Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [5.7.13][autobuild] Spells per Day, yet again

Expand Messages
  • andargor
    ... rules ... Erm, in reference to this and the previous post, I m not asking for new content, but for what is laid out in the RSRD. The RSRD has provisions
    Message 1 of 29 , Jan 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In pcgen@yahoogroups.com, Devon Jones <soulcatcher@e...> wrote:
      > taluroniscandar wrote:
      >
      > >Chuck was testing 10th class level, Andagor was reporting on level 10
      > >spell slots which requires class cster level 21+.
      > >
      > >
      > Only with epic. There are no rules for normal classes after 20th - and
      > as such any rules would be house rules.
      > I'm not certain developing an alternative set of rules to the epic
      rules
      > is really part of pcgen's mission.
      >
      > I have no problem developing code to let people create infinite classes
      > (classes that grant certain thaings at known intervals, and this can
      > scale intinitely) - but I don't think this is something we should be
      > aiming to support directly in the rsrd - cause doing so would actually
      > mean our RSRD is broken.
      > Devon

      Erm, in reference to this and the previous post, I'm not asking for
      new content, but for what is laid out in the RSRD. The RSRD has
      provisions for infinite spell levels (yes, the epic rules).

      So my previous requests will have to be implemented if you wish to
      adhere to the RSRD and the epic rules. And the CAST comment is because
      the solution that was proposed is uncomfortable at best.

      I'm trying to avoid another Ranger here (sorry Tir...).

      I know you've been working hard on the code, but if you ever want it
      to be usable > 20th level, some major changes on how spells are
      handled are required.

      Andargor
    • thoron-tir-gwaith@lycos.com
      ... We currently don t support Epic portion of the RSRD, and yes, I knew there would need to be some significant code changes needed for it back when we were
      Message 2 of 29 , Jan 3, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        > Erm, in reference to this and the previous post, I'm not asking for
        > new content, but for what is laid out in the RSRD. The RSRD has
        > provisions for infinite spell levels (yes, the epic rules).

        We currently don't support Epic portion of the RSRD, and yes, I knew there would need to be some significant code changes needed for it back when we were planning, and knew it would take some work to A) figure out what was needed B) develop specs for it C) implement the specs D) bug correct for stuff we didn't see, or interaction issues.

        At that point, I suggested we scale down and get Psionics into our RSRD, and done well, then tackle Epic after 5.8 (and the stable after that, DnDg stuff since that will need parts of Epic, and has at least one more major twist). Mostly cause I knew the spec and code development wouldn't be that great, and efforts there could be on squashing irritating issues like the 3.5 Ranger. Solidify/fix what we have before adding new stuff. (Yes there has to be a balance, something I've learned over the last 18 months, but when dealing with CORE, I think that still wholly applies.)

        > So my previous requests will have to be implemented if you wish to
        > adhere to the RSRD and the epic rules. And the CAST comment is because
        > the solution that was proposed is uncomfortable at best.

        I didn't say that was the solution. I was stating stuff as it stands NOW, with current code. Spellcasting in general with PCGen is a bit, um, archaic/backward/narrowly? defined (fill in the blank.) PITA to get anything away from standard 3.0 casting types, and even then, it isn't always handled right (PRExxx casting types work off of 'spell type', not caster type).

        > I'm trying to avoid another Ranger here (sorry Tir...).

        I'm not sorry. The Ranger's major issue was that lots of people wanted what was most important to them about it to work correctly, and not caring about the rest of the users. I'd close one bug, and get reports of how my fix 'broke' it for someone else Some of the fixes were mutually exclusive using the code at the time. THAT sooo irked me; to the point that I designed what the ideal should be, and pushing to get it implemented (code changes), because anything else was going to have someone complaining. Thank the Goddess that I haven't had people complaining about the current implementation. It tells me I did it Right. If people start seeing something wrong with how we have it now, we all might as well hang up our hats and go home.

        On Epic, I hope we don't go including it with lots of data and work-arounds. We've known two things for a long time: 1) spellcasting needs a good massage to get it more flexible. It not only can't handle Epic stuff right, but also a whole slew of popular variants out there. 2) PCGen code has a lot of assumptions around 20 levels. That means things past level 20 get wonky.

