RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just a crazy idea that popped into my head...
Someone who wants to attack can only do so once as a standard action, no matter their level. In order to attack more than once, they always need a full-round action, no matter how high-level they are.
Well, what if casters were beholden to a similar paradigm?
Here's how it would work:
A spellcaster can cast no more than one spell level in a standard action (just like how a fighter can make no more than one attack as a standard action). If you want to move and cast, you're going to be restricted to 1st-level spells or cantrips. Period.
To cast a 2nd-level or higher spell, you're going to need a full-round action (just like a fighter needs a full-round action for multiple attacks).
But how many spell levels can he cast in a full-casting action? We'll determine this in much the same way a fighter determines his attacks, but with CL instead of BAB.
So at CL 6th, you can cast up to a 2nd-level spell as a full-round action. At CL 11th, up to a 3rd-level spell. At 16th, up to a 4th-level spell as a full-round action.
Now, obviously this presents a problem in that your available slots are going to be of a higher level than you can cast in a single full-round action.
Well, a fighter can just keep swinging for more attacks the next round, right?
So if you want to cast a spell of a level higher than what your CL allows you to cast in a single full-round action, you can do so, just by increasing the casting time.
If your spell's level exceeds your CL-based limit by 1, you increase the casting time from a full-round action to an entire round (which of course also includes a full-round action). For each additional spell level beyond that, add another round (including additional full-round actions).
Example time!
Wally the wizard is 5th level, and has just added fireball to his spellbook. He's prepared it, and is eager to give it a go! The spell is higher than 1st level, so he's going to need a full-round action to start casting. Ah, but he's not CL 6th yet, so that still only covers 1 spell level. So up until his next turn, he's still casting. At the start of his turn, he's now covered a second spell level. He needs one more for his 3rd-level spell, so he has to wait another round (including spending a full-round action on this turn). Just before his third turn starts, his fireball goes off.
Well, Wally really likes fireball and doesn't like waiting that long. So, he begs his GM to let him retrain one of his feats into Varisian Tattoo for +1 CL on evocation spells. Now his CL for fireball is 6th. Yay!
So Wally gets into another fight, and decides to cast fireball again. Since he's casting at CL 6th, he can get two spell levels in his initial full-round action. Being only 1 shy of fireball's spell level, that means he just needs to spend the rest of the round casting (total 1 round) and the fireball goes off just before his 2nd turn. Yay! Fireballs every round!
But Wally really likes fireball. Eventually, he takes Spell Specialization in it, for +2 CL. Later on, at 8th level, his CL for casting fireball is 11th. At long last, he can cast a spell of up to 3rd level in a single full-round action. From here on out, he can cast fireball as a full-round action. Lightning bolt, however, still takes 1 round, though scorching ray takes a full-round action and magic missile has always been a standard action.
-------------------------------------------
I'm curious how people think this system would affect the game as a whole. Thoughts?
I like the general idea you're going for here. My concern would be that a fighter's single standard action scales in damage fairly well from levels 1 to 16 while a wizard's burning hand scales significantly worse from levels 1 to 16. I believe that this is an attempt at reducing the overall effectiveness of higher level spells and I like it. I would, however, suggest keeping that reduction moderate and play testing it there first.
My suggestions:
• Allow the wizard to cast a 2nd level spell as a standard action with a caster level of 6, 3rd level spells at CL 11, and 4th level spells at CL 16.
• Casting a spell that is one spell level higher than the wizard could normally cast as a standard action requires the use of a full round action. Casting a spell that is two spell levels higher has a casting time of "1 round." (Allowing it to be interrupted by dealing damage to the caster.) Casting a spell that is more than two spell levels higher has a casting time of "2 rounds".
Thoughts?
I came across a 3pp that had a class that was pretty much a wizard clone that could cast infinite spells but could only prepare one spell at a time. At first preparing a spell cost a full round action but as they leveled their lower level spells became reduced in cost, standard action to move action to swift actions but at high levels their best spells were full actions to prepare followed by standard actions.
Now I would never allow this at my table because some arcane spells are a problem no matter how long it takes to prepare, but if they weren't this would be an insanely interesting way to work out vancian casting without the whole 10 min workday.
