A few days ago I posted a topic on magic in AH, and I decided (perhaps wrongly) that is would be more appropriate to start a new one that bump the old on account of what I came up with. I've thought a lot about it and I think I've found the best way (for me) to handle spells. I'd like to get some input from other folks on things I might not have thought of, etc.

The primary issue with spells is how combat spells are made almost entirely obsolete by magical weapons that are superior and are obtained from a more beneficial deck to shop through. Non-combat spells, in general, offer nice utilities that are sufficiently unique and helpful to justify the costs of casting them. Therefore, this rule only applies to combat spells (in fact, it can only apply to combat spells).

When you prepare to cast a combat spell, instead of rolling the lore check to see if you succeed, then adding the modifier to your fight check, you simply replace the fight check with your lore check and add the number of dice automatically. So, when casting whither, you would pay 1 sanity, then roll the lore check, adding +6 to make up your combat check (ignore the casting modifier). IMO, this approach is thematically appropriate and mechanically superior - most of the spells don't represent things that you manifesting to fight with, they represent a one time casting of a spell that has an immediate effect, so logically lore would apply more than fight would. Additionally, the "spell fails" is still thematically covered by the possibility of rolling no successes on your combat check, this just removes the need to make two different checks when you cast a combat spell. Mechanically speaking, high lore investigators (i.e. spellcasters) would receive an average of 2 or 3 additional dice to use for their combat check, depending upon the specific circumstances. This also enables them to safely keep their Wills high over their Fight stat, reducing their susceptibility to sanity losses while maintaining high burst potential. IMO, the lack of casting checks and the higher number of dice is very well balanced by sanity cost and the "this combat" restriction.

Now, this is extremely simple and works well for when an investigator is attacking only with spells, but what about using a weapon and a spell at the same time? There are a few ways to go about this, but it requires more extensive play-testing. This is the main thing I'd like input on. In any case, this is when the casting modifier comes into play - because attempting to do both in a single round of combat taxes your focus.

Option 1: You use only your Lore, adding the combat bonus from both the spell and the weapon, but it is then modified by the casting modifier of the spell being used.

Option 2 : As above, but use only your Fight instead of only your Lore.

Option 3: You use 1/2 your fight and 1/2 your lore, rounded up, then modified by the casting modifier of the spell.

Now, my only balance concerns for this houserule are in relation to Daisy, as well as Dexter's and Harvey's PS successes. The sanity reduction is really too beneficial, it allows those three the potential to have extremely broken spell combos and whatnot... And the above rule even blows them further through the roof. So I propose this simple houserule to bring them (particularly Daisy) more in line with others:

Instead of always reducing sanity to cost to cast spells by 1, they instead can reduce sanity cost of casting a spell by 1 once per turn (just like Harvey's and Micheal's abilities). This is still quite beneficial, but not nearly as broken. It helps bring Daisy down to the power ceiling of the other investigators, although she is still extremely good.

Of course, there are issues. This works perfectly with the base game combat spells (wither, shriveling, and dread curse), and with Steal Life.

But problems arise with Spectral Razor, Fist, and Storm of Spirits. My first instinct is to just remove them, but they add variety , so I'd rather not if it can be avoided.

just a note: you write wither, but in fact you talk about shrivelling in your example.

your variant makes spells much too strong. how many items do you know that add +6 dice for one hand? i think there are none, and the spells are also usable for the whole combat + aren't discarded after use. from the top of my head i think the best one handed magic weapons are +4 or +5 but have to be exhausted or even discarded, and maybe +7-8 for 2 handed weapons (or +9 and cost 1 sanity but has to be discarded). yes, they don't need sanity to be used, but being able to use high will values makes more than up for that, and some of the weapons need focus or money to reset.

your suggestion causes especially bad problems when using 2 whithers. that's +6 to combat checks (like a good 2-handed weapon), but you can fight with lore, have no casting cost or risk, and use high will to pass horror checks.

of course if you just add the spell damage to fight, the lore value becomes meaningless so that's not a great solution either. but i really think you should keep combat checks based on fight. some ideas to keep lore important:
- the maximum damage per hand that can be gained from combat spells is the lore value
- lower of lore or fight value is used
- if the fight slider is farer to the right than the lore value, no combat spells may be cast, or the fight value is reduced accordingly

basicly i think that automatic spellcasting is a bad approach. i removed quite a few magic weapons from the unique item deck (makes spells more important when facing physical immunity monsters) and i removed duplicates of usually worthless spells. the chance to get a combat spell out of 2 spell cards is now better than to get a magic weapon out of 3 unique items. also keep in mind, the good magic weapons are more expensive than a spell, but the spells add more dice to combat checks.

