3.5 Loyalist, I want to play in your game.
Being given a "free win everything" will be fun.
Exaggerate much?
You, don't agree with him. Fine. I don't either. But let's at least keep this civil.
Letting 1-3 party members cast quicker is hardly a "free win" when the NPC badguys (or monsters) can do it too. Think about it. Most dragons get 6 attacks...and know SPELLS (in addition to spell-like abilities). Ouch.
Also, for the record, I don't think you are trolling. It's just obvious you are used to playing a high-magic campaign. Nothing wrong with that. I'm actually used to playing low-magic campaigns (lower than the "standard" Pathfinder campaign), both as a player and as a DM. My next campaign will actually feature superstitious townsfolk with torches and pitchforks, ready to lynch "unnatural" wizards and witches.
To Derek,
Yeah I've heard of that same suggestion to that same example (why can a high level cast by default, only 1 level 1 spell in 1 round like the level 1, when he is now meant to be quite excellent at magic). Some suggestions were posed. They did get pretty complicated and chunkier rules are not always a good thing, e.g. like spell fatigue, e.g. like some badly put together injury rules (another story for another time guys, suffice to say a Shadowrun gm tried to run as a dm. So fort saves to every injury or be dazed were pushed forward, oh the pain). The argument went, yeah the caster should probably be able to get off multiple low level spells, but not high levels.
To Jeremiziah,
"It's like D&D/PF played "on the streets", loose rules and all dice a-jangling WAM! POW! It sounds kinda bad-a**"
I am a playa yo, I be smacking your rogue with my warmage b*~%&a Oriana. Nuttin you can do to the dual sonic fire balls, you'll never make the saves hater! Lol, cheers.
Ha ha, well, if it sounds cool, then give it a go at about level 9-13. You might like the more immediate sense of combos, not having to wait till the next round to do a second spell, while everyone else zips around, gets their full rounds and you are left waiting.
"Does your party ever, in these games, encounter NPCs with class levels? Or do you always fight monsters of some type, dragons/etc.? If the answer is "monsters", do you fight a lot of one or two monster groups, or are 6 monsters vs. 4 PCs fights ever done?"
Indeed they do. I like throwing different types of monsters, some which cast spells and have a great bab. They do run into the evil clerics, somewhat crazed paladins, rogues a-plenty, fighters, warriors and other melee. On the point of numbers, don't like to swarm them, but they'll fight above their number at times, but mostly against pretty even foes of their number or less. If they are in a dungeon, tower etc, and they make a lot of mistakes they can get quite a few coming down on their heads, since I am a fan of stealth games. So they can kick in the door, and if the attack is pushed, they might roll through easy, but if they allow the enemies to re-group, more numbers to the foes.
To Revan,
"but it's not 3.5, it's not Pathfinder"
That argument can be made, but the rest of the system, the mechanics is mostly 3.5 with some pathfinder additions in the area of classes and skills. It is just a change to actions allowing full round spellcasting. A d20 is still used for many rolls, there's fighters/wizards/rogues/clerics etc all formed up into parties, skill checks, crits, spells, dragons, dungeons etc.
Lastly
To Jason you decent fellow (I sense much neutral good in thee),
The enemies can at that! Let loose the spell waves. Something I want to correct though, because I think some are taking this to an incorrect conclusion.
"It's just obvious you are used to playing a high-magic campaign. Nothing wrong with that. I'm actually used to playing low-magic campaigns (lower than the "standard" Pathfinder campaign), both as a player and as a DM"
My games aren't actually high magic. Whaaat you say? Yep. Spellcasters aren't all over, magic item stores are incredibly rare, and if you are in certain countries that are more ruined and over-run, no chance of buying them (selling is a different deal), then there is a demand. I too really prefer the low magic campaigns, I usually drop the wealth a bit too to emphasise the importance of getting loot to survive (if everything was fine, dandy and prosperous, heroes are less necessary). The parties aren't all spellcasters, and only some of the players I know and game with are really into spellcasters in a compulsory sort of sense. Two like clerics and their ilk, one has gone off them of late for more melee combo character (mounted rogue/marshal, fighter/barb), one is new and into a fighter, one is an old player into rogues, ninja, jobbers and melee, one was into wizards a hell of a lot, but also likes monks, one is somewhat fixated on archer rangers (suppose its all the shooting he is used to in Oblivion).
I really prefer lower magic, and having said that, I don't think spellcasters would make up even 5% of the population of a fantasy country, so they only run into some. They, as adventurers fight clerics, wizards, etc bu there aren't spellcasters all over the place. Currently in rural Isger trying to survive the bleak winter months, they run into rogues a lot more in this region. In Sargava it was plenty of Mwangi barbarians and warlocks when not fighting monsters. So those that do go spellcaster, they do get to shine, its not all spells all the time.
Cheers everybody.
And all this happens while the Barbarian is still on his way towards his first opponent...
AM DIRTY LIE.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
~He isn't trollin'
we hatin'
he's rollin' those wizards with their extra actions
givethewizards extra actions
givethewizards extra actions~
...plenty of d6s doesn't immediately end the fights of the day...
This is not about plenty of d6's but I can see where you come from. In your game the Wizards seem to play and be build very sub optimal.
A simple example:
At 15th Level a specialised Wizard who can hasted cast 3 persistant Flesh to Stone in one round has about a 95% chance to petrify an CR 17 ancient Green Dragon by the second round (aboout 60% first round, likely before the dragon can even act) while flying displaced, invisible and resistant to whatnot from 200ft away and with HPs, AC and Fort & Reflex saves being very close to the Fighters who is helplessly grinding his teeth on the ground waiting to do any damage at all.
Against weaker enemies (about CR 12) this Wizard could cast 3 normal Flesh to Stone against three enemies with about 95% success each, taking out three opponents before the Fighter can even act.
I think Ravingdork can show you much better than I can what happens if you give the most powerful class a big big power boost.
And if your players do not play Wizards because of "cold weather and lots of fort saves" I suggest looking up Endure Elemets. Also on average a Wizard will have 2 HP/Level less than a Fighter as there is no reason that the Wizard should have a lower Con, so "low" is not so low after all.
