Well, this little idea has popped into my head, but everyone cries foul at over-powered full casting classes. Everyone goes with the "nothing is worth a caster level" mantra (ok, not everyone, but I'm engaging in hyperbole for effect here - don't get caught up on the phrasing!)!!
And yet, these classes are far and away MUCH more powerful than the melee guys.
Now, wouldn't it stand to reason that a simple increase in activation times of a LARGE amount of spells would, you know, move them towards "balance" compared to those poor, non-casting classes?
I'm not talking about hitting every spell like this, but really, the big, heavy effect ones - big areas, or big effects, etc. I mean, feather fall should work as it does already - quickly cast, and there are others of a similar nature (expeditious retreat, true strike, shield, armor - just going off of things that IMO seem "small" in effect and low level's what's coming easy this way). But things that cover a large area and can affect multiple die of damage (say Fireball) should take a bit longer to cast, no?
What would bumping these sorts of things to "full round" actions cost? I mean, melee guys don't get their best use of features unless they can full attack, and that's only a full round action. Why can casters get the best of their effects off at 100% every round AND move (vast majority of spells == standard action), and the poor, already weaker classes, get screwed out of maximizing their starring role in melee?
This just seems an odd design that can easily be house-ruled. Now, back in AD&D, if you hit a caster AT ALL the spell went poof! However, casters now have "caster checks" in order to still cast even if they get hit, so they've got that to back them. However, they ALSO have reduced action time and can cast really fast and still pull off movements, etc ... this is really too much, IMO. If a melee-guy can't manage to take a few steps and swing as he goes (ie: AD&D defaults vs. feats like Spring Attack required in feat chains to get the same/lesser effect), why can a magic-using guy harness the power of the freakin' cosmos and manage to rip out with spells that defy the laws of nature faster than some mook with a sword can swing the damn thing?
This ... is really and odd idea in game design the more I thought about it recently, and so - I toss it up here for discussion.
I think that "balance" can take a serious step towards helping out melee-types just by taking away action options from the caster so that say the majority of spells are full round actions, and a smaller (say 20%) that remain standard, with the rest (call it 5%) being those minor/very quick actions (feather fall, etc).
Honestly, I think about 1/2 of the problem stems from that. Looking back in the 2e days, there really wasn't such a problem w/caster/non-caster on account of the attacks getting to casters to burn the spell with no effect. I'm totally down with mechanics for concentration checks, BUT the magic end needs to give some things up, too. They can't just get nothing but benefit after benefit, IMO, for being a caster. PF even upped that a bit with the increased HD from d4's to d6's (clerics are still bad-asses, though).
I've long thought that "game-changing" spells, whether SODs or utility spells that rearranged the physical laws (like raise dead or teleport) should take a while to cast. Maybe a full round; maybe several rounds or even minutes.
A few companies that I've read have even introduced the concept of "rituals" (Sword & Sorcery being chief) that take both a long time AND many casters in conjunction. This seems fitting for something like bringing someone back from the dead, certainly, and I can see other spells being as complicated.
On the other hand, there seem to be as many folks arguing that the melee guys are "way more powerful" than the spellcasters, and so ideas like this are resisted by that sub-group.
Hard to say...but I kinda like the idea.
|
I agree with the concept whole heartedly, mainly from a literature/movie standpoint. Ever read a fantasy movie where the big bad wizard is cranking out spells that rock the foundations of the cosmos every six seconds? Ever see a movie in which the wizard is popping out spells that rearrange the laws of the universe every six seconds?
I haven't...
Personally, I would simply require that the number of actions required is equal to the spell level. First level spells use a standard action, Second level are a full round. Fifth level spells require two full rounds plus a standard action- don't get hit! Makes those low level spells worth something at higher levels! But that is just me... not suggesting this as anything for anyone else lol
Now back on the topic at hand... :)
Yeah I do think that would go a long way to balancing some issues. Back during the transition from 3.0 to 3.5 I suggested something similar (as I played the fighter and by then was not doing much compared to the cleric and wizard). They resisted the idea fiercely, saying it weakened them too much, that they needed that maneuverability and options to do tons of stuff, and I as a fighter didn't need it since I had enough hit points to let the bad guys hit me until they killed them all.
