|
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.
;)
ah, but does death ward get back it's former oomph then too? :)
|
ah, but does death ward get back it's former oomph then too? :)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.
;)
Absolutely! Can't "oomph" the effects without "oomphing" the counter-measures :)
|
???Translation: Finding a "worse" example of something doesn't mean that the current example is necessarily "good." For example, the fact that casters dominate even more in Ars Magica doesn't mean that they don't dominate in D&D/Pathfinder.
Ah. Had no value judgement on either. I like both games. I just never thought of them that way ^_^
|
|
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.
Seldriss, what's your opinion of a spellcaster's power under the following conditions:
1) Your initiative system (i.e., d20 + spellcaster's Initiative modifier - level of spell)
and
2) The effects of the spell is based on the spell level, not caster level. Thus, a 3rd level Fireball would have a range of 540' (400' + (40*3)) and damage is 3d6. Metamagic feats work as usual. Saving throws continue to be DC of 10 + the level of the spell + spellcaster bonus for the relevant ability.
So, I'm planning on possibly implementing this rule (or some variant of it). It would be a full-round action to cast your highest level spell (rather than two highest level spells, or all spells). I have two questions:
Has anyone taken into consideration the fact that non-spellcasters don't necessarily benefit from the "full attack" action until 6th and 8th? Does that seem unfair to the spellcasters or nerf them early game?
Also, what's your opinion on having it just be your highest level spell? Would you do two highest level spells? More? I figure this will revolve more around my own game, but I want to hear everyone else's opinion (just for kicks and insight).
I would start a new thread, but I thought that would be unnecessary with this thread still floating around.
Eschew Materials and Still Spell supercede the Rapid Spellcasting feat
That makes sense conceptually, but it's missing something from Dragonchess Player's idea that I liked, which is that "higher levels shouldn't just be about more powerful spells, but also about using lower level spells more effectively." I don't think a wizard should always have to burn a higher level slot to cast as a standard action. Eventually the low level spells should just become that easy. Even in AD&D there was a notion of powerful wizards blasting enemies left and right, at least in the fluff of some published material.
To discourage tumble-and-cast acrobatics, I'd prefer something like a concentration check with the Tumble DC added to the concentration DC, something implausibly hard in most cases but not impossible. Very little should be impossible in a fantasy game, so there should be a way for someone to optimize for tumble-and-cast if he enjoys gambling on that kind of dramatic but improbable trick shot. Masse is fun when it works.
|
|
I think you'll like what I've got planned for death spells, then: ** spoiler omitted **
Having a 'death' spell drop the target to 50% hit points even on a successful save might be amusing. (Although, I'm a fan of potential last-minute saves, so I might have a 'death' spell only drop a person to negative hit points on a failed save, giving their allies a chance to save them via heroic measures. My original thought was just -1 and Dying, but a meaner version might have the number equal the level of the spell used. 5th level Finger of Death, straight to -5 hit points. 9th level Power Word Kill, straight to -9 hit points...)
@Weave: As I said, "highest 2 spell levels" is rounding in Casters' FAVOR,
if you compare 2 Spells Levels = 4 levels = +4 Full BAB when Iteratives are gained /5 BAB.
Realistically, MANY spells do not REQUIRE exact positioning like melee (Threat Area) or even ranged attacks (Line of Sight) do - Cure/Harm Spells are probably the most crucial Touch spells, but with Channel Energy those are not the only option - so the loss of a Move Action shouldn't really be the HUGEST of penalties. The Domains/Bloodlines/Schools also contain many Supernatural/SLA abilities that are Standard Actions and would not be affected by this. This is basically returning to the 2.x paradigm for Casters but ONLY for their lowest level spells (while Fighters suffer the 3.x Standard Attack = Single Attack paradigm).
You MAY want to 'exempt' Cantrips/Orisons (i.e. 0-level never suffer increased Casting Time),
and not invoking Increased Casting Time to Metamagick Spells whose base Spell Level is < 2 highest Spell Levels is certainly reasonable and adds a subtle advantage to what many see as an under-powered choice (Metamagic).
