I think people are forgetting melee classes have a lot of chance to lose there attack as well. On top of that there are things that are continuous.
Each attack a melee character can make needs to hit this is equivalent to the saving throw for spells. In fact you can easily change the saving through to an attack against defense if you wanted to. The big difference here is quite often a failed save still preforms some effect. Some spells don't even allow saves at all. The fighter has to every attack. As well armor and feats are mundane and boost AC. It take levels, feats, stat boost or magic item to improves saves.
The there is DR which can be just a bad SR. The fighter on a hit has to do more damage than the DR or negate the DR. The Wizard just fires the spell off sees if they can get past SR and if they do all is good. Then they there may be a save or not then apply damage or conditions.
The there are other things the fighters have to deal with such a miss chance and parrying. Add in fast healing that can negate a weak damage roll. Creatures that can fly or get out of range of melee. Peons to kill eat up attacks too where the wizard just levels them all in one spell. The fighter still has to dedicate at least 1 attack against each the weakest of minions. The melee classes have lots of chances to miss their attacks too.
Take that as you will. Just pointing it out. I'm sure I missed others as well.
Attack rolls can be boosted in dozens of ways. Spell save DCs can only be boosted in a couple. It's pretty much balanced.
DR can be countered without a roll, and even if you don't have the correct material to counter it; it's not an automatic negation of ALL attack damage. Just of the amount that the DR applies for. SR failure is complete failure.
Miss chance applies to targeted spells, counterspelling is the spell equivalent of parrying. fast healing can negate a weak magical attack. creatures that can fly can escape touch spells. whether a fighter attacks peons or not is his problem. etc...
I'm not saying spells aren't powerful enough. I'm saying it's all pretty balanced as is. No need to shake things up. And if you want to add a new mechanic (silly) then you apply the same penalties across the board, don't include special penalties for spells because anything that affects attack rolls, saves, checks, etc. effects spellcasters as much as melee folk.
Now there is one place I could see adding a mechanic that I could possibly agree with.
Moving.
If you said, "A spell caster that moves and tries to cast a spell in the same round must make a concentration check DC 15* + Spell level (In 3.5). If he fails he loses that spell. *+5 if casting while using the tumble skill."
I could go with that. Of course the check would need to be modified for fitting into pathfinder's new concentration check, however I think we all get the basic idea.
This would allow the option and tactic of moving to keep a spell when casting, however it would not be a guaranteed success.
|
Why though. It doesn't make the game fun for anyone. It kills tactical gameplay for spellcasters, and it also means that there are going to be a lot of times were area spells don't work. Take Burning Hands. A 15 foot cone is very small, only hitting up to 3 squares away. Such a spell would become almost useless. Particularly if 5 ft steps are included.
Let me put this in a different way. In 3.5 there was a book that was suppossed to be the magic version of 9 Swords. Within that book, there was specifically a class, the True Namer that was designed to have to make a check each and exery time that they used their magic. Not in melee, just any time. A lot of people liked the concept, but the mechanics are terrible (not how they worked, but that lets make magic harder to use). It has been done, and the vast majority of people do not like it. After a few weeks, even those that had really liked the class on the Wizards boards, understood that it just doesn't work, (unless your playing in a very very low magic campaign were fireball and cure light wounds are Epic spells).
The five foot step would not be included -- it's still free to five foot.
In the end it would come down to a choice of "Cast defensively" or "Cast after moving"... which really would amount to the same thing (with a bit harder check for casting after moving if tumbling)
I don't really see a need for it, however if asked where one spot was that I could agree to adding another way to lose spells it would be on the move.
I also don't agree that it would take the tactics out of the spell caster. The check isn't that hard (especially in 3.5), and means that failure could cost something.
*****
The chief complaint I see on these boards has been about spell casting has been, "The spell caster can move and cast but I can't move and full attack. This gives the spell caster an advantage, and I can't do anything about it."
I don't think the whole argument is valid, however this would help to address that a little.
|
|
I keep forgetting no one had fun playing D&D until 2000. I can't believe we wasted all that time having unfun for 26 years....
My guess is that you are trying to imply that movement before and after casting was not allowed in anything prior to 3.0. This is false.