How it's relevant to the topic is that perhaps the table from that product can be used as a basis for what spell levels use what kind of action and perhaps spontaneous preparing system would be better and less disruptive to the casting time lines in spells. (imagine if wizards could only prepare one spell at a time but still had the spells per day limits.
This may be worth trying out. Thanks for the idea. I will return and tell how it goes when and if i get a chance to try it out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems like it works in the wrong direction, if the point is to make casters and martials work on the same paradigm.
It's like kneecapping the runner to make the kid with the wonky legs feel better.
Now if the point is to make casting (or, at least, powerful casting) an untenable option in combat, it's a good system to use, if you want more ritual like spellcasting.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It seems like it works in the wrong direction, if the point is to make casters and martials work on the same paradigm.
It's like kneecapping the runner to make the kid with the wonky legs feel better.
Now if the point is to make casting (or, at least, powerful casting) an untenable option in combat, it's a good system to use, if you want more ritual like spellcasting.
It was more of a "what if" idea than one with a specific goal. Even so, some possible side effects include:
• Powerful casting during combat often requires 1 or more full rounds of casting, which means it's easier to get disrupted, which means the martials play a big role both in defending friendly casters and harassing enemy casters.
• Since casting during combat is harder, casting before combat becomes far more attractive; this means buffs gain value, which in turn increases the power/value of the recipients of said buffs—mainly martials. Also increases the value of scouting so that you have time to buff and/or know which buffs to spend precious time casting.
Does the restriction only apply in combat? I can see how it might actually make buffs WEAKER if not, since the durations will be shorter overall (if you're using a lot of buffs). Stuff like Haste in combat is probably right out too, at least until 16th level.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just bumping all standard action spells to full action spells (not full *round*, just full action) could be easier to handle, and rule that any attack during that round (even if it occurred before your initiative count and you 'started casting') counts for provoking a concentration check, and that's going to bring spellcasting back down to 1st/2nd edition speed.
(The bit about the wound taken before you 'begin casting' in a round is to prevent a spellcaster from just delaying their action until all the bad-guys have gone, and then casting their spell without fear of a concentration check from injury, which feels terribly gamist, when the round is supposed to take 6 seconds, and the spellcaster is standing around for 5.999 seconds and firing it off at the last nanosecond to avoid a concentration check...)
Optional upgrade;
Several full levels of spells after you first gain spells, that might be loosened up, so that a wizard who has just learned to cast 3rd level spells might finally be able to toss off cantrips as a standard action, and when he learns 5th level spells, he can now cast 1st level spells (that would normally be a standard action!) as a standard action. When he masters 7th level spells, 2nd level spells become 'fast-casting,' and when he finally reaches the pillars of heaven, those elusive 9th level spells, he can finally cast 3rd level spells as a standard action.
Until 17th level, 'though, he's casting fireballs as a full attack action, and limited to a 5 ft. step.
Another Option (instead paying for the above upgrade);
A Hasten Spell metamagic feat has only a +1 or +2 level adjustment, but allows a spellcaster using this 'all standard action spells take a full attack action instead' optional rule to modify one of these spells to cast as a standard action.
Other variants might allow a spell to be cast as a move equivalent action, but subject to a limit of one spell per round, so that it doesn't allow you to cast two spells per round, but *does* allow you to take a standard action (say, to attack someone) and cast a spell (which is kind of what many touch attack spells already allow, by letting one make a touch attack as part of casting inflict light wounds or shocking grasp, even 'though casting the spells are technically standard actions all by themselves).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How does allowing the caster to move at (say) half speed while casting as part of the action sound?Throw in avoiding AoOs and being able to apply metamagic effects without level adjustment and you've got yourself a deal. Otherwise, this clearly unbalances the game in favor of fighters.
Surely you jest.
Sorry, terrible idea that fails to understand the paradigm within which martial characters are balanced.
I think it would be easier to just crumple up the wizard and sorcerer class and throw them in the garbage.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I require a full-attack action for spellcasting, because it bugs me that a guy making mystic gestures, rummaging in a pouch for bat guano and throwing it in the air, and reciting the Gettysburg Address in Pig Latin can also tumble 30 feet at the same time. Meanwhile, if Bob the Barbarian steps forward 10 feet, he loses most of his attacks. WTF?
(I also made concentration checks scale with the BAB of opponents threatening you, so that it doesn't auto-succeed against more competent opponents.)