I'm also inclined to say that Defensive Casting itself is ALWAYS a Full-Round Action, that also precludes a Swift Action. Again, if you're Defensive Casting you hardly need a Move Action (you still can 5' Step with a Full-Round Action) and Defensive Casting AND Swift Spell (which doesn't provoke itself) seems... excessive, since "Defensive Casting" seems intended to be more effort than a normal Spell Casting. There still exists the option to cast a Swift Spell (like Dimension Door or Mirror Image) and Move away + Cast Standard Spell or even a non-Defensive Full-Round Action spell.
Imagine a wizard using Still Spell metamagic to cast as a standard action using a higher level spell slot. He is blasting enemies left and right until all he has left are 1st level slots. Suddenly he is reduced to casting his weakest spells as full round actions!
Also, metamagic other than Quicken Spell normally requires bards and sorcerers to cast for a full round.
Quandary's idea that defensive casting is always a full round action sounds cool, and dovetails with Fighting Defensively as a Full-Round Action: described on p.139 of the PFRPG. However, I thought the point of defensive casting is to avoid attacks of opportunity, so it's hard to imagine a wizard with enemies within striking range starting a full round spell.
The single attack standard action makes a lot of sense given that a melee round is only six seconds. If we were to allow full attack as a standard action, I think the round would need to be much longer, like 12 seconds. That might be better anyway, since it would make 1 minute a meaningful duration (5 rounds) that might actually elapse within one encounter, but it would affect movement.
Going to suck being a caster in this game.
The fighter drops and cleric moves up to his fallen companion and not heal him. Then next round as a full round cast he can do the heal spell amusing that all the baddies in the room don't chop into him during the cast time.
So what is the casting time of Monster Summoning IX? Full round +1 ?
By default, Full Round Actions finish ON your Initiative (like Full Attack Actions)
1 Round Casting Time Spells (with more potential for disruption) are not the same thing.
In your example, the Cleric could:
Channel Energy (+ Move & Swift)
Standard Cast non-Max 2 Spell Levels + Move & Discharge (+ Swift)
(Metamagicked if he chooses - all Healing Domain Clerics can Empower Cure Spells for free)
Full Round Cast Max Spell Levels (5' Step + Swift as desired) and next round Move + Discharge Spell (+ Swift)
Move + Use Wand/Item (+ Swift)
(I put the Swifts in there because Casters generally have many options for Swift Actions)
It seems bizarre to me that Casting is essentially un-impacted by the crucial Standard/Full-Round Action Economy EVERYTHING ELSE in the game is affected by. Re: Casting Defensively as a Full-Round Action (NOT 1 Round) it would NOT increase Casting Time for Spells already > Standard Actions, it just precludes a Swift Action. Feel free to use a non-provoking Swift Spell, and then Full Round Cast or 5' Step/Move + Standard Cast.
If 3.x is your reference point and you don't see a problem with it, this probably isn't for you.
Quandary, I missed the distinction between full-round and one round casting times. I'm still not sure I get what it is, although I'm not sure I want to, since it seems overly subtle. I'm inclined to treat one round the way you treat full-round and just call them the same thing. Am I missing out on something fun or cool if I do that?
The PFRPG says on p.187 "A spell that takes one round to cast is a full-round action."
I think you have the right idea increasing casting time only for the highest level spells currently available. I like how you pointed out the unfairness of casters pulling out their big guns in a surprise round when fighters are limited to single attacks. My reference point is both 1e and 3.x, so I appreciate the flavor and tactical interest of longer casting times.
In fact, I think the top two spell levels is right on. Without knowing about your proposal earlier, I suggested basically the same thing here in response to Dragonchess Player's proposal (in which casting as a standard action was somewhat harder).
What do you think of feats that make it possible to cast your higher level spells as standard actions? Maybe just one spell level higher, maybe just one spell a day, maybe a signature spell or specific school, maybe with a chance of failure; there's lots of ways to limit it so it doesn't just evade the issue with a feat tax.
As to the unfairness factor. Isn't not being able to full attack on a surprise that is only if you have to move? A warrior using bows from ambush should be able to rapid-shot to his hearts content.
But I am still curious how long it will take to cast monster summoning 9.
Hmm... I think I might try the full-round casting mechanic, and require a swift action to cast defensively. I'm uncertain about applying this to any spell below 3rd level, though... barring TWF (for which there is no magical equivalent), nobody else is taking full-round attacks until CL5.
