A comment on another thread made me suddenly consider what would happen if caster level worked like BAB: For every 5 points of it, you got an iterative spell. So a fighter with BAB 11 could single attack at +11, or could full attack at +11/+6/+1, and a wizard with CL 11 could cast one spell at CL 11 as a standard action or could cast three spells at CL 11, 6, and 1 as a full round action.
Immediately I realized just how broken this would be, but it got me to thinking of what it would take to balance it. What would it take to make iterative casting as balanced (or unbalanced) as casting currently is? I'm not looking for perfect balance with a martial character, although that would be a nice result. I'm just looking to keep the same relative power levels as currently exist.
probably all spells would be half as powerful, or half as likely to work, but you could cast twice as many.
All in all, it would change exactly nothing.
You would probably have bard spell stats for wizards, paladin for bard and well rogue for paladin.
Not everyone needs the same mechanics, 4E went that direction. (and I say this without wanting to go into an edition war)
I would leave it as is, why do you want to give casters a bonus if he doesn't move? most casting is ranged anyway.
I'm sorry if my comments aren't that constructive, but I would think that if something isn't broken, you don't need to fix it. Anyhow, intersting idea.
What about if you made it work on spell level instead if caster level? So once you get 5th level spells you can cast a 1-5th level spell and then a 1st, then when you get to 6th you can cast 1-6 and then 1-2, etc. Then at ninth level spells 1-9, 1-5, then a 1st level spell. Dont know how balanced that is right outta the box considering the difference between sorcerer and wizard and that pallies and rangers only get 4th level.
EDIT: Meant to say, I thought this would work better since spells are balanced on level not caster level. two 6th level spells are ridiculous regardless of caster level, since some spells don't care what your caster level is.
Unearthed Arcana hard a similar idea. It helped with multiclassing casters.
You got levels in arcane or divine caster
Wizard/Sorcerer +1 Arcane
Bard +2/3 Arcane
Cleric/Druid +1 Divine
Ranger/Paladin +1/2 Divine
So if you are a cleric 3/paladin 2/ranger 2 you get 3 + 1 + 1 divine caster levels, and thus you cast as a level 5 cleric.
A bard 6/sorcerer 3 would cast as a level 7 sorcerer.
A wizard 5/bard 3 would cast as a level 7 wizard.
That is the general idea.
Just to clarify, this isn't anything I'm ever planning on implementing or expect anyone else to - it's more in the nature of a thought experiment.
I would leave it as is, why do you want to give casters a bonus if he doesn't move? most casting is ranged anyway.
For the same reason that an archer character gets a bonus if they don't move.
What about if you made it work on spell level instead if caster level? So once you get 5th level spells you can cast a 1-5th level spell and then a 1st, then when you get to 6th you can cast 1-6 and then 1-2, etc. Then at ninth level spells 1-9, 1-5, then a 1st level spell.
I didn't even consider that. I was thinking of BAB an CL as being equivalent for this, but tying it to spell level might make more sense.
I suppose one of the questions to answer becomes "How many iterative spells should a 20th level paladin/ranger have?" They get four iterative attacks, where a wizard would only get 2. But they have the same caster level as the wizard. So giving them only one or two iterative spells at 20th level makes sense.
Some possible breakdowns:
At 5 spell levels per iteration:
Wizard: 9/4
Bard: 6/1
Paladin: 4
At 4 spell levels per iteration:
Wizard: 9/5/1
Bard: 6/2
Paladin: 4
At 3 spell levels per iteration:
Wizard: 9/6/3
Bard: 6/3
Paladin: 4/1
At 2 spell levels per iteration:
Wizard: 9/7/5/3/1
Bard: 6/4/2
Paladin: 4/2
So it seems like the 4 spell levels per iteration makes the most sense - it gives you the equivalences of Good BAB (caps at 4 attacks) = 9th level spells (caps at 3 spells), Average BAB (caps at 3 attacks) = 6th level spells (caps at 2 spells), Poor BAB (caps at 2 attacks) = 4th level spells (caps at 1 spell).
So the next question is - what needs to be done to the spells themselves to make casting a 9th level, a 5th level, and a 1st level in one round roughly equivalent to casting a single 9th level spell now?
