
![]() |

I used to play a lot of wizard/conjuration specialists, and that one round to cast a summoning spell really made me think of PC's position in combat (as in, stay hell the way back!).
Thus, what would be the impact to a Pathfinder game if casting time was bumped up to a minimum of one round? Exceptions, of course, would exist like feather fall.
Thoughts?

![]() |

Summoning spells I think are still one round, but I'd have to say that changing the standard action spells is a bad idea. My fire elemental sorcerer with quicken spell feat won't enjoy only being able to cast one spell a round. It goes against the mistress of mayhem idea.
Also, you've got other player characters waiting around to see what effect your spell has. Kind of lags the game a little.

Quandary |

It was proposed during the playtest for your highest 2 Spell Levels to be cast as Full-Round Actions (different than 1 Round Casting like Summons) instead of Standard Actions. The idea was to make the Standard/Full-Round dichotomy more relevant to Casters as it is for Fighter-types (the 2 Spell levels corresponds to +4 BAB for Fighters, who gain an iterative each +5 BAB, so the proposal was basically rounding in Casters' favor)
Full-Round Actions still allow Swift Actions, and aren't vulnerable to "Interrupts" like 1 Round (Summon) spells.
Like you say, spells like Feather Fall (designed as Swift Spells) would be un-affected.
In other words, it makes Casters think more pre-emptively/defensively about their placement, so basically you won't be popping off your max level spells at the same time you're tumbling and leaping around the battlefield... By making the Full-Round/Standard dichotomy actually SOMEWHAT relevant to Casters, it also removes the Surprise Round situation where Fighters are limited to Standard Attacks, but Casters can pull out their big guns (which grates on MY sensibility, at least)
(of course, in 2nd Edition and earlier, ALL spells allowed at most 5' movement in the same round.
I would say if you want to house-rule that ALL spells, no matter the Spell Level, work like this, to have them be Full-Round Actions (allowing Swift + less Interupt vulnerability) rather than actual 1 Round spells like Summoning. Crucial Difference.
I actually want to hear from Jason why this wasn't implemented in some form, after he expressed interest earlier.

![]() |

It was proposed during the playtest for your highest 2 Spell Levels to be cast as Full-Round Actions (different than 1 Round Casting like Summons) instead of Standard Actions. The idea was to make the Standard/Full-Round dichotomy more relevant to Casters as it is for Fighter-types (the 2 Spell levels corresponds to +4 BAB for Fighters, who gain an iterative each +5 BAB, so the proposal was basically rounding in Casters' favor)
Full-Round Actions still allow Swift Actions, and aren't vulnerable to "Interrupts" like 1 Round (Summon) spells.
Like you say, spells like Feather Fall (designed as Swift Spells) would be un-affected.In other words, it makes Casters think more pre-emptively/defensively about their placement, so basically you won't be popping off your max level spells at the same time you're tumbling and leaping around the battlefield... By making the Full-Round/Standard dichotomy actually SOMEWHAT relevant to Casters, it also removes the Surprise Round situation where Fighters are limited to Standard Attacks, but Casters can pull out their big guns (which grates on MY sensibility, at least)
(of course, in 2nd Edition and earlier, ALL spells allowed at most 5' movement in the same round.I would say if you want to house-rule that ALL spells, no matter the Spell Level, work like this, to have them be Full-Round Actions (allowing Swift + less Interupt vulnerability) rather than actual 1 Round spells like Summoning. Crucial Difference.
I actually want to hear from Jason why this wasn't implemented in some form, after he expressed interest earlier.
Interesting. I'll have to look for the links. Thanks!