"Multiple uses of an ability to do X damage to a guy are not as useful as multiple uses of an ability that hits a largish area and has Y% chance to put everyone out of the fight (typical wizard/bard tactics)"
Responding to that, certain spells blanket areas with damage, but those same spells can not crit. One guy above really went into the merits of fighters, and invokers or warmage types do seem to creep ahead on damage and such (I particularly like the warmage slight bonus to all damage), and then someone gets a x4 or x3 crit and it is all over, sometimes before it has even begun.
At the same time, those are spells that can't roll a natural 1 or miss
I don't always run in temperate environments, so forts come in a bit, low hp is a real problem.
Ah, so that's how you keep your wizards in line. I'm sure you keep them in line in other ways as well perhaps limiting what spells they can learn?
For your divine casters, do you still give them access to all spells at their level? Do you make them record their spells?
Anyway, what classes are feasible really depends on the environment. A dm who likes to add a lot of traps and deadly ones at that, makes a lot of love for rogues. An environment that takes place planar hopping is going to be difficult for anyone that isn't a caster. Inside of dungeons, ranged characters are weak, melee are strong. Lots of space between the enemies and the opposite are true. What enemies do show up also matters a lot, such as golems whom are immune to most magic. Presenting the world you want, changing few rules, and keeping the classes viable and desired probably means you have some skill in those regards.
"If that works for your group, fine, it just isn't Pathfinder or even 3.5!"I may be from quite the heretical tradition, but in areas such as the N.T (Northern Territory in Australia), Singapore and some groups in Melbourne, what I am doing and playing IS 3.5. You can say, it's not it's not! But in these places it has been. The interpretation of full round actions goes this way. We have tried a lot of homebrew over the years,...
I'm sure everybody has a few houserules whether they realize it or not. Sometimes things will come up that just aren't specified. The people that are saying that's it's not 3.5 are just overreacting.
To Micman,
I don't think I've seen a spellcaster use all his top spells in two rounds or so. That wouldn't be wise. There is not just one combat a day. Rest isn't always so easy to come by, Golarion is a dangerous place. So the flesh to stones are cast quickly on a dragon, they had best verify it is not an illusion first. Spellcasters can use those wonderful attack spells, but it isn't wise to, as the saying goes, blow your load in the early rounds of one combat. It may be hard to keep the high levels till the end of a dungeon say, but worth it, and even if something big is taken out with a nice spell sequence, it isn't guaranteed to be all over (in one game not so long ago, hiking into a frozen mountain, the end boss was killed off quite quick, one single arrow shot by the warrior, 20, 20, hit (insta-gib by our house rules. After this one of the monks got killed by winter wolves summoned by noncombatants whom were mistreated, and activated a runic device).
I've heard the wizard called the most powerful class, I don't buy it, but then again, I keep the 3.5 hit dies, so a wizard is d4. The old weakness of the wizard's hp is carried over, because I personally disagree with wizards learning how to roll with blows, when their training emphasises spellcasting and not bab, martial training. The wizard should not have an average of 2hp less than the fighter who learned attack and defence in a training yard, the school of hard knocks as it were.
For attributes in our current low magic game, its 3d6 (used to go higher, 4d6 excluding 1s, but now we are experimenting with less ultra super hero stats and more believable stats, with some low for each character to give them flavour). I've seen some spellcasters with great hp, but they aren't all 18s for all attributes, so high con, con as high as the melees is not usual. See the game has a lot of balancing factors built into it, going over multiple tiers is where unbalance really comes in.
"And if your players do not play Wizards because of "cold weather and lots of fort saves" I suggest looking up Endure Elemets."
I've come across this before, the idea that endure elements solves all problems. It only covers a specific band, and if you are in the hot jungles of the Mwangi expanse, it doesn't save you, if you are in the deserts and mana wastes of Geb and Nex, it is not enough, if you are really far north or on a very high altitude during winter it also can often not be enough. See Sandstorm, Frostburn, how hot the southern jungles are described as being. So there are those problems, also if you put the spells to endure elements, that is less for combat. Wizards without good fort, without taking some great forts or endurance for long marches, really are a class suited to temperate environments. Most dnd settings seem to be about that, but other areas, real harsh places interest me. Some have suggested for the new travel to Tian adventure path that endure elements will be all that is needed to survive the cold and far northern conditions of the journey. Wizards will be fine. I am not so sure, that is very far north, in pure snow.
Hello Ion,
"I'm sure you keep them in line in other ways as well perhaps limiting what spells they can learn?"
No, I actually want them to win. I watch feats closely, I want them to defeat the enemies, and I request their spell lists so there is no funny business, but I can't remember when I've said no to a spell.
You are quite right on certain environments suiting certain classes.
"I'm sure everybody has a few houserules whether they realize it or not. Sometimes things will come up that just aren't specified."
We all make em or go with good suggestions the longer we play.
I don't see why a caster should be able to cast more spells in one round. That would be too powerful.
Look at like this.
Caster get 1 spell a round while their spells get better with Caster level. This equivalent to the melee attack getting better as levels increase. Casters get higher level spell that as they progress. Melee doesn't but instead they get additional attacks in round. This is what balance it out to a degree but melee even with tons of attacks can't match 9th level spell.
So you want to make spell work like melee? That just breaks the game as the game isn't designed that way. Now it could be but it's big design change. In effect you get rid of spell levels. All spells are first level and how well they function is based off the caster level. So fireball would be 1st level and it would progress in damage based off caster level. Seeing as it's 3rd level spell now it would greatly reduced and probably wouldn't do what fireball does currently till you are 15th level.
Other game systems work like this.
So melee and ranged, as they level up, get to do more actions as part of their full round. Spellcasters do not.
Don't think of it as actions, because that's not correct. They get more attacks, but not more actions. And the same goes for the spell casters.
A level 15 fighter has only 1 standard action just like a level 4 cleric.
I'm sure that the houserules you have work well for your group.
I'm equally certain that *my* group has at least two members who would be able to break the game in half if I played with these rules, while maintaining an in-character, self-consistent style of play.