        Both of those mean Epic implementation is a BIG/complex undertaking. Much more than doing a new campaign setting type source (and those are much more than a typical supplement). I know at least Barak and I disagree on this, and maybe the Board as well, but I'll say it here, because it is _my_ opinion: I'd rather spend the time and get a source designed properly from the ground up, than get a half-built thing out there and let the users cry when it doesn't work right before we consider getting things right. Too many times we've relied on users for major implementation issues and called them bugs, when in my mind, they shouldn't have even been put out in the first place. It says something about us as a publisher (and we _are_ an OGL publisher.)

        I don't like doing MASSIVE work arounds that start needing hundreds of objects to implement, or clunky interface requirements (like current Dawnforge race advancement implementation). Unless you can hit 99.5%+ of all germs with that implementation, it is going to be more of a headache for the maintainers/later editors to keep things up and running, and even more complicated to get working with new code as it appears, since at that point, you have to try and figure out a way to do it properly, while not breaking existing users characters. It gets overly complicated quickly.

        > I know you've been working hard on the code, but if you ever want it
        > to be usable > 20th level, some major changes on how spells are
        > handled are required.

        As mentioned above, we've known that for a while. We just have this great script/data monkey doing prelim work for us now. :p

        Tir Gwaith
        LST Chimp
      • andargor
        ... RSRD, and done well, then tackle Epic after 5.8 (and the stable after that, DnDg stuff since that will need parts of Epic, and has at least one more major
        Message 3 of 29 , Jan 3, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In pcgen@yahoogroups.com, thoron-tir-gwaith@l... wrote:

          > At that point, I suggested we scale down and get Psionics into our
          RSRD, and done well, then tackle Epic after 5.8 (and the stable after
          that, DnDg stuff since that will need parts of Epic, and has at least
          one more major twist). Mostly cause I knew the spec and code
          development wouldn't be that great, and efforts there could be on
          squashing irritating issues like the 3.5 Ranger. Solidify/fix what we
          have before adding new stuff. (Yes there has to be a balance,
          something I've learned over the last 18 months, but when dealing with
          CORE, I think that still wholly applies.)
          >

          Yes, I've always known that it was a post 5.8 priority.

          > > I'm trying to avoid another Ranger here (sorry Tir...).
          >
          > I'm not sorry. The Ranger's major issue was that lots of people
          wanted what was most important to them about it to work correctly, and
          not caring about the rest of the users. I'd close one bug, and get
          reports of how my fix 'broke' it for someone else Some of the fixes
          were mutually exclusive using the code at the time. THAT sooo irked
          me; to the point that I designed what the ideal should be, and pushing
          to get it implemented (code changes), because anything else was going
          to have someone complaining. Thank the Goddess that I haven't had
          people complaining about the current implementation. It tells me I
          did it Right. If people start seeing something wrong with how we have
          it now, we all might as well hang up our hats and go home.
          >

          Yes, I remember that saga, and I know you did your best with what you
          had. :)

          > Both of those mean Epic implementation is a BIG/complex undertaking.
          Much more than doing a new campaign setting type source (and those
          are much more than a typical supplement). I know at least Barak and I
          disagree on this, and maybe the Board as well, but I'll say it here,
          because it is _my_ opinion: I'd rather spend the time and get a source
          designed properly from the ground up, than get a half-built thing out
          there and let the users cry when it doesn't work right before we
          consider getting things right. Too many times we've relied on users
          for major implementation issues and called them bugs, when in my mind,
          they shouldn't have even been put out in the first place. It says
          something about us as a publisher (and we _are_ an OGL publisher.)
          >
          > I don't like doing MASSIVE work arounds that start needing hundreds
          of objects to implement, or clunky interface requirements (like
          current Dawnforge race advancement implementation). Unless you can
          hit 99.5%+ of all germs with that implementation, it is going to be
          more of a headache for the maintainers/later editors to keep things up
          and running, and even more complicated to get working with new code as
          it appears, since at that point, you have to try and figure out a way
          to do it properly, while not breaking existing users characters. It
          gets overly complicated quickly.
          >
          > > I know you've been working hard on the code, but if you ever want it
          > > to be usable > 20th level, some major changes on how spells are
          > > handled are required.
          >
          > As mentioned above, we've known that for a while. We just have this
          great script/data monkey doing prelim work for us now. :p
          >
          > Tir Gwaith
          > LST Chimp

          I generally agree with the rest of your points. At least we have a
          starting point for Epic.