![]() |

It was proposed during the playtest for your highest 2 Spell Levels to be cast as Full-Round Actions (different than 1 Round Casting like Summons) instead of Standard Actions. The idea was to make the Standard/Full-Round dichotomy more relevant to Casters as it is for Fighter-types (the 2 Spell levels corresponds to +4 BAB for Fighters, who gain an iterative each +5 BAB, so the proposal was basically rounding in Casters' favor)
Full-Round Actions still allow Swift Actions, and aren't vulnerable to "Interrupts" like 1 Round (Summon) spells.
Like you say, spells like Feather Fall (designed as Swift Spells) would be un-affected.In other words, it makes Casters think more pre-emptively/defensively about their placement, so basically you won't be popping off your max level spells at the same time you're tumbling and leaping around the battlefield... By making the Full-Round/Standard dichotomy actually SOMEWHAT relevant to Casters, it also removes the Surprise Round situation where Fighters are limited to Standard Attacks, but Casters can pull out their big guns (which grates on MY sensibility, at least)
(of course, in 2nd Edition and earlier, ALL spells allowed at most 5' movement in the same round.I would say if you want to house-rule that ALL spells, no matter the Spell Level, work like this, to have them be Full-Round Actions (allowing Swift + less Interupt vulnerability) rather than actual 1 Round spells like Summoning. Crucial Difference.
I actually want to hear from Jason why this wasn't implemented in some form, after he expressed interest earlier.
I REALLY like this idea. It adds some more flavor to the whole magic system and does seem to fit with a lot of literature. I might just houserule this one.

![]() |

It was proposed during the playtest for your highest 2 Spell Levels to be cast as Full-Round Actions (different than 1 Round Casting like Summons) instead of Standard Actions. The idea was to make the Standard/Full-Round dichotomy more relevant to Casters as it is for Fighter-types (the 2 Spell levels corresponds to +4 BAB for Fighters, who gain an iterative each +5 BAB, so the proposal was basically rounding in Casters' favor).
That's kind of a neat idea. To take it in the other direction, perhaps spells four spell levels below your highest could count as movement actions? A 7th level Wizard could cast a 4th or 3rd level 'standard action' spell as a full-round action, a 1st or 2nd level 'standard action' spell as a standard action, or a 'standard action' cantrip as a move-equivalent action.
Everybody gets the equivalent of Quicken Spell, once they reach 7th level and become able to cast a cantrip *and* a 1st or 2nd level spell in a full-round action, and as they increase in levels, the types of spells they can 'mix and match' in a full round casting increases.
I would say if you want to house-rule that ALL spells, no matter the Spell Level, work like this, to have them be Full-Round Actions (allowing Swift + less Interupt vulnerability) rather than actual 1 Round spells like Summoning. Crucial Difference.
This would be one hell of an effective way to balance spellcasting vs. melee in the same way that it was balanced back in 1st and 2nd edition, when a fighter-type had a very good chance of being able to interrupt a spellcaster just by whacking away with their sword.
Even *with* this change, the possibility of casting through the hit with a Concentration check would put the spellcaster in a stronger position than they were back in 1st and 2nd editions!
IMO, the only reason it wasn't seriously considered was that it would be 'too big' of a change, backwards-compatibity-wise.

minkscooter |

This idea got some interesting discussion in the "Gygaxian Naturalism" thread, with the Rapid Spellcasting feat proposed by Dragonchess Player in this post being the high point.

![]() |

This idea got some interesting discussion in the "Gygaxian Naturalism" thread, with the Rapid Spellcasting feat proposed by Dragonchess Player in this post being the high point.
Rapid Spellcasting feat, eh? That's what I immediately thought, too, when I saw the concept.
I'll take a look at the thread. [Slight threadjack] This discussion is fascinating to me as both a DM and Pathfinder GM, for I continue to see more and more the "feel" differences in the two games. Truly apples and oranges. Or pie. I like pie ^_^. [End threadjack]

Kirth Gersen |

We're currently playtesting full-attack action to cast spells that have somatic and/or material components. So 5-ft. steps are still possible, and are almost always used, but there's no tumble away-and-cast acrobatics -- unless the spell has only verbal components. Eschew Materials and Still Spell supercede the Rapid Spellcasting feat; bonded items replace cheap material components as a spellcasting focus; at 15th level your familiar can perform somatic components for you.
So far it's been an improvement (although we're still at 1st level...)

![]() |

We're currently playtesting full-attack action to cast spells that have somatic and/or material components. So 5-ft. steps are still possible, and are almost always used, but there's no tumble away-and-cast acrobatics -- unless the spell has only verbal components. Eschew Materials and Still Spell supercede the Rapid Spellcasting feat; bonded items replace cheap material components as a spellcasting focus; at 15th level your familiar can perform somatic components for you.
So far it's been an improvement (although we're still at 1st level...)
Sweet. Please keep us up to date.