What are the arguments in favor of applying full-round even at 1st level? I'll offer one up in self-response: every caster now has standard-action class features. (Also: crossbow.) But, is there a balance point argument for the spells themselves? Likewise, is there a particular reason to exclude non-Somatic spells?
Meanwhile...
bonded items replace cheap material components as a spellcasting focus; at 15th level your familiar can perform somatic components for you.
This is g@&+!$ned bloody brilliant! I think 15th level is entirely too high, though; familiars need the boost, right from the start. I would kick that in as a complete replacement for the "deliver touch spells" feature: the familiar can outright cast your spells for you.
Unless capable of speech (raven), it cannot deliver verbal components (you must do so). Either one of you can be holding the material component or focus (familiar cannot hold both), either one of you can deliver the somatic component; the familiar can be the origin of the spell instead of you (which allows the standard touch spell usage), but by default it must be physically in contact with you to perform this ability so ranges are not otherwise altered. (A feat, or perhaps a natural progression, can allow it to be farther.)
The ability to use a bonded item as a non-costly focus would kick in at 3rd level as well. That's something sorcerers don't even get, so it's pretty neat. :)
Quandary, I missed the distinction between full-round and one round casting times. I'm still not sure I get what it is, although I'm not sure I want to, since it seems overly subtle. I'm inclined to treat one round the way you treat full-round and just call them the same thing. Am I missing out on something fun or cool if I do that?
The PFRPG says on p.187 "A spell that takes one round to cast is a full-round action."
Right, a 1-Round Spell uses a Full-Round Action, but that doesn't mean ALL Full-Round Spells need to be 1-Round Spells (there just don't happen to be any in Core AFAIK)
The idea is making high level spells on par with other Full Round Actions, namely Full Attack.
1-Round Spells (Summons being most common) do not 'go off' until just before your NEXT turn (and are subject to disruption from ALL damage taken during this time, though at 50% effectiveness). A Full-Round Action Spell that ISN'T a 1-Round Spell WOULD 'go off' on your Turn just like a Standard or Swift Spell does, just like a Standard/Full Attack does. Clear now? :-)
As to the unfairness factor. Isn't not being able to full attack on a surprise that is only if you have to move? A warrior using bows from ambush should be able to rapid-shot to his hearts content.
OK.
Enlighten me how one pulls off a Full Round Action when limited to either a "Standard or Move Action".
Quandary, I missed the distinction between full-round and one round casting times. I'm still not sure I get what it is, although I'm not sure I want to, since it seems overly subtle. I'm inclined to treat one round the way you treat full-round and just call them the same thing. Am I missing out on something fun or cool if I do that?
The PFRPG says on p.187 "A spell that takes one round to cast is a full-round action."
Right, a 1-Round Spell uses a Full-Round Action, but that doesn't mean ALL Full-Round Spells need to be 1-Round Spells (there just don't happen to be any in Core AFAIK)
The idea is making high level spells on par with other Full Round Actions, namely Full Attack.
Got it. Nice idea.
1-Round Spells (Summons being most common) do not 'go off' until just before your NEXT turn (and are subject to disruption from ALL damage taken during this time, though at 50% effectiveness). A Full-Round Action Spell that ISN'T a 1-Round Spell WOULD 'go off' on your Turn just like a Standard or Swift Spell does, just like a Standard/Full Attack does. Clear now? :-)
Ah, I get it. Thanks. It might be less confusing if it was called a full-turn action, since it uses up your entire turn. Then again, I think turn meant something else in AD&D, so that just might be more confusing. :)
Are you proposing that some spells like summons should work this way (going off just before your next turn)? My reading of the PFRPG is that no spell works that way, at least not anymore. The text of Summon Monster I says the summoned creature "acts immediately, on your turn." I've forgotten if it used to work the way you say in a previous edition. I think this change would make a lot of sense, so I'm in favor.
1-Round Spells (Summons being most common) do not 'go off' until just before your NEXT turn (and are subject to disruption from ALL damage taken during this time, though at 50% effectiveness). A Full-Round Action Spell that ISN'T a 1-Round Spell WOULD 'go off' on your Turn just like a Standard or Swift Spell does, just like a Standard/Full Attack does. Clear now? :-)Ah, I get it. Thanks. It might be less confusing if it was called a full-turn action, since it uses up your entire turn. Then again, I think turn meant something else in AD&D, so that just might be more confusing.