          Andargor
        • taluroniscandar
          ... that is ... Maybe I misunderstand your response Devon but epic rsrd IS a source that does that.
          Message 4 of 29 , Jan 3, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In pcgen@yahoogroups.com, Devon Jones <soulcatcher@e...> wrote:
            > andargor wrote:
            >
            > >But what happens to Improved Spell Capacity? I'm talking about 10th
            > >level, 11th level, etc. ad infinitum. It adds a slot up to a level
            > >higher that the character can cast. So:
            > >
            > >- MAXLEVEL needs to follow that, so that the added slot may be from
            > >level 0 to MAXLEVEL+1
            > >- Bonus spells per day from a high spellcasting ability score need to
            > >be taken into account for those slots
            > >- They need to be displayed properly (both in the spells pane and on
            > >the outputsheets), so CAST with a lot of 0's will look strange.
            > >
            > >I'm very uncomfortable with the CAST mechanic in any case. It would
            > >look very kludgy. Is there no way to implement an infinitely scalable
            > >and consistent spells per day approach?
            > >

            > >
            > We have no sources to do that. Asking for post 20th level stuff
            that is
            > not epic is essentially new pcgen content, not RSRD - and thus far we
            > have avoided generating wholely new content of this sort.
            >
            Maybe I misunderstand your response Devon but epic rsrd IS a source
            that does that.
          • Chris
            ... we ... I *think* I know where Devon is coming from. The levels laid out in the PHB and Epic don t go on infinitely... Spells/spell levels are given up to
            Message 5 of 29 , Jan 3, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              > > We have no sources to do that. Asking for post 20th level stuff
              > that is
              > > not epic is essentially new pcgen content, not RSRD - and thus far
              we
              > > have avoided generating wholely new content of this sort.
              > >
              > Maybe I misunderstand your response Devon but epic rsrd IS a source
              > that does that.

              I *think* I know where Devon is coming from.

              The levels laid out in the PHB and Epic don't go on infinitely...

              Spells/spell levels are given up to 9th level. The only way to go over
              this level without being Epic is via metamagic feats applied to high
              level spells. What's funny is to be able to cast these spells, you
              have to take an Epic feat to get a slot to put them in. :)

              The largest boost for a metamagic feat is 8 levels IIRC, so at the most
              we'd need to support up to 17th level spells, not infinity (which is
              what I interpret you to be saying, and I would guess Devon is too).

              After that there are Epic spells, which are a completely different
              animal and will need a lot of help to work in PCGen. :p

              Barak
            • Frugal
              ... Yeah they do ;) EpicFeats.rtf: (Improved Spell Capacity: Spell slots above 9th level) Even though the table only includes ability scores up to 61 and
              Message 6 of 29 , Jan 3, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                On Mon, January 3, 2005 7:38 pm, Chris said:
                > I *think* I know where Devon is coming from.
                >
                > The levels laid out in the PHB and Epic don't go on infinitely...

                Yeah they do ;)

                EpicFeats.rtf: (Improved Spell Capacity: Spell slots above 9th level)
                "Even though the table only includes ability scores up to 61 and spell
                slots up to 25th level, the progression continues infinitely in both
                directions. For ability scores beyond 61, or for spell slots above 25th
                level, expand the table to follow the same patterns as shown."

                > Spells/spell levels are given up to 9th level. The only way to go over
                > this level without being Epic is via metamagic feats applied to high
                > level spells. What's funny is to be able to cast these spells, you
                > have to take an Epic feat to get a slot to put them in. :)

                So only epic characters can cast high levels spells with meta magic.
                Sounds perfectly reasonable.

                > The largest boost for a metamagic feat is 8 levels IIRC, so at the most
                > we'd need to support up to 17th level spells, not infinity (which is
                > what I interpret you to be saying, and I would guess Devon is too).

                Stilled, silent, eshued, maximised, empowered, quickened, empowered
                prismatic sphere is something like a 25th level spell (more or less).

                --
                regards,
                Frugal
              • Chris
                ... I stand corrected. Can you tell I don t play Epic? :) Hmm, you d have to take that feat 16 times to be able to cast one 25th level spell. Seems like a
                Message 7 of 29 , Jan 3, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  > On Mon, January 3, 2005 7:38 pm, Chris said:
                  > > I *think* I know where Devon is coming from.
                  > >
                  > > The levels laid out in the PHB and Epic don't go on infinitely...
                  >
                  > Yeah they do ;)
                  >
                  > EpicFeats.rtf: (Improved Spell Capacity: Spell slots above 9th level)
                  > "Even though the table only includes ability scores up to 61 and spell
                  > slots up to 25th level, the progression continues infinitely in both
                  > directions. For ability scores beyond 61, or for spell slots above
                  > 25th level, expand the table to follow the same patterns as shown."