Kirth Gersen |

Sweet. Please keep us up to date.
Will do. Then again, I won't always be sure if that particular change is making the biggest impact, because I've unscientifically failed to limit the number of independent variables (I've got about 42 pages of houserules being tested, about the minimum I was comfortable with in order to play Pathfinder). For example, changing the "cast defensively" DC from a static 15 + (2 x spell level) to a scaling 10 + 1/2 threatener's BAB + (2 x spell level) is bound to have an impact as well (slightly easier task at low levels, much harder at high levels).

![]() |

joela wrote:Sweet. Please keep us up to date.Will do. Then again, I won't always be sure if that particular change is making the biggest impact, because I've unscientifically failed to limit the number of independent variables (I've got about 42 pages of houserules being tested, about the minimum I was comfortable with in order to play Pathfinder). For example, changing the "cast defensively" DC from a static 15 + (2 x spell level) to a scaling 10 + 1/2 threatener's BAB + (2 x spell level) is bound to have an impact as well (slightly easier task at low levels, much harder at high levels).
42...pages?!?

Kirth Gersen |

42...pages?!?
4 pages of base mechanics changes (moving in combat by trading iterative attacks, holding actions, use of hero points, critical skills failures). Recombining and buffing of most skills, so that Linguistics is now just as useful as Perception, and just as likely to have points spent on it. Revisions of all classes ranging from minute (cleric, wizard) to total overhaul (fighters, monks). Feats revised and added (for example, the duelist PrC got swallowed by the fighter class, by simply selecting the appropriate talents and feats).
All are considered "on trial." The ones that seem to add enjoyment to game play and/or logic to the system as a whole will be retained. Ones that are clunky, or fail to improve things, will be modified or discarded. The good news is that I've got a set of very understanding players whose reactions have run as follows:

![]() |

joela wrote:42...pages?!?4 pages of base mechanics changes (moving in combat by trading iterative attacks, holding actions, use of hero points, critical skills failures). Recombining and buffing of most skills, so that Linguistics is now just as useful as Perception, and just as likely to have points spent on it. Revisions of all classes ranging from minute (cleric, wizard) to total overhaul (fighters, monks). Feats revised and added (for example, the duelist PrC got swallowed by the fighter class, by simply selecting the appropriate talents and feats).
All are considered "on trial." The ones that seem to add enjoyment to game play and/or logic to the system as a whole will be retained. Ones that are clunky, or fail to improve things, will be modified or discarded.
The good news is that I've got a set of very understanding players whose reactions have run as follows:
Player #1: "Here's another obscure feat from Joe Schlepp's Third-Party Sourcebook of Doom! Let's see if we can make that work!"
Player #2: "I don't care what you do, as long as you don't nerf spells, and make everything else more like it was in 1e."
Player #3: "Here are some errata, and a thought about rule X... and what about rule Y? Oh, and I checked your math and it seems to work OK."
Player #4: "Everything looks fine. I just like to play!"
*Looks around the Paizo boards* Well, where are the pages? All of them. You know us tinker gnomes want to take a look ^_^
Share! Share! Uh, and it's all OGC, right?

Kirth Gersen |

@ Joe: I'm running a session tonight, so I'll try to get to the email tomorrow after work. If you don't see anything by Wednesday am, post me a nasty reminder!
P.S. Character building still sucks compared to the classless rules I wrote for the Beta, but using a class-based system with separate tracking of wealth and xp, there's really only so much you can do.

Seldriss |

For many years now, i've been using casting time for spellcasting.
It goes back to AD&D 1st edition.
The higher the spell, the longer it takes to cast it.
As a matter of fact, i am still using the 10 segments in a round (from AD&D), but even without these, the casting time is basically a penalty to initiative :
0 level spells : Initiative -0
1st level spells : Initiative -1
2nd level spells : Initiative -2
3rd level spells : Initiative -3
4th level spells : Initiative -4
5th level spells : Initiative -5
6th level spells : Initiative -6
7th level spells : Initiative -7
8th level spells : Initiative -8
9th level spells : Initiative -9
Of course, during the spellcasting a caster can be interrupted, so watch that defensive casting and concentration...

