PDA

View Full Version : Caster Levels like BAB extra attacks



Umael
2010-07-14, 05:22 PM
Raw idea, very unfinished...

What if Caster Levels worked like BAB insofaras how many spells you can have going at one time?

When your BAB is +6, you get two attacks, one at +6, the other at +1. So if something similar happened with Caster Levels, you would be allowed to cast one spell as if your caster level is 6th - and keep it going - and a second spell as if your caster level was 1st.

Say I'm 6th-level. I cast fireball, so it is a 6th-level spell. The spell duration is instanteous, so next round I can cast another fireball. But if I have some kind of buff spell going on, that spell operates at 6th-level. While that buff is in effect, I can only cast one spell, where my caster level is effectively 1st. If I dismiss the buff, I can cast spells as if my caster level was 6th again.

(By the way, no, I don't know how that should affect the spells you can cast. It could be that you buff, and then cast a fireball spell as if your caster level was one (i.e., 1d6). It could be that you can't cast a fireball at all (unless your caster level for the spell is at least five, assuming a wizard).)

How this affects things like magical items, I don't know. It's just a thought. I want to hear what problems and advantages people can think of if a system like this was used.

Milskidasith
2010-07-14, 05:33 PM
So... your solution is to force mages to not be team players, make buff spells completely worthless, and basically make the only way to play wizards well is to be the obtrusive "I win encounters with a single spell and abuse celerity and Arcane fusion" type (or the equally obtrusive meta-blaster type).

I don't see what purpose this accomplishes; buffs are the least obtrusive things mages can do, and they are most often used to allow the party martial characters to maintain relevant. Making it impossible to buff barely hurts mages (besides gishes) while making martial characters (and summoners) cry because they've dropped two size categories, eight points of strength, and a heap of damage, attack, and AC.

Jota
2010-07-14, 09:30 PM
This premise works better under a mana-based system that recharges, where the mana/power points are invested in the buff until you choose to relinquish it/it is dispelled. Using something like caster level seems iffy, for the reasons noted above.

Milskidasith
2010-07-14, 10:00 PM
This premise works better under a mana-based system that recharges, where the mana/power points are invested in the buff until you choose to relinquish it/it is dispelled. Using something like caster level seems iffy, for the reasons noted above.

Your method has the exact same problem; it nerfs buffers but does nothing to hurt wizards who use arcane fusion and metamagic reducers to blast multiple instantaneous save or dies at once.

No matter how you do it, saying "You can't have buffs up without being unable to cast" will not nerf casters in any way but buffing their allies (and gishes and summoners).

Jota
2010-07-14, 10:15 PM
Your method has the exact same problem; it nerfs buffers but does nothing to hurt wizards who use arcane fusion and metamagic reducers to blast multiple instantaneous save or dies at once.

No matter how you do it, saying "You can't have buffs up without being unable to cast" will not nerf casters in any way but buffing their allies (and gishes and summoners).

No, it works fine.

Example: You have 12 PP. You regenerate 3 PP/round. Your highest level power costs 6 PP. You can maintain a buff at a low cost (say 1 PP/round), which essentially lowers reduces your PP regeneration rate to 2/round. You can maintain a buff or two and still use powers. If the numbers are proportioned correctly, this encourages buff usage and restrains going nova, since you cannot use your highest level powers round after round. See the link below for something more definitive. I've yet to see a mana system that has been play-tested and works well with casters, so I'm not going to focus on arcane magic. This does, however, work with psionics (which already has the point system built in), as detailed in the link below.

The variant actually doesn't charge "half-manifesters" upkeep, merely full manifesters, so you have something of a point in that regard, but that doesn't mean the premise is non-functional.

http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Recharging_Power_Points_%283.5e_Variant_Rule%29

Milskidasith
2010-07-14, 11:33 PM
No, it works fine.

Example: You have 12 PP. You regenerate 3 PP/round. Your highest level power costs 6 PP. You can maintain a buff at a low cost (say 1 PP/round), which essentially lowers reduces your PP regeneration rate to 2/round. You can maintain a buff or two and still use powers. If the numbers are proportioned correctly, this encourages buff usage and restrains going nova, since you cannot use your highest level powers round after round. See the link below for something more definitive. I've yet to see a mana system that has been play-tested and works well with casters, so I'm not going to focus on arcane magic. This does, however, work with psionics (which already has the point system built in), as detailed in the link below.

The variant actually doesn't charge "half-manifesters" upkeep, merely full manifesters, so you have something of a point in that regard, but that doesn't mean the premise is non-functional.

http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Recharging_Power_Points_%283.5e_Variant_Rule%29

That still significantly hurts buffers. I do not see how that is not obvious. If you have buffs up, you can't regenerate your power so you can hardly do anything in combat: not fun. Granted, in the list you gave, hour long buffs don't cost anything (making persistent spell effectively free, woo!), but there's still the problem that having a lot of buffs makes you unable to do much in combat (buffing your party with chain spell will drain your power incredibly fast, and even a few regular buffs hurts you), while not buffing lets you continually cast your highest level spells for the entire encounter.

Without a penalty for buffing, casters at least have a reason to play nice, but when they are penalized for being team players by being unable to actively effect the battle, it's much more reasonable for them to just end the encounter in one or two spells (which, with your example, the caster could drop three of their highest level spells in a row, or try to get the party buffed and drain some mana every round if they try to use any buffs that aren't persisted or use more than one buff for the party).

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-07-14, 11:40 PM
I'm with Milskidasith on this one. DND is alreay largely a game of "I go first and win with one spell lol." This change forces people to pick and choose their defenses, harms noncasters more than anything and only worsens rocket tag.

For Valor
2010-07-14, 11:41 PM
I'm interested in the concept, but Milskidasith has the right idea with this simply encouraging "Cast spells to win as fast as possible" and discouraging buffs.

This system would work well if a new battle mechanic was put in place (think about casting fireball 4 times according to your BCB--Base Casting Bonus--at level 20, or casting it three times and while sustaining "Owl's Wisdom" as a spell at caster level 5).

The concept is interesting, but wouldn't work well with the combat system already in place for D&D--it's probably more suited to a 4e-style game.

Stompy
2010-07-14, 11:44 PM
What if Caster Levels worked like BAB insofaras how many spells you can have going at one time?

Honestly if you want to limit buffs just put a buff limit (CHA based?) per person at one time. This system makes most buffs worthless, as has been said.

Who wants to cast Mage Armor anymore? :smallannoyed:

Umael
2010-07-15, 10:48 AM
I'm interested in the concept, but Milskidasith has the right idea with this simply encouraging "Cast spells to win as fast as possible" and discouraging buffs.

This system would work well if a new battle mechanic was put in place (think about casting fireball 4 times according to your BCB--Base Casting Bonus--at level 20, or casting it three times and while sustaining "Owl's Wisdom" as a spell at caster level 5).

The concept is interesting, but wouldn't work well with the combat system already in place for D&D--it's probably more suited to a 4e-style game.


Thank you, Valor, you got the hint at what I am doing.

Yes, I am thinking about a system that would do a major overhaul of the combat system.

IF the "I go first, I win" aspect was removed from the game, how would something like this work? Well, how would one remove that aspect? I don't know, but let's say I could. Okay then, what does this mechanic aspect do to the game? Apparently, it nerfs buffs. *nod* Okay. What else?

Milskidasith
2010-07-15, 11:04 AM
Thank you, Valor, you got the hint at what I am doing.

Yes, I am thinking about a system that would do a major overhaul of the combat system.

IF the "I go first, I win" aspect was removed from the game, how would something like this work? Well, how would one remove that aspect? I don't know, but let's say I could. Okay then, what does this mechanic aspect do to the game? Apparently, it nerfs buffs. *nod* Okay. What else?

Assuming you could get rid of the "I go first and win" problem for casters is kind of like making a solution that assumes you can solve P = NP.

Anyway, it would still make buffing absolutely terrible even if you did make it so combat effecting spells didn't allow you to win in one or two rounds; you just wouldn't bother to buff if you had to cast at such a low level you aren't doing anything.

EDIT: Anyway, what else would this system effect? It wouldn't effect anything but buffs, summons, and multi-round duration spells. That's it. It doesn't affect instantaneous spells, and unless you are suggesting you can make iterative casts (a bad idea for any number of reasons) it doesn't affect any instantaneous or one round duration spells.

Umael
2010-07-15, 11:27 AM
Assuming you could get rid of the "I go first and win" problem for casters is kind of like making a solution that assumes you can solve P = NP.

I can't turn lead into gold until I get some lead first.

*shrug*



Anyway, it would still make buffing absolutely terrible even if you did make it so combat effecting spells didn't allow you to win in one or two rounds; you just wouldn't bother to buff if you had to cast at such a low level you aren't doing anything.

Possibly. As it stands, yes, but if that is the case, then I need to change the system so that buffing is improved. For example, Bull's Strength is a 2nd-level spell, I believe, and Cat's Grace is too. Would a spell that did both together as a 4th-level spell be balanced? Would it need to be higher or lower? Could other things be added?

I don't know, but until I suggest the idea, I don't know which numbers to grab.



EDIT: Anyway, what else would this system effect? It wouldn't effect anything but buffs, summons, and multi-round duration spells. That's it. It doesn't affect instantaneous spells, and unless you are suggesting you can make iterative casts (a bad idea for any number of reasons) it doesn't affect any instantaneous or one round duration spells.

Actually, I am trying to get to the point where you CAN do iterative casting - possibly because the spell system has been revised to the point where it's not broken to do that. How? Not sure, but I'm thinking about using a Fatigue-based system for spell-casting (replacing both the Vancian and power point systems).

In any case, I'm not all sure what the system would affect because I need to figure out what it would NEED to affect first.

(I.e., it would weaken buffs, for one. Okay... how can I make it so that buffs either improved OR that buffs are unneccessary?)

