With recent discussions of caster power within Pathfinder, I found myself contemplating ways to somewhat downplay their power without completely nerfing them. Anyways, a thought from older editions came to me.
I seem to recall, waaaay back in I think 1st edition, that casting a spell required a certain number of "segments" -- and that as initiative counted down, a caster began a spell when his or her initiative came up, but didn't finish said spell until the casting time had been satisfied.
This meant that a caster who rolled high on initiative could almost certainly get off a low-level spell, but that a higher-level spell ran the risk of being interrupted as opponents went "Oh crap, a caster!" and directed hostilities towards them as said opponents' initiative counts came up.
A simple way to adjudicate this might be to have any spell take one "segment" / initiative count to cast per spell level. Spells which display a casting time of one swift action or one immediate action could be cast whenever, and would always go off on the caster's rolled initiative count.
A caster could take a move action before starting to cast the chosen spell, or after he/she finished casting. This would, of course, involve complications on the initiative count though.
Thoughts?
I have always liked that both from a GM and player perspective. Unfortunately I doubt you will find much support for such a notion either here or in your group.
I support it.
Sounds like a perfectly good house rule, if it were done correctly.
Do I think that the game needs it to be playable at all? No not really.
I have always liked that both from a GM and player perspective. Unfortunately I doubt you will find much support for such a notion either here or in your group.
There's that. However, setting it up as a house rule within a new campaign, rather than as an instance of "hey, halfway through the existing campaign, we're doing things this way now", will likely be more acceptable. My group of players is pretty reasonable that way. : )
(Notably, also, I plan to resurrect the old method of memorization for specialist wizards -- that you can't, at all, handle the spells from two opposition schools.)
The only problem I see coming up with this idea is that spell casters in general are not particularly well known for high initiative modifiers, so it could render the higher level spells virtually impossible unless you let the count bleed over in the next round, which creates problems of its own. This could be a good thing or a bad thing, but it is something to consider.
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I've thought about this, myself. I always liked that system, and having only just recently switched from 1E to PFRPG, keep on going back to look at it and see what I could do (spellcasting feels "funny" to me in PFRPG, and I keep trying to tweak it for my home groups - though I have yet to implement any fixes due to issues I foresee).
The problems I have were touched on, a little:
1 - Wizards don't usually have good initiative, unless they dedicate themselves to it. With this kind of system, they won't dedicate themselves to it.
2 - Counterspelling gets wonky. Either it's really good, because there's plenty of opportunity to get one in, or it's really bad, because everyone else has the opportunity to get to the wizard and give them hell.
3 - Combat casting becomes a "must have" and has the potential of being overpowerful (if you allow it to stop someone from disrupting you) or not powerful enough (as damage gets piled on, new concentration checks are required).
Those are the biggies. There are other little things, but this is the first stuff to really look at, I think.
Makes me excited to see others thinking about this, by the way. I miss weapon speed, too, and keep trying to think of ways to shoehorn that in, as well.
I'll reiterate that I fully support this :)
It could work better if the whole initiative system was reworked. More into something like Exalted 2nd edition with each action taking specific amount of ticks or something like that or segment-based timing of rounds like in (never translated) Polish RPG Krysztaly Czasu (Crystals Of Time).
Aside: I agree that weapon speed was fun. It was cool that the rogue with a dagger could strike faster than the barbarian with a gigantic axe.
.
Something you'll want to keep in mind about slowing down spellcasters is the length of your campaign. If you expect to play through 20th level, then yes, your spellcasters will be very powerful for the later levels. If, on the other hand, your campaign is expected to last 12 levels, This is an unnecessary complication. Well built melee characters dominate the early levels, in the middle levels a caster who supports his melee is much stronger than one who competes with them, and it's only at high levels where the balance really shifts toward casters.
Rather than slowing down casters at all levels, you may want to consider a change that primarily addresses the stage of the game where there is a potential problem.
- More Magic (items) - Fighting types are more dependent upon, and more able to make use of, magic items that enhance their core abilities. If magic weapons, armor, shields, ring of freedom of movement, boots of flying, cloak of resistance, etc. are more prevalent (read: less expensive at the high end) then high level hitters could better compete with high level casters.