![]() |

@ Joe: I'm running a session tonight, so I'll try to get to the email tomorrow after work. If you don't see anything by Wednesday am, post me a nasty reminder!
LOL. Will do ^_^. I'm slowly cultivating players who may be willing to test some rules for my amateur d20 system. Hopefully they'll be as enthusiastic as your group :-)

![]() |

For many years now, i've been using casting time for spellcasting.
It goes back to AD&D 1st edition.
The higher the spell, the longer it takes to cast it.
As a matter of fact, i am still using the 10 segments in a round (from AD&D), but even without these, the casting time is basically a penalty to initiative :
0 level spells : Initiative -0
1st level spells : Initiative -1
2nd level spells : Initiative -2
3rd level spells : Initiative -3
4th level spells : Initiative -4
5th level spells : Initiative -5
6th level spells : Initiative -6
7th level spells : Initiative -7
8th level spells : Initiative -8
9th level spells : Initiative -9
Of course, during the spellcasting a caster can be interrupted, so watch that defensive casting and concentration...
Huh. Could you provide an example from your games? Say, with Fireball?

Seldriss |

Huh. Could you provide an example from your games? Say, with Fireball?
Well, that's simple. As i said, the spell level is a penalty to initiative.
For your example with Fireball, the caster gets -3.So let's say he rolls a 10 on initiative and has +2 from 14 Dex, his initiative is 9 (10 +2 -3).
I actually use a different initiative system, but to keep it simple in this thread let's just consider the basic system.
If you want to know, i actually use a chronological initiative, in a round of 10 segments, and actions take place according to their initiative in the round.
Initiative is rolled with 1d10 (10 segments).
To act first, you have to roll low.
Bonuses are "-X" as they make act faster in the chain of initiative, and penalties are "+X", as they delay the action.
To take the same example, the caster rolls 5 on 1d10, -2 (for Dex 14), +3 (3rd level spell), which gives him initiative 6.
Between the 3rd and 6th segments of the round he is casting and could be interrupted.

![]() |

joela wrote:Huh. Could you provide an example from your games? Say, with Fireball?Well, that's simple. As i said, the spell level is a penalty to initiative.
For your example with Fireball, the caster gets -3.
So let's say he rolls a 10 on initiative and has +2 from 14 Dex, his initiative is 9 (10 +2 -3).(I actually use a different initiative system, but to keep it simple in this thread let's just consider the basic system)
Thanks. I thought as much but it's also been a while since I played AD&D and could have been missing something.
I assume your system applies only to spells with a casting time of a standard action?

Seldriss |

I assume your system applies only to spells with a casting time of a standard action?
Sorry, i edited my post while you were responding...
Yes, this applies only to spells with a "standard action".
If the description of the spell mentions 1 round, one hour or else, of course it takes over the casting time.

Scott Viverito |
For example, changing the "cast defensively" DC from a static 15 + (2 x spell level) to a scaling 10 + 1/2 threatener's BAB + (2 x spell level) is bound to have an impact as well (slightly easier task at low levels, much harder at high levels).
ohhh I like that one, specially after looking at the tumble vs CMD mechanic.
Let's break it down a little:
1st Fighter vs 1st wizard DC 10+0+2 or 12 for a 1st level
10th Fighter vs 10th wizard DC 10+5+2 (17 for first and 25 for 5th)
20th Fighter vs 20th wizard DC 10+10+2(22 for first and 38 for 9th)
Normal would be:
1st DC 17
5th DC 25
9th DC 33
nice :)