It worked pretty close to the same way, you moved then cast a spell, or you cast a spell and moved. With some limits. But if you keep forgetting how much not fun you had until 2000, maybe you should also forget to keep attempting to blame everyone else for it.
|
|
The chief complaint I see on these boards has been about spell casting has been, "The spell caster can move and cast but I can't move and full attack. This gives the spell caster an advantage, and I can't do anything about it."I don't think the whole argument is valid, however this would help to address that a little.
That is true, but also for Casters. A spell is a Standard Action, not an Attack Action. So you can't say cast Shocking Grasp, and then make as many touch attacks as you have remaining attacks (1st round). That would be balanced, (in the way you mean). On the same hand, a caster does not have the option of Full Spellcast Attacking if they do not move, like a Fighter does. A 20th level wizard can't drop 2 fireballs based soley off of base attack bonus. (Quicken Spell is a different point).
The problem is if you try to make multiple attacks with more movement, that is good for everyone. Except if favors those with more attacks. Imagine a Dragon that could move 80 ft and full attack? That is gamebreaking, though.
I agree beckett. That's why I propose that instead of adding attacks for everyone (and everything) a simple mechanic that might cause the spell caster some worry could help mollify the masses without altering the structure of the game entirely.
After all the wizard can still move and fireball, he just might misstep along the way.
However I don't need this mechanic. It was simply an idea and an answer to the unspoken question from Matt Ratburn, "If you had to add a spell failure mechanic, where would you put it?"
The five foot step would not be included -- it's still free to five foot.
In the end it would come down to a choice of "Cast defensively" or "Cast after moving"... which really would amount to the same thing (with a bit harder check for casting after moving if tumbling)
I don't really see a need for it, however if asked where one spot was that I could agree to adding another way to lose spells it would be on the move.
I also don't agree that it would take the tactics out of the spell caster. The check isn't that hard (especially in 3.5), and means that failure could cost something.
*****
The chief complaint I see on these boards has been about spell casting has been, "The spell caster can move and cast but I can't move and full attack. This gives the spell caster an advantage, and I can't do anything about it."
I don't think the whole argument is valid, however this would help to address that a little.
The thing that bothers me about that "move and full attack" argument is that you can still get a standard action attack. If you wanted to make things fair, there should be a partial action casting rule or something.
The thing that bothers me about that "move and full attack" argument is that you can still get a standard action attack. If you wanted to make things fair, there should be a partial action casting rule or something.The five foot step would not be included -- it's still free to five foot.
In the end it would come down to a choice of "Cast defensively" or "Cast after moving"... which really would amount to the same thing (with a bit harder check for casting after moving if tumbling)
I don't really see a need for it, however if asked where one spot was that I could agree to adding another way to lose spells it would be on the move.
I also don't agree that it would take the tactics out of the spell caster. The check isn't that hard (especially in 3.5), and means that failure could cost something.
*****
The chief complaint I see on these boards has been about spell casting has been, "The spell caster can move and cast but I can't move and full attack. This gives the spell caster an advantage, and I can't do anything about it."
I don't think the whole argument is valid, however this would help to address that a little.
agreed see above post.
|
I keep forgetting no one had fun playing D&D until 2000. I can't believe we wasted all that time having unfun for 26 years....My guess is that you are trying to imply that movement before and after casting was not allowed in anything prior to 3.0. This is false.
It worked pretty close to the same way, you moved then cast a spell, or you cast a spell and moved. With some limits. But if you keep forgetting how much not fun you had until 2000, maybe you should also forget to keep attempting to blame everyone else for it.
No, you could not move AT ALL if you were casting a spell with a somatic component. If you really want me to, I'll grab my 1e DMG and quote the appropriate passage.
Never mind, I'll just do it:
"Spells cannot be cast while violently moving - such as running, dodging a blow, or even walking normally."
Furthermore:
"The spell caster cannot use his or her dexterity bonus to avoid being hit during spell casting; doing so interrupts the spell".
Considering you had to decide to cast and what you were going to cast before initiative was rolled, and you started casting on your initiative, moving BEFORE a spell was cast couldn't happen, period (not in the round the spell was cast, anyway).