Other than saying only standard action spells-no full round, or move or free or swift or immediate action spells, makes a little bit of difference-I don't know what changes you could make that wouldn't involve a whole rewrite of everything. Or hey, you could say that casting this way "spends a lot of magic energy" so you can't use any free, swift, or immediate spells until the beginning of your next turn. So no feather fall for the wizard who unloads and gets bullrushed off a cliff.
Spell effects scale with level, for the most part. Attacks do not, except for getting iteratives. So unless a 10th level fighter's longsword thrust deals a base 10d8 damage, iterative spells should be a resounding NO.
Other than saying only standard action spells-no full round, or move or free or swift or immediate action spells, makes a little bit of difference-I don't know what changes you could make that wouldn't involve a whole rewrite of everything. Or hey, you could say that casting this way "spends a lot of magic energy" so you can't use any free, swift, or immediate spells until the beginning of your next turn. So no feather fall for the wizard who unloads and gets bullrushed off a cliff.
Hmm. You raise a good point.
Spell effects scale with level, for the most part. Attacks do not, except for getting iteratives. So unless a 10th level fighter's longsword thrust deals a base 10d8 damage, iterative spells should be a resounding NO.
Or unless spells don't scale with caster level. Within the thought experiment, it can go either way. What if every spell was always cast at the minimum caster level for that spell?
It would mean a sorcerer's spells were always slightly more powerful than a wizard's, because they get them a level later. Is that a reasonable trade off for lagging a level behind in getting the spells?
And it'd mean a paladin's cure spells would all be stronger than a cleric's... although the paladin gains access to them much later. A 5th level cleric would be able to cast one CSW for 3d8+5, and a paladin would be able to cast CLW for 1d8+4. Pretty close to what's there now, although neither spell would ever get any stronger. At 9th level, the cleric would get his first iterative spell, and be able to cast Mass CLW (1d8+9 per target) or Breath of Life (5d8+9) and follow either one up with a regular CLW (1d8+1). The paladin would still be limited to CMW (2d8+7) So 6d8+10 vs 2d8+7, instead of the current 5d8+9 vs 2d8+9. Seems like it's pretty equivalent (the cleric is burning two spells, after all).
Or unless spells don't scale with caster level. Within the thought experiment, it can go either way. What if every spell was always cast at the minimum caster level for that spell?
And only 1st level spells were available? Then, yes, iterative spells would be great. But there are no "9th level weapons," so 9th level spells should be out, too.
One option is to force them to split caster levels between them, to cause the spellcasters to gain a nerf instead of a boost?
Caster level progression could be something like this, for a full caster:
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 5/1
7 6/1
8 6/2
9 7/2
10 7/3
11 8/3
12 8/4
13 9/4
14 9/5
15 9/5/1
16 10/5/1
17 10/6/1
18 10/6/2
19 11/6/2
20 11/7/2
For a standard action cast, you use the first number - so a 13th level wizard casts at CL 9 as a standard action. As a full-round cast, you can cast EITHER spells at all the caster levels or total up the caster level; so a 13th level wizard can cast either a CL9 spell and a CL 4 spell, or a CL 13 spell.
In all circumstances, to cast a spell, you must use a CL at least equal to the level at which you get spell slots for that level. Sounds complicated, but basically, when the 13th level wizard casts a CL 9 spell, it can at most be a spell that takes a 5th level slot, and for a CL 4 spell, at most a spell that takes a 2nd level slot.
That way, spellcasters get more flexibility when casting as a full-round action, but must spend more time to cast their high-level spells.
This of course opens up the kind of multiclass stacking that UA supports; basically, if you have different levels, you can stack the base caster levels from each, so a Wiz 8/Sor 5 has caster level 11/2, which is actually most of the time better than a Wiz 13 would have, but on the other hand still can't cast as high level spells so it would probably even out.
Other than saying only standard action spells-no full round, or move or free or swift or immediate action spells, makes a little bit of difference-I don't know what changes you could make that wouldn't involve a whole rewrite of everything. Or hey, you could say that casting this way "spends a lot of magic energy" so you can't use any free, swift, or immediate spells until the beginning of your next turn. So no feather fall for the wizard who unloads and gets bullrushed off a cliff.Hmm. You raise a good point.