Milskidasith
2010-07-15, 11:30 AM
Iterative spellcasting breaks the action economy over its knee, throws it's corpse into a pit, burns the pit, digs up the surrounding dirt from the pit and puts it into a space shuttle, launches it into the sun, then blows up the sun, and then recollects all the dust across light years of space just to shove it into another star to blow up.

Seriously, I cannot say anything more than that allowing casters to break the action economy for free, when it's already broken when they spend most of their resources on it, is a very bad idea.

Umael
2010-07-15, 11:37 AM
Iterative spellcasting breaks the action economy over its knee, throws it's corpse into a pit, burns the pit, digs up the surrounding dirt from the pit and puts it into a space shuttle, launches it into the sun, then blows up the sun, and then recollects all the dust across light years of space just to shove it into another star to blow up.

Seriously, I cannot say anything more than that allowing casters to break the action economy for free, when it's already broken when they spend most of their resources on it, is a very bad idea.

Nice rhetoric.

1) I mentioned a Fatigue System.
2) The number of spells would still be limited by the CL.

Please, give me an example of how this breaks the system so I know how to tailor the revised system to avoid that.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-07-15, 11:39 AM
Iterative spellcasting breaks the action economy over its knee, throws it's corpse into a pit, burns the pit, digs up the surrounding dirt from the pit and puts it into a space shuttle, launches it into the sun, then blows up the sun, and then recollects all the dust across light years of space just to shove it into another star to blow up.

A very apt metaphor.

The problem stems from the fact that magic is not bound by the same mechanics the game otherwise runs on. Almost every non-magic class eventually boils down to how much damage you deal to a target. This is usually by rolling a d20 against a defense, and then rolling a variable amount of damage against possible resistances. If successful, you chip away at a large reserve of your enemies hit points.

A Wizard, on the other hand, doesn't obey those rules. He can take (via irrestible dance and similar "no-save" spells or "save-AND-suck" spells) an opponent out of combat 100% of the time. He can have a single attack go through, and outright kill or even mind-control his target. In short, where any other character requires several rounds of successful actions to accomplish the goal of "kill the target," the Wizard can, in the same amount of time, do far worse to far more opponents.

Thus, any action that isn't directed towards incapacitating as many foes as quickly as possible is a waste of valuable time. Allowing him to do this MORE often is just handing him more "I Win" buttons: more rounds equals a higher percentage chance that he will instantly end the fight with a single spell.

Until you fix that problem, you can't really implement something like this.

Milskidasith
2010-07-15, 11:42 AM
Nice rhetoric.

1) I mentioned a Fatigue System.
2) The number of spells would still be limited by the CL.

Please, give me an example of how this breaks the system so I know how to tailor the revised system to avoid that.

You know rhetoric just means anything used to communicate effectively, right? It's not a bad thing, if that's what you are implying.

As for the example: Any save or suck spell, any blast spell (since it more than doubles their power), basically *any spell* is broken with more power.

Casters are already T1 classes. Giving them the ability to force three more save or dies a round for free is never going to work. Even if you limit it based on the caster level of the spell, you can get a save or die for every spell level you can cast except *maybe* spell level 1, and even then you could just toss a Daze on to every routine if you wanted to, or use your low casting spell to get free True Strikes on all your important spells, etc.

In short: It doesn't matter what spell casters use, the action economy itself is a huge resource and you are allowing casters to break it easily is a bad thing.

For Valor
2010-07-15, 12:10 PM
{Scrubbed}

Milskidasith
2010-07-15, 12:16 PM
Forcing saves to be based on caster level is an incredibly bad idea. Saves would start out very low, but by level 20 every spell you cast would have a DC that was nearly impossible to succeed against, and there are plenty of "no save, just sucks" you can cast at low levels anyway. By making the DC scale the way you do, you can cast spells that have DCs far higher than normal whenever your caster level is above ten. That's all your system effectively does; the DC is higher than normal above CL 10, and lower below CL 10. With CL increases, you can assume CL 23 at level 10, so your lowest caster level spells only have a DC two lower than normal, and you're still breaking the action economy.

Also, please tone down the personal attacks. Just because I see something as unbalanced does not mean I hate change.

Finally, your formula can more easily be represented by CL+SL+ability mod; you have a base DC of 10, and then subtract ten, so there's no reason to add that complexity when the equation can be simplified.

Hyooz
2010-07-15, 12:26 PM
right, the bard and Dread Necro and PsyWar... ooh, man, gotta watch out for those T1 classes.

Now we get it. You don't like change. Please get off this thread while other people who are interested in a change to the system can actually work. Alright?


Actually, all three you mentioned there are T3 classes. Considered rather well balanced.

And yeah, a lot of us don't like changing the system in a way that breaks it even more than it is. Go figure.

Umael
2010-07-15, 12:36 PM
You know rhetoric just means anything used to communicate effectively, right? It's not a bad thing, if that's what you are implying.

I wasn't. It was a compliment. Please take it as such.



As for the example: Any save or suck spell, any blast spell (since it more than doubles their power), basically *any spell* is broken with more power.

1) All save or suck spells are broken from the onset. Any system I would use would have to take that into account even without allowing iterative spellcasting.
2) I don't know about that. Would you be willing to cast two fireballs if one was at 6d6 and the other was at 1d6? Besides...
3) Fatigue system. I don't have the mechanics for it, but the idea is that the more spells you cast, the more tired you get. Possibly there could be a "utility" cost to casting multiple spells in the same round - the 2nd spell is not only less effective than the 1st, but it takes more out of you.

For Valor
2010-07-15, 12:43 PM
Forcing saves to be based on caster level is an incredibly bad idea. Saves would start out very low, but by level 20 every spell you cast would have a DC that was nearly impossible to succeed against, and there are plenty of "no save, just sucks" you can cast at low levels anyway. By making the DC scale the way you do, you can cast spells that have DCs far higher than normal whenever your caster level is above ten. That's all your system effectively does; the DC is higher than normal above CL 10, and lower below CL 10. With CL increases, you can assume CL 23 at level 10, so your lowest caster level spells only have a DC two lower than normal, and you're still breaking the action economy.

Also, please tone down the personal attacks. Just because I see something as unbalanced does not mean I hate change.

Finally, your formula can more easily be represented by CL+SL+ability mod; you have a base DC of 10, and then subtract ten, so there's no reason to add that complexity when the equation can be simplified.

You still don't like the idea: Congrats. We're rewriting combat and will get back to you soon. Unless we don't. Till then, you don't need to bother us.

Your complaints about us creating a system to let the Wizard go "YAYAYIWIN!!" is a little weak. Considering the Wizard is Batman. And the Druid and Cleric are the same Tier... and the Erudite is the same tier... and the Sorcerer, Favored Soul, Psion, and all their buddies are tier 2...

I believe this system won't be overpowering the tiers where the only classes involved are spellcasters. It's more of a tier 3 thing (honestly, if you've got a party with a Sorcerer and a Crusader, the Sorcerer will outshine the Crusader anyways). Now, when you look at tier 3, here's what comes to mind:

Bard, Dread Necro, Duskblade, Factotum, Beguiler, and PsyWar.

Beguilers are the biggest problem; Bards are a problem if you're a bitch with Virtuoso and SC. Dread Necros can be dangerous, Duskblades are really OK if we have scaling saves, and PsyWars aren't gonna do anything.

And while I was thinking about saves, this idea came to mind:

You gain iterative spells according to your Base Casting Bonus (which scales like BAB, but DM's can fudge where they want it to go based on tier selection)
These iterative spells must all be cast with a full-round action, and the spells cast cannot be any longer than a full-round action
All spells must be of the same school
The first spell you cast is the spell of the highest level you can cast (lvl 4 sorcerer's cast a 2nd-level spell), and you cast as your normal spellcaster level.
The next spell you cast is 2 levels lower (the second spell a sorcerer casts is 0th-level) at your caster level - 4.
etc..


On the topic of personal attacks... I must say that you running all over this thread talking about how hopeless it is to create an iterative spell system feels VERY much like a personal attack to me. I'm interested in the idea, and I want to see it work. People like you who (insofar) have fulfilled no purpose other than hating on the topic... well, I just don't like them. If you stop talking about how stupid it is to have iterative spells and actually start helping us fix the situation, I'm sure I'd stop being pissed at you. Till then, I can't say my animosity has died down in the slightest.

Hyooz
2010-07-15, 01:01 PM
You still don't like the idea: Congrats. We're rewriting combat and will get back to you soon. Unless we don't. Till then, you don't need to bother us.

Your complaints about us creating a system to let the Wizard go "YAYAYIWIN!!" is a little weak. Considering the Wizard is Batman. And the Druid and Cleric are the same Tier... and the Erudite is the same tier... and the Sorcerer, Favored Soul, Psion, and all their buddies are tier 2...

I believe this system won't be overpowering the tiers where the only classes involved are spellcasters. It's more of a tier 3 thing (honestly, if you've got a party with a Sorcerer and a Crusader, the Sorcerer will outshine the Crusader anyways). Now, when you look at tier 3, here's what comes to mind:

Bard, Dread Necro, Duskblade, Factotum, Beguiler, and PsyWar.

Beguilers are the biggest problem; Bards are a problem if you're a bitch with Virtuoso and SC. Dread Necros can be dangerous, Duskblades are really OK if we have scaling saves, and PsyWars aren't gonna do anything.


Y'know, boosting the power of already all-powerful classes is kind of the issue at hand here. Deciding it doesn't matter because the wizard already wins is just a bad design philosophy. Why create a system that only exacerbates problems in the status quo?

And if that's not what you're saying, then you need to calm down, back off the sarcasm, and lay out exactly why you think this power boost to casters isn't a problem.



And while I was thinking about saves, this idea came to mind:

You gain iterative spells according to your Base Casting Bonus (which scales like BAB, but DM's can fudge where they want it to go based on tier selection)
These iterative spells must all be cast with a full-round action, and the spells cast cannot be any longer than a full-round action
All spells must be of the same school
The first spell you cast is the spell of the highest level you can cast (lvl 4 sorcerer's cast a 2nd-level spell), and you cast as your normal spellcaster level.
The next spell you cast is 2 levels lower (the second spell a sorcerer casts is 0th-level) at your caster level - 4.
etc..