- Less Magic (spells) - No full caster class (Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, Druid, Oracle, Witch) may stay single classed for all levels. They must either multi-class or take a prestige class that grants less than full improvement of spellcasting. Arcane Archer, Arcane Trickster, Dragon Disciple, and Eldrich Knight could all be common, and each really takes the edge off of a high level spellcaster. Even Mystic Theurge could solve the problem, if someone wants the flavor of a dedicated spellcaster, since it pushes back the higher level spells by at least three levels.
- Edited Magic - Most D&D/PF fans I talk to who have a problem with spellcaster power level name a short list of spells that cause most of the problems. Eliminate those spells from your game, make them higher level, or add expensive material components. (Magic Jar, Teleports, etc.)
- Slow Magic - If you do decide to go with spell casting times, I suggest making those times simply equal the level of the spell being cast. It's easy to keep track of, doesn't hurt the weak low level casters as much as the high, and encourages the use of lower level spells in general.
If you add weapon speed, I suggest simple initiative modifies of:
0 for light and finesse weapons
-2 for one-handed
-4 for two-handed
No modifier on a charge or attack of opportunity.
Something you'll want to keep in mind about slowing down spellcasters is the length of your campaign. If you expect to play through 20th level, then yes, your spellcasters will be very powerful for the later levels. If, on the other hand, your campaign is expected to last 12 levels, this is an unnecessary complication. Well built melee characters dominate the early levels, in the middle levels a caster who supports his melee is much stronger than one who competes with them, and it's only at high levels where the balance really shifts toward casters.
I'm not entirely sure I agree that it shifts only at the high levels. In my current campaign, I'm seeing the balance of power begin to shift in the latter part of the level 5-10 stretch -- largely because although the melee types have some measure of mobility, they can't easily counter some of the things a caster can do.
Slow Magic - If you do decide to go with spell casting times, I suggest making those times simply equal the level of the spell being cast. It's easy to keep track of, doesn't hurt the weak low level casters as much as the high, and encourages the use of lower level spells in general.
*nods* That makes sense to me, and is largely what I was considering anyways. On the other hand, quicken spell would become all the more useful and the +4 level-modifier more power-appropriate -- not only would the caster be getting an additional cast in a given round, but he could do it on his actual initiative count.
Aside: I agree that weapon speed was fun. It was cool that the rogue with a dagger could strike faster than the barbarian with a gigantic axe.
<snip>
If you add weapon speed, I suggest simple initiative modifies of:
0 for light and finesse weapons
-2 for one-handed
-4 for two-handed
No modifier on a charge or attack of opportunity.
This makes a whole lot of sense to me, actually, without getting into the ridiculously complex weapon speed charts they had back in 1E. Of course, completely negating the modifier for a charge will probably lead to a lot of hair-on-fire screaming charges by the greatsword wielders, but hey, sometimes that's what an adventure needs. *grin*
I'm not entirely sure I agree that it shifts only at the high levels. In my current campaign, I'm seeing the balance of power begin to shift in the latter part of the level 5-10 stretch -- largely because although the melee types have some measure of mobility, they can't easily counter some of the things a caster can do.
Interesting. I've never really seen a problem until after 10th. A lot of that is campaign and style depended however. If you're tending toward 1-2 fights per day, magic will be king; 3-4 fights per day and magic starts to run out of steam, for example.
. . .completely negating the modifier for a charge will probably lead to a lot of hair-on-fire screaming charges by the greatsword wielders, but hey, sometimes that's what an adventure needs. *grin*
Yep, exactly!
. . .I'm seeing the balance of power begin to shift in the latter part of the level 5-10 stretch -- largely because although the melee types have some measure of mobility, they can't easily counter some of the things a caster can do.
That doesn't sound like your casting party members are outshining your hitting party members, which is the typical problem. That sounds like you're having trouble with your party being able to fight casters effectively.
Sometimes it does feel like hitters win fights "fairly" and casters win fights by "cheating". But that's the way the game is built. In fact, it' part of the fun.
|
|
I'm no expert on casters but I recently watched the new Harry Potter and the Last Airbender movies. I'm not going to go into the quality of the stories one way or another, but there are pretty cool magic duals in both - spellcaster A throws fire and B pulls up a wall of earth to block it, etc. Cool. But nothing like this in Pathfinder because there is no mechanic for "blocking," not with magic or with weapons. Your system would allow a caster to shoot off a spell but still give the other caster time to counter it. I like that. Seems like a lot of defensive spells would be swift or instant. Feats like Quicken Spell would be important.