That made a lot of "sense," and that is how things remained... then oddly they later were quite unhappy that their meat shield/fighter was restricted in movement because the bad guys kept focusing on them, ignoring the crunchy dude in plate armor and tearing apart the puny casters. Well, I just shrugged and said that I was fine since I had more than enough hit points to just deal with one bad guy at a time since I was unable to move enough to help them. Weird that once they started getting hit they wanted me to have better movement options... but not before then...
So what that story illustrates is that any casters will scream and holler that you are weakening their poor underpowered characters to an absurd degree. So ultimately the idea will fall apart due to these guys. Instead a better approach may be to change the movement restrictions on melee types, then the casters won't feel slighted and just MIGHT accept the idea that they will benefit from melee types getting better movement... but I guarantee you there will still be a group of casters who hate to see anyone else but casters get improvements.
So what that story illustrates is that any casters will scream and holler that you are weakening their poor underpowered characters to an absurd degree. So ultimately the idea...
Put me in that camp.... I haven't seen a single other wizard over 4th level. As opposed to tons of fighters, clerics etc.
I'd be interested in the breakouts of #of characters by class....
I don't see how the # of players of any given class has ANYTHING to do with what we're talking about. I'm far more inclined to say that Wizards (and casters in general) seem to demand much more investment in terms of learning spells and EVERYTHING about them (duration, range, DC's, effects, saves, lessened saves, etc, etc, etc.) In my experience, that's been the #1 aversion to magic-types. As soon as various game groups and I switched up the system we played with from some nit-picking spell list to a more generalized "you're magic" sort of things to track, magic-types became more likable to the whole group.
Now, that's just my experience, but it's also backed by the mechanics of the games we've played that were using magic. When it was highly detailed - like D&D with a million or so spells, it's just a daunting undertaking to consider (OMG! I've got to know WHAT now?) Then there's the scroll-making, but you sacrifice exp to do so (and any other magical items, too - not very fun in concept, even if execution is minimal). Then there's the fact that you explode really fast in the early levels (d4's for HD at my time of playing). So ... I think that the # of players that play the class is largely irrelevant to what we're discussing here.
Excellent ideas so far, gents!!! Thanks for contributing. Very interesting on that bard thing, DmRrostarr.
|
I've been saying this since Alpha. The biggest balance issue between 2nd and 3rd edition was that spells could not longer be interrupted mid-cast, save by a delayed action (and even then, the caster got a Concentration check).
I'd be inclined to go halfway, and make certain spells take a full-round action, but still allow Concentration checks, so that it's not all-or-nothing 'take 1 hit point and fail at 20th level' like it was in previous editions. And yeah, *some* spells, like feather fall, would remain instanteous, while others, like evocations, would remain standard actions.
It's a big paradigm shift to players who came on with 3rd edition, but to those of us who've been around since 1st or 2nd edition, or who have played games like GURPS, where a fireball spell might take three entire actions to 'build up' (and *then* require another action to throw!), it's hardly a deal-breaker, so much as 'the way it used to be, anyway.'
It restores a lot of the original tactical feel of the game as well, as fighters would be strongly motivated to protect their own spellcasters, and not just charge screaming across the battlefield. Both in earlier editions of D&D and in GURPS, I remember surrounding the spellcaster, or placing him against a wall, so that nobody could get to him and interrupt his spells.
I agree with the concept whole heartedly, mainly from a literature/movie standpoint. Ever read a fantasy movie where the big bad wizard is cranking out spells that rock the foundations of the cosmos every six seconds? Ever see a movie in which the wizard is popping out spells that rearrange the laws of the universe every six seconds?
I haven't...
Yes, in the Dying Earth Novels by Jack Vance [hence Vancian System]
Personally, I would simply require that the number of actions required is equal to the spell level. First level spells use a standard action, Second level are a full round. Fifth level spells require two full rounds plus a standard action- don't get hit! Makes those low level spells worth something at higher levels! But that is just me... not suggesting this as anything for anyone else lolNow back on the topic at hand... :)
Yeah I do think that would go a long way to balancing some issues. Back during the transition from 3.0 to 3.5 I suggested something similar (as I played the fighter and by then was not doing much compared to the cleric and wizard). They resisted the idea fiercely, saying it weakened them too much, that they needed that maneuverability and options to do tons of stuff, and I as a fighter didn't need it since I had enough hit points to let the bad guys hit me until they killed them all.