Unless you're rewriting every spell that exists with this system in mind as well, this is nothing but a straight up power boost to what are already the most powerful classes in the game. We're taking a system, where casting one spell/round is already really abusable, and giving them more spells to casts in a round. Mix in the really broken stuff like Celerity and Time Stop, which this does nothing to prevent that abuse, and a Wizard is slinging 6+ spells on his turn. Even just chaining scorching rays makes every other class basically useless, not to mention chaining SoDs to play up probability enough that they'll eventually fail a roll.



On the topic of personal attacks... I must say that you running all over this thread talking about how hopeless it is to create an iterative spell system feels VERY much like a personal attack to me. I'm interested in the idea, and I want to see it work. People like you who (insofar) have fulfilled no purpose other than hating on the topic... well, I just don't like them. If you stop talking about how stupid it is to have iterative spells and actually start helping us fix the situation, I'm sure I'd stop being pissed at you. Till then, I can't say my animosity has died down in the slightest.

I've seen nothing but constructive criticism in this thread. Pointing out enormous balance issues and other problem areas isn't "hating on the topic." If you want to make this work, these are problems that have to be addressed.

For Valor
2010-07-15, 01:21 PM
{Scrubbed}

Frog Dragon
2010-07-15, 01:30 PM
Sure the wizard can win a battle with one spell.... sometimes. Think of this scenario
Round 1: Wiz wins initiative. Casts Save or Suck. Baddie saves. Wizard casts the same Save or Suck again. Baddie fails the save this time.
The wizard has been given a significant boost that has not been overshadowed by already present brokenness.
Balance concerns are perfectly legitimate concerns and giving the wizard and co another way to break the game honestly isn't very good design. If you think we are derailing the thread trying to point these problems out then I can't help you.
Caster levels based saves are a bad idea yes for one simple reason. Buffability. Your caster can be buffed enough to send the normally save or suck spells into the realm of "suck, unless you just happen to roll a 20". Again broken.

For Valor
2010-07-15, 01:35 PM
{Scrubbed}

Hyooz
2010-07-15, 01:37 PM
So... you realize that all you're doing is giving more power to the classes that need it least, and for the classes that need the power boost more, this system won't help them much at all (by your own words.)

Simple question then: What are you trying to accomplish with this system? What's the goal here?

Milskidasith
2010-07-15, 01:41 PM
Just one question:

Why do you want casters to get more spells off per round? That's what I don't get. It doesn't seem to have any clear reasoning behind it, and that alone is enough to make an idea look bad, even before balance issues. Ignore the criticism if you want, but give me a reason why you want to boost T1 and T2 classes the most, with a boost to some of the T3 classes, and nerf the other classes because they can't be buffed due to the spells-up limitations?

EDIT: Also, why do you say the sorcerer will always be beating the crusader? They have a single tier difference in power; T3's can easily coexist in parties with T2 classes and still be pretty useful. By buffing all casters to T1 or T0, you make it so that you either play an all caster party or a no caster party.

For Valor
2010-07-15, 01:54 PM
So... you realize that all you're doing is giving more power to the classes that need it least, and for the classes that need the power boost more, this system won't help them much at all (by your own words.)

Simple question then: What are you trying to accomplish with this system? What's the goal here?

With this, you can either do the stuff BAB does and continue trying to wail on an opponent with weaker and weaker spells, or you can fire off a big one and then start targeting mooks. You could throw down Lesser Geas on the scariest guy in the room, and then finish off with Scare to ward off the weaklings.

Or you could drop Improved Invisibility on yourself and chain it to Wraithstrike.

I'm considering taking out the same-school requirement. It opens the potential of BCB up.

On the subject of those people who spam SoD/SoS. Well, they deserve to spam those spells. If they want to auto-win their combats, they don't need to ruin the action economy doing so. In fact, under these rules, you could just pitch Time Stop and Celerity (since they're really annoying).

EDIT: Crusader-- mid to low tier 3.
Sorcerer-- high tier 2. The Sorcerer, if you've ever played one, can walk all over any class tiers 3 except the Beguiler. The power jump from Tier 3 to 2 (and the jump from tier 2 to 1) is BIIIIG. Tiers 1 and 2 are nearly separate games.

EDIT v.2: My biggest reason behind backing this is because it supports the powers of classes that mix casting/manifesting with punching things in the face or stabbing them with arrows from afar. Those kinds of classes are usually the most balanced to each other (Duskblade to Bard to PsyWar w/o metamorphosis) and it makes them nice.

Milskidasith
2010-07-15, 01:56 PM
That isn't an answer, Valor. Those are combinations you can do with the system. Why do you want to increase the power of casters to the point it's either "Play a caster, or don't play?"

Also, why do you think that if you cast a save or die you deserve to win? That's a strange outlook, considering there's the whole "save" part of it. And why do you think casters "deserve" to be able to cast multiple save or dies? Again, that's what we're getting at; why do you feel casters need the power increase?

Umael
2010-07-15, 02:04 PM
Just one question:
Why do you want casters to get more spells off per round? That's what I don't get.

The trouble with casters is that they use a completely different system than the non-casters. If there was a way to make a spell about as effective as a melee attack (in combat), then the nerfing of casters would be too much because the warriors in melee are getting multiple attacks, while the caster gets only one spell.

On the flip side, one of the ways casters DO benefit is that they can layer spells with duration effects.

I want to see if there is a way to address both of those issues at once. That is the theoretical, stated goal.

(I also think that making a more "gish" system would help balance the two sides, but most of these thoughts are just theoretical and unrefined at this point.)

Milskidasith
2010-07-15, 02:08 PM
The trouble with casters is that they use a completely different system than the non-casters. If there was a way to make a spell about as effective as a melee attack (in combat), then the nerfing of casters would be too much because the warriors in melee are getting multiple attacks, while the caster gets only one spell.

On the flip side, one of the ways casters DO benefit is that they can layer spells with duration effects.

I want to see if there is a way to address both of those issues at once. That is the theoretical, stated goal.

(I also think that making a more "gish" system would help balance the two sides, but most of these thoughts are just theoretical and unrefined at this point.)

Again, you need to balance the spells before you can start letting casters get more off per round, and balancing spells is a project nobody, to date, has completed. It's the P = NP of D&D 3.5e.

Also, your logic seems flawed; just because casters are weaker doesn't mean they need four spells per round. I mean, hell, the best melee stuff is from the Tome of Battle, and most of the strikes are full round actions that only get a single hit off.

For Valor
2010-07-15, 02:08 PM
That isn't an answer, Valor. Those are combinations you can do with the system. Why do you want to increase the power of casters to the point it's either "Play a caster, or don't play?"

Also, why do you think that if you cast a save or die you deserve to win? That's a strange outlook, considering there's the whole "save" part of it. And why do you think casters "deserve" to be able to cast multiple save or dies? Again, that's what we're getting at; why do you feel casters need the power increase?

Ahhh right. The old "play a caster, or don't play" argument. Dude... that argument already exists. It started when the PHB 1 came out, with the Cleric, Druid, and Wizard. If that's your argument, let me point you to the T1 classes...

Alright, let me just lay it out for you: Casters get little to no power increase. A powerful caster (T1-T2) doesn't care about this new stuff because they can win anyways. Good for them.

A weaker caster will be stronger, but only minimally. They get to cast an extra spell as though they were 4-5 levels weaker than before. Which is hardly a benefit. However, it produces interesting tactics. Buffing gets better this way, and now casters can use tactics: "I'll shoot a fireball here and then use summon monster I to get a celestial badger that can flank so my rogue can sneak attack next turn".

Milskidasith
2010-07-15, 02:11 PM
Ahhh right. The old "play a caster, or don't play" argument. Dude... that argument already exists. It started when the PHB 1 came out, with the Cleric, Druid, and Wizard. If that's your argument, let me point you to the T1 classes...

The problem is that you can play a T3 class in a party with casters and still bring something to the party, at least with the current system. You cannot when you let casters get the absurd power boost you are giving them.


Alright, let me just lay it out for you: Casters get little to no power increase. A powerful caster (T1-T2) doesn't care about this new stuff because they can win anyways. Good for them.

Casters getting multiple extra spells is a huge power increase. Even if they are T1, they still gain benefit from having more actions per round. The action economy is the biggest power limiter in the game, and you are suggesting letting casters break it for free. Saying "They can win anyways" is no reason to give them a huge power boost; that would be like saying it doesn't matter if I let an Ubercharger automatically hit every attack and kill anything he strikes because he already hits most of the time and does a lot of damage.


A weaker caster will be stronger, but only minimally. They get to cast an extra spell as though they were 4-5 levels weaker than before. Which is hardly a benefit. However, it produces interesting tactics. Buffing gets better this way, and now casters can use tactics: "I'll shoot a fireball here and then use summon monster I to get a celestial badger that can flank so my rogue can sneak attack next turn".

Weaker spells are still spells; you could still use your iteratives to cast Daze, or True Strike, or just deal more damage because that's never a bad thing. And casters could already use tactics; allowing them to cast four spells a round doesn't add anything tactically, it just ends combat in one round, even if that wouldn't always work normally.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-07-15, 02:12 PM
The trouble with casters is that they use a completely different system than the non-casters. If there was a way to make a spell about as effective as a melee attack (in combat), then the nerfing of casters would be too much because the warriors in melee are getting multiple attacks, while the caster gets only one spell.

The issue is that those spells have effects far more game-changing than a single melee attack: enough that even with a "1 spell=several attacks" system, magic comes out far ahead.

If you tone magic down to much, however, you end up meeting Tome of Battle coming the other way. Really, that's why ToB works: it takes the series of ineffectual attacks a Fighter would make and changes them into one big spell-like attack, albeit a little weaker and a little more martial.