From the Players Handbook 1e:
"Unless combat is spell versus spell, many such attacks will happen near the end of a melee round. this is because the spell requires a relatively lengthy time to cast, generally longer as spell level increases."
Also, you have to remember, in 1e, the magic user determines the spell before initiative is determined. Then they must retrieve the spell component (which took time), start casting, continue until the appropriate number of segments elapsed, and then the next round started. "Melee" guys always went first, regardless of how initiative turned out. The dynamic was radically different that the move action/standard action round dynamic of 3x. You either moved or cast. Period.
But then, magic users in 1e cast REAL spells (that could kick some serious booty), not the watered down 3x/PfRPG "spells" they cast these days...
|
|
The thing that bothers me about that "move and full attack" argument is that you can still get a standard action attack. If you wanted to make things fair, there should be a partial action casting rule or something.
I'm not sure what you mean?
Do you mean like casting one spell per base attack bonus, or more like if you move and cast a 1 round casting time spell, it takes an extra action next round?
Derek, thoughts on the concentrate to move and cast? Would you use it (in 3.x or pathfinder)?
@Matt
Hey, rereading some of your responses leads me to believe that I held some misconceptions about your arguments.
I still don't think it's a good idea to toss around the idea of spell failure, but if I was putting words in your mouth then I regret it.
Sorry, dude.
|
|
Derek, thoughts on the concentrate to move and cast? Would you use it (in 3.x or pathfinder)?
It would assuage some of my misgivings, sure.
Look, I know 3x isn't AD&D. I just think they went too far in giving wizards mobility and shortened casting times, while hamstringing the fighter at the same time. I could never wrap my mind around the fact, in 3x, a wizard could take a full move, cast a spell with intricate somatic components, while getting smacked by a sword and still get it off, all in six seconds, while a fighter can't move ten feet and swing a sword twice without a haste spell cast on him. After playing 1e since '79, it was a hard thing to swallow, frankly.
|
|
Considering you had to decide to cast and what you were going to cast before initiative was rolled, and you started casting on your initiative, moving BEFORE a spell was cast couldn't happen, period (not in the round the spell was cast, anyway).
Two things. It does say that, yes. But your confussing some things. It is not implying that a caster can not move before or after. It is saying "Once spellcasting has begun". A fighter that had 3 attacks this turn could for example move 10 feet, attack, and then move 15 feet and attack 2 more times. A caster could not. They could either move and than begin casting a spell, or cast a spell than move.
"Melee" guys always went first, regardless of how initiative turned out. The dynamic was radically different that the move action/standard action round dynamic of 3x....
This is also not really true. If you are using the casting time option, but not the weapon speed modifiers, than it probably is. Spellcasting only goes last in the case that the spell in question has a Number "unit" rather than a specific casting time. So, most combat spells have an entry like Casting Time 1, (after flipping through I see 4 seems to be the common highest). That means you add (subtract) 1 to your d10 role for Init. A Fighter with a Longsword adds a 5, greatsword is +10!!!!!!! Polearms are +8-13. A mediums creatures Natural attacks +3, with an additional +3 per size. Those are higher than all of the 9th level Wizards combat spell.
If you moved more than 1/2 your speed, you only get one attack. if you get multiple attacks (from level), you attack once, than everyone else goes, including any spells that go off that turn, than you make one or two more attacks.
What You Can Do in One Round PHB Combat Section
. . . When making an Attack, a character, is likely to close with his opponent, circle for an opening, feight here, jab there, block a thrustleap back, and perhaps finally ,ake a telling blow. A Spellcaster may fumble for his components, dodge an attack, mentally review the steps for a spell, intone the spell, and than move to safety when it is done. . .
Derek, thoughts on the concentrate to move and cast? Would you use it (in 3.x or pathfinder)?It would assuage some of my misgivings, sure.
Look, I know 3x isn't AD&D. I just think they went too far in giving wizards mobility and shortened casting times, while hamstringing the fighter at the same time. I could never wrap my mind around the fact, in 3x, a wizard could take a full move, cast a spell with intricate somatic components, while getting smacked by a sword and still get it off, all in six seconds, while a fighter can't move ten feet and swing a sword twice without a haste spell cast on him. After playing 1e since '79, it was a hard thing to swallow, frankly.