From a party-independent design perspective, I could maybe understand allowing higher level casters to cast multiple spells as a full-round action as a parallel to iterative attacks if spells cast after the first had some uniform-value stacking penalty the way that Iterative Attacks do. In the absence of such a penalty, I don't really understand how the ability is properly similar. As Deadman says, iterative attacks =/= multiple standard actions.
Also, with respect to Dragons... A young adult black dragon has BAB 12 when it gains access to 1st level spells (CL 1); a great wyrm black dragon has BAB 26 (CL 15). Both a young adult black dragon and a great wyrm black dragon are listed as possessing 6 attacks that can all be executed as a full-round action to full-attack: Bite, Claw, Claw, Wing, Wing, Tail Slap. Do all black dragons capable of spellcasting get the ability to cast 6 spells as a full-round action to mirror their ability to make that many attacks in the same timeframe? Also, assuming that dragons are limited by BAB to determine spells-per-round under your system, does a Great Wyrm with BAB +26 get 4 or 6 spells as a full-round action?
While I can easily understand the basis for the conclusions you've reached, it's my belief that while the martial-combat-type characters demonstrate advancing prowess through improved martial capability, spellcasting characters demonstrate advancing prowess through access to more complex, more powerful, more capable spells. Barbarians, Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers are really good at combat, which is reflected in their development of the ability to make multiple swings have the potential to hit for damage - this ability develops at the fastest pace. Bards, Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers, and Wizards are really good at magic, which is reflected in their ability to cast higher-level spells that have more potent and/or versatile effects compared to lower-level spells. This leaves Monks and Rogues (out of the Core classes) - Monks are really good at striking hard and fast with Monk-specific weapons, and are counted as having BAB = Monk HD for the purposes of executing a Flurry of Blows, so in terms of full-attacks, Monks join the Barbarian/Fighter/Ranger/Paladin group. Rogues are not as good at straight-up attacking as the rest of the non-spellcasting classes, but when they do attack from the right angle, their ability to find a weak spot (in opponents that have them) translates to better damage per successful attack. In the standard rules, the concept of "this guy is **really** good at X," where X is attacking or spellcasting, is already built into the class progression.
From what I could tell, the thread started with the premise that you didn't understand why spellcasters shouldn't get to cast multiple spells per round by default. I think it's great that your players adhere to balanced concepts voluntarily (or at least by default). As many GMs here can attest, I think, not all players do so - these players are, if not in the majority, at least are a vocal minority. Such a player requires extra time and effort from a GM who doesn't want to ask them to leave (I'm in a situation like that now, as a matter of fact - I could not imagine asking any of my players to leave my gaming group, but at the moment I have one player who is imbalanced with the rest of the group).
Using your rules for spellcasting, I can easily envision one of my players deciding to pursue a Wizard 8, Fighter 2, Eldritch Knight X character specifically to obtain the ability to cast 4 spells per round. None of the options he would want to use come from sources outside of the Core Rulebook, and I don't think that I would feel it fair to tell him that I don't allow Eldritch Knights in my games, which seems to be your method of keeping such combinations in check.
As far as the argument that there are multiple encounters in a day and that a caster who dumps 4 spells per round will quickly be out of resources, all of my players are familiar with this notion. Almost all of the spellcasters who see play in my games wind up resting with at least 1/2 of their memorized/available spells uncast, and I don't think that increasing the number of spells they can cast in a round will change that - they're good at resource management. I had one character, a Summoner, whose actions in combat usually amounted to telling his Eidolon to attack, taking Total Defense and drinking tea defensively (which is like casting defensively but involving fewer "spell components" and more "hot water and china"), unless he decided to buff his pet. If he had the ability to cast 2 spells in a round, it's likely that he would have used two buff spells a couple of times, and would have been able to recall his Eidolon and heal it in the same round (the one time that it was an issue).
I'm not saying that your take on the matter is intrinsically *bad*, just that it's very dependent on the gaming group and on that basis is unsuitable as a uniform rule.
Exaggerate much?
You, don't agree with him. Fine. I don't either. But let's at least keep this civil.
I am. I wasn't joking. I would love to play in his game for either 1 of 2 outcomes:
(1) In playing a Gish, Cleric or Druid, I get to annihilate everything and have fun being awesome. GM and Player(s) all have a good time, and I get to have a positive escapism experience by pwning.
(2) I get to provide evidence that giving extra castings per round is OP, and the whole thing becomes an educational experience; a fun and interesting experiment.
Letting 1-3 party members cast quicker is hardly a "free win" when the NPC badguys (or monsters) can do it too. Think about it. Most dragons get 6 attacks...and know SPELLS (in addition to spell-like abilities). Ouch.
Quite true. Luckily, when it's a Dragon, it's one enemy with a low Dexterity, versus a party. The more casters in the party, the better. I tell you, though... it would make an assault on a temple, druid circle or mage academy tantamount to suicide.
I can see how at mid-high level play this can, depending on the casters approach, be problematic, However I think it could be a good option for 0 level spells 2-4 rays of frost, or orbs of acid, stabalizes, etc seems like a good option for the wizard/ inquisitor/ cleric etc who has exhausted his other spell slots for the day to keep on keeping on.
@3.5 Loyalist
May I make a suggestion?
One thing that seems to not fit here is that BAB, a measure of martial skill, is affecting casting ability, which is an intuitively conflicting concept. Learning how to fight doesn't improve your ability to cast spells. At least not without some mental gymnastics.
Perhaps, instead, make it dependent on Caster Level and Spell Level.
Here's a quick idea, meant not to be adopted per se (it's a bit convoluted), but it can get the creative juices flowing:
Caster Level = "casting action points", or "CAP"
When casting one spell, cast as normal.
When casting multiple spells in a round, here's how CAP is used.
Examples using a 12th level full-caster:
A 12th level spellcaster can cast 6 level 0-1 spells, at CL1, per round (1+1 x6 = 12)
A 12th level spellcaster can cast any one spell at full caster level, per round.
A 12th level spellcaster can cast any two level 0-3 spells at CL5, per round.
A 12th level sorcerer can cast a Maximized level 0-3 spell at CL5.
A 12th level sorcerer can cast two Stilled level 0-2 spell at CL3.
Sorc12 - Casts Extended Haste at level 7 (10 CAP) and True Strike at level 1 (2 CAP, 12 total). Next round he plans to hit hard.