I want to see if there is a way to address both of those issues at once. That is the theoretical, stated goal.

Sadly, I don't think it would be possible to both do this AND preserve the distinction between magic and mundane. Take a look at Tome of Battle and 4e: both close the power gap between magic and mundane by offering each a "1 action" philosophy, and in both it is often hard to figure out where mundane ends and supernatural begins.

The best way to do this is to remove extra attacks entirely: a character gets 1 move action and 1 standard action on his or her turn, and certain martial abilities might turn that single action into multiple attacks. Then everyone is on a more even footing, and you can tune the effects of spells and attacks up or down to match each other in approximate power level.

Umael
2010-07-15, 02:21 PM
Again, you need to balance the spells before you can start letting casters get more off per round, and balancing spells is a project nobody, to date, has completed. It's the P = NP of D&D 3.5e.

As long as you stay D&D 3.5, yes, there is no balancing of spells.

But if you go elsewhere, like to Iron Heroes, spell-casters are about as effective than any other class - and Iron Heroes is d20-based.

If you are familiar with Iron Heroes, let me ask you this - would you be willing to cast multiple spells in one round?

Back to 3.5, if that is the springboard, than any system I create which allows multiple spells cast in the same round will need a major overhaul of the spell system and the spells themselves. At that point, you are no longer talking about 3.5, even if you are still d20.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-07-15, 02:24 PM
Back to 3.5, if that is the springboard, than any system I create which allows multiple spells cast in the same round will need a major overhaul of the spell system and the spells themselves. At that point, you are no longer talking about 3.5, even if you are still d20.

Perhaps this should have been brought up as a concept in the OP then. I think it would have removed a large portion of the argument...

For Valor
2010-07-15, 02:26 PM
@Milskidasith: Yes, spells are still spells. But they're less effective. SO less effective in fact that giving extra spells won't make someone uber-strong unless they're a save-spammer. And save-spammers have already broken the game, so no one cares about them.

Now, write me up a quick char and put him throw a couple SGT tests. Show me how broken this ability is. I'll bet you can't do it, because the combat mechanic isn't broken.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-07-15, 02:30 PM
@Milskidasith: Yes, spells are still spells. But they're less effective. SO less effective in fact that giving extra spells won't make someone uber-strong unless they're a save-spammer. And save-spammers have already broken the game, so no one cares about them.

Now, write me up a quick char and put him throw a couple SGT tests. Show me how broken this ability is. I'll bet you can't do it, because the combat mechanic isn't broken.

For Valor, if I may point something out...

People DO care about save-spammers, because save-spamming isn't even a high level optimization tactic. It happens in every game. Save or die spells work, so people use them. A lot. Every round, or every other round. More with your suggestion.

If I can toss out one save or die with a 50% probability of success, and suddenly I can toss out TWO save or die spells, my chance of a 1-round victory increases by 25%. That's a HUGE increase. A 75% chance of rendering the entire rest of my part obsolete against a single foe? That's crazy.

And thus it matters. It matters incredibly in any party that features both a spellcaster with even a single save-or-suck spell and another member without such an option.

Milskidasith
2010-07-15, 02:32 PM
@Milskidasith: Yes, spells are still spells. But they're less effective. SO less effective in fact that giving extra spells won't make someone uber-strong unless they're a save-spammer. And save-spammers have already broken the game, so no one cares about them.

Save-spammers don't exist outside of meta-cheese and your build. They haven't broken the game, and base save or dies are powerful, but nowhere near as bad as four save or dies a round. Yes, casters can currently cast save or X's, but generally they aren't tossing out more than one per round and, at the very least, the party martial characters are more reliable about killing a guy in two rounds. When casters can cast multiple times and save SoDs, they'll almost never fail, which totally negates the point of reliable damage dealing for guys who get lucky or have high saves.

Anyway, you are horribly underestimating the power of spells of a lower caster level; we've already had tests on this very forum that show that a level 13 wizard can beat a level 20 fighter. If a wizard has a CL of 23 at level 20, that means he gets to cast three spells per round with at least enough CL to beat a level 20 opponent, and that's before factoring in level 20 WBL and ability score increases.


Now, write me up a quick char and put him throw a couple SGT tests. Show me how broken this ability is. I'll bet you can't do it, because the combat mechanic isn't broken.

Let me get this straight: To prove your mechanic is not broken, you want me to write up an entire character to put through tests you make? That is both irrelevant (I don't have to test to know three more spells per round, even at a lower CL, is huge), and so obviously not impartial the testing would be meaningless.

For Valor
2010-07-15, 02:40 PM
Let me get this straight: To prove your mechanic is not broken, you want me to write up an entire character to put through tests you make? That is both irrelevant (I don't have to test to know three more spells per round, even at a lower CL, is huge), and so obviously not impartial the testing would be meaningless.

Um... no... I think you need to be a little less aggressive. Remember, no personal attacks.

I say that a char who can cast 8th-level spells can cast 4 times: 8th or lower, 6th or lower, 4th or lower, and 2nd or lower, as a full-round action.

Please explain how this makes the Dread Necromancer SO much more powerful than the Swordsage... or why this makes the Bard DEVASTATINGLY more potent than the Binder or Wildshape Ranger. And don't give me crap about "Obviously you don't know spells and how they work" or anything along those lines.

Examples. Give me examples.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-07-15, 02:40 PM
Let me get this straight: To prove your mechanic is not broken, you want me to write up an entire character to put through tests you make? That is both irrelevant (I don't have to test to know three more spells per round, even at a lower CL, is huge), and so obviously not impartial the testing would be meaningless.

It would show the problem though.

A Same Game Test, firstly, is an inexact measurement.

Secondly, anything that wins 50% of the fights is considered to be Wizard tier, according to D&D Wiki (which automatically makes me doubt the SGT). I can build a Wizard without this mechanic that will win roughly 99% of all fights against an equally CRed opponent. With this mechanic, we'll assume I can still only win 99% of the fights.

Here's the difference: the multi-spell/round Wizard wins on round 1 75% of the time, and round 2 or later 25% of the time. Each round he has a 75% chance to end the fight (assuming he only ever casts 2 spells). The other wizard wins on round 1 50% of the time, and his foes have a 50% chance of survival each time.

After 4 rounds of combat, here are my opponent's odds:

Normal Wizard: Opponent has a 6.25% chance of surviving.
Multicast Wizard (2 spells/round): Opponent has a 0.325% chance of surviving. My opponent's survival chance after 2 rounds equal the chances of a normal wizard and 4 rounds of combat.

Adding more spells simply further skews the numbers.

Also, in a straight up fight, the multi-cast wizard will win over 50% of the fights against the normal wizard, effectively putting him in a Tier 1 of power in a bracket that assumes the Wizard is the balancing factor.

Edit: Assuming you are going with decreasing spell levels each time (rather than the lowered caster level assumed by the OP), but numbers drop a little bit: by exactly 10% per additional spell (to a minimum of 5%, assuming all spells require a failed save).

A wizard under this still has a 65% chance instead of a 50% chance to end an equal level encounter with a 50% chance to save against his highest level spell. That's still a large increase.

For Valor
2010-07-15, 02:43 PM
My friend, the balance-levels of Dungeons Wiki are not what interest me. I'm looking at the straight percents. Don't apply the SGT to balance levels--they are very different systems. And a wizard wins 100% of his encounters in the SGT.

Milskidasith
2010-07-15, 02:44 PM
Wait, it's a test using D&D wiki's standards of balance?

The same D&D wiki with no quality control, homebrew feats that are completely irrelevant (ambidexterity, which is just a copy of 3.0 ambidexterity before it was rolled into TWF), and such homebrew gems as the race with a +50 racial bonus to wisdom for 4 LA?

Yeah, that's... something, all right.

Also, how can the highest tier win 50% of fights? In a test of the same mechanics, one character is *always* going to win 50% or more of the fights; you could fight monk versus commoner and monk would be wizard tier.

EDIT: Again, what Djinn said. Assuming you just cast save or dies, your chance of defeating a foe if your opponent has a 50% chance your highest level spell gives them 50% survival after one spell, 30% survival after a second, 21% survival after a third, and 16.8% chance after a fourth. Your enemies are almost three times less likely to survive with your multicast system.

For Valor
2010-07-15, 02:45 PM
{Scrubbed}

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-07-15, 02:46 PM
My friend, the balance-levels of Dungeons Wiki are not what interest me. I'm looking at the straight percents. Don't apply the SGT to balance levels--they are very different systems. And a wizard wins 100% of his encounters in the SGT.

In your own words:


Now, write me up a quick char and put him throw a couple SGT tests. Show me how broken this ability is. I'll bet you can't do it, because the combat mechanic isn't broken.

And thus I put him through the SGT in theory.

Also, I just gave you the straight percents. They're staggeringly in favor of a multicasting Wizard, and I can crunch the numbers at all levels if you'll hand my the rules for the casting system you envisioned (which seems to be that you get an addition spell cast at -2 spell levels: 1 9th, 1 7th, 1 5th, 1 3rd, 1 1st).

Frog Dragon
2010-07-15, 02:51 PM
That is not a problem of the SGT, that is problem of the D&Dwiki being stupid. There are perfectly proper SGT:s to be made, which don't involve the so called "Balance Points" from the cave of all that is bad homebrew.
SGT is not their invention.

Milskidasith
2010-07-15, 02:51 PM
Edited above.

Here are the tests for the SoD wizard at various levels; initial success is first, then the enemies survival chances at every cast.

5% initial success: 95%, 90.25%, ~85.74%, ~81.4%. Almost a 4x increase in power.

25% initial success: 75%, .6375%, 60.56%, 57.53%; enemy is almost twice as likely to fail his save.

50% initial success: See above.

75% initial success: 25%, 8.75%, ~4%, ~2%. A whopping dozen times more likely to kill the enemy.