Hey I can understand where you are coming from... even if I like most of 3.x more than I did 2nd ed.
And if this idea helps even things out some good.
I had realized at work while thinking about the "fear" thread that this was a single place I could see adding something in at.
Really?
A concentration check to cast a spell when the caster is standing perfectly still, just because he happens to have moved, then stopped, earlier in the round?
Is it that somehow his mind is so disoriented by having moved that he cannot concentrate on casting his spell from this new location?
And what if he moves after he casts?
DM: OK, Fred, it's your turn.
Fred: Sweet. I blast the nearest orc with Magic Missile for 4 damage.
DM: That killed him. You still have a move action.
Fred: OK, I move over here.
DM: You can't.
Fred: It's only 15 feet, way less than my move rate.
DM: You can't move there because you cast a spell this round.
Fred: Why not?
DM: Um, well, you're still casting it.
Fred: No I'm not. See the dead orc? That means I'm done with my spellcasting.
DM: Well, you don't want to move this round.
Fred: Yes I do.
DM: Your character doesn't want to move.
Fred: Yes he does.
DM: Well, you can't. If you wanted to move, you should have rolled a concentration check to cast that Magic Missile.
Fred: But, I'm done with my spell and I have a whole move action left. I want to move right over here.
DM: Nope. Obviously you don't want to or you would have rolled that concentration check.
Fred: It's my move action. I say I want to move.
DM: Nuh uh. You can't actually move on your move action.
Fred: Oh really? Hey, guys, why don't we go play some GURPS?
And have we considered how this breaks Touch attacks? I mean, really, hardly anyone ever prepares touch spells because using them puts the caster in harm's way. Now in addition to guaranteeing that you'll be in harm's way, you are also guaranteed that you have a chance to fizzle the spell and get into harm's way for nothing?
Consider Touch Attack spells broken.
I think this rule needs to back to the drawing board - and then erased entirely from the board.
I concur, my powerful mount of world shattering annihilation.
And that was beautiful. The example.
You're lucky my scales are so thick that I can't feel you up there...
|
|
Considering you had to decide to cast and what you were going to cast before initiative was rolled, and you started casting on your initiative, moving BEFORE a spell was cast couldn't happen, period (not in the round the spell was cast, anyway).
Two things. It does say that, yes. But your confussing some things. It is not implying that a caster can not move before or after. It is saying "Once spellcasting has begun". A fighter that had 3 attacks this turn could for example move 10 feet, attack, and then move 15 feet and attack 2 more times. A caster could not. They could either move and than begin casting a spell, or cast a spell than move.
"Melee" guys always went first, regardless of how initiative turned out. The dynamic was radically different that the move action/standard action round dynamic of 3x....This is also not really true. If you are using the casting time option, but not the weapon speed modifiers, than it probably is. Spellcasting only goes last in the case that the spell in question has a Number "unit" rather than a specific casting time. So, most combat spells have an entry like Casting Time 1, (after flipping through I see 4 seems to be the common highest). That means you add (subtract) 1 to your d10 role for Init. A Fighter with a Longsword adds a 5, greatsword is +10!!!!!!! Polearms are +8-13. A mediums creatures Natural attacks +3, with an additional +3 per size. Those are higher than all of the 9th level Wizards combat spell.
If you moved more than 1/2 your speed, you only get one attack. if you get multiple attacks (from level), you attack once, than everyone else goes, including any spells that go off that turn, than you make one or two more attacks.
What You Can Do in One Round PHB Combat Section
. . . When making an Attack, a character, is likely to close with his opponent, circle for an opening, feight here, jab there, block a thrustleap back, and perhaps finally ,ake a telling...
If the spell was short enough, he could move after, sure.
Weapon speed factors only came into play in very specific circumstances, none of which involved spell casting. Spell casting didn't have a "speed factor", it had "segments (or rounds) to cast". And it still doesn't change the fact that a round was a full minute in AD&D, not six seconds. So, now, a Prismatic Spray that used to take 42 seconds to cast takes less than six now. And fighters can no longer "swing, move ten feet, swing again, move 15 feet and take their final swing" at high levels. They get to swing once unless the opponent is nice enough to stand still for the round.