But bab is also one's ability in combat, speed of fighting, what you can cram into a full round. Wizards may do all the study, but they have to level to start getting bab.
I am actually thinking about a new spell system based on the magicka model. Levels allow increased complexity, blend elements, work with other spellcasters etc etc (play the game for more ideas how it could work).
But bab is also one's ability in combat, speed of fighting, what you can cram into a full round. Wizards may do all the study, but they have to level to start getting bab.And BAB does nothing to improve spellcasting. Caster level does that.
Yeah, Wizard BAB is kinda like a side effect of occasionally having to make attack rolls. ;P (As compared to Fighter BAB which is the result of engaging in and practicing lots and lots of attacks.)
The Wizard doesn't spend his time practicing attacks, he devotes his off-hours to researching new spells (which is how he gets his two free spells every time he levels as a Wizard). I could see the connection if BAB were involved in the casting of all spells, but it's not...
So if I am reading this correctly.....
A wizard 8, fighter 2, Eldrich knight 10 has 9th level spells and a Bab of 16 so he can cast 4, 9th level spells a round.
Or if he has quicken 4 times he could cast a quickened spell followed by a 9th level spell?
Does he get 4 move actions also?
I think that is just a WEE bit more powerful then the rules intended :)
Again, I agree that I think its too powerful...
but I can't help but point out that your 20th level character example would only have one 9th level spell memorized, so the answer is no, they could not cast four 9th level spells in a round. I suppose if they had a bonded object, then that would be a 2nd spell. However, they would need a 36 Intelligence to get two bonus 9th level spells. Any DM that lets a player have a 36 Intelligence (especially one min-maxed like this example) should have their D20 taken away.
However, your point still stands. Thats a lot of power.
...I've heard the wizard called the most powerful class, I don't buy it, but then again, I keep the 3.5 hit dies, so a wizard is d4...
Hitpoints don't mean much by this level to a Wizard with Imp Invisibility, Displacement, Fly, Mirror Image, Protection from anything, Spell Turning and whatnot (unless of course the GM is out to screw the Wizard by having every monster being able to use true seeing).
The very fact that in high level play hitpoints are not that important compared to sos/sod effects is why we even have this discussion at all.
Also while it may be unwise to burn through all your spells in one encounter it just shows what the Wizard could do, making sock puppets out of the other chars when it comes to the climactic final encounter and encouraging the infamous 15 minute workday.
If HP are not important, what happens when they run out?
I've also never seen a pc or npc spellcaster get all of those up for a combat. Did you know that there is a humble abjuration spell that turns all defensive enchantments into d12s of damage upon the caster, as they de-stabilise, initiate blowback without SR being a possible save? Not always smart to go fully charged.
The 15 minute work day is something I'd like to talk about. Of course a dm should allow players some time to rest, down time etc, but on the hunt/adventure/dungeon delving whom even allows a 15 minute work day as a dm? Is this something that is being mentioned which doesn't actually happen? If they are on the clock or need to cover ground, it just doesn't happen in my experience. If there is an interesting world to roam and explore they move on as a group.
I've seen players say to the slacking spellcasters, that's nice, get up, move and contribute or we are leaving you here. A pure spellcaster without spells and no party to back them up is very weak. It isn't sensible to use all the spells quickly, and that is why I don't see it done.
Or if it gets to night and the party wants to rest, that doesn't mean there won't be attacks, wandering passer-bys, changes in the environment necessitating movement. Running out of your top two levels is bad, being totally out is worse.
There is also the very real possibility that pouring on the buffs, blowing the spell load, and then sticking around to rest attracts spell eating monsters like Nishruus. That has got to be like a neon sign for an all you can eat, for spell devouring monsters (to say nothing of the magic items they are probably carrying, and the things that like those, nom nom nom). I remember one warlock who loved the buffs, always had them on, used magic for even the simplest tasks. I gave some hints why that wasn't always wise (because of his high wisdom), eventually a nishruu came. One feeblemind later...
In sum, flashiness and expended energy attracts attention, and witch hunters in Jason's new game.
Did you know that there is a humble abjuration spell that turns all defensive enchantments into d12s of damage upon the caster...
The spells I listed were not enchantments but transmutations, illusions and abjurations. There are very few Wizardly "defensive enchantments" in this game (Heroism and the Globes I think are the only ones) as most Wizard enchantments are "offensive" like charm person.
So, no, this spell (while being horribly OPed against Bards & Priests) does almost nothing to Wizards.
And regarding HPs, I didn't say they are not important, I say that the difference between Fighter and Wizard doesn't matter much (15th Fighter average 100 HP, Wizard with d4 average 70 HP, Wizard has one bazillion ways to avoid damage, Fighter has none).
Finally I wonder very much why your Wizards have not most or all of the spells I mentioned up for most important combats, because they could cast them in just a round. And this Nishrru thing never really applies as these spells last only for the combat.
Last not least:
Why is it that you needlessy buffs Wizards in such a blatant way and then go out of your way to tell us how many Wizard nerf things happen in your campaign?
Couldn't you just let play Wizards by the rules and then have no need to screw them over with cheesy monsters?
Sigh.
Earlier when I was explaining how spellcasters can be overcome and countered, where their weaknesses lie, that is not nerfing them.
On wizard "defensive enchantments" which can be turned on a caster, you forgot a lot of the abjuration school, you forgot mage armour, protection from good/evil/chaos/law (also magic circle of the same four), protection form arrows, resist energy, protection from energy and protection from spells in consulting the most basic player's handbook list.
Now the spell is reciprocal gyre, and no I do not have enemies cast it upon players all the time. In fact I learnt of it recently and have yet to use it in a game. Spell compendium, p 170, level 5. No SR, medium range, d12 per functioning spell or spell-like ability currently effecting the target up to 25d12. Will for half, if you take even one d12, have even one protection on, then its a fort save or be dazed for 1d6 rounds.
So yes, this spell can really make a wizard who hides behind defenses, explode. Other things like fly can be brought down by a good dispel magic. Spend rounds beefing up, and you risk wasting rounds or being countered. It is the same with relying heavily on summoning, there is a spell to warp and turn summons against the conjurer in the book of vile darkness.