The wizard gets the least out of this at 35% chance of success, where his chance per spell drops (relatively) the most per level, and even that is more than 150% increased chance of winning (65% to ~40%). At higher percents, the wizard gets more and more out of it and becomes essentially guaranteed to succeed where, previously, he'd only win some of the time.

For Valor
2010-07-15, 03:02 PM
{Scrubbed}

Milskidasith
2010-07-15, 03:05 PM
{Scrubbed}

Look at the math, please. If your spells only have a 50% chance of working, you haven't "won" by any means, you're just a coinflip away from winning or being splattered. With more spells, your win chance goes up to 84%, cutting the chances of your opponent living to a third.

I don't know what to say; if you refuse to acknowledge the math I've presented, I can't convince you. I guess I could show how blasters (using non save or X blast spells) output well more than double damage, but that would probably get ignored as well.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-07-15, 03:11 PM
the only reason I'm ignoring the posts Djinn makes is because they have to do with the fact that people who spam saves have already won the game. A caster who runs around casting "Save or X" spells is garuanteed to be absolutely amazing. Fortunately, few Tier 3 and below classes do that. Those classes are: Bard, Beguiler, and I think that's it (I've never run a Factotum, so I don't know about that one). Beguilers need to go up to Tier 2, and Bards have limited casting according to the fact that they've only got 6 levels of spells.

Most of a Beguiler's offensive spells are save-or-suck: he's a damn enchanter, and that's what enchantment specializes in. Same with the Bard: most of his combat utility spells will really mess up an enemy.

Maybe the Warmage and the Dread Necromancer (to a lesser extent) avoid this, but the simple fact is that this isn't just limited to tier 1 classes.

The reason those classes are lower tier is because they don't have the variety of spells or the ability to break the action economy and truly nova what spells they DO have. You're trying to hand them that ability. Sure, both might move up to being Tier 2 classes...but then you've only worsened the caster/noncaster situation by making ALL casters Tier 2, and all non casters Tier 3 or lower.

In all humility, Miks and I are both pretty damn good at game balance and game design, respectively. If we're both arguing a point, it probably does in fact have some merit.

For Valor
2010-07-15, 03:16 PM
Look at the math, please. If your spells only have a 50% chance of working, you haven't "won" by any means, you're just a coinflip away from winning or being splattered. With more spells, your win chance goes up to 84%, cutting the chances of your opponent living to a third.

I don't know what to say; if you refuse to acknowledge the math I've presented, I can't convince you. I guess I could show how blasters (using non save or X blast spells) output well more than double damage, but that would probably get ignored as well.

Right, so now we're conveniently forgetting the "no save, just suck" spells you mentioned earlier. Those give you 100% chance of success. And at the level and class where you're casting SoD 4 spells/round, you have Celerity and can throw a rock over your opponents before turning it into a block of lead weighing 9 tons. That'll win you the combat anyways.

So if you're throwing around SoDs they way you've presented them, you're playing the class poorly.

Milskidasith
2010-07-15, 03:19 PM
Right, so now we're conveniently forgetting the "no save, just suck" spells you mentioned earlier. Those give you 100% chance of success. And at the level and class where you're casting SoD 4 spells/round, you have Celerity and can throw a rock over your opponents before turning it into a block of lead weighing 9 tons. That'll win you the combat anyways.

So if you're throwing around SoDs they way you've presented them, you're playing the class poorly.

No save, just suck spells usually don't actually kill somebody. It's stuff like "Grease" which negates your ability to effectively move, Solid Fog, which... negates your ability to effectively move, Force Cage, which... negates your ability to effectively move, etc. When you can do that *and* cast multiple save or dies per round, you still get a lot more power because you were going to have to cast other spells to actually kill your opponent to begin with.

Also, Celerity isn't nearly as powerful as you think it is. It's a useful interrupt move, sure, but it isn't going to let you do anything more than trade a round of spellcasting now for a dazed round later, unless you use timestop or get one of the rare ways to be immune to daze.

Yes, casters are good. That doesn't mean making them better is a good idea, nor does the fact there are some spells that you can't resist mean that it doesn't matter if you can cast it four times a round. At the very least, you can no save, just suck four times the amount of people as before, or over four times the area.

Also, the way I presented save or sucks was as well as any wizard can possibly hope to cast save or X's: with a certain percent chance of success on a 5% interval.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-07-15, 03:21 PM
Right, so now we're conveniently forgetting the "no save, just suck" spells you mentioned earlier. Those give you 100% chance of success. And at the level and class where you're casting SoD 4 spells/round, you have Celerity and can throw a rock over your opponents before turning it into a block of lead weighing 9 tons. That'll win you the combat anyways.

So if you're throwing around SoDs they way you've presented them, you're playing the class poorly.

So help me to understand.

You're saying that we shouldn't worry about overpowering Tier 1 because, for some reason I can't quite fathom, it's fine to give them even more game-breaking power? It's fine to leave melee in the dust compared to the remaining casters because those casters should be Tier 2, despite the fact that we disregarded Tier 1, and thus Tier 2 becomes the new Tier 1?

I'm honestly confused. You seem to be working at cross purposes here: saying the existing spellcasters don't count because they're just to good, and then adding rules to make those spellcasters who aren't already to good much better than the fighters?

Also, don't think Bards and Beguilers aren't 1-shotting encounters. They are, just not as frequently. The real reason they aren't Tier 1 or 2 is because their options for how they do so are very limited.

Umael
2010-07-15, 03:32 PM
Perhaps this should have been brought up as a concept in the OP then. I think it would have removed a large portion of the argument...

True, but I needed people to point out what is wrong with changing 3.5 that way in order for me to see the parts of 3.5 I need to change.

For example, the idea I have envisioned will make buffs work very different. Is this a good thing or a bad thing... no, wait. Will this make buffs different as in too powerful or too weak? If too powerful, how do I weaken them, and if too weak, how do I empower them?

What I have so far is:

1) Save-or-suck spells are produced more quickly, doing more of a "I go first, I win" mentality.
Potential solution: Remove, weaken, or re-work save-or-suck spells.
2) Buffs are nerfed, making them unattractive for casters to use, either on themselves or on their teammates.
Potential solution: Buffs either need to be empowered again or there needs to be a benefit for casting them on a non-spellcaster.
3) Damage-spells can allow the mage to do two, three, even four times as much damage in the same round.
Potential solution: Multiple direct damage spells in the same round should give a smaller return on their investment, possibly even causing the caster to suffer some kind of setback (not just related to direct damage spells).
4) Spells which do not heavily rely on caster levels for their effectiveness follow the same advantage as save-or-suck spells.
Potential solution: Look into tying the effectiveness of all spells to their caster level.

Okay. Let's look at these potential solutions a little closer.

Remove, weaken, or re-work save-or-suck spells: Removing is the easy solution. Weaken would mean I would need some mechanic to make the save DC easier, presumably without making these spells worthless. Re-working means that I would have to come up with a completely different system - possible, but difficult.

Buffs either need to be empowered again or there needs to be a benefit for casting them on a non-spellcaster.: Empowering is a question between something like allowing double the bonus of before or allowing multiple buffs to focus as one. A benefit to casting them on a non-spellcaster is more open, but one possibility is that any class that gains +1 BAB/level also gains +0.5 CL/level - a spellcaster could "anchor" a spell to a non-spellcaster, where the spell's effective caster level is equal to either the non-spellcaster's or the spellcaster's, whichever is lower.

Multiple direct damage spells in the same round should give a smaller return on their investment, possibly even causing the caster to suffer some kind of setback (not just related to direct damage spells).: 6th-level caster casts two fireballs in the same turn, one at 6d6, the other at 1d6. If there was a Fatigue system in place based on the spell level (not the caster level), the caster would suffer as if both spells were 3rd-level. If there was a way to recover a certain amount of Fatigue, multiple casting would deplete the Stamina reserve faster than the wizard could recover. Obviously, more needs to be done on this Fatigue system.

Look into tying the effectiveness of all spells to their caster level.: Spells like True Strike, which grant a flat bonus (+20 to hit) would have to be converted into granting a bonus tied to the caster level. Obviously, each spell would have to be handled on a case-by-case basis - again.

For Valor
2010-07-15, 03:34 PM
{Scrubbed}

Milskidasith
2010-07-15, 03:42 PM
{Scrubbed}

The tiers are a ranking given based on power. They are not something assigned to the class to determine how powerful it should be. Not only that, they don't mean at all what you think they mean; they are not strictly about pure power, but also about flexibility. T1 classes can break the game with everything, T2 classes can break the game with anything, T3 classes can break the game in certain ways and have some tricks besides that, T4 can be flexible or good at one thing but not much, and T5 just isn't good at one thing.

Saying that "T2 classes should always beat T3 classes because they are T2" is backwards logic; even if the tiers were just based on power and not flexibility, the class is T2 because it beats T3 classes; it doesn't beat T3 classes because it is T2, and such a philosophy makes no sense.

It's not that I want overlap between the tiers. It's that I don't see classes as "This is T5, it has to suck" or "This is T1, they should always be able to win and deserve more power." Classes are put in tiers based on their power; they are not given power because of their tier.

Anyway, your design goal of making the classes so far apart in balance that a tier difference makes them unplayable in the same party is a bad thing. There is no benefit to creating a situation where you cannot play what you want to without making other players feel useless/being useless yourself. That situation does not exist currently, unless the party has more than three tiers of difference between them. As an example of a game with tiers, take fighting games; sure, there are tier lists, but, save rare cases like Akuma, a T1 character (high tier) can still lost to a T3 character (low tier) unless the game is incredibly imbalanced. Tiers aren't levels where "You have to be this tier or higher to win" they're just ways to show varying power levels as an abstraction.

erikun
2010-07-15, 04:32 PM
Alright, it sounds like you are planning on redesigning the entire system (classes and spells) along with the iterative casting method, which kind of makes discussion how well it works with wizards (or beguilers, or warmages) a bit pointless. Even assuming a new "spellcaster" class, I can see a few problems with your system.