Questions - someone above pointed out that casters aren't known for high initiative (I agree). Why wouldn't they/couldn't they take Improved Initiative to help balance this?
Also, wouldn't low initiative almost be a boon? If everyone else has high initiative and I (as a caster) end up at 10, there isn't going to be anyone else below me to interrupt me. A 9th level spell is only going to take 9 ticks, so it'll still go off before 0 and the initiative rolls back to the top.
Questions - someone above pointed out that casters aren't known for high initiative (I agree). Why wouldn't they/couldn't they take Improved Initiative to help balance this?Also, wouldn't low initiative almost be a boon? If everyone else has high initiative and I (as a caster) end up at 10, there isn't going to be anyone else below me to interrupt me. A 9th level spell is only going to take 9 ticks, so it'll still go off before 0 and the initiative rolls back to the top.
Casters can take Improved Initiative, but very few do. As for your second point its not unusual for people who dont take special measures to end up with inits of 5 or 6 or lower even. This would cause severe problems in the proposed system.
With recent discussions of caster power within Pathfinder, I found myself contemplating ways to somewhat downplay their power without completely nerfing them. Anyways, a thought from older editions came to me.
I seem to recall, waaaay back in I think 1st edition, that casting a spell required a certain number of "segments" -- and that as initiative counted down, a caster began a spell when his or her initiative came up, but didn't finish said spell until the casting time had been satisfied.
This meant that a caster who rolled high on initiative could almost certainly get off a low-level spell, but that a higher-level spell ran the risk of being interrupted as opponents went "Oh crap, a caster!" and directed hostilities towards them as said opponents' initiative counts came up.
A simple way to adjudicate this might be to have any spell take one "segment" / initiative count to cast per spell level. Spells which display a casting time of one swift action or one immediate action could be cast whenever, and would always go off on the caster's rolled initiative count.
A caster could take a move action before starting to cast the chosen spell, or after he/she finished casting. This would, of course, involve complications on the initiative count though.
Thoughts?
A few considerations: Initiative in 3e/Pathfinder is cyclic. In 1e/2e, it was rerolled each round. This meant you could never be certain of the order you would go in, and thus, casting a spell with a high casting time ran a high risk of disruption.
However, with cyclic initiative, information does not get to be so difficult to come by. Depending on how things are resolved (how much info the GM withholds), no later than after the first round, a spellcaster should have sufficient information to game a "tick-based" approach. For example, if the caster rolls a 21 for initiative, he knows his ally has a 16, and no enemy acts before that, the caster would know all spells with a casting time of "-5" or less would be safe to cast on his next turn -- thus making the issue of the casting time for such spells non-existent for that battle. (Enemies would then have to ready or something to disrupt him, as normal.) Conversely, given an enemy acting at 20, that enemy would be able to disrupt any spell that's cast at "-1" or more -- which would be just about any spell above level 0, if you use 1/spell level. Unlike 1e/2e, that situation would remain static for the rest of the battle. Unless the caster chooses to delay. By delaying until everyone else has acted (or just until a "safe spot" in the initiative order), the incremental count becomes a non-factor. If there's a space of five points in the initiative order, there's no practical difference between a casting time of 1 or 4.
Essentially, counting increments like this introduces an additional complication that would sometimes simply not matter at all due to how initiative spreads and the cyclic initiative work. It would only work against casters at random battles. It would also be within the ability of casters to control -- by taking initiative-boosting options and by delaying. Whereas with rerolling initiative each round, and having to declare your action ahead of that, it was always a consideration when choosing a spell to cast in 1e/2e -- the balance lay in managing that risk. With cyclic initiative, that does not work.
The way to implement the same concept under the current set of mechanics would be to move casting times up the action hierarchy: Troublesome save-or-suck and save-or-die type spells should be given casting times of 1 round (completed at the start of the caster's next turn). That would yield completely predictable results each and every time (it would either always be a penalty or never), and doesn't require making any modifications to the existing system. Simple damaging spells and the like aren't generally problematic, so they can safely remain standard actions.