That said, I've given fighters better bodyguard abilities, so that they can competently interecept attacks being made against their caster friends, and give them a chance to cast uninterrupted.
The goal is to emphasize the need for teamwork in combat, not make casters useless in it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because sr sucks.
It blockes friendly spells too, and you have to lower it as a standard action. You become un-receptive to healing or buffs in combat, because the buffers aren't going to take penetration feats. Sr is a terrible thing for a player, because sr applies against resurrection and raise dead, and you can't take a standard action while dead.
I dislike this, if only because it relegates the magus to do nothing other than shocking grasp shenanigans, and blocks some of the more interesting (and less ridiculously destructive) strategies. It also destroys spell combat. I can understand where this is coming from, but as a magus player I dislike it because it invalidates one of my primary features (spell combat for the sake of buffing, which rarely involves level 1 spells).
@ Kirth girsen: I'd be interested in knowing how you handle the magus & spell combat, and their numerous concentration checks. How do you treat the DCs so that it doesnt become ridiculous for them?
Another note: a lot of similar proposals for "fixing" casters often focus too strongly (in my impression) on the effect on high tier casters (wizard, sorcerer, cleric, etc.) while forgetting the lower-tier guys (inquisitor, magus, bard).
@ Kirth girsen: I'd be interested in knowing how you handle the magus & spell combat, and their numerous concentration checks. How do you treat the DCs so that it doesnt become ridiculous for them?
I made Concentration back into a skill (so that +3 class skill bonus applies), made it Cha-based (as is the magus equivalent in my game), and allowed Skill Focus. The Combat Casting feat lets you roll twice and pick the better result.
@ Kirth girsen: I'd be interested in knowing how you handle the magus & spell combat, and their numerous concentration checks. How do you treat the DCs so that it doesnt become ridiculous for them?I made Concentration back into a skill (so that +3 class skill bonus applies), made it Cha-based (as is the magus equivalent in my game), and allowed Skill Focus. The Combat Casting feat lets you roll twice and pick the better result.
I'll admit to being more interested in spell combat, since full-round casting seems to invalidate it... are you using the "cabalist" third-party class, or is it something completely different? I'll admit to being fond of the image of the warrior-scholar I cultivate for my own magus.
This is an interesting idea. I do miss the old D&D model of a caster slowly chanting his spell while the opponents desperately try to interrupt his casting.
Another note: a lot of similar proposals for "fixing" casters often focus too strongly (in my impression) on the effect on high tier casters (wizard, sorcerer, cleric, etc.) while forgetting the lower-tier guys (inquisitor, magus, bard).Basing it on OP's post, you could have a sliding scale of sorts. The higher the caster level compared to the spell level, the less actions it takes to cast (with full round being the baseline if it's spell levelx2, full attack action if it's x3, standard if it's x4... or something, broad strokes here).
Since the 6/9 casters get less spell levels, but their caster levels rise just the same, they could still cast their spells faster.
Not the way it's currently done, since only 1st level spells can be cast as standard. The whoel point of the magus is to make the action economy of casting & fighting viable, and this kinda blows it out of the water. Even the high-level magus spells aint much, so being stuck at multiple-round castings REALLY hurts the magus MUCH more than it hurts the wizard/sorcerer, that generally has nothing better to do than cast.
Also, I've yet to see a case where a single spell really affected the tide of battle, so if someone needs 3-4 rounds to cast, they are more likely not to contribute to the fight at all...
I will admit I would not play a magic user with those types of restrictions. Spells are strong, but they arent so strong that it's worth multiple rounds of casting in battle. (except maybe a few SL 6+ spells)
Also, I've yet to see a case where a single spell really affected the tide of battle
You've not seen a really good Conjurer at work then.
*casts one spell, sits back and lets the fighters clean up*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, I've yet to see a case where a single spell really affected the tide of battle, so if someone needs 3-4 rounds to cast, they are more likely not to contribute to the fight at all...
Not sure what to say to this other than to say that you must not have much experience.
A well placed Hold Person spell can end a battle outright.
Sleep, Dismissal, Wall of Stone, Teleport...the list of spells that can end and/or dramatically alter the tide of battle is huge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because sr sucks.
It blockes friendly spells too, and you have to lower it as a standard action. You become un-receptive to healing or buffs in combat, because the buffers aren't going to take penetration feats. Sr is a terrible thing for a player, because sr applies against resurrection and raise dead, and you can't take a standard action while dead.