1.) It kills buffing, or at least buffing from a spellcaster perspective. Every active buff you have removes an iterative, and even if it is the lowest iterative, you are still giving up tossing out a glitterdust or magic missile. Having four or more active buffs means that your character literally cannot cast spells anymore. The only character that would buff would be the equilivant of a DMM Clericzilla, and since they are relying on their buffs to participate, they are more likely to buff themselves than others when given the choise.

2.) The melee vs. casting difference needs to be addressed. The way I see it, there are two possibilities, neither of which look very good.

First, spells could do about the same damage as weapons (2d6+STR greatsword vs. 4d6 fireball). In this case, the two are roughly equal in damage, but spellcasting falls behind in that it is limited to spell slots/etc. Unless you can expect to kill stuff in one iterative - which you cannot in 3.5e - then about the only choise for spellcasting is to toss out save or die spells. Anything else makes them squishy ranged fighters which run out of swords after an encounter or two.

Second, spells could be significantly more powerful than weapons, to make up for the limited number of spells (2d6+STR greatsword vs. 20d6 fireball). In this case, we are looking at a serious 15 mintue workday, as spellcasters can destroy an encounter several times faster than a fighter in exchange for burning through spell slots. Lower iteratives might be replaces with save or suck spells, such as Orb of Acid/Glitterdust or Fireball/Color Spray, to make use of the weaker spell slots which otherwise wouldn't do enough damage.

3.) Limiting it by school doesn't do much, as pointed out in the previous example. You can still blast/save or suck with the same school, and the first example in #2 would only be using save or suck anyways.

4.) Limiting spellcasting by SP wouldn't do much either. If they have enough SP to go through several iteratives, then spellcasters can end an encounter before it becomes a problem; if not, then the option to iterative is pointless because the spellcasters cannot do so to begin with. You also mentioned fatigue, but without any specifics on how it would work I cannot comment.


Ultimately, I don't see this suggestion working very well. Perhaps if you gave spellcasters reserve feats (which use the iterative) and spell slots for utility spells, it could work. Of course, this is basically the design behind the Warlock, which doesn't need to bother with a special caster-iterative because its basical magical attack uses the standard BAB system.

For Valor
2010-07-15, 05:05 PM
The tiers are a ranking given based on power. They are not something assigned to the class to determine how powerful it should be. Not only that, they don't mean at all what you think they mean; they are not strictly about pure power, but also about flexibility. T1 classes can break the game with everything, T2 classes can break the game with anything, T3 classes can break the game in certain ways and have some tricks besides that, T4 can be flexible or good at one thing but not much, and T5 just isn't good at one thing.

Saying that "T2 classes should always beat T3 classes because they are T2" is backwards logic; even if the tiers were just based on power and not flexibility, the class is T2 because it beats T3 classes; it doesn't beat T3 classes because it is T2, and such a philosophy makes no sense.

It's not that I want overlap between the tiers. It's that I don't see classes as "This is T5, it has to suck" or "This is T1, they should always be able to win and deserve more power." Classes are put in tiers based on their power; they are not given power because of their tier.

Anyway, your design goal of making the classes so far apart in balance that a tier difference makes them unplayable in the same party is a bad thing. There is no benefit to creating a situation where you cannot play what you want to without making other players feel useless/being useless yourself. That situation does not exist currently, unless the party has more than three tiers of difference between them. As an example of a game with tiers, take fighting games; sure, there are tier lists, but, save rare cases like Akuma, a T1 character (high tier) can still lost to a T3 character (low tier) unless the game is incredibly imbalanced. Tiers aren't levels where "You have to be this tier or higher to win" they're just ways to show varying power levels as an abstraction.

No. It doesn't. For the last time, the people who are already breaking the game can still break the game. I've just given them another way to break the game. Do you understand that? Or should I say it again?

just in case:
High. Tier. Casters. Already. Break. The. Game.

OK. Now, the lower casters don't break the game as much. The Beguiler still does, because it's strong, but the rest don't. Adding this "cast more spells" mechanic doesn't break any T3 or lower classes.

just in case:
This. Mechanic. Doesn't. Break. T3. Or. Lower. Classes.

now. WHAT are you tring to say that disproves what I've got right here? So far you've given 0 class examples (you did some % work.... good job, but that reflects nothing on the classes).

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-07-15, 05:19 PM
WHAT are you tring to say that disproves what I've got right here? So far you've given 0 class examples (you did some % work.... good job, but that reflects nothing on the classes).

Nothing. This is correct.

However, all classes are in the game equally, potential for abuse aside. Powering up the top 30% of classes just makes the power difference worse: yes, they could (COULD) break the game earlier, but now you're making it hard for them NOT to break the game. I can play a Wizard and feel effective without breaking the game. With a multi-casting system, even by playing unoptimally but using my class features (i.e. casting multiple spells) I will break the game.

And the percentage stuff DOES reflect on the classes, because it reflects on the mechanic. A Beguiler or Bard with save-or-suck spells stands close to the same (if not the same) chance of shutting down an encounter.

Quicken Spell is a very powerful feat. It costs a +4 level adjustment, and can be used once per round, and it's WORTH THE COST. You're thinking of allowing ALL casters to use this without a level adjustment (albeit slightly limiting the spells at +2 per spell), and multiple times per round if they can cast high enough spells.

The reason you can full attack and not full-cast is that pound for pound, spells outstrip melee. You can't balance the game by allowing multiple spells without fixing the problem that melee would be FAR overshadowed by even the lowliest caster.

If you want multiple spells, you have to make it at a cost. Perhaps you can cast spells totaling up to your highest spell level: 1 9th level spell, or 1 8th level spell and a 1st level spell, or 3 3rd level spells, and so on. Balance repeated lower DCs against one big save DC...that will STILL be EXTREMELY powerful, but not AS bad.

For Valor
2010-07-15, 05:29 PM
the Bard, at level 4, can cast Glitterdust and follow up with a cantrip. I consider that a waste of a spell.

The Beguiler I've already expressed my opinion on.

And if you're playing a wizard w/o breaking the game, you're using less "I win" spells and more "I'm pretty effective" spells. So you've toned yourself down. If you want to still be effective, you can cast "I'm pretty effective" spells, and then "I'm pretty effective two levels lower" and so on.

Like I said, I'm pretty convinced that there's not much game-breaking going on here unless you could already do so before. Your example just means that a person can moderate his/herself. If you don't cast ridiculously powerful buffs and SoD spells together with a full-round cast, it's about the same as not casting a single powerful buff or a single SoD spell as a standard action.

erikun
2010-07-15, 05:38 PM
This. Mechanic. Doesn't. Break. T3. Or. Lower. Classes.
Well, assuming a meleer with a greatsword and 50 STR (to make it nice and simple), you would have a character that deals 2d6+30 damage on a hit, for 8d6+120 damage on a full attack. 148 damage on average.

Assuming a Warmage with your changes, they could cast one spell for 20d6 damage (say, Delayed Fireball Blast), one spell for 15d6 (Otiluke's Freezing Sphere), one for 10d6 (Fireball), and a cheap SoD (Color Spray). That's 45d6 damage, or around 157 average, to everything in a 20 foot radius. Plus potential stun to anything nearby. And that is assuming we're going for straight damage, rather than throwing out Prismatic Spray or something fairly dangerous.

So we have a T4 Fighter with unusally high strength being outclassed by a T4 Warmage which is hardly trying. Against a single target. Assuming that the Fighter can even reach them. This is ignoring that the Warmage dealt the same damage to everything else nearby, or had far better options available, or did not need to worry about AC and such.

Perhaps I got a few spells for the Warmage (I don't have the book), but it looks like the Warmage - the lowest of the casters outside the Healer - has been pushed from mid-T4 up to high-T3, if not T2. I would consider that to be highly breaking the class, and am not sure what purpose it serves.

For Valor
2010-07-15, 06:00 PM
Well, assuming a meleer with a greatsword and 50 STR (to make it nice and simple), you would have a character that deals 2d6+30 damage on a hit, for 8d6+120 damage on a full attack. 148 damage on average.

Assuming a Warmage with your changes, they could cast one spell for 20d6 damage (say, Delayed Fireball Blast), one spell for 15d6 (Otiluke's Freezing Sphere), one for 10d6 (Fireball), and a cheap SoD (Color Spray). That's 45d6 damage, or around 157 average, to everything in a 20 foot radius. Plus potential stun to anything nearby. And that is assuming we're going for straight damage, rather than throwing out Prismatic Spray or something fairly dangerous.

So we have a T4 Fighter with unusally high strength being outclassed by a T4 Warmage which is hardly trying. Against a single target. Assuming that the Fighter can even reach them. This is ignoring that the Warmage dealt the same damage to everything else nearby, or had far better options available, or did not need to worry about AC and such.

Perhaps I got a few spells for the Warmage (I don't have the book), but it looks like the Warmage - the lowest of the casters outside the Healer - has been pushed from mid-T4 up to high-T3, if not T2. I would consider that to be highly breaking the class, and am not sure what purpose it serves.

erm... right...

Assume we have a lvl 20 fighter. Max his Str (18), give him a ridiculous racial mod (+6), and push his enhancement bonus to the max (+6). Then add his 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 20th level attribute bonuses to that. That yields 18 + 6 + 6 + 5= 35. Alright, so 50 is wrong.

But say it's actually right... for whatever reason... that means the Warmage must have it too.

So the fighter is dealing 8d6 + 120... assuming he actually makes those attacks that are at -15... for that enormous amount of damage. Now, the warmage throws down 20d6 damage as a standard action and it comes out to be... 120 damage. Wow. And with bonuses of 10 + 9 + 20, the reflex save DC is 39. Good luck team monster.