Again, I have no idea how we found all D&D "fun" until Monte came along to tell us we were doing it wrong...
|
|
Like I said, the vast majority of spells, Wizard and Priest, that you would typically cast in combat, had a Casting time of 1 - 4. (in fact, I didn't see many spells with long casting times except the out of combat spells like Res, Summon Monsters, and Divinations). Weapon Factor, according to my PHB worked exactly like Casting time. You rolled a d10 and added it to to the Casting time or Weapon factor. That was after everyone had declared their actions for the round, and also with inititive being rolled each round. Again, not trying to sound like a douche, but I quoted from the PHB, to show you this is not correct.
If you played it that, that is perfectly fine. If you enjoyed it, even better. But the point is, that is not how everyone played it, and not a whole lot has really truly changed all that much. In 1st and 2nd Ed, anyone could move attack, move and attack in 1 round, (under the right conditions and with high levels). In 3.0/5, you can attack, step, and attack, but you can also get 2 to 3 times the number of attacks you ever could. Under some extreme conditions, up to 10 times (AO's, speed weapon, haste, 2 weapon fighting, etc. . .), and that Fighters in particular have much more interesting option, (besides I swing a few times).
Though I will agree that 3.0+ spells have been watered down.
|
|
Like I said, the vast majority of spells, Wizard and Priest, that you would typically cast in combat, had a Casting time of 1 - 4. (in fact, I didn't see many spells with long casting times except the out of combat spells like Res, Summon Monsters, and Divinations). Weapon Factor, according to my PHB worked exactly like Casting time. You rolled a d10 and added it to to the Casting time or Weapon factor. That was after everyone had declared their actions for the round, and also with inititive being rolled each round. Again, not trying to sound like a douche, but I quoted from the PHB, to show you this is not correct.
If you played it that, that is perfectly fine. If you enjoyed it, even better. But the point is, that is not how everyone played it, and not a whole lot has really truly changed all that much. In 1st and 2nd Ed, anyone could move attack, move and attack in 1 round, (under the right conditions and with high levels). In 3.0/5, you can attack, step, and attack, but you can also get 2 to 3 times the number of attacks you ever could. Under some extreme conditions, up to 10 times (AO's, speed weapon, haste, 2 weapon fighting, etc. . .), and that Fighters in particular have much more interesting option, (besides I swing a few times).
Though I will agree that 3.0+ spells have been watered down.
Are you looking at the 2e books?
Seriously, I am looking at pages 104 and 105 of Gygax's PHB right now, and there is no mention of the passage you quote. Going through the combat section of Gygax's DMG shows none of your contentions, either.
And, no, most combat spells take the spell level in segments to cast.
And, unless you're referencing splats and/or greater cleave, fighters aren't attacking/moving/attacking in 3.5...
I don't care about 2e. Never played it. I'm discussing the original AD&D, not the pale imitation that came later...
Just a small point but...when was a round a minute? I thought a round was previously 10 seconds (6 in a minute).
Either way, why are we having a 1st edition AD&D rules arguments in a PFRPG forum? :P
Houstonderek: just play 1e if you enjoy it so much more.
|
|
Um, no?
To answer your small point, in OD&D, and 1e. Can't speak to 2e, skipped it all together.
There's a lot I like about 3x, frankly. My only beef is how the dynamic changed between fighters (and other "melee" types) and spell casters. 3x completely flipped the script. Old school casters were not mobile, took forever to cast and could easily be disrupted. Old school fighters were mobile, had the ability to do their job without having to "ready" or "delay". 3x fighters are walking in mud, whereas wizards can now cast intricate spells while tumbling, running around and avoiding most attempts to disrupt, all in a fraction of the time it used to take them to cast a second level spell.
And, meatrace, just for the record, if you don't like LG paladins, why are you playing D&D at all? Sounds like Exalted or something else is your game...
Um, no?
To answer your small point, in OD&D, and 1e. Can't speak to 2e, skipped it all together.
There's a lot I like about 3x, frankly. My only beef is how the dynamic changed between fighters (and other "melee" types) and spell casters. 3x completely flipped the script. Old school casters were not mobile, took forever to cast and could easily be disrupted. Old school fighters were mobile, had the ability to do their job without having to "ready" or "delay". 3x fighters are walking in mud, whereas wizards can now cast intricate spells while tumbling, running around and avoiding most attempts to disrupt, all in a fraction of the time it used to take them to cast a second level spell.