That made a lot of "sense," and that is how things remained... then oddly they later were quite unhappy that their meat shield/fighter was restricted in movement because the bad guys kept focusing on them, ignoring the crunchy dude in plate armor and tearing apart the puny casters. Well, I just shrugged and said that I was fine since I had more than enough hit points to just deal with one bad guy at a time since I was unable to move enough to help them. Weird that once they started getting hit they wanted me to have better movement options... but not before then...
So what that story illustrates is that any casters will scream and holler that you are weakening their poor underpowered characters to an absurd degree. So ultimately the idea will fall apart due to these guys. Instead a better approach may be to change the movement restrictions on melee types, then the casters won't feel slighted and just MIGHT accept the idea that they will benefit from melee types getting better movement... but I guarantee you there will still be a group of casters who hate to see anyone else but casters get improvements.
For me its less about 'weakening' casters. As in reality, casters dont do the 'earthshattering' stuff round after round unless you are nova-ing. Generally I cast a high level spell in big fights followed by some lower level ones. Perhaps a spell level cooldown time might be appropriate (I cast a 4th level spell, cant cast 4th level spell again for x rounds where x is based on what my highest spell level is and something else). That i would be ok with. And it would power down casters a bit.
I have a huge problem with a significant portion of the spells having their casting time increased for a reason you might not expect. I dont mind the chance of losing the spell because i got hit, being vulnerable and all. Its not that. It would be boring. Very very boring.
Wizard: Im gonna cast power word kill. It will take me 3 rounds to cast it. So I am gonna head out to the deli to get a sandwich while the rest of you continue to have fun you want anything?
I am fairly certain spells did take longer to cast in previous editions. But casters, wizards in paticular ended up feeling uninvolved. By making most spells standard actions, casters actually get to you know, DO STUFF. I cast a spell, move, cast another spell, use one of my first level acid darts (or similar abilities). I am doing things in combat, and that is generally fun. I start casting a spell, then 3 rounds and a half hour later the spell takes effect? I am not really having fun. Particularly for that half hour or more when my character is doing essentially nothing.
Raise dead or whatever else non-combat spells, make them take an hour, I dont care, but when it comes to spells meant for combat, they shouldnt have their duration extended.
stuff about number of classesI don't see how the # of players of any given class has ANYTHING to do with what we're talking about.
I dont see whats so hard to see, or understand. By looking at the number of people playing classes it can help you gage if the class is too powerful or underpowered. When you have a broken class that cant contribute then you will see alot less people playing them. On the other hand, if you have a really powerful class people will tend to play that class more.
For all the people that are suggesting increasing casting times for spells, I hope you realize to keep it balanced you will have to take away the chance to resist or things like that.
You say its not balanced for someone to cast a spell every 6 sec? Why can you throw a Fireball at a rogues feet and he can make a save and take no damage? The game exists the way it is for balance. Its give and take, im going to agree with Kolokotroni, if you make it not fun for wizards you wont have any in your game.
I'm all for increasing the casting times of some spells. Especially save or die/suck. I will agree however with the point that extended casting times of multiple rounds for combat spells is a bad idea.
Wizard: Im gonna cast power word kill. It will take me 3 rounds to cast it. So I am gonna head out to the deli to get a sandwich while the rest of you continue to have fun you want anything?I would say that the maximum casting time for a combat spell should be 1 round (that is you start casting this round and the spell goes off on your action the next round). This allows everyone a chance to react to your fight ender but doesn't guarantee that someone will shut you down between the beginning of casting and the spell going off. It would probably result in a lot more counterspelling since it means you don't need to ready an action to do it.
Out of combat stuff like resurrection spells and scrying can have longer casting times since other characters are likely to be just standing around waiting for the spell anyway.
Evocations can pretty much remain as they are since hit point damage isn't a guaranteed fight ender. (And big flashy Michael Bay explosions are fun.)