The primary issue with spells is how combat spells are made almost entirely obsolete by magical weapons that are superior and are obtained from a more beneficial deck to shop through. Non-combat spells, in general, offer nice utilities that are sufficiently unique and helpful to justify the costs of casting them. Therefore, this rule only applies to combat spells (in fact, it can only apply to combat spells).

Spells are pretty much obsolete if you have a good magical weapon, to be sure. But not every investigator has that many options. I see spells pretty much as a backup system. Except for Daisy, going monster hunting with only spells is too dangerous. I think that's intended. They are slightly more powerful than weapons, but less reliable.

When you prepare to cast a combat spell, instead of rolling the lore check to see if you succeed, then adding the modifier to your fight check, you simply replace the fight check with your lore check and add the number of dice automatically. So, when casting whither, you would pay 1 sanity, then roll the lore check, adding +6 to make up your combat check (ignore the casting modifier). IMO, this approach is thematically appropriate and mechanically superior - most of the spells don't represent things that you manifesting to fight with, they represent a one time casting of a spell that has an immediate effect, so logically lore would apply more than fight would. Additionally, the "spell fails" is still thematically covered by the possibility of rolling no successes on your combat check, this just removes the need to make two different checks when you cast a combat spell. Mechanically speaking, high lore investigators (i.e. spellcasters) would receive an average of 2 or 3 additional dice to use for their combat check, depending upon the specific circumstances. This also enables them to safely keep their Wills high over their Fight stat, reducing their susceptibility to sanity losses while maintaining high burst potential. IMO, the lack of casting checks and the higher number of dice is very well balanced by sanity cost and the "this combat" restriction.

I've used your system off and on through the years though I never thought of just one die roll. I made two rolls. I think your one roll idea is quite good. However it does give about a six dice advantage over the way spells are designed to work.

For example: Dexter will now be routinely using 11 dice vs monsters (less modifiers) (Pretty good for a stage musician)

If he had to worry about his will check, I'd only be routinely using 7 dice to keep my will at 3.

It makes defeating low and medium toughness monsters a cakewalk. (Shriveling +6, Lore +4/5/6) That's why I don't use it. It makes sense vs. larger monsters, too good vs. majority of monsters.

However, if I try it again, I'll use the one roll but will NOT ignore the casting modifier. (This actually will weaken Storm of Spirits.)

Now, this is extremely simple and works well for when an investigator is attacking only with spells, but what about using a weapon and a spell at the same time? There are a few ways to go about this, but it requires more extensive play-testing. This is the main thing I'd like input on. In any case, this is when the casting modifier comes into play - because attempting to do both in a single round of combat taxes your focus.

Option 1: You use only your Lore, adding the combat bonus from both the spell and the weapon, but it is then modified by the casting modifier of the spell being used.

Option 2 : As above, but use only your Fight instead of only your Lore.

Option 3: You use 1/2 your fight and 1/2 your lore, rounded up, then modified by the casting modifier of the spell.

I just make two rolls here. One for weapon, one for spell. Remember, your will is probably high and so your fight is relatively low in most cases.

Now, my only balance concerns for this houserule are in relation to Daisy, as well as Dexter's and Harvey's PS successes. The sanity reduction is really too beneficial, it allows those three the potential to have extremely broken spell combos and whatnot... And the above rule even blows them further through the roof. So I propose this simple houserule to bring them (particularly Daisy) more in line with others:

Instead of always reducing sanity to cost to cast spells by 1, they instead can reduce sanity cost of casting a spell by 1 once per turn (just like Harvey's and Micheal's abilities). This is still quite beneficial, but not nearly as broken. It helps bring Daisy down to the power ceiling of the other investigators, although she is still extremely good.

This rule is always in effect for Daisy now and she's still plenty good as you note.