +3
5-7 : +2
8-9 : +1
10-15 : +0
16-17 : -1
18-19 : -2
20-22 : -3
23-24 : -4
25 : -5
You could tweak the numbers one way or the other I'm sure, but I'd like to see something like that. This would make INT actually meaningful and also make things like potion of Genius actually cool.
This would also apply to SORCERERS, and would thus make INT meaningful for them, as it should be.
It would also makes Gnomes much more attractive, since with a tome of INT you would be able to get -3 to savings throws with Gnomes (on top of -2 for Illusions).
Ideally, to do this you would first add 1 to the base saving throw modifiers of every spell, so that castes with 16-17 INT would basically have the same saving throw mods that they currently do, while casters with 18 INT would be 1 better than current.
0
Comments
I agree with you on the "chance to learn a spell" mechanic. I hate it because it takes away the satisfaction of obtaining a rare new scroll for my accomplishments.
@OlvynChuru Have you tried using Potions of Genius or Mind Focusing before scribing scrolls? They grant +4/+3 to INT, and the bonuses will stack if you drink more than one. Also, if you boost your mage's INT to 24 or 25, they will get automatic scribing success.
Higher INT also increases how many spells your mage can learn per level. So chug a couple of genius pots for that temp raise instead of just always bringing the difficulty down (or do both)
If I buy a spell scroll, I'll drop difficulty down figuring I am paying to learn the spell, not just have a copy of it. If I find a scroll, I let RNG and stats determine if I can learn it.
bad.
learning spells sucks , unless you chugging potions.
a lot of mechanics are missing or downright wrong.
good.
game lets you kinda rest everywhere with no penalty aside 3-4 timed missions.
overall BG-saga mages are still in a pretty sweet spot.
Try role-playing something just once, you might like it.
And it wasn't because "D&D agreed," as @deltago put it, that the rules got changed. In case anyone has forgotten, it was the new owner of the franchise, Wizards of the Coast, who made 3E, and that company cared about just one thing in the world:
$
It's the equivalent of having it so when fighters equip a weapon there is a chance the weapon might be destroyed. It makes no sense. Spells are the weapons of Mages just as weapons are the weapons of Fighters.
"Oh, great, I finally got Spiderbane! Let me just equi... Doh!"
This doesn't make sense. And when you implement something like chance to learn on RNG in a game where people can save and re-load, you know the mechanic is going to be mostly ignored anyway, so it's a stupid thing to implement. People don't generally accept and go along with game-breaking RNG. RNG in a fight is one thing, RNG that prevents your character from developing and being able to implement your intended strategy is quite another, and no other class faces such a situation.
Anyway, it seems that the issue has been figured out and somewhat resolved in the sequels.
I could also reload scum my way into learning the spell.
But I prefer to role play that my mage, eager to learn and understand a new power they seemed, finding a mage willing to teach it to them for a price.
If they find a scroll, they attempt to decipher it's secrets by themselves. Sometimes failing and sometimes gaining new insights into the workings of the weave.
If you want to make sure you learn a spell, while still following Core rules, you can just boost your intelligence up to 24. I think it's quite fun though to sometimes be forced into using spells you don't normally take due to failing to learn some scrolls.
If you're finding failure is much more common that you expect that's probably the result of the specialist mage issue - they have a penalty of 15% when trying to learn spells from other schools (though that penalty doesn't apply when intelligence is 24 or 25).
What I'd meant to say, though, is that Intelligence needn't really matter to Sorcerers anyway: they aren't spellcasters by virtue of study. The way that BGEE has written Neera is more akin to what a Sorcerer is than to what a [Wild] Mage is. Sorcerers inherit their powers through bloodlines or contact with the Arcane, and as such Charisma is considered their governing stat. Sorcerers are a bit like the X-Men of D&D. They have a lot of power for which they have no accountability except their own moral compass, and that makes them highly dangerous (and super awesome). Intelligence is for the ones who have to work hard for greatness. I don't disagree with your theory, though, and as somebody has already mentioned this is what was applied in 3E.
Auril's Bane has this feature.
This is just a speculation from my side, I am new to these games and have no idea when exactly the 'chance to learn spell' mechanism was introduced, and whether it was part of the tabletop games or appeared later in the computer games.
If anything learning new spells is way too easy. Mages can learn spells right after difficult battle, in the middle of dark dungeon, while being severy injured, cursed, blinded and level drained. In a matter of seconds. Yet thats not enough and people still complain about RNG.
Magic is magic though and no matter how it's implemented in a game, it can obviously never be realistic by nature.
What ever the mechanic used, in a game there should be some actionable task that the player has to do to implement it.
Not rely on dice throws. turning the difficulty down or potions.
So I'd go for @Skatan idea, maybe expanded a bit.
Or perhaps, a newly learnt spell has some penalties to casting it. For a period of time there's a possibility that it fails or that it is less effective. And that could be based on intel.
This would force the player to take a decision as to whether to risk using the new spell in a fight.
Basically, anything that engages the player with the process more.
The other problem is, if intelligence would effect saving throws (whether it would make the spells easier to resist for mages or harder to resist for enemies), the specialist mages would turn out OP. With 18 intelligence, imagine Chaos from Enchanter. -8 to saving throws at default, -12 with Greater Malison. -14 with Greater Malison and Doom. Or Finger of death, with -6 base from Necromancer. And so on.
The other thing is, Sorceres should recieve some bonuses from stats, but definitely not from intelligence. That doesn't fit, because Sorceres, contrary to mages, aren't the types to actually study arcane, seek knowledge and so on. They are just born with abillity to cast spells. They have for free what mages have to study for. There is furthermore no need for memorization spells or other standard procedures for Sorcerers, furthermore making intelligence unrequired for them. The fact that Sorcerors also doesn't study nearly as much as Mages do is reflected by lore bonus per level. Mages gets 3 points, Sorcerors only one.
And while at it, I have always though that if people are okay with making rolls for hitting enemies, avoiding attacks, saving throws, then they should be still okay with rolling for HPs and memorizing spells. It is only fair and consistent. Part of the game. And even if you fail with scribbling the spell, the game still give you plenty of possibilities around that.
In a normal, tabletop D&D game, your DM could give you the opportunity to learn the spell again, either dropping another scroll, or allowing you to hire another mage to teach you directly, or whatever. A decent DM won’t ruin your enjoyment of your character over one failed die roll (unless you’re running Tomb of Horrors, but then you asked for it). But in a CRPG, your only recourse is power word: reload.
Honestly, this difference is the main reason I mod Baldur’s Gate (and basically any other CRPG) so heavily: I know what aspects of the game I enjoy, and which ones I don’t, so I change them like a good DM would. It’s not a competition, so if a rule just causes annoyance for you, get rid of it.