Gyftomancer |
For many years now, i've been using casting time for spellcasting.
It goes back to AD&D 1st edition.
The higher the spell, the longer it takes to cast it.
As a matter of fact, i am still using the 10 segments in a round (from AD&D), but even without these, the casting time is basically a penalty to initiative :
0 level spells : Initiative -0
1st level spells : Initiative -1
2nd level spells : Initiative -2
3rd level spells : Initiative -3
4th level spells : Initiative -4
5th level spells : Initiative -5
6th level spells : Initiative -6
7th level spells : Initiative -7
8th level spells : Initiative -8
9th level spells : Initiative -9
Of course, during the spellcasting a caster can be interrupted, so watch that defensive casting and concentration...
I was looking forward to use again the initiative system of 2nd ed. but not only to spells. Do you also use this system for weapons (and for the natural ones)? What initiative mod. do you use for regular weapons and what for the natural ones of the monsters?
Its easy to remake the system for spells but as i remember that monsters as well used to have init.mod. according to theire size most of the times. Have you tested this in 3.5E rules?
Scott Viverito |
@ Joe: I'm running a session tonight, so I'll try to get to the email tomorrow after work. If you don't see anything by Wednesday am, post me a nasty reminder!
P.S. Character building still sucks compared to the classless rules I wrote for the Beta, but using a class-based system with separate tracking of wealth and xp, there's really only so much you can do.
Any chance of you CC ing me on that Kirth?
scott_viverito@cox.net

Seldriss |

I was looking forward to use again the initiative system of 2nd ed. but not only to spells. Do you also use this system for weapons (and for the natural ones)? What initiative mod. do you use for regular weapons and what for the natural ones of the monsters?
Its easy to remake the system for spells but as i remember that monsters as well used to have init.mod. according to theire size most of the times. Have you tested this in 3.5E rules?
Yes, i do apply initiative modifiers also for weapons, basically speed factors.
The bigger the weapon, the slower it is, so biggest init penalty :Natural weapons : no penalty
Light weapons : -1 penalty
Medium weapons : -2 penalty
Heavy/2 Handed weapons : -3 penalty
(note that in my system, these penalties are pluses, not minuses)
I also give a modifier according to the size of the creature, but i don't have these in mind. But basically that's something like a bonus or malus per size under or above medium.

Quandary |

IMO, the only reason it wasn't seriously considered was that it would be 'too big' of a change, backwards-compatibity-wise.
Eh...
By the standards of "BW-compatability" Paizo has publicly avowed (stat-block compatability), it's no problem...Of course, moving HALF way back to 2nd Edition dynamics means Casters can't pull the Tumble + Cast + Swift Spell stuff they got used to since 3rd Edition (don't mention the WotC splat-Feat allowing Move Action spells for HALF the Spell Level adjustment of Swifts, for 3 spells/ round. Time Stop!? Who needs it!?)
Actually, it's more like moving 1/4 way back, since Fighter types can't Move+Full Attace (though Vital Strike is a popular Feat Tax to get SOME Standard Attack scaling), and Readied Attacks don't automatically disrupt, much less ALL damage during Casting Time...
Some more thoughts:
The fact you can Defensively Cast up to your highest level spell AND get off a Swift Spell (which don't provoke) also rubs me the wrong way (and don't forget your Move Action along with that, by the standard rules). I think having Defensive Casting also consume a Swift Action is more than reasonable. You would still have the option to Cast a non-provoking Swift Spell (say ExpRetreat/Mirror Image/DimDoor) while threatened, Tumble/Move away to cast a Standard Action Spell - With a Swift DimDoor, you can still cast max-Spell Level Full-Round/1 Round Spells.

![]() |

If you want to know, i actually use a chronological initiative, in a round of 10 segments, and actions take place according to their initiative in the round.
Initiative is rolled with 1d10 (10 segments).
To act first, you have to roll low.
Bonuses are "-X" as they make act faster in the chain of initiative, and penalties are "+X", as they delay the action.
To take the same example, the caster rolls 5 on 1d10, -2 (for Dex 14), +3 (3rd level spell), which gives him initiative 6.
Between the 3rd and 6th segments of the round he is casting and could be interrupted.
Nice. It has a distinct feeling of the AD&D 2e mechanic - which I like, BTW.
May I ask how quickened spells and immediate/swift spells (such as feather fall) work in this system?