Immediate spells would be comparable to an attack of opportunity
Standard action spells would just become "action" spells, and thus comparable to an attack action (which could be a whole standard action or part of a full-round action).
Full round spells would be a single spell that takes up your full turn, the way some single attacks take up your full turn (i.e. spring attack, charge - although those involve movement)
I don't know what 1 round spells would equate to - treat them as a full round spell that resolves right before the start of your next turn?
I also don't know what to do about swift spells / quickened spells. Unlike an AoO, you're choosing to initiate it, rather than just responding when an opportunity presents itself... And there's nothing that gives you attacks as swift actions... Maybe they'd have to be removed? Spell effects scale with level, for the most part. Attacks do not, except for getting iteratives. So unless a 10th level fighter's longsword thrust deals a base 10d8 damage, iterative spells should be a resounding NO.Or unless spells don't scale with caster level. Within the thought experiment, it can go either way. What if every spell was always cast at the minimum caster level for that spell?
It would mean a sorcerer's spells were always slightly more powerful than a wizard's, because they get them a level later. Is that a reasonable trade off for lagging a level behind in getting...
Or what if we kind of mixed these ideas? Your 9th level spell would be at full caster level and your 5th level would be at CL-5? etc
Or unless spells don't scale with caster level. Within the thought experiment, it can go either way. What if every spell was always cast at the minimum caster level for that spell?And only 1st level spells were available? Then, yes, iterative spells would be great. But there are no "9th level weapons," so 9th level spells should be out, too.
I'd consider a +5 keen brilliant energy weapon the fighter equivalent of a 9th level spell. A lot more expensive, but it doesn't wear out over the course of a day to be recharged that night...
One option is to force them to split caster levels between them, to cause the spellcasters to gain a nerf instead of a boost?
Not a bad idea. I think that's closer to what I was originally thinking than making it based on spell levels - I just didn't consider splitting the caster level. I think it'd go a long way towards making it balanced. I worry that it is too much of a nerf to casters, though, because they can't cast any of their shiny new spells at each level without spending a full round to do so, and a fighter gets the benefit of his new BAB even on single attacks...
What would the slower spell progressions look like? Would they have the same caster level progression, and just have their current spell-level restrictions? Would they get a slower progression?
Or what if we kind of mixed these ideas? Your 9th level spell would be at full caster level and your 5th level would be at CL-5? etc
Then I want 9th level weapons, to go with your 9th level spells. And I want weapon damage to scale with base attack bonus. So my 1st level fighter would deal 1d8 with his longsword; at 6th level he'd deal 6d8/1d8, at 16th level he'd deal 16d8/11d8/6d8/1d8, etc.
A comment on another thread made me suddenly consider what would happen if caster level worked like BAB: For every 5 points of it, you got an iterative spell. So a fighter with BAB 11 could single attack at +11, or could full attack at +11/+6/+1, and a wizard with CL 11 could cast one spell at CL 11 as a standard action or could cast three spells at CL 11, 6, and 1 as a full round action.
Immediately I realized just how broken this would be, but it got me to thinking of what it would take to balance it. What would it take to make iterative casting as balanced (or unbalanced) as casting currently is? I'm not looking for perfect balance with a martial character, although that would be a nice result. I'm just looking to keep the same relative power levels as currently exist.
You would have to boost the martial characters. I don't know if it would help because with a caster being able to drop multiple spells a round he may end the fight before anyone else gets to do anything. You would also have to worry about enemy casters TPK'ing the party. I think it is best to not go this route personally.
One option is to force them to split caster levels between them, to cause the spellcasters to gain a nerf instead of a boost?Not a bad idea. I think that's closer to what I was originally thinking than making it based on spell levels - I just didn't consider splitting the caster level. I think it'd go a long way towards making it balanced. I worry that it is too much of a nerf to casters, though, because they can't cast any of their shiny new spells at each level without spending a full round to do so, and a fighter gets the benefit of his new BAB even on single attacks...
What would the slower spell progressions look like? Would they have the same caster level progression, and just have their current spell-level restrictions? Would they get a slower progression?