Seems like a fair trade to me. Get killed with your spell resistance up? Well, the point of SR is to make it harder for magic to affect you, and in a world without magic, dying is permanent. Besides, it doesn't make it impossible to get resurrected... just harder and likely more expensive.
Would every martial character use 10 + 1/level SR? No. Would some? Yes. Those are the same answers that well-balanced abilities should have... not to say this is well-balanced, but still.
Your spell resistance must be lowered as a standard action every round. Spell resistance cannot be kept down.
Every time you want a spell to affect you, you have to take a standard action.And no party would want to waste it on the fighter they can't heal in the first place.
It isn't a fair trade- it's a straight up terrible one.
Also, I've yet to see a case where a single spell really affected the tide of battle, so if someone needs 3-4 rounds to cast, they are more likely not to contribute to the fight at all...
Not sure what to say to this other than to say that you must not have much experience.
A well placed Hold Person spell can end a battle outright.
Sleep, Dismissal, Wall of Stone, Teleport...the list of spells that can end and/or dramatically alter the tide of battle is huge.
I will be the first to say I dont have much experience (only about 8 months now). I have seen some well-used spells (such as acid pit to shut down a low-reflex type), but with the rocket tag the game is supposedly supposed to become at high-level (IE, 5 rounds max for a battle, have not seen yet) I cant imagine somebody successfuly casting a level 9 spell (which would never be less than 5 rounds).
Ah well, I guess I've never seen a spellcaster "go nuts" yet. I'm currently in an all-caster campaign, and nobody (except the summoner) has really gone nuts yet. And even then, the GM has well adapted combat to limit us.
are you using the "cabalist" third-party class, or is it something completely different?
Houstonderek, TOZ, and I ended up rewriting the entire game -- starting with the classes. Our "magus" is one of several variants on the old UA battle sorcerer. Spell combat is based on TWF, with the spell taking the place of all your main hand attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another note: a lot of similar proposals for "fixing" casters often focus too strongly (in my impression) on the effect on high tier casters (wizard, sorcerer, cleric, etc.) while forgetting the lower-tier guys (inquisitor, magus, bard).
Yup. A lot of these quick n dirty 'fixes' often assume that all caster players choose only the most crazy OP broken spells, and that some of those crazy OP broken spells aren't combat spells at all. In reality, most spells range from mediocre to noob-trap. So forcing casters to spend full-round actions for every spell doesn't really make casters any less broken -- it just makes some combat spells broken less often. And other combat spells not worth casting.
It's tempting to say "Let's go back to Ye Good Olde Days, when casters had to walk uphill both ways to cast spells," but I'm of the opinion that the only real way to fix casters is to fix what makes them broken: The spells themselves. Because quick n dirty fixes aren't any more effective than pouring Robitussin on a broken leg.
Another note: a lot of similar proposals for "fixing" casters often focus too strongly (in my impression) on the effect on high tier casters (wizard, sorcerer, cleric, etc.) while forgetting the lower-tier guys (inquisitor, magus, bard).Yup. A lot of these quick n dirty 'fixes' often assume that all caster players choose only the most crazy OP broken spells, and that some of those crazy OP broken spells aren't combat spells at all. In reality, most spells range from mediocre to noob-trap. So forcing casters to spend full-round actions for every spell doesn't really make casters any less broken -- it just makes some combat spells broken less often. And other combat spells not worth casting.
It's tempting to say "Let's go back to Ye Good Olde Days, when casters had to walk uphill both ways to cast spells," but I'm of the opinion that the only real way to fix casters is to fix what makes them broken: The spells themselves. Because quick n dirty fixes aren't any more effective than pouring Robitussin on a broken leg.
Interesting article. While I dont agree with certain things in it, a lot of them are excellent guidelines (some of which pathfinder itself applied).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've posted a similar idea in the past. I do like the idea of either martials making full attacks as a standard action, or casters taking longer on spells.
However, I think your numbers need reworking. Taking a full round for 4th level spells when you have level 9 spells is a little much, but (and I skimmed so maybe you have a clause against this), if you can cast 4 level 1 spells instead, that has some potential.