Now 20d6<8d6+120, I agree. But the warmage's opponents are almost ALWAYS going to fail their save, while the fighter will probably miss AT LEAST one of his attacks. That means he's doing 6d6 + 90, which is 126, which is the same in a full-round action as the warmage performed in a standard action. Of course, the warmage could be slightly intelligent and use Meteor Swarm to deal 24d6 damage, which comes with the same DC 39 save but will deal an average 144 damage. Or maybe he could cast Wail of the Banshee or Weird or any of his other favorite Save-or-Die spells.

Obviously, even without this mechanic, the Warmage is superior to the fighter by leagues. If it's that obvious, then there's something wrong with the tier system, NOT the new mechanic.

erikun
2010-07-15, 06:11 PM
Obviously, even without this mechanic, the Warmage is superior to the fighter by leagues. If it's that obvious, then there's something wrong with the tier system, NOT the new mechanic.
I think you missed my point. Even if the melee character is not a Fighter - make it a Barbarian, or a Warblade, or whatever - and even if you give them a free +15 STR from nowhere, then your sample system takes the otherwise weaker Warmage and makes him far better than the best melee classes without even trying. Yes, the Barbarian could grab feats for ubercharging to out-damage the Warmage, but the Warmage could throw around Wail of the Banshee or empowered Enervation or whatever and kill stuff outright as well.

Four times a round, while even the ubercharger needs that full attack to kill one target a round.

You may disagree with the tier system, but it should be obvious that you are taking one of the weakest spellcasting classes, and making it four times better than the best non-spellcasting classes. I'm not sure what the idea was behind the suggestion, but it greatly empowers any spellcasting and renders melee even more pointless.

For Valor
2010-07-15, 06:15 PM
I think you missed my point. Even if the melee character is not a Fighter - make it a Barbarian, or a Warblade, or whatever - and even if you give them a free +15 STR from nowhere, then your sample system takes the otherwise weaker Warmage and makes him far better than the best melee classes without even trying. Yes, the Barbarian could grab feats for ubercharging to out-damage the Warmage, but the Warmage could throw around Wail of the Banshee or empowered Enervation or whatever and kill stuff outright as well.

Four times a round, while even the ubercharger needs that full attack to kill one target a round.

You may disagree with the tier system, but it should be obvious that you are taking one of the weakest spellcasting classes, and making it four times better than the best non-spellcasting classes. I'm not sure what the idea was behind the suggestion, but it greatly empowers any spellcasting and renders melee even more pointless.

What I actually just did in my example was take the pme pf the weakest spellcasting classes (Healer under level 17) and show how it was better than the tier it belongs in. The Warmage is definitely higher than tier 4 for its blasting capabilities. Go for tier 3 in combat. And since you said "Swordsage", I'm going to disagree again. The Swordsage will have a decent damage output, just as the Warmage. It does all that crap the fighter does PLUS it has 9th-level maneuvers. Look at some 9th-level maneuvers and tell me they don't match up with or exceed the Warmage

erikun
2010-07-15, 06:28 PM
Again, I don't have the book for Warmage, but I don't see anything that would compete with an Empowered Enervation (-3 checks, -3 attack rolls, -15 HP, losing three of her highest prepared spells). I certainly don't see anything that would measure up to following it up with a standard Enervation afterwards in the same round, with -5 to all rolls and losing the five highest prepared spells, which is what you propose to introduce.

mroozee
2010-07-15, 06:55 PM
This may have been mentioned, so apologies ahead of time.

If you really want to use the BAB (or equivalent), you can alter spell-casting as follows:

Allow the caster to roll an attack against a spell level:
d20 + "BAB" + Int Modifier vs. 10 + 2 x Spell Level

CL 1 (BAB = 0), SL 1, Int +2: d20 + 2 vs. 12 (casts 55% of the time)

CL 5 (BAB = 2), SL 3, Int +3: d20 + 5 vs. 16 (casts 50%)

CL 10 (BAB = 5), SL 4, Int +5: d20 + 10 vs. 18 (casts 65%)

CL 15 (BAB = 7,2) SL 8,1 Int +6: d20 + 13 vs. 26 (casts 35%) AND d20 + 8 vs. 12 (casts 85%) (double cast 30%, double fail 10%)

CL 20 (BAB = 10,5) SL 9,9 Int +10: d20 + 20 vs 28 (casts 65%) AND d20 + 15 vs 28 (casts 40%) (double cast 26%, double fail 21%)

Failure/Success may be handled in a variety of ways. One possibility: a miss means that the casting extends into the next round while a 1 means you lose the spell. Scrolls and other spell-casting activation items would use the BAB of the caster who created it at the time of creation. In all but the Montiest of Halls, the result should be less reliance (or at least, less effective reliance) on high-level spells. Summonings that are cast well before combat and long-duration buffs would probably be a popular way to use a caster.

Of course, if your campaign sees guys running around with +20 Int Modifiers, this isn't going to slow them down at all. A Mage who starts with an 18, +5 for 20 levels, +5 through wishes + 6 for an item would have an Int of 34 (+12 modifier). Add this to the +10 BAB gives +22 and a 9th level spell would still "fail" 25% of the time on the first attempt and 50% on the second. It would outright fail 5% on the first try and 20% x 5% on the second = 6% of the time and would carry on to the next round another 6.25% of the time. Alternatively, if he chose to cast two 4th level spells (18 rather than 28), he would successfully double cast more than 90% of the time. Limit stat-raising items and stat-raising wishes and 9th level spells start to take a LONG time to cast on average.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-07-15, 07:44 PM
Look at some 9th-level maneuvers and tell me they don't match up with or exceed the Warmage

They match up with or exceed the Warmage, depending on the circumstances and the maneuvers/spells in question. Sometimes the Warmage exceeds them, sometimes the reserve.

They do not match up or exceed the Warmage given a full round action when the Warmage is capable of casting multiple spells. 1 9th level martial maneuver =/= a 9th level spell, a 7th level spell, a 5th level spell, a 3rd level spell, and a 1st level spell.

That's the point we're trying to make here.

Milskidasith
2010-07-15, 08:16 PM
A question, Valor: When did I ever mention it would break below T3 classes? Besides the warmage and healer, there are no classes below T3 that are even hit by this change. That would be like saying that giving all fighters four full attacks a round wouldn't be too powerful because it doesn't make sorcerers any more powerful.

Umael
2010-07-15, 09:15 PM
Alright, it sounds like you are planning on redesigning the entire system (classes and spells) along with the iterative casting method, which kind of makes discussion how well it works with wizards (or beguilers, or warmages) a bit pointless.

Look again, please.

By saying, "this is what I am trying to do," I get a bunch of people saying, "Yeah, but you get this and this and that problem." Then I fix those problems.

Now I have two choices that go back and make your wizard relevant again. In one, I take what I have learned from fixing those problems and apply them to a regular D&D 3.5 game without using iterative spell-casting, and in two, I set about designing this system so that it keeps the flavor of the wizard or the beguiler.

While that might not be useful for you (or at least, not so you notice), it is greatly useful for me.


1.) It kills buffing, or at least buffing from a spellcaster perspective.

Already addressed that issue.


2.) The melee vs. casting difference needs to be addressed. The way I see it, there are two possibilities, neither of which look very good.

First, spells could do about the same damage as weapons (2d6+STR greatsword vs. 4d6 fireball). In this case, the two are roughly equal in damage, but spellcasting falls behind in that it is limited to spell slots/etc. Unless you can expect to kill stuff in one iterative - which you cannot in 3.5e - then about the only choise for spellcasting is to toss out save or die spells. Anything else makes them squishy ranged fighters which run out of swords after an encounter or two.

Second, spells could be significantly more powerful than weapons, to make up for the limited number of spells (2d6+STR greatsword vs. 20d6 fireball). In this case, we are looking at a serious 15 mintue workday, as spellcasters can destroy an encounter several times faster than a fighter in exchange for burning through spell slots. Lower iteratives might be replaces with save or suck spells, such as Orb of Acid/Glitterdust or Fireball/Color Spray, to make use of the weaker spell slots which otherwise wouldn't do enough damage.

Also addressed. I need to look into a Fatigue system that uses neither the Vancian nor power points.

(In my book, the warlock is an excellent model for what a good caster should be - even though, yes, he is technically not a caster.)


3.) Limiting it by school doesn't do much, as pointed out in the previous example. You can still blast/save or suck with the same school, and the first example in #2 would only be using save or suck anyways.

That's interesting. I hadn't mentioned anything about "school" yet.

Also - save or suck spells have been addressed. Again, see above.



4.) Limiting spellcasting by SP wouldn't do much either. If they have enough SP to go through several iteratives, then spellcasters can end an encounter before it becomes a problem; if not, then the option to iterative is pointless because the spellcasters cannot do so to begin with.

Again, addressed. I need to use a Fatigue system, and not use PP or spell slots.



You also mentioned fatigue, but without any specifics on how it would work I cannot comment.

Here is the dual-problem then.

1) I do not have the mechanics.
2) People like you do not have the faith in the idea of iterative spell-casting to assist me with the mechanics.

Let me explain my philosophy on this, please.

The spell system is broken. The tier system shows that if you can cast spells (and the more versatile a collection you have, the better), you can dominate the game, but if you cannot, you will not. Certain things, like the Vancian spell system*, actually make this problem worse by imposing a flawed limitation.

If the system is flawed, it needs to be fixed. But philosophically, when does something get fixed until it is something completely different? I want to take an idea and apply it, and when it creates a problem, I have to say, "okay, let me just say that I have a solution in mind" and go on. Each problem gets broken into smaller problems until I can start seeing the mechanics to solve it.

At this point, I want to bridge the gap between the melee classes and the magic classes - but I want to keep them recognizible. That is the problem with gish classes and gestalt concepts - after a while, everyone can swing a sword and cast a spell, so they all look the same.

My idea is to take CL and BAB and try to make them equal out somehow, as the designers had intended (and failed to accieve). If, IF, BAB was equal to CL, then a 20th-level fighter should be equal to a 20th-level wizard.