Save or die/suck however should all have 1 round casting times in my opinion.
maxing it at 1 round for the more powerful spells would not be a huge deal, but i think if spells are easier to interupt you should also reconsider the DCs for the concentration checks for things like taking damage. If something is going to happen significantly more often, you should look again at how hard it is assuming your actual desire is balance, and not simply a wizard nerf. I do believe limited resources is part of the balance between martial characters and fighters, but I certainly to not believe the scales are level at the moment.
I've thought about increasing casting times. One idea I had was that the caster's two highest spell levels he has available all have a minimum of a Full Round action to cast if they normally take a standard action. 0 level spells are not effected by this.
So that means, Featherfall is still unaffected and as you increase in level you get better at casting your lower level spells compared to your best. Eventually, this will mean all 8th and 9th level spells will always take a full round to cast (if they normally take a Standard action to cast).
Granted, this still leaves little room to disrupt the spell during casting, unless you ready an action or able to make an attack of opportunity. But, like a fighter making a full attack, you're left with only a 5ft step, meaning you're a sitting duck if you blow off your best spells without thinking ahead.
Normally, I don't use SoDs in my games. But if I did, I would most likely have their casting times increased to 1 Round, just like a summon monster spell. A competent foe would identify the spell and has time to disrupt it.
my two copper.
What if it worked off your current highest spell level. Rather then trying to work out which spells should take longer just because, take all the current standard action spells (leave the rest alone for the moment) and say, have a chart of some kind, so spells at your highest level start of taking longer, and speed up over time, so by the time you are high level, magic missile is a swift action, but meteor swarm takes a whole round?
What if it worked off your current highest spell level. Rather then trying to work out which spells should take longer just because, take all the current standard action spells (leave the rest alone for the moment) and say, have a chart of some kind, so spells at your highest level start of taking longer, and speed up over time, so by the time you are high level, magic missile is a swift action, but meteor swarm takes a whole round?Another way to do it, is to allow spells to have their default casting times set as per the original/rebalanced spells, but then allow a modified meta-magic feats like Quicken Spell reduce the cast time by one category of spell casting time steps.
So, if level2spell took 1 round to cast, once it becomes eligible for Quicken meta-magic (CL+X) , the quicken spell meta-magic feat would allow the spell to be cast using a full-round action. Once the caster with the Quicken mega-magic had CL+2X, they would be able to cast level2spell as a standard action, CL+3X, as a swift action.
This of course would require some re-writing of how the meta-magic feats work, and a careful look at what spell casting times were chosen for each spell. It may also require certain limitations as to what type of spell casting times cannot be reduced.
I dont think it should be flat based on the spell level, i think it should be relative to your caster level. If you really want to take a look at casting times a level 5 wizard and a level 20 wizard should not take the same amount of time to cast fireball metamagic or no.
GURPS also increased the difficulty to hit with a spell based on range/moving target, similar to range based attacks in D20, where a long range fireball would be less accurate. Perhaps a range formula similar to missle weapon range could be added to the targets save (add instead of subtract).
They also subtracted the damage the caster took that round when making a skill check to determine if the spell succeeded. Something similar could be done based on concentration checks. Although damage and HP in D20 is off the scale compared to GURPS.
GURPS also increased the difficulty to hit with a spell based on range/moving target, similar to range based attacks in D20, where a long range fireball would be less accurate. Perhaps a range formula similar to missle weapon range could be added to the targets save (add instead of subtract).
Over half max range - target has "cover". Gives bonus to ref save,
I know Kirth Gersen's group I game with once in awhile have done just that. Save-or-Dies take full round actions, evocations stay standard actions, and some other things. I'm sure he'll be along to extol the virtues of it eventually.
Here I am! For simplicity, we've made a blanket increase in the casting time of all "standard" casting-time spells (with somatic and material components) to a full attack action. That means the spell still goes off on your turn, and you can take a 5-ft. step and cast, but you can't make a full move and also cast.
If there are no somatic nor material components to the spell, it goes back to being a standard action. Sorcerers of course have Eschew Materials, and wizards' bonded items stand in as a focus in lieu of components, which basically means that a Stilled spell is a standard action.
Magic missile is treated as having V components only, so it's a favorite standby.
|
|
I've thought about increasing casting times. One idea I had was that the caster's two highest spell levels he has available all have a minimum of a Full Round action to cast if they normally take a standard action. 0 level spells are not effected by this.