And, meatrace, just for the record, if you don't like LG paladins, why are you playing D&D at all? Sounds like Exalted or something else is your game...
good idea bringing in debates from other threads *sigh*
I don't like LG paladins and personally only know one who does. Therefore I don't play one. Why does my tiny quibble with a single class in one game preclude me from playing it? You're arguing with the ENTIRE COMBAT SYSTEM of 3.x which I find pretty balanced personally. Nonetheless, neither a discussion of the dynamics of the paladin class nor that of previous rules editions really fits in this thread.
For the record, at least in my memory, in 2e a round was 10 seconds.
good idea bringing in debates from other threads *sigh*
Can I use this as an opportunity to mention once again that monks are total crap?
^_^
good idea bringing in debates from other threads *sigh*
Can I use this as an opportunity to mention once again that monks are total crap?
^_^
aww...I really like monks though. one of my favorite characters ever was a monk/psychic warrior named Auer. he moved at like freaking mach 5 and had an AC somewhere in the 50s. of course he was virtually useless in combat...BUT HE WAS FUN and nigh invincible.
i wouldn't say "total crap" i would say "an interesting idea but not good enough at any one thing to warrant playing unless for roleplay reasons and too differently flavored to rationally fit in a medieval fantasy world".
but uh...*ahem* spell failure chance you say? *scratches chin*
Simply put, being at the mercy of the dice with no recourse is painful.
It's worse when you're trying to save your entire party by laying down a crucially positioned solid fog.
It's even worse when you can only do that twice a day, and this is half your allotment.
ASF is a sacred cow that needs to die. I don't mind caster level checks, concentration checks, anything that I can have some control over. But a straight chance of failing to keep my team alive? Cut into my action economy. Make me spend HP to cast. Make me roll concentration checks. But don't you dare just force me to arbitrarily fail 30% of the time with no opportunity to obviate it.
Because that's going to get characters killed, with a great deal of regularity. It's going to mean that a knock spell fails when we're in a hurry, or that I can't get off dispel magic at the right time. Not. Okay.
That's probably enough to make me switch game systems, particularly after the second or third time the GM has to pull a bunch of punches to avoid a TPK because I rolled a 20 on a D%.
Simply put, being at the mercy of the dice with no recourse is painful.
It's worse when you're trying to save your entire party by laying down a crucially positioned solid fog.
It's even worse when you can only do that twice a day, and this is half your allotment.ASF is a sacred cow that needs to die. I don't mind caster level checks, concentration checks, anything that I can have some control over. But a straight chance of failing to keep my team alive? Cut into my action economy. Make me spend HP to cast. Make me roll concentration checks. But don't you dare just force me to arbitrarily fail 30% of the time with no opportunity to obviate it.
Because that's going to get characters killed, with a great deal of regularity. It's going to mean that a knock spell fails when we're in a hurry, or that I can't get off dispel magic at the right time. Not. Okay.
That's probably enough to make me switch game systems, particularly after the second or third time the GM has to pull a bunch of punches to avoid a TPK because I rolled a 20 on a D%.
Oh, wait, no, now there's sanity in this thread?
Unforgiveable!
DR, you just opened a can of bees. No, not a mere can of worms. You open a can of worms and look inside and say "Oh, look, worms. Yuck." But you open a can of bees, and you're in for a world of pain.
And this can of bees done already been shook up...
I really couldn't care less. The game is the game, the system is the system.
I've been running games for a long time now, and I've never met a player who liked losing precious resources without some way of preventing it. They don't want much. Not much at all. I think it's okay to give players more control over the destiny of their characters, rather than less.
I've only met one person, for example, who still felt that straight 3d6 for stats, no holds, no swaps, no drops, was the best way. And she liked a lot of very strange things.
What I'm saying is that ASF is a bad solution to a solved problem.
Use the wonderful set of existing mechanics for making spells fizzle, rather than reaching for one generally deprecated through-out all of 3.X. It was deprecated because it led to angry players and dead characters. Heck, even ASF from armor is easy to negate, and intentionally so.