Fighters and melee don't have to worry about rebellious summons, but then there is shatter, heat metal and a range of other spells to make their lives shorter.
As for the nishruu, the cheesy monster, they are quite rare. And in one game lasting two years, they fought one. If a fantasy world has wizards, clerics and plenty of magical energy, it makes sense some of the wandering monsters are going to be magic-consuming. Light a fire, and you might attract bandits, send out waves of expended magical residue and you might attract a big magical predator. There are monsters to challenge all types of party, I can see that you like your spellcasters, and would feel it is off for something to so easily counter them, but the nishruu is not cheesy.
Also in my experience, 15th level fighters average higher than a 100hp. 12th-13th are closer to around 100.
I wonder why so many people are trying to convince the (ironically named, in the context of this discussion) 3.5 Loyalist of the imbalance of allowing multiple castings per round. Three pages have passed, and little or no new information is being presented. The fact is, in his experience, allowing multiple castings seems to have little or no issues. That said, I have to acknowledge 3.5 Loyalist's view as correct and justified. Serious kudos, 3.5 Loyalist, on continuing to have what seems like good natured and enjoyable gaming experiences. That's what RPGs are all about, no matter what random anonymous board members might say.
I think that the only thing which can build a framework of evidence against (or for) multiple casting is to play-test it. Experimentation in gaming can be lots of fun, and quite informative.
That said, 3.5 Loyalist, I recommend that, in your next game, you continue to have multiple castings per round, but challenge your players to make the following mix of characters.
- Improved Initiative (feat)
- Haste (to get more castings)
- A spell list designed with lethal combat-winning combos such as [Cloudkill + Resilient Sphere], or [Acid Pit + Forceful Hand (push more in) + Wall of Stone (seal the pit)].
Run them through a series of combats at level 5, then again at level 12, then again at level 18, and finally level 20. Be sure to have at least one combat of each of the following for each tier:
- horde of minions
- individual juggernaut
- individual uber-foe (such as a Dragon, Outsider, or similar)
- monster party (one leader/caster type with a group of thug types)
Let the mechanics reveal their own balance without DM intervention, and observe who gets "left behind" in the mid level and high level game.
It is my prediction that the martial characters will find themselves incapable of contributing at the level of the casters, sometimes not even being able to contribute meaningfully at all.
I also predict that the Cleric and Druid will be even more unstoppable than the Wizard.
Sigh.
Earlier when I was explaining how spellcasters can be overcome and countered, where their weaknesses lie, that is not nerfing them.On wizard "defensive enchantments" which can be turned on a caster, you forgot a lot of the abjuration school, you forgot mage armour, protection from good/evil/chaos/law (also magic circle of the same four), protection form arrows, resist energy, protection from energy and protection from spells in consulting the most basic player's handbook list.
Now the spell is reciprocal gyre, and no I do not have enemies cast it upon players all the time. In fact I learnt of it recently and have yet to use it in a game. Spell compendium, p 170, level 5. No SR, medium range, d12 per functioning spell or spell-like ability currently effecting the target up to 25d12. Will for half, if you take even one d12, have even one protection on, then its a fort save or be dazed for 1d6 rounds.
So yes, this spell can really make a wizard who hides behind defenses, explode. Other things like fly can be brought down by a good dispel magic. Spend rounds beefing up, and you risk wasting rounds or being countered. It is the same with relying heavily on summoning, there is a spell to warp and turn summons against the conjurer in the book of vile darkness.
Fighters and melee don't have to worry about rebellious summons, but then there is shatter, heat metal and a range of other spells to make their lives shorter.
As for the nishruu, the cheesy monster, they are quite rare. And in one game lasting two years, they fought one. If a fantasy world has wizards, clerics and plenty of magical energy, it makes sense some of the wandering monsters are going to be magic-consuming. Light a fire, and you might attract bandits, send out waves of expended magical residue and you might attract a big magical predator. There are monsters to challenge all types of party, I can see that you like your spellcasters, and would feel it is off for something to so easily counter them, but the nishruu is not cheesy....
Many buffs have durations long enough that they can be cast at the beginning of the day, or just before entering the dungeon, and will then last as long as they are needed. And with your rules, a wizard can easily get two or three buffs up at a time, or put up a buff and take an enemy out of the combat. So, he's not wasting any time buffing.
The 15 minute workday is exceedingly difficult for a GM to disallow, short of putting a hard time limit on the quest. If you're still using the 3.5 version of Rope Trick, then once the party hits 8th level, they will never be ambushed in the night again, safe in an extradimensional space that no one will be able to detect. Certainly, the Magnificent Mansion spell lets the party rest whenever they want. And if the mage can safely and effortlessly end any encounter at the cost of requiring a safe extradimensional rest stop afterwards, that's the rational thing to do if there's not an actual ticking clock.
Reciprocal Gyre is nice, and probably in the Runelord of Envy's spellbook, but it has to first get past the Improved Invisibility which makes it impossible to target the caster, and if the target has Spell Turning up, you take the damage instead. More to the point, what do non-casters do against a buffed mage?
Cheers Malignor.
First to the name, the name was chosen because of certain disputes I've had over rules-sets. I've been dnd gaming for about 19 years now and in that time, come up with plenty of house rules or adaptations that make sense, seems to work, meet with approval from the players. What I mean by 3.5 loyalist, is that for me, 3,5 is a better base system than pathfinder. PAY ATTENTION AND STOP WRITING YOUR POST! There was a lot of enthusiasm for pathfinder, and a I like a fair bit of what it's done, I've taken a little, but the combat manoeuvre feats have been badly changed to be less effective and harder to pull off, the changes to hit die don't seem to work with the descriptions and what each class supposedly involves, and certain classes plainly disgust me (paladin taking abilities of the healer class, adding them to the 3.5 paladin, monk getting ki abilities and a ki pool now, which is not even close to balanced with its +4 dodge bonus for one round (many feats there), giant bonus to jump etc). I was looking forward to pathfinder as much as all of you, but when I realised what came in core, I was dismayed and wanted to get on the forums, hence the name. Now these forums I generally quite like, maybe it's the layouts, maybe it's the discussions. Yes I have my criticisms for pathfinder, and while I prefer 3.5 over pf core, I do mix and match to be stylin'.