I'd forgotten completely about this, but it was a suggestion back in Alpha playtest as well, that if casting time increased, it would then decrease again as the caster learned new levels of spells. Kinda a neat concept.
There was even a variation floated around that would allow the caster to continue lowering casting time as he increased in levels, so that a 9th level caster might be able to cast 4th and 5th level spells as full-round (or full attack, per Kirth's suggestion) actions, 2nd and 3rd levels spells as standard actions and 1st level spells and cantrips as move-equivalent actions or something.
Counting a spell, at some point, as an attack action, instead of a standard action, allowing someone to cast a spell on an *iterative* 'action' could be neat-ish as well, for an added level of granularity. "Staff attack at +6 BAB, and instead of taking my second attack at +1 BAB, I cast True Strike for next round..."
I dont see whats so hard to see, or understand. By looking at the number of people playing classes it can help you gage if the class is too powerful or underpowered. When you have a broken class that cant contribute then you will see alot less people playing them. On the other hand, if you have a really powerful class people will tend to play that class more.
So ... best to just IGNORE the other points I did put down about what's simply not attractive about using magic in the system that could be turning people off and make other classes more attractive by default?
Got ya. Uninterested in points that will not support your theory. ;-)
Back to the topic ...
Neat idea with the progressive evolution of casting speed when applied to lower/higher spells given your character's current casting capacity. I mean ... I LOVE that idea. I was actually thinking about introducing meta-magic feats to sort of play around exactly with this (vs. just the outrageous Quicken Spell feat). Some feat, or progression of feats that specifically applied to reduction of casting times ... BUT ... I like that idea better because it's tied directly to the class and is a function already of "magical prowess" so that's neat. I'd say that the most simple way to approach it would be to just make a "range" of some sort. Semi-regular-like, IMO, so it's easy to predict/follow. The thing I don't like on that front is that it doesn't do anything to the existing casting times except make them all subjectively based. So ... they need some sort of base-line casting time to begin (maybe full round actions?) and then move from there.
What I really do NOT like of the above is that to "generalize" the spells overall, we sort of need to hit 'em all. So ... the really long, involved spells (resurrection) will end up speedy by default over time as well - and that shouldn't be. On this front, I think the best thing would be to just mess with most "standard" action casting time spells, and work from that point outward (ie: faster spells stay faster, longer stay longer until/unless we mess around with them and make them take even more time or something).
I LOVE the idea of bringing tactics back to the table of "protect that wizard" - I came up through the ranks (AD&D, 2e, etc), so it feels more *right* that way. I always hated the way mages got screwed w/the hit and *poof*, but concentration checks totally deal with that situation just fine, IMO.
I'd hesitate to say "never increase casting time on combat spells" because the "save or ..." spells also are "combat" in the extreme - yet they're encounter/BBEG enders right there. Those *should* have more limitation on how they affect the field. If for no other reason, than to let the other PC's have a chance to play with the field in their own way, too. Currently, it feels like casters own the sandbox - they invite their friends (other PC's) over, and everyone's ready to go play in the sandbox, but then the caster grabs a hose and soaks it all - turns it into mud before anyone can play in the sand - you know?
You can approach it from the other direction, too. Leave the casting alone, but allow martial guys to (a) trade iterative attacks for movement, and (b) hold attacks and movement for use later on in the round even when it's not their turn. For example, my 11th level fighter (iterative attacks +11/+6/+1) might make one attack at +11, then wait; he sees an enemy wizard about to cast, and as an immediate action he moves 10 ft. up to that enemy (trading in his +6 iterative attack) and attacks the caster pre-emptively at +1, possibly ruining his spell. This way, casters really need bodyguards as blockers.
So ... best to just IGNORE the other points I did put down about what's simply not attractive about using magic in the system that could be turning people off and make other classes more attractive by default?
Got ya. Uninterested in points that will not support your theory. ;-)
I wasn't ignoring anything you said, my comment was to the statment of "I don't see how the # of players of any given class has ANYTHING to do with what we're talking about". And i explained how it did. If you want to be rude or degrading I wont comment on your post anymore.