Have you played shadowrun, by chance? Drain is a good example of ASF done correctly. It really makes you feel like every move you make matters tremendously, and that you need to rely heavily on your fellow runners, being careful not to over-reach. It could kill you, but it almost never made a spell fail. It was tremendously well-loved. In other words, most players would rather have their character die Getting The Shot Off than fail their team due to a poor roll.
Have you played shadowrun, by chance? Drain is a good example of ASF done correctly. It really makes you feel like every move you make matters tremendously, and that you need to rely heavily on your fellow runners, being careful not to over-reach. It could kill you, but it almost never made a spell fail. It was tremendously well-loved. In other words, most players would rather have their character die Getting The Shot Off than fail their team due to a poor roll.
Dude, now I'm missing my Troll Shark Shaman.
My first thought: If you don't wear armor, and/or don't cast while deafened, then you won't face any percentile rolls for spell failure.My second thought: Why not? It's called the d20 system for a reason and since all percentile chances are given in lots of 5% the d20 can handle that roll just as easily. You could convert casting under harsh conditions, like wearing armor or being deaf, to concentration checks with a similar chance of failure for your highest level spell. I'd be onboard with that as a House Rule.
You missed my point. I can't affect those d% rolls at all, so I have no control over how often I will fail if we use your idea of ASF as a check on caster power. This is a game about odds, and a meta-game about mitigating those odds. There is no way for a player to escape a static ASF imposed by your suggestion. I'm afraid I'm still answering the original question posed in the OP.
Attack rolls can be boosted in dozens of ways. Spell save DCs can only be boosted in a couple. It's pretty much balanced.
DR can be countered without a roll, and even if you don't have the correct material to counter it; it's not an automatic negation of ALL attack damage. Just of the amount that the DR applies for. SR failure is complete failure.
Miss chance applies to targeted spells, counterspelling is the spell equivalent of parrying. fast healing can negate a weak magical attack. creatures that can fly can escape touch spells. whether a fighter attacks peons...
I agree, no need to fix anything.
It would seem that PfRPG is balanced from the assumption that each encounter, on average, will last 5 rounds. From that assumption it is possible to mathematically determine the impact of spell loss to a caster relative to the impact of action loss for a non-caster.
Even so, if you do calculate it to "about 5 rounds, roughly" multiplied by the traditional 4 encounters per day, you get a loose "about 20 rounds, roughly" answer.
Fine.
So a mage should be able to cast 20 spells?
What about a level 1 mage? Should he have 20 spells?
A 10th level wizard gets 20 spells (not counting any INT bonus). But what if he prepares some non-combat spells, like Alarm, Mount, Identify, Arcane Lock, Locate Object, Magic Mouth, Rope Trick, Explosive Runes, Tongues, Tiny Hut, Gentle Repose, Water Breathing, or many others I didn't name. Should this wizard still get 20 combat spells too?
No, these guys have to choose the right time to cast the spells they have, and conserve some of their combat spells for future combats (even if it is the 4th encounter of the day, you never know what the DM, or the gods, or the fates, have planned).
So calculating it down to exact number of rounds, or even "about 20 rounds, roughly", doesn't really help the discussion.
Even if it did, failing a critical spell, or losing it for any other reason, means we fail to kill/incapacitate that monster this round so the combat goes on one extra round, bumping us up to "about 21 rounds, roughly", at least for today.
And, now we have 1 fewer spell with which to face our 21-round day because we lost one for whatever reason.
Given that, a count of expected rounds/day becomes even less meaningful.
So we have no recourse but to speak in more abstract terms, like this:
Any caster who loses a spell for any reason has lost a non-renewable resource in terms of this adventuring day. Further, the difficulty of the current encounter increases because the caster tried to be effective but failed. Increased difficulty means increased risk. Increased risk means more need to handle that risk by expending more resources. All of which leads to consuming resources at a further accelerated rate that ultimately began by losing a spell. All of which is conducive to shortening the adventuring day regardless of how long or short it would have otherwise been.
Which is why losing a spell is a significant hardship to the caster who loses it and to his adventuring companions who rely on the caster being useful, and to the players who rely on adventuring to have fun, and on DM who relies on having his players adventuring to have fun.