They still get the benefit of a higher caster level at some levels, and gain more spells and so on. A fighter gains benefit at single attacks, but so do wizards that have more spells to prepare as well as, at certain levels, higher caster level. When a wizard hits 13th level, he gains the ability to cast 7th level spells as a full-round action and 5th level spells as a standard action, so he doesn't have to spend a full round to gain the benefit of his levels.
You could always split it less though, so that a wiz 20 for example had 16/3/1 instead of 11/7/2.
Those with slower spell progression would work the same way, this only changes caster level. Those with reduced caster level works of the table but at that amount of levels lower (a paladin's got CL = class level -3, right? then a 13th level paladin has a CL of 7/3). He could as a standard action cast 3rd level paladin spells (as he normally needs level 10/caster level 7 to cast 3rd level spells).
On a similar concept, The other day I started thinking about a combat system that did away with iterative attacks. Instead, every one got 2 standard actions at first level, and an additional standard action for ever 5 BAB after +1 (3 standard actions at 6th level, 4 at 11th, etc). A standard action can be replace with a move action, or could be used with anything that required a standard action. I was thinking about limiting spell casting to once per round, but quickened spell over came this. It was still a work in progress.
Sorry for the potential thread jack.
On a similar concept, The other day I started thinking about a combat system that did away with iterative attacks. Instead, every one got 2 standard actions at first level, and an additional standard action for ever 5 BAB after +1 (3 standard actions at 6th level, 4 at 11th, etc). A standard action can be replace with a move action, or could be used with anything that required a standard action. I was thinking about limiting spell casting to once per round, but quickened spell over came this. It was still a work in progress.
Sorry for the potential thread jack.
Also not to jack the thread, but how do you handle TWF and attacking more than once a round?
Creative Director
|
eew...
I'd much rather see iterative attacks go away than see spellcasting adopt that system. The fact that iterative attacks add so much variable math to a combat round is one of the primary culprits that slows down high level play, and extending that problem into spellcasting would be gross.
Also not to jack the thread, but how do you handle TWF and attacking more than once a round?On a similar concept, The other day I started thinking about a combat system that did away with iterative attacks. Instead, every one got 2 standard actions at first level, and an additional standard action for ever 5 BAB after +1 (3 standard actions at 6th level, 4 at 11th, etc). A standard action can be replace with a move action, or could be used with anything that required a standard action. I was thinking about limiting spell casting to once per round, but quickened spell over came this. It was still a work in progress.
Sorry for the potential thread jack.
Two Weapon fighting(feat) would allow you to once per round make an attack with both your primary and off hand weapon.
Improved two weapon fighting would allow you to do this twice per round.greater two weapon fighting would allow you to do it 3 times per round.
Two weapon fighting penalties apply as normal, as well as penalties for making more than one attack per round.
Or what if we kind of mixed these ideas? Your 9th level spell would be at full caster level and your 5th level would be at CL-5? etc
I think that would be overpowered - a 20th level caster shouldn't be able to get much beyond 20d6 or 200 flat in the new system, since that's where it caps in the current one. Setting all spells to minimum caster level helps with that, since 9th level spells cap at CL 17 (for sorcs), but that's still pretty powerful. I didn't consider it before, but even if you cast an 8th level spell at CL 15, then a 4th level spell at CL 8, that's still 23d6 worth of damage for the cost of two spells. Not as efficient as current rules, but much more powerful.
I'd much rather see iterative attacks go away than see spellcasting adopt that system. The fact that iterative attacks add so much variable math to a combat round is one of the primary culprits that slows down high level play, and extending that problem into spellcasting would be gross.
It's true. It'd certainly slow things down even more. But I'm not sure how you could get rid of iterative attacks without ending up with a 4E-like system, where everyone gets one attack, and it's just a matter of flavor whether it's via a spell or a weapon.