Are you proposing that some spells like summons should work this way (going off just before your next turn)? My reading of the PFRPG is that no spell works that way, at least not anymore. The text of Summon Monster I says the summoned creature "acts immediately, on your turn." I've forgotten if it used to work the way you say in a previous edition. I think this change would make a lot of sense, so I'm in favor.
Maybe this will help:
A spell that takes 1 round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed.
So all 1-round spells start casting in your turn and require your full-round action to start them, then you continue casting them through everyone else's actions and you finish casting right before you begin your next turn.
This includes Summon X spells.
Now, where it says the summoned monster/ally "acts immediately, on your turn" it is referncing the fact that it doesn't need to roll its own initiative, it doesn't suffer a surprise round for suddenly being summoned, it is not stunned or sleeping or otherwise inactive.
Once you finish your summoning spell (just before your turn) the creature appears, and while the spell is still active (duration has not expired) your summoned creature gets to act on every round, including its first round, and it does so on your turn in the initiative sequence.
The text "acts immediately, on your turn" does not in any way supercede the actual casting time of the spell.
Hope that clears it up.
|
|
Now, where it says the summoned monster/ally "acts immediately, on your turn" it is referncing the fact that it doesn't need to roll its own initiative, it doesn't suffer a surprise round for suddenly being summoned, it is not stunned or sleeping or otherwise inactive.
I always hated that wording. "Acts immediately, on your *next* turn" I think would have been easier for me to grok.
Maybe this will help:
Thanks DM_Blake. Looks like I thought I understood but was only partway there. That explanation really helps :)
1-Round Spells (Summons being most common) do not 'go off' until just before your NEXT turn (and are subject to disruption from ALL damage taken during this time, though at 50% effectiveness). A Full-Round Action Spell that ISN'T a 1-Round Spell WOULD 'go off' on your Turn just like a Standard or Swift Spell does, just like a Standard/Full Attack does. Clear now? :-)
Sorry, Quandary, now I see that you were stating how summons already work, not proposing something new. Your proposal (if I get it now) is that the top two levels of spells should work like a fighter's full round attack, which I think is a nice idea. I wish the terminology made it more intuitive that while both use up your whole turn (1-round spell or full-round attack), the one does not take effect until just before your next turn, while the other takes effect during (or at the end of) your current turn.
Why not specify whether casting time is a "full attack action" vs. a "full round action," to reduce confusion.
Why not specify whether casting time is a "full attack action" vs. a "full round action," to reduce confusion.
I don't think that would have done it for me, since they also sound like the same thing. The fighter's full attack is already called a full round action.
I still like the idea of your most powerful spells taking a whole round to cast (going off just before your next turn), since I'm looking for opportunity to disrupt casters whether or not anyone is eligible for an AoO. What do you think of your highest level spells taking until just before your next turn, and your next highest level spells working like a fighter's full round attack (as Quandary suggests)? Below that, they'd all be standard actions unless the duration states otherwise (as in the current rules).
My over-40 player heard this idea and liked it, especially considering all the various non-spell options even at low levels, be they class features or his cleric taking Scribe Scroll.
My two around-20 players threw a fit. "Loss of mobility totally ruins my arcane trickster concept!" and, "Color Spray is totally worthless now, you move into position but you can't cast it until next round and all the targets will have moved!" and similar. An hour of heated debate later, I gave up; just not worth it.
Here's what I've done to encourage spellcasters to stand still for their entire turn. And they like it...
I have modified Metamagic so that it can be applied spontaneously without increasing the spell level. Now there is a fairly tough Spellcraft roll to see if it can be applied, and doing so requires your move action.
So, if your character wants to dash up to the front lines and drop a quick ordinary Color Spray, well, then go ahead - normal RAW applies.
But if he wants to stay still, apply a spontaneous Empower to his Magic Missiles and ping them off a few enemy skulls, he can do that to.