My initial take on casting times was roughly:
Level 1-3: Standard Action
Level 4-6: Full Round
Level 7-9: 2 Rounds
Since after all you learn lvl3 spells at lvl5, at which point a martial is still doing just one attack anyway (from BAB iteratives anyway).
|
are you using the "cabalist" third-party class, or is it something completely different?Houstonderek, TOZ, and I ended up rewriting the entire game -- starting with the classes. Our "magus" is one of several variants on the old UA battle sorcerer. Spell combat is based on TWF, with the spell taking the place of all your main hand attacks.
And when he says 'houstonderek, TOZ, and I' he means 'that TOZ guy showed up to a couple games and had fun'. :)
As for the OP, I think the level cap is a little high. Having to take multiple rounds to cast the higher level spells will have the casters falling behind a little TOO much for my tastes. I would recommend instead of every 5 caster levels reduce it down to every 3 or 4.
At every 3 you end up as such:
3rd - 2nd level spells
6th - 3rd level spells
9th - 4th level spells
12th - 5th level spells
15th - 6th level spells
18th - 7th level spells
Maybe have it be every 3 after 1st, moving things back by one. I'm not sure how it will work, but I think at least 5th and 6th should go to standards again at some point.
Yeah, I had forgotten about kirthfinder... I'll admit I'm not a fan (though my own look-through was rather quick) but as long as you're having fun, more power to ya.
Still, I love my magus. Favorite class yet. And I'm kinda frustrated with things that limit full caster power in a way that affects low-casters more. Sigh.
Still, that was a good article Tequila Sunrise. I'm defninitly going to work some of your suggestions into my own games.
And when he says 'houstonderek, TOZ, and I' he means 'that TOZ guy showed up to a couple games and had fun'. :)
Modesty -- from YOU of all people? What's the world coming to?
Interesting idea. Here's what I would do.
Cast any non-cantrip is a full-round action. (Excepting spells with a listed non-standard casting time).
If you cast a spell three or more levels lower than your highest spell level, it is upgraded to a standard action (likewise excepting non-standard casting times).
To wit, a seventh level caster may cast cone of cold as a full-round, but magic missile as a standard.
Yes, a 17th level wizard can cast 1st–6th level spells as standard, but that's what they can do already. The highest three spell levels are the ones that really alter game balance profoundly.
Modesty -- from YOU of all people? What's the world coming to?
** spoiler omitted **
Word, yo.
Still, that was a good article Tequila Sunrise. I'm defninitly going to work some of your suggestions into my own games.
Thanks, williamoak! Take what you want, and leave the rest. :)
Still, that was a good article Tequila Sunrise. I'm defninitly going to work some of your suggestions into my own games.Thanks, williamoak! Take what you want, and leave the rest. :)
I'll be starting up a thread in a little while to make a laundry list of spells to change, so if you're interested, keep your eye out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I posted something like this a while ago on my Facebook fan page, but it was more of a "if a spell affects an area or multiple targets, its casting time is at least 1 full-round instead of a standard action." That way it doesn't matter if you're casting burning hands, fireball, or meteor swarm, you're using an FRA to cast, and there's actually an incentive to use a one-target (1 standard action) spell instead.
I posted something like this a while ago on my Facebook fan page, but it was more of a "if a spell affects an area or multiple targets, its casting time is at least 1 full-round instead of a standard action." That way it doesn't matter if you're casting burning hands, fireball, or meteor swarm, you're using an FRA to cast, and there's actually an incentive to use a one-target (1 standard action) spell instead.
Nice idea. I quite like that. Would you force it to work that way for the Communal spells, which have other balancing factors in their design?
Probably not, as the "touch up to six allies" is already a FRA.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Well, this certainly generated more traffic than I expected. :)
One additional thought: since martials can "speed things up" with the TWF feat, I was thinking about having a feat to do something similar with this spellcasting model:
Rapid Casting
Prereq: DEX 15
Benefit: Knock a round off that casting time, down to a minimum of a full-round action. (Pretend this is written in rules-ese.)
Lots of interesting posts by people I care about.
Good ideas, Jiggy, and nice counters from others. Not sure I entirely agree, but still. Hm. I think the time may have arrived to do more crunchy stuff for my own setting.
As an aside, I'm a big proponent of casting times and weapon speed and think their absence is the main issue in a lot of caster/martial arguments. I've brought a funky 3.x version of them into my Campaign setting and would like to playtest it.