Back to Malignor.
This word "optimised" I am a little suspicious of. I get its meaning, there was a really hard campaign I was in, which pushed me to make better characters, focused in a way, not this and that. From that, my characters have been a bit more optimised, but what I think is more important is to make an effective character, but with some weaknesses so as to avoid power gaming (look at me, I have all 16s and one 22 stats, yaaay, now to hunt for magic items in all the stores) and a really smart selection of feats.
I take your suggestions, but what you are suggesting is work. This number crunching is not my thing, and is also quite artificial. I'd rather spellcasters be a more natural part of games, rather than just say, ah they did well in the trials. You say put them through these trials, and we could be very scientific and do it a great deal and see what happens, but this:
- individual juggernaut
- individual uber-foe (such as a Dragon, Outsider, or similar)
Is more likely to occur in game after this:
- horde of minions
- monster party (one leader/caster type with a group of thug types)
What spells are even available is highly variable, and dependent on what has been fought. The acid pit may have had to be cast earlier to prevent the spellcaster being swarmed, parts of the combo already exerted prior to the big boss.
From what I have seen, the spellcasters don't really dominate. I'll tell you why.
*If they are not high initiative, other rush in, shoot away, score great hits and shape the combat before them.
*Great crits, brilliant rolls can lead to more damage from non spellcasters.
*Bags of dice damage can come up great, but they can also come up quite low and then some frail players start to get jealous of the monk or the ranger and their damage potential.
*SR or a high roll on saves.
*If they are really high initiative, they don't have as many feats to buy spell slots, so their staying power is less.
*Having multiples does not always mean multiples are spent in a round, "the fight ain't over yet", don't use it all, seems to guide spellcasting.
*Spellcasters greatly go down in combat effectiveness as their spells deplete. To judge them solely at pure capacity is to misunderstand how spellcasters exist within adventures (they start all ready to go, but some hours later, must make some tough choices on how to use what is left).
*Certain area effect spells can greatly annoy other players, by getting in the way of what they can do. Wizards do have to balance the interest of the group as well, those that don't may get into real disagreements with other players. e.g. you tentacle the place up, entangle or ice storm all around you, and wham, pissed off party. They didn't come to the game to sit in your entangle sphere. So this is a social concern.
"It is my prediction that the martial characters will find themselves incapable of contributing at the level of the casters, sometimes not even being able to contribute meaningfully at all."
Not in what I've seen. Jason talks about the damage of fighters and that is my experience as well. I've seen parties where the monk or ninja are the most effective in combat, and the spellcasters sigh as the above do the most work, get the most glory. If the melee go defensive, not offensive, then protecting the spellcasters and holding actions to do so is a meaningful contribution. That is teamwork, and that is one of the purposes of the game, not player competition over whom is more powerful.
Over to Revan.
"The 15 minute workday is exceedingly difficult for a GM to disallow, short of putting a hard time limit on the quest. If you're still using the 3.5 version of Rope Trick, then once the party hits 8th level, they will never be ambushed in the night again, safe in an extradimensional space that no one will be able to detect."
Well I already wrote about this. Other non-spellcasters don't always want to take a break after a few rounds, many quests have time limits, a separated spellcaster is a very vulnerable spellcaster. The simplest thing to say here, is that parties I'm with or running don't want to be so lazy and boring as to stop once the 5s, or 4s or up are all out. That is the spellcaster (or two) pushing round the party and saying no, you will not go ahead unless I am absolutely ready. What hubris!
If you also mean that a spellcaster could blow off the spells in a few rounds, use rope trick, then rest for 8hrs + memorisation, then climb down, do that again for a few, or say an hour, do it again and climb back up, rest repeat, there are a few things I've got to say:
*clerics spell allotments are per day. Rest and recharge, once per day at a time that is chosen and important to their faith. 8,16,24 just over, you can't get three days of spells in one, no matter if you rest three times with brief busy activity. Your connection to your god is only so strong, you are what level you are. Do people really try to do this? It is called spells per day for a reason.
*If we are talking wizard, yeah you can rest, be as slack as your party will let you get away with, but their list is also called spells per day, and not spells per rest period. If you just recharged an hour ago, you can't rope trick, rest 8, memorise and get your spell list back. That is not a day, that is 9 or so hours!
Revan, greater invis has a very short duration, normal invis with a longer duration is broken by attacking actions. It can be dispelled, and enemies can come down on a caster's position if they keep up the spellcasting as a full round. Spellcasting requires a clear voice if you look it up (something sleight of hand spellcasters try to ignore) and a weapon can be directed at a voice, or simply, foes with invisibility can jump into it as well to also confound a caster. It works in my experience if your reflex is good and you can then avoid area of effect spells.
But we shouldn't get into a what is better, wizards are the best discussion. That is going to lead no-where fast. People's great spellcasting characters are always vulnerable to some tactic or attack combination, and have their tried and true tactics which pay off in their games.
There is one other problem now with regression to the rules on standard and full actions. The groups I've been in have played it so long this way, that high level or hasted casters can go multiple spells, that going back to one a round would feel slow, with less possibilities and less fun.
Like going backwards in gaming hardware. Playing a spellcasting game on one type of fast setting, high performance, and then going to something slower.
I love old games, but I'm not sure I like the idea of no full round spellcasting. Oh woe is me!
The challenge if you only cast one spell per round is how to make the most of it. If you're going first, you can set up the battlefield or maybe drop some mooks. If you're going later, how do you maximize your potential effect on the battle. I suggest a philosophy that all of us can heed: let's not knock it until we've tried it :) The rest of us are used to optimizing our wizards for maximum impact with one spell each round, so your method creates some intriguing possibilities for us. For you guys, it's a wholly different intellectual challenge.
I felt like I should plug Treantmonk's Guide to Wizards here because 3.5L seems to have a very AD&D/2E view of wizards. If you feel that wizards are balanced because they don't do as much damage, can't retreat when needed, and can't end a fight with only one spell, then you're simply operating off of different expectations from the rest of us.
I point it out not to be superior, I'm not saying you're doing it wrong. What I am saying is we're talking about different concepts. We now have great insight to how 3.5L views the game, so maybe he should see what our core beliefs are.