                  I stand corrected.

                  Can you tell I don't play Epic? :)

                  Hmm, you'd have to take that feat 16 times to be able to cast one 25th
                  level spell. Seems like a poor return on investment to me. But I
                  suppose there's someone out there that would do that. :p

                  > > we'd need to support up to 17th level spells, not infinity (which is

                  > Stilled, silent, eshued, maximised, empowered, quickened, empowered
                  > prismatic sphere is something like a 25th level spell (more or less).

                  Doh... multiple multi-magics... didn't think about that. (I don't
                  usually play spellcasters either, yeah, that's it!).

                  Barak
                • Devon Jones
                  ... I think I was minunderstanding - I thought what was being asked for was non-epic, infinite progression that followed basically the same path as the first
                  Message 8 of 29 , Jan 3, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    taluroniscandar wrote:

                    >>We have no sources to do that. Asking for post 20th level stuff
                    >>
                    >>
                    >that is
                    >
                    >
                    >>not epic is essentially new pcgen content, not RSRD - and thus far we
                    >>have avoided generating wholely new content of this sort.
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >Maybe I misunderstand your response Devon but epic rsrd IS a source
                    >that does that.
                    >
                    >
                    I think I was minunderstanding - I thought what was being asked for was
                    non-epic, infinite progression that followed basically the same path as
                    the first 20 levels.

                    my bad.

                    Devon
                  • Barak
                    ... That s exactly whaat s being asked for. :) See the posts Frugal and I exchanged. :p Barak
                    Message 9 of 29 , Jan 3, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > -----Original Message-----
                      > From: Devon Jones [mailto:soulcatcher@...]
                      > I think I was minunderstanding - I thought what was being
                      > asked for was
                      > non-epic, infinite progression that followed basically the
                      > same path as
                      > the first 20 levels.

                      That's exactly whaat's being asked for. :)

                      See the posts Frugal and I exchanged. :p

                      Barak
                    • tir_gwaith
                      ... Not Quite - the bonus spells follow that progression, and as long as a caster can CAST at that level, they get the bonus slots (IIRC, that is already done
                      Message 10 of 29 , Jan 4, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > That's exactly whaat's being asked for. :)
                        >
                        > See the posts Frugal and I exchanged. :p
                        >
                        > Barak

                        Not Quite - the bonus spells follow that progression, and as long as
                        a caster can CAST at that level, they get the bonus slots (IIRC, that
                        is already done in the system GameMode files somewhere. If not, then
                        that is another hardcode we'll have to pull out.)

                        From what I read, he was discussing new automatic slots past 20th
                        level, while Frugal was mentioning the Bonus spells, which is
                        strictly dependent on Ability score and ability to cast a spell
                        level. Your comment on the feat per spell level is correct - you can
                        get up to 25th level spell slots by spending 16 epic feats.

                        Tir Gwaith
                        LST Chimp
                      • Frugal
                        ... especially when you can spend 9 feats to take Automatic Quicken spell , auto Silent Spell and Auto Still Spell 3 times and have every single spell you
                        Message 11 of 29 , Jan 4, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Chris wrote:

                          >>On Mon, January 3, 2005 7:38 pm, Chris said:
                          >>
                          >>
                          >>>I *think* I know where Devon is coming from.
                          >>>
                          >>>The levels laid out in the PHB and Epic don't go on infinitely...
                          >>>
                          >>>
                          >>Yeah they do ;)
                          >>
                          >>EpicFeats.rtf: (Improved Spell Capacity: Spell slots above 9th level)
                          >>"Even though the table only includes ability scores up to 61 and spell
                          >>slots up to 25th level, the progression continues infinitely in both
                          >>directions. For ability scores beyond 61, or for spell slots above
                          >>25th level, expand the table to follow the same patterns as shown."
                          >>
                          >>
                          >
                          >I stand corrected.
                          >
                          >Can you tell I don't play Epic? :)
                          >
                          >Hmm, you'd have to take that feat 16 times to be able to cast one 25th
                          >level spell. Seems like a poor return on investment to me. But I
                          >suppose there's someone out there that would do that. :p
                          >
                          >
                          especially when you can spend 9 feats to take "Automatic Quicken spell",
                          "auto Silent Spell" and "Auto Still Spell" 3 times and have every single
                          spell you cast as quickened stilled and silent...

                          regards
                          Frugal
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.