Seldriss |

Nice. It has a distinct feeling of the AD&D 2e mechanic - which I like, BTW.
That's the point :)
May I ask how quickened spells and immediate/swift spells (such as feather fall) work in this system?
They both become instant, with no casting time.
The initiative is then just the roll plus the other modifiers (Dex, Improved Initiative etc).
Scott Viverito |
I like the casting time, though a version I tried running at a con lately was almost the same. Spells took initiative count instead of lower initiative, same difference I realize but that way any attack during the time between the caster starting(at his initiative and when the spell went off was used against the concentration check. We were also playing with the targeting as in it was set at the start of the spell, which caused placing of fireballs and such touchy as well as single target spells having to be redirected(with a concentration test) if the original target died before they went off.
We were working with 3xspell Level-stat mod-Levels spell level is available. minimum 1 the 3xspell level was to allow for the stat to have some impact as well as familiarity.
Example Wizard 5th level 18 int casts fireball if his init was 15(high I know) he would declare spell and target at 15 and have it go off at 3x3=9(level)-4(int mod)=5 15-5 is 10...so any damage taken before init 10 would effect the concentration ceck as well as if the rogue notices everyone bunched up he could try to move out of the way if he went before the wizard's init mod in 10.
Same wizard at 9th level would take:
11 count for 5th level 15-4-0=11
6 count for 4th level 12-4-2=6
1 count for 3rd and lower 9-4-4=1
so with good stats and levels the lower spells become faster....
Course a minimal wizard that had a 15 Int or a wizard affected by int damage would cast:
13 count for 5th level 15-2-0=13
8 count for 4th level 12-2-2=8
3 count for 3rd level 9-2-4=3
1 count for 2nd and lower 6-2-6=-2(1 minimum)
it does add to the bookkeeping but everyone seemed to enjoy it.

dulsin |

It is an interesting idea and does follow the flavor of many of the great sword and sorcery stories out there.
My only question. Are you going to give the casters anything to balance this out? This would be serious disadvantage for any caster.
This would be like limiting movement in armor to 10'. Or making the rogues to perform a tumble move action before executing a back attack.

Kirth Gersen |

My only question. Are you going to give the casters anything to balance this out? This would be serious disadvantage for any caster.
Actually, this puts them on even footing. In Pathfinder, casters can move and cast, but fighters cannot move and full attack. I've simply balanced their mobility, vis-a-vis their full attacks.
Would you find it outrageous if I suggested that all base weapon damage should be multiplied by BAB (but I'd allow a save for half)? Or that there be 3 different AC values, and the warriors could pick weapons so as to choose which AC to attack (analogous to spells vs. saves)?
Casters were given the entire game, during the transition from 2e to 3.0. It would be very hard for me to take enough away from them, or to give enough back to the warrior classes, to make higher-level play anything close to what it was in 1st edition, when an archmage without bodyguards was nothing but fighter-fodder.

![]() |

dulsin wrote:My only question. Are you going to give the casters anything to balance this out? This would be serious disadvantage for any caster.Actually, this puts them on even footing. In Pathfinder, casters can move and cast, but fighters cannot move and full attack. I've simply balanced their mobility, vis-a-vis their full attacks.
It really depends where your baseline experience in play falls. I see this conversation over and over. Hell, I've been a rabid participant in this conversation over and over.
My only experience with play pre 3.5 was the old PC Gold Box computer games. My natural inclination for characters is a protective fighter character. Combine a mother hen with a knight in shining armor, and that's what my base inclination for my characters is. And there was no way I could translate this concept into mechanics that didn't render my character pointless, by the rules of 3.5, until the Tome of Battle's crusader made a protective character without a lot of magic possible. Even then the best way to accomplish this was with a crusader/wizard/jade phoenix mage. The other option was a chaingun tripping fighter, which was cheesy as all get out - but pretty much the only widely available option.
3.5 is very much a spellcaster's game. The issue comes with - do you agree it should be? Or not?

Kirth Gersen |

3.5 is very much a spellcaster's game. The issue comes with - do you agree it should be? Or not?
Heh. Well, you at least know my answer to that!
Say you're in a group, and a bad guy shows up some distance off. Without a grid, if you win initiative and state "I stay between Jeff's wizard and the bad guy!" then I'm not even going to track that as movement on your part, unless the bad guy does something outrageous. It's a mother hen's dream scenario!