A good link, and I like Treatmonk's writing style. Some good suggestions, but I am surprised he doesn't go to others sources for spells and go through those (one dm I know really gets into the wu jen and using their unusual spells, which is always a nice change to burning hands, animate dead etc). With the attribute suggestion for poor, str, cha good dex and con I sighed a little. I've seen so many of those over the years that they start to blur together. A low charisma is also quite the detriment in a game with a lot of possible allies or enemies (if you can't make the cha checks, some games get a lot more difficult, especially if its a free-roam or politicing. A low cha also hampers wizards effectively being a part of a lot of plots, they become warfare specialists, not figures in the story if you get my meaning). However, then I noticed this chap recommends wisdom be really penalised. This is something new, I've never seen a single spellcaster player do that. I've seen other stats absolutely caned to have great int, wis and good con. This is a good vulnerability, but some will run from the very idea. Those same people may push the wisdom high or keep rolling till it can be high, but then pass over multiple iron wills to make it truly good. A good save can go either way when it comes down to the crunch, but if you have five iron wills, you are much better set to pass easily.
Good description of spells in his experience, some a little lacking. On pushing the elven wizard I also sighed a little as well. Too many arrogant elven spellcasters out there (and that perfectly fits with the low wisdom and cha too!).
With the attribute suggestion for poor, str, cha good dex and con I sighed a little.
He's largely writing for a 15 point buy, which is extremely limiting in what you can do. With a point buy like that, dumping is inevitable and sadly necessary.
I would think 20-25 would be more common point buy wise. What do you all think?
I've given 20, 25, 4d6 with no 1s a go, but lately I find myself enamored with ol' 3d6.
This thread is very aptly named.
So if I am reading this correctly.....
A wizard 8, fighter 2, Eldrich knight 10 has 9th level spells and a Bab of 16 so he can cast 4, 9th level spells a round.
Or if he has quicken 4 times he could cast a quickened spell followed by a 9th level spell?
Does he get 4 move actions also?
I think that is just a WEE bit more powerful then the rules intended :)
Again, I agree that I think its too powerful...
but I can't help but point out that your 20th level character example would only have one 9th level spell memorized, so the answer is no, they could not cast four 9th level spells in a round. I suppose if they had a bonded object, then that would be a 2nd spell. However, they would need a 36 Intelligence to get two bonus 9th level spells. Any DM that lets a player have a 36 Intelligence (especially one min-maxed like this example) should have their D20 taken away.
However, your point still stands. Thats a lot of power.
Your forgeting wands and scrolls both of which under this would give you more spells per round. So 4 9th levels is not that hard to imagine\.
9th, how many are ever cast in game? This spectre that is continually conjured.
Games I've been in, games I've run, they go from 1-15. Very rarely getting up to 14 or 15, because the adventure path is done, or the players are ready to move on to something else/are tired of their characters by that time.
Sometimes I like the level 8 start, but that is a long way from level 9 spells of any kind being cast or received.
Do many really play in games where the characters are level 17-20?
To the others and their baffled nature. It's a house-rule which has been taken up by multiple gaming groups, based on how full rounds work for other classes (the melee let the attacks roll, the ranger unleashes a volley, etc) I wouldn't think it would be, so baffling an idea. Especially when haste has sped up spellcasting in previous editions, and multiple spells a round is possible through other means.
I'll try to break it down.
Even at 12 level multiple 6th level spells a round would get crazy. So even though you may never see a 9th level spell doesn't mean it isn't OP.
Where people are baffled is that your comparing two different types of actions Standard and Full round under your ruling a fighter could Vital Strike each of his attacks in a full attack action. An archer could Rapidshot+Multishot 3 or 4 times in a round.
As for the other means of casting Multiple spells they are limited all in times per day and by the level of the spell. Under your ruling by 12th level all casters have Quicken Spell the feat 1/rnd for free with no extra level adjustment or casting time increase.
I hope this helps.
|
Wait, you start a thread about how you're baffled that the rules are different from the way you've been using them, but you don't understand how we can be baffled at how you use them?
I wanted to laugh about that, but I can't as I am still giggling on how the OP's nickname sits with his views on 3.5 rules :)
Crazy? Crazy fun yes? Over-powered in the experience of multiple groups, dms and players, nope. Spellcasters aren't invincible. They can let them fly, and that also brings down a lot of attention and tactics to take them out fast.
"under your ruling a fighter could Vital Strike each of his attacks in a full attack action. An archer could Rapidshot+Multishot 3 or 4 times in a round."
Absolutely not. Missing how we go about it entirely, perhaps you should read back a bit. The melee can do their full round, if they can get in position to do so, or hold until it comes to them. The ranger can spam the arrows, if that is their wish and their usage of feats, but the limit there is also in the bab and the feat selection. You can't stack manyshot on your manyshot, your manyshot works off your bab and adds to attacks at the cost of accuracy. Same with full round melee, you can take another weapon and some feats to lower penalties, maybe take greater two weapon for another attack, but the number of attacks available in a full round is pretty clear. Add them up. The spellcaster if they go full round, can also use their number of attacks (at +6/+1 they are now veteran and getting better at putting more actions into a full round, like other classes) as their number of standard action cast spells. Full rounds are still full rounds, but the standards, now they can be deployed in groups if there is good bab to represent serious experience in battle, or the use of haste etc etc. It is actually an attempt to give full round to spellcasters and have them use it like other classes use it.
Warmages or invokers are particularly fun, but as has been pointed out, there are better spell combos. Yes dragons and other spellcasting creatures can cast multiples per round. I do believe a dragon should be able to cast more than 1 spell a round. How old are they when they are "old" and experienced in the arcane?
Under my ruling, and others whom I have met as I have moved and gamed in new places, it is not the quicken spell feat. The other spells do not become swifts, and each new spell (say you were up to 2) can provoke an attack of opportunity or necessitate a check to not lose it. Furthermore the full round, like full rounds for other classes necessitates ceasing movement.