Another point to this is that it doesn't require tracking additional information. Having to essentially track two initiative counts for each caster in a fight, one of which might vary from round to round is additional work for the GM -- for something that may not even accomplish its intended purpose.
On the other hand, if you really want to use a numeric casting time mechanism, that would probably require a more thorough revision of the entire initiative system. Either making all actions incremental, or using the 1e/2e initiative standard of rerolling each round, after declaring actions for the turn. And both would be more cumbersome than the cyclical system.
Casters can take Improved Initiative, but very few do. As for your second point its not unusual for people who dont take special measures to end up with inits of 5 or 6 or lower even. This would cause severe problems in the proposed system.
Questions - someone above pointed out that casters aren't known for high initiative (I agree). Why wouldn't they/couldn't they take Improved Initiative to help balance this?Also, wouldn't low initiative almost be a boon? If everyone else has high initiative and I (as a caster) end up at 10, there isn't going to be anyone else below me to interrupt me. A 9th level spell is only going to take 9 ticks, so it'll still go off before 0 and the initiative rolls back to the top.
I don't entirely agree. Although a long casting time would still mean that a caster with a low initiative roll would go last, it doesn't necessarily mean they wouldn't get a chance to go. One could have a negative initiative modifier -- rather like an ooze or slime -- and simply go at the very end of the round. That would be simpler, tracking wise.
(Admittedly, all of this works better for me because as GM I build up an Excel spreadsheet, drop in the numbers for the players and the opponents (and whether or not someone is delaying, which happens more often than you'd think) and can do a quick re-sort of the initiative order. Adding spell casting times might add a little complication to my spreadsheet, but I think it's doable.)
I'm no expert on casters but I recently watched the new Harry Potter and the Last Airbender movies. I'm not going to go into the quality of the stories one way or another, but there are pretty cool magic duals in both - spellcaster A throws fire and B pulls up a wall of earth to block it, etc. Cool. But nothing like this in Pathfinder because there is no mechanic for "blocking," not with magic or with weapons. Your system would allow a caster to shoot off a spell but still give the other caster time to counter it. I like that. Seems like a lot of defensive spells would be swift or instant. Feats like Quicken Spell would be important.
Questions - someone above pointed out that casters aren't known for high initiative (I agree). Why wouldn't they/couldn't they take Improved Initiative to help balance this?
Some casters do; some also go with high DEX builds rather than high CON builds, which adds up.
I'd been thinking primarily of the possibility for disruption when I first proposed the casting-delay mechanic, but the possibility of spellcasters/opponents taking defensive measures (throwing up a wall rather than being able to counterspell) is definitely intriguing. It conjures the image of a caster frantically throwing up a shield to block what he just recognized as a intensified empowered magic missile, or a bunch of mercenaries who just watched their cohorts get incinerated by a fireball taking cover (and thus gaining cover bonuses) when they see the caster start to wave his arms and incant.
Those are just a few direct-damage examples, of course. I'm sure others could come up with ones just as evocative. : )
I really like the positive and helpful comments made thus far in this thread. I personally would like to introduce some sort of mechanic like this for the next campaign I run and seeing the points raised so far has been very helpful.
My first concern also (as mentioned above) is how to use a spell casting-time system with the existing initiative system. I agree that in most rounds, unless a situation is dire, the spell caster is well-served by delaying until after everyone else has gone so that he can not be interrupted. In that case it doesn't matter if his spell has a 1 or 9 "tick" casting time, as since he is already last its just a matter of does the spell go off now, or... now?
So, how would people recommend dealing with that?
I really like the positive and helpful comments made thus far in this thread. I personally would like to introduce some sort of mechanic like this for the next campaign I run and seeing the points raised so far has been very helpful.
My first concern also (as mentioned above) is how to use a spell casting-time system with the existing initiative system. I agree that in most rounds, unless a situation is dire, the spell caster is well-served by delaying until after everyone else has gone so that he can not be interrupted. In that case it doesn't matter if his spell has a 1 or 9 "tick" casting time, as since he is already last its just a matter of does the spell go off now, or... now?
So, how would people recommend dealing with that?
One possibility is to have the initiative count indeed "roll over" at zero into the next round -- so delay too long, and the fast dextrous guy at the top of the initiative count, who just stabbed the fighter, might see your wizard ponderously casting a mighty spell and move over to interrupt him.