![]() |

Jess Door wrote:3.5 is very much a spellcaster's game. The issue comes with - do you agree it should be? Or not?Heh. Well, you at least know my answer to that!
Yep! And I agree myself. But if your frame of reference is 3.5 and you generally like spellcasters only, you might not agree.
With no grid, say your fighter starts between the bad guy and Jeff's wizard. If you win initiative and state "I stay between them," then I'm not even going to track that as movement on your part, unless the bad guy does something outrageous. It's a mother hen's dream scenario!
hehe, in Sheraviel's case, she's not quite like that, though she had a few leanings in that direction. If I don't come up with some other aspect of personality to latch onto, though, that's kinda my default state for roleplaying characters. :)

Kirth Gersen |

hehe, in Sheraviel's case, she's not quite like that, though she had a few leanings in that direction. If I don't come up with some other aspect of personality to latch onto, though, that's kinda my default state for roleplaying characters. :)
Threadjack:
Derek certainly seems to be playing his default character. Of course, when I'm taking a break from being a scheming wizard or equally-scheming James Bond type, then your new friend Jack Samson seems to be my default...

![]() |

Jess Door wrote:hehe, in Sheraviel's case, she's not quite like that, though she had a few leanings in that direction. If I don't come up with some other aspect of personality to latch onto, though, that's kinda my default state for roleplaying characters. :)Threadjack:** spoiler omitted **
Ah, yes, topic, sorry. Hrm.
A group I played with back in Michigan tried the old initiative rules...or at least, some version of them. We wanted to introduce initiative that changed depending on what you did, so the DM added modifiers to your initiative depending on your weapon of choice, the level of the spell you were casting, etc. Honestly, the paperwork involved got so crazy with 3.5 tactical rules, one battle had us all ready to kill each other out of pure frustration. hehe.

Kirth Gersen |

A group I played with back in Michigan tried the old initiative rules...or at least, some version of them. We wanted to introduce initiative that changed depending on what you did, so the DM added modifiers to your initiative depending on your weapon of choice, the level of the spell you were casting, etc. Honestly, the paperwork involved got so crazy with 3.5 tactical rules, one battle had us all ready to kill each other out of pure frustration. hehe.
The 1e initiative rules (speed factors, etc.) worked fine in 1e, but then again, the overall combat system in 3.5 bears little or no resemblance to the 1e combat system. I can see how "porting in" one element without making wholesale changes would be ungainly at best, and potentially non-workable at worst.

![]() |

3.5 is very much a spellcaster's game. The issue comes with - do you agree it should be? Or not?
Ars Magica. You're describing that game.
Huh. Never noted. Course, I almost play exclusively spellcaster ^_^

Kirth Gersen |

Ars Magica. You're describing that game.
Yeah -- Jeffrey Dahmer was a great guy. I mean, look at Stalin! ;)

![]() |

joela wrote:Ars Magica. You're describing that game.Yeah -- Jeffrey Dahmer was a great guy. I mean, look at Stalin! ;)
???

![]() |

Player #2: "I don't care what you do, as long as you don't nerf spells, and make everything else more like it was in 1e."
And, the funny thing is, I rarely play spellcasters...
"Default character"? Have I displayed suicidal tendencies? ;)
Kirth, to address the topic, I am all for making casting harder in combat, making casters less mobile, and making "casting defensively" and disruption DCs more difficult, as long as casters get back some "oomph" when the spell does go off.
:)

Kirth Gersen |

Kirth, to address the topic, I am all for making casting harder in combat, making casters less mobile, and making "casting defensively" and disruption DCs more difficult, as long as casters get back some "oomph" when the spell does go off.
I think you'll like what I've got planned for death spells, then:

![]() |

houstonderek wrote:Kirth, to address the topic, I am all for making casting harder in combat, making casters less mobile, and making "casting defensively" and disruption DCs more difficult, as long as casters get back some "oomph" when the spell does go off.I think you'll like what I've got planned for death spells, then. How does Con damage on a successful save strike you?
I dig it. As long as on a failed save you're, you know, um, dead.
;)