Seems to work quite nicely. More spellcaster options, fewer spellcasters tumbling through enemy lines, and even better, it fixes the nearly-useless metamagic system in the process. Win-win-win.
|
|
I have modified Metamagic so that it can be applied spontaneously without increasing the spell level. Now there is a fairly tough Spellcraft roll to see if it can be applied, and doing so requires your move action.
Seems to work quite nicely. More spellcaster options, fewer spellcasters tumbling through enemy lines, and even better, it fixes the nearly-useless metamagic system in the process. Win-win-win.
That's hot. And, like you say, it's a two-fer, making metamagic a real option again (instead of only existing in CharOp challenges to break stuff, or PrC prerequisite lists) and encouraging the 'stand and cast' of 1st / 2nd edition again.
Here's what I've done to encourage spellcasters to stand still for their entire turn. And they like it...
I have modified Metamagic so that it can be applied spontaneously without increasing the spell level. Now there is a fairly tough Spellcraft roll to see if it can be applied, and doing so requires your move action.
So, if your character wants to dash up to the front lines and drop a quick ordinary Color Spray, well, then go ahead - normal RAW applies.
But if he wants to stay still, apply a spontaneous Empower to his Magic Missiles and ping them off a few enemy skulls, he can do that to.
Seems to work quite nicely. More spellcaster options, fewer spellcasters tumbling through enemy lines, and even better, it fixes the nearly-useless metamagic system in the process. Win-win-win.
Useless metamagic? I thought metamagic feats were popular.
Beyond loss of movement, I'm looking for opportunity to disrupt casters with or without AoO. It's not just about balancing the PC classes (caster vs non-caster), there's the monsters too. Getting an entire round to stop the evil wizard's spell before it goes off adds some interesting tactical flavor to combat, especially when the spell effect is devastating enough that you actually care. For that to work, the power of spells has to be unbalanced compared to the power of melee combat.
I think that's what's motivating some posters to argue for restoring the bite of save-or-die spells while making spells in general more difficult to cast.
Useless metamagic? I thought metamagic feats were popular.
Well, I've played with Metamagic feats since 3rd edition first hit the shelves. During that time, I've maybe had 20-25 players in my games. A few of them were relatively new, or just plain not interested in character optimizaition, but most of those players took a fairly strong interest in optimizing their characters. No, not the crazy over the top Pun Pun optimization, but a more realistic approach to using the tools in the game to make a strong character with a good chance of surviving tough encounters.
In that time, I have seen a couple spellcasters take Empower or Maximize and they always begged me later to let them retcon and replace those with something they would actually use.
I've seen some fairly good use for Energy Substitution and Energy Admixture (though those aren't core) by a couple of players. Sadly, those just make the weakest school of spell, evocation, strong enough to hold its own compared to better schools of spells.
I have seen a few rare uses of still or silent spell, but really, only a couple spellcasters ever even took these feats.
A few really high level casters have gone with Quicken, to prepare just one or two spells like Quickened Teleport to get out of the worst disasters. Fortunately, they almost never needed to use them, but they liked having the insurance policy anyway.
The big winner has been Extend Spell. This is the one that about half, maybe a bit less than half, of my players have eventually taken, but not until fairly high level. No 5th level caster extends Bull's Sttrength, but 12th level casters do.
Other than that, many of my spellcaster players flat out refuse to waste feats on this stuff, and of the ones who do, they either hardly use them and suffer the waste of an underused feat, or they hardly use them and ask me to let them retcon.
I have never seen a spellcaster use CORE metamagic feats per RAW with any regularity. I have almost never seen any spellcaster player even want most of these feats.
As a DM, when I build one-shot villains who are scripted to fight until they die (or fight until they flee), they don't mind blowing a few feats on metamagic. Heck, there's no way they'll live long enough to use even a fraction of their spell slots, so why not go nova with a few quickened spells, and some pre-cast extended buffs, etc.?
But reaally, even then, I get the same mileage, maybe better, from taking other magical feats like Spell Penetration, Augment Summoning, etc., so even as a DM I use RAW metamagic sparingly.
I have modified Metamagic so that it can be applied spontaneously without increasing the spell level. Now there is a fairly tough Spellcraft roll to see if it can be applied, and doing so requires your move action.
Huh. Any chance you'll share the specifics?