It's all rather simple. Once a spellcaster gets good, once they pass a certain point, they don't have to play rounds in the typical cycle of a standard and a move left over (how boring), no if they stay very focused and don't move much at all, more can put more into their spellcasting. They won't get the same number of spells off as say a great manyshot archer, but they won't be confined to one and only one, no matter their level or battlefield experience either.
Gorbacz, I already explained that earlier. 3.5 over pathfinder for me personally, but I do not use "pure" 3.5 in my games. I pick and mix, and homebrew.
Forums are about discussion, we should read what each of us has posted and discuss further.
So your casters gain extra standard actions as they level but no one else does?
Many shot is a standard action so if the caster can get 2 or 3 standard actions in a turn why can the ranger or the fighter?
And before you say that each attack is a standard action (which is where i assume you will head)I'll say this. If each attack is in fact a standard action then we are back at vital strike/rapidshot+manyshot/ Cleaving multiple times in a round.
|
|
The spellcaster if they go full round, can also use their number of attacks (at +6/+1 they are now veteran and getting better at putting more actions into a full round, like other classes) as their number of standard action cast spells. Full rounds are still full rounds, but the standards, now they can be deployed in groups if there is good bab to represent serious experience in battle, or the use of haste etc etc. It is actually an attempt to give full round to spellcasters and have them use it like other classes use it.
Ok, so the BAB becomes the number of standard actions you can do. Perfect, now to use haste and rapid shot to get 5 standard actions at level 6. Vital strike on each arrow, including the manyshot one, and gravity bow for the fun. 20d6 base damage.
Spellcasters don't need anything like this, thanks.
To Talonhawk,
"So your casters gain extra standard actions as they level but no one else does?"
No they do not gain extra standard actions over other party members. Their bab determines what their full round can be. Like others, they can do a move and a standard if they wish, that uses up a round with only say, free and a swift left over.
What they can do is full round spellcasting. Which means, what were standards can be used in a full round, as other classes use standards as part of a full round. If a wizard is up to +6/+1, they can cram two standards into a full round spellcasting. A ranger archer would be up to two shots as part of a full round, as would a fighter.
As for manyshot and rapidshot, this discussion is more about spellcasting. I use the 3.5 versions. So rapid is a full round that adds one on top at -2 to all. Manyshot is a bit of a different feat, the good ol arrowstorm. Yes you link two or more as a standard, as the feats says, the number you knock goes up with bab, as do the penalties. Interestingly rapid shot is a full round action, it takes the full round, but manyshot is not listed as a full round or listed that it can be combined with or as a part of, a full round attack. So they come out in twos or more, but you keep the move when you use manyshot over rapid. Rapid has less penalties than manyshot but works with the standard number of attacks per round, merely adding one to them and a -2 to all.
To Maxx,
Rapidshot and other such archery feats, only apply to archery. See the feat for more. I find vital strike a very curious feat, and it hasn't been brought over in the (mostly 3.5) games I play in or run.
To Triomegazero,
Have you played with the rules I have suggested? I would like to hear about your experiences. If people have not played full-rounds in this way, then they cannot claim to speak from experience.
We should not be so serious and agitated though, this is merely a discussion about actions per round and a different take to what seems to be the norm.
So, at 12th level, core+apg and nothing else, human fey sorcerer:
Spell Focus (Enchantment), Improved Spell Focus (Enchantment), Imp Init, Quicken Spell, four more feats.
Cha 17+2(race)+3(levels)+6(item)=28 (+9 modifier).
DC is 19 + Level + 2 if enchantment +2 if compulsion.
Equipment: Headband +6 (36k), 2 rod of persistant (22k), 2 lesser rod of persistant (6k), 44k in other stuff.
Important spells known, with max spells/day:
Mass suggestion (6th), max 4/day, DC 29
Hold monster (5th), max 7/day, DC 28
Confusion (4th), max 8/day, DC 27
Suggestion (3rd), max 8/day, DC 26
Hideous Laughter (2nd), max 8/day, DC 25
6 times per day, can fire of a Persistant anything-i-can-cast, and 6 times more, a Persistant Suggestion. Assuming about four to six battles/day, a normal battle opener might look like this:
Single target - Persistant Hold Monster, Persistant Suggestion, Quickened Hideous Laughter
Group - Persistant Mass Suggestion, Confusion
A single CR13 opponent (a challenging single encounter) has an average save of +16 according to the bestiary. Chance to save once vs Hold Monster is 45% (has to roll 9 or better), but it's persistant so chance to save is 0.45*0.45=0.20. The comes Persistant Suggestion, where the monster has a 55% chance to save, but again, persistant, so 0.55*0.55=30%. Chance to save against Hideous Laughter is 60%. Chance to save against all spells is .2*.3*.6= 3.6%
So the sorcerer has a 96.4% chance to drop a single challenging encounter with a GOOD will save on his first round. Chance against someone with a bad will is the same as the chance against a single of the group monsters.
A group of 4 CR 9 opponents (CR13 encounter, challenging group) each have a will bonus of about +12. Chance to succeed against a Mass Suggestion is 20%. Persistant it's .2*.2=0.04. Chance to save against confusion is 30%. Total chance of saving is .04*.3=0.012.
So a each of the CR 9 opponents with a good will save has 1.2% chance of saving against both spells. Chance of even one succeeding is less than 5%. The same numbers apply for a low-will CR 13 opponent.
Now, this doesn't work against undead or constructs, but a 96ish percent chance to end a normal challenging encounter in the first round is far beyond what should be possible.
EDIT: Note that if you play a game far from the pathfinder core rules or far from the assumptions it makes, things may be different - but in a heavily house ruled game, things are hard to discuss anyway and we need to use some baseline.
|
To Triomegazero,
Have you played with the rules I have suggested? I would like to hear about your experiences. If people have not played full-rounds in this way, then they cannot claim to speak from experience.
We should not be so serious and agitated though, this is merely a discussion about actions per round and a different take to what seems to be the norm.
You activated my trap card! :)
My statement did not contradict yours. It is both overpowered and NOT overpowered in the experience of multiple groups. My groups find it overpowered, yours do not. And we CAN speak from experience, because in our games the ability to cast two spells a round IS noticably more powerful, thus being able to cast MORE than that can be called overpowered.
And if you look at my posting history, you'll find that I am rarely serious.