I'd much rather see iterative attacks go away than see spellcasting adopt that system. The fact that iterative attacks add so much variable math to a combat round is one of the primary culprits that slows down high level play, and extending that problem into spellcasting would be gross.It's true. It'd certainly slow things down even more. But I'm not sure how you could get rid of iterative attacks without ending up with a 4E-like system, where everyone gets one attack, and it's just a matter of flavor whether it's via a spell or a weapon.The same here, which is why I am very intrigued w/Kierato's system. The only parts that worry me are: all characters will be moving a lot more, and monsters need to be tweaked, like what exactually is the action set-up for something w/2 claw, 1 bite, and 1 tail slam attacks in a full round. Or something that can attack twice with claws: do they automatically get 2 attacks in any standard action, or do they get one a round? And how does that balance against PC's increase in actions?
Ok, now that i understand what the OP was talking about.
This kind of reminds me of a home brew system I was toying with a while back.
In effect, you could adjust the levels of the spell slot used to cast a spell by taking more or less time.
Each doubling or halving of cast time grants or removes 2 spell levels.
swift -> move -> standard -> full round -> 2 rounds -> 4 rounds, etc.
So for example, you have a sorcerer casting a fireball, normally a standard action.
The same sorcerer could cast an empowered(+2 spell level) fireball as a full round action(-2 spell level) with the exact same spell slot.
Touch spells become really deadly. I cast a empowered(+2) maximized(+3) vampiric touch with a level 2 slot by taking 4 rounds(-6 spell level) to cast it, then I hold the charge.
With this kind of system you can achieve a similar effect where a caster who take a full round to cast spells hits harder than a caster who just uses a standard action, then moves.
The same here, which is why I am very intrigued w/Kierato's system. The only parts that worry me are: all characters will be moving a lot more, and monsters need to be tweaked, like what exactually is the action set-up for something w/2 claw, 1 bite, and 1 tail slam attacks in a full round. Or something that can attack twice with claws: do they automatically get 2 attacks in any standard action, or do they get one a round? And how does that balance against PC's increase in actions?I'd much rather see iterative attacks go away than see spellcasting adopt that system. The fact that iterative attacks add so much variable math to a combat round is one of the primary culprits that slows down high level play, and extending that problem into spellcasting would be gross.It's true. It'd certainly slow things down even more. But I'm not sure how you could get rid of iterative attacks without ending up with a 4E-like system, where everyone gets one attack, and it's just a matter of flavor whether it's via a spell or a weapon.So as to not continue thread jacking, I will create a new thread to discus my idea. Should have it up within the hour.
Or what if we kind of mixed these ideas? Your 9th level spell would be at full caster level and your 5th level would be at CL-5? etcI think that would be overpowered - a 20th level caster shouldn't be able to get much beyond 20d6 or 200 flat in the new system, since that's where it caps in the current one. Setting all spells to minimum caster level helps with that, since 9th level spells cap at CL 17 (for sorcs), but that's still pretty powerful. I didn't consider it before, but even if you cast an 8th level spell at CL 15, then a 4th level spell at CL 8, that's still 23d6 worth of damage for the cost of two spells. Not as efficient as current rules, but much more powerful.
I'd much rather see iterative attacks go away than see spellcasting adopt that system. The fact that iterative attacks add so much variable math to a combat round is one of the primary culprits that slows down high level play, and extending that problem into spellcasting would be gross.It's true. It'd certainly slow things down even more. But I'm not sure how you could get rid of iterative attacks without ending up with a 4E-like system, where everyone gets one attack, and it's just a matter of flavor whether it's via a spell or a weapon.
I don't mind 4E's 1w,2w, and so on system. SW Saga only has one attack, but it is still not to simple to enjoy. I would go for something between pathfinder and Saga.
Why not let casters combine any number of spells into a single action, as long as their total spell level is no higher than the highest level spell they can cast, and divide their caster level between them however they choose, so long as they give each spell a caster level of at least [its level x2]-1?
The action to cast in that way would be the same as the action for whichever of the spells takes longest to cast, possibly extended as though you were using spontaneous metamagic.
I'm not sure if casting multiple spells in one turn like that should use multiple slots or one spell slot of their total level. If it were to be one slot, prepared casters would have to decide if they were combining spells ahead of time and if it were to be multiple slots, it would let casters nova more and give them significantly more freedom.
I don't see this variant doing anything dramatic to the casters' damage or to the game's action economy, but the multiple slots version makes it a little like psionic power points.