The Chainmail Magic System for Clerics

[leon]

Well, I like the Vancian Magic system a lot. It's one of the characteristics of D&D and I wouldn't change it with a spell point system or whatever.

But while it fits like a glove for mages, I don't think it fits particularly well for clerics. Besides, I want to differentiate the two types of magic, since they are in essence the same in D&D (bar the different spell list of course).

So instead of shopping in other places for magic systems, why not use the Chainmail system? The cleric keeps the spell slots/day but he doesn't have to memorise spells. Instead he rolls (like in Chainmail) and depending on the spell's level ("complexity" in Chainmail) and his own level the spell takes effect immediately, it is delayed for a round or it is negated.

Basically, the cleric prays for a miracle from his god and he either answers immediatey, with a delay (perhaps he's performing some other miracle at the time, or there is latency in the communication ;D) or he doesn't answer the cleric's prayer at all.

Two things: perhaps I should substitute the 2d6 roll with a d20 one to make it more "D&D" and perhaps I should introduce a couple of guidelines for modifiers to the roll based on the situation. I? Is he casting a spell against his god's enemies or a beneficial spell at a faithful of his god? Is he casting it on his temple or at a temple of an enemy god (more difficult)? Etc.

[18 Spears]

This degree of flexibility will make the cleric much more powerful, but only you can decide if that is an unbalancing factor in your campaign or not.

Summing multiple dice rolls forces results toward the average, so switching from a bell distribution (2d6) to a linear distribution (d20) may skew your successful spell-casting results. That is no big deal so long as you take that into account when you set your target numbers.

[tombowings]

Nice idea. I hadn't thought of that before.

While the flexibility will make the cleric more powerful, there's always the chance that the spell will be negated.

[Professor P]

I like this. I was thinking along the same line recently and the drawback that I came up with was that the cleric's miracle would always occur last in a combat round, regardless of initiative.

While I think I like leon's use of Chainmail's system, my initial thought for a drawback is 'easier' (i.e. less die to roll, less book keeping).

[leon]

Feb 13, 2011 12:47:16 GMT -6 18 Spears said:

This degree of flexibility will make the cleric much more powerful, but only you can decide if that is an unbalancing factor in your campaign or not.

I thought about it and I'm considering two solutions: 1) Give them the HD, fighting ability and limited weapon choice of M-Us. 2) Increase the XP advancement table to match the fighter's or the M-Us.

Summing multiple dice rolls forces results toward the average, so switching from a bell distribution (2d6) to a linear distribution (d20) may skew your successful spell-casting results. That is no big deal so long as you take that into account when you set your target numbers.

I'm not sure if I'll migrate to d20, but yes I will have to consider that.

Feb 13, 2011 14:16:38 GMT -6 Professor P said:

I like this. I was thinking along the same line recently and the drawback that I came up with was that the cleric's miracle would always occur last in a combat round, regardless of initiative.

While I think I like leon's use of Chainmail's system, my initial thought for a drawback is 'easier' (i.e. less die to roll, less book keeping).

The other solution I thought of was much more restrictive: Casting time in rounds is equal to spell level, so a third level spell would take three rounds of praying to cast. But yes, what I propose means one additional die roll and a few more calculations which could slow down the game. I'll have to test it. On the other hand, there are many RPG systems where casting a spell requires a die roll. Also, it's not very different from attacking so one more attack roll wouldn't hurt the pace too much, I think.

[coffee]

Unless everybody in your game is running a cleric, the additional time shouldn't matter much after people get used to it. It adds flavor, which is always a good thing. Do please let us know how it works in practice!

[iamtim]

I blogged about this very same topic not too long ago, although I didn't think of the Chainmail mechanic. I think it's a great idea, I've always kinda... cringed at the mechanical identical-ness of the Cleric and the Magic-User.

[kesher]

I'll add my assent to the above chorus: that's an inventive and simple fix, one that it even keeps it in the fold, so to speak...

[Lord Kilgore]

In the past we tried a similar system for all spellcasters (in 2e) and liked it well enough. We essentially gave negative modifiers for casting the same spell multiple times in the same day to cut down on magic missile machine guns and the like. We used it for a while and then dropped it when we wanted to get back to basics and play more by the book.

To be honest, I had no idea that this was the CHAINMAIL system.

The idea to use this for for clerics but not magic-users is brilliant. It makes clerics' spells more like "powers," which is how I've always seen them anyway. And differentiates them from magic-users, which is good. Plus, personally, I think it makes them more "mystic warriors" like Jedi Knights, which is how I've always preferred to view them, than fighting magic-users without combat spells who serve a god.

I can totally see Ben Kenobi or Qui-Gon Jinn finishing a lightsaber duel, healing an ally, and then meditating to Find the Path or something similar.

[Valandil]

We essentially gave negative modifiers for casting the same spell multiple times in the same day to cut down on magic missile machine guns and the like...

I like this! I have an idea:

What if the cleric didn't know the negative modifiers before trying to cast the spell?

I mean, instead of giving fixed modifiers, you could assign negative modifiers decided by die rolls. So, instead of "-2 on your die roll to successfully cast/get this spell", you have "-1d4 (or -1d3 or whatever) on your die roll to successfully cast/get this spell". And if the spell requires some time to be cast, the negative mod. die would be rolled at the end of the casting time. If he tries to use his divine magic again, he would roll 2d4 to know his negative modifier.

I'm thinking about something like... beat 10+Spell level you're trying to cast on a d20. Thus, level 5 spells would require rolling 16 or higher. It would mean a couple of additional rolls but its really random, unlike M-U vancian system. Essentially, every time the cleric wants to cast a spell, he needs to make a bet .

[leon]

Feb 16, 2011 15:27:42 GMT -6 Valandil said:

We essentially gave negative modifiers for casting the same spell multiple times in the same day to cut down on magic missile machine guns and the like...

I like this! I have an idea:

What if the cleric didn't know the negative modifiers before trying to cast the spell?

I mean, instead of giving fixed modifiers, you could assign negative modifiers decided by die rolls. So, instead of "-2 on your die roll to successfully cast/get this spell", you have "-1d4 (or -1d3 or whatever) on your die roll to successfully cast/get this spell". And if the spell requires some time to be cast, the negative mod. die would be rolled at the end of the casting time. If he tries to use his divine magic again, he would roll 2d4 to know his negative modifier.

I will introduce modifiers but not as hard rules, more like guidelines, for DM (that's me fiat.
For example if the spell is cast against an enemy of his faith, it will have a positive modifier, or if he makes an offering, or if he aids a worshipper of the same faith, or if he casts it in his deity's temple.

For the opposites there will be negative modifiers, like aiding someone of opposed alignment, if the cleric hasn't been very devout, casting the spell in an opposing deity's temple and so forth.

The amount of the positive or negative modifier will depend on the circumstances and will be the DM's call (within reason of course).