But they are not. In fact, they are not treated fairly as if they were. WotC majorly overestimated them, as the 20th-level wizard has a BAB of +10 and a CL of 20, while the fighter has a BAB of +20 and a CL of 0.

*Why the Vancian system made things worse:
I suppose you, and a great many others, are wondering how the Vancian system, which limits a wizard (or a sorcerer) made the spell system worse - and made the wizard (and other casters) more powerful.

Well, it's is kinda like how Great Britain became a world power - they were limited to a little island, so they went out exploring.

When you only have, say, 4 spells you can cast that are 2nd level, you have to be very careful which 4 spells you pick. But you can research more spells - and by "you", I mean all casters out there, really. Everything outside Core is basically a set of spells that have been researched, or granted.

So the cleverest wizards, knowing they only have 4 spells to pick, take the spells that are the most versatile. They swap spells and ideas, and yet only the wisest, smartest make it. Evolution (i.e., game play) shows which spells are incredibly useful and which ones are pathetic.

Instead of limiting the wizard by only allowing him to cast 4 2nd-level spells, the system pushed the wizard to make the best use of those 2nd-level spells... and then some, doing things the designers had never considered.



Ultimately, I don't see this suggestion working very well. Perhaps if you gave spellcasters reserve feats (which use the iterative) and spell slots for utility spells, it could work. Of course, this is basically the design behind the Warlock, which doesn't need to bother with a special caster-iterative because its basical magical attack uses the standard BAB system.

By itself - no. The suggestion will not work, and if I simply said, "okay, people, here's what I'm going to do for my next game," you would have probably looked at me like I lost my mind.

But I didn't.

I said this was a theory, and then a bit later I mentioned that I was using this theory to find the weak points in the 3.5 spell system.

Mind you, it is a theory for a reason. Perhaps a better mix would be that a wizard can only have as many spells goes as his/her CL will allow, but can only ATTACK as many times as his/her BAB will allow.

In addition... well, I have more thoughts that are evolving. Let those rest for now.

Lord_Gareth
2010-07-16, 10:34 AM
Folks, I'm gonna have to go ahead and weigh in on Djinn & Milk's side here. I may have differences with Mr. Kadish (how many ways can I shorten that name?) in the realm of balance, but iterative casting will only work with such extensive rehauls of the D20 system that it ceases to be the same system. Hell, I tried a project like that, and we ended up starting the Paradigm Project - which is its own freaking system unto itself.

To give you a better idea on how this might function, let's say we have a blaster wizard. Let us ignore, for a moment, the fact that blaster mages suck. We have a blaster wizard, and we have a fighter.

During his round, the (level 20) Fighter ubercharges with some pounce action. He does mind-boggling amounts of damage to four opponents, who promptly die of horrific abuse to their HP scores.

The wizard, on the other hand, flings four spells. Just off of what I can come up with in core, that's, ah, kinda scary. Delayed blast fireball, chain lightning, cone of cold and a straight-up lightning bolt combine to make as much, or more, damage flung at twice, three, or even four times the amount of enemies.

Does that seem, I dunno, fair to you at all?

Ashtagon
2010-07-16, 10:51 AM
How about this:

At CL 6, as a full-round action, you may cast two spells that would normally each have a casting time of one standard action or less. You can choose the second spell after seeing the results of the first spell. If, after seeing the results of teh first spell, you do not wish to cast another spell, you have only spent as many actions as that first spell required.

At CL 11, you may cast up to three spells as a full-round action. At CL 16, you may cast up to four spells as a full-round action.

The total spell levels cast in a single round in this manner (including modifications for using meta-magic) cannot exceed the level of the highest-level spell you could normally cast.

For example, a 17th level wizard could cast up to four spells as a full-round action; the total level of those three spells cannot exceed 9. He could cast three fireballs in a single round, assuming he prepared them.

----

That last pair of paragraphs is important. It means the caster can only effectively spam his low-level spells. How breakable is this?

Milskidasith
2010-07-16, 11:07 AM
How about this:

At CL 6, as a full-round action, you may cast two spells that would normally each have a casting time of one standard action or less. You can choose the second spell after seeing the results of the first spell. If, after seeing the results of teh first spell, you do not wish to cast another spell, you have only spent as many actions as that first spell required.

At CL 11, you may cast up to three spells as a full-round action. At CL 16, you may cast up to four spells as a full-round action.

The total spell levels cast in a single round in this manner (including modifications for using meta-magic) cannot exceed the level of the highest-level spell you could normally cast.

For example, a 17th level wizard could cast up to four spells as a full-round action; the total level of those three spells cannot exceed 9. He could cast three fireballs in a single round, assuming he prepared them.

----

That last pair of paragraphs is important. It means the caster can only effectively spam his low-level spells. How breakable is this?

Slightly less breakable, although it still allows you to fling no save effects combined with things; Solid Fog and Grease in the same round is just mean, and True Strike'd Meta'd to level 8 Enervation is probably more dangerous than Energy Drain (OK, Energy Drain sucks, but you get my point).

It's still a power boost to high tier classes for no reason, so again, I ask, why do casters need that?

Ashtagon
2010-07-16, 11:26 AM
Yeah, tbh, I think the whole idea is inherently broken. I just wanted to see if I could run with the ball and make it bounce at all.

Personally, I want a way to remove iteratives entirely, including for melee. But I'm not sure of a solution that isn't obviously a major nerf for fighters.

Umael
2010-07-16, 12:24 PM
During his round, the (level 20) Fighter ubercharges with some pounce action. He does mind-boggling amounts of damage to four opponents, who promptly die of horrific abuse to their HP scores.

The wizard, on the other hand, flings four spells. Just off of what I can come up with in core, that's, ah, kinda scary. Delayed blast fireball, chain lightning, cone of cold and a straight-up lightning bolt combine to make as much, or more, damage flung at twice, three, or even four times the amount of enemies.

Does that seem, I dunno, fair to you at all?

I agree with you, as you see it, that is incredibly unfair.

But that's not how it is being designed (something which is evolving even now).

You got the part about the effective caster level dropping by five with each iterative casting.

But one of the ideas being played around with is the notion that the number of attacks are STILL being managed by BAB - so a 20th-level wizard, with BAB +10, can have 4 spells going at the same time, but only get two attacks.

Another major notion is that the spells being cast drain the caster (the Fatigue idea). While not fully explored, the idea of absolutely exhausting yourself is not to be overlooked.

"But you don't have the Fatigue notion explained."

True. And that's part of the point. It's not that iterative casting cannot work because I am relying on an idea that is unexplored, but that I want to make iterative casting, so I want to look at this technique.

Put another way, how would you make it so that a wizard COULD cast or maintain multiple spells in one round, but could potentially exhaust themselves by going full-speed all the time?

(Also, your point about having to overhaul the system? Yes. Absolutely. But one step at a time.)

Milskidasith
2010-07-16, 01:31 PM
In short, your argument boils down to "It's unbalanced now, but when I balance it, it will be balanced." While that isn't a bad thing (Ideas can't just be balanced the second they pop into your head), it still makes actually presenting the idea as-is likely to give people negative reactions, and defending it by saying "I'll get it balanced later" doesn't make the idea seem any more balanced now.

And, of course, you're stuck on the idea of "Casters can't maintain buffs at all" which just screws over martial types who rely on those buffs, or at least greatly benefit from them.

For Valor
2010-07-16, 01:35 PM
I think that argument is legitimate.

"I don't have the system written up. I have the idea for a system. Can I get some help?" seems to be the general feel from Umael.

So, do you plan on bashing his ideas or helping?

Milskidasith
2010-07-16, 01:45 PM
I think that argument is legitimate.

"I don't have the system written up. I have the idea for a system. Can I get some help?" seems to be the general feel from Umael.

So, do you plan on bashing his ideas or helping?

I plan on criticizing any perceived mechanical imbalances. Take that as you will.

For Valor
2010-07-16, 02:02 PM
oh dear... how about contributing?

Let's start now. If spellcasters were to cast iteratively the way warriors attacked, what would you recommend the average damage output from a level-appropriate spell to be? 1d6/2 levels?

Milskidasith
2010-07-16, 02:07 PM
oh dear... how about contributing?

Let's start now. If spellcasters were to cast iteratively the way warriors attacked, what would you recommend the average damage output from a level-appropriate spell to be? 1d6/2 levels?

That depends on how the spells are re-worked, how big the AoE of the spell is, if it has an additional effect, what the result is on a failed save, how hard it is to cast a spell, etc.

His system isn't even in place yet; I can't answer math questions about it without knowing how it works. That would be asking me which is more, X or Z, when you didn't give me quantities for either.

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-07-16, 02:07 PM
oh dear... how about contributing?

Let's start now. If spellcasters were to cast iteratively the way warriors attacked, what would you recommend the average damage output from a level-appropriate spell to be? 1d6/2 levels?

Problem: spells do much more than just damage. What is your purposed solution to this?

ZeroNumerous
2010-07-16, 02:17 PM
But one of the ideas being played around with is the notion that the number of attacks are STILL being managed by BAB - so a 20th-level wizard, with BAB +10, can have 4 spells going at the same time, but only get two attacks.

Problem: Define 'attacks'?

Fireball would, of course, be an attack. But if I pop off Dominate Monster, does that count as an attack? Baleful Transposition? Solid Fog? Ray of Exhaustion?

Umael
2010-07-16, 06:06 PM
I plan on criticizing any perceived mechanical imbalances. Take that as you will.

Criticize, yes.

Constructive criticism, no.

Actually helping, maybe.

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-07-16, 06:17 PM
As has been shown, having caster levels operate like BAB for extra spells would require an overhaul of the spells themselves. So, while an interesting idea in theory, in and of itself, not so much in practice.

Now then, if you actually want to do that, too. I'd be interested in the results and wouldn't mind trying to help, but there is a lot out there to consider. Then you also have to consider things like swift/immediate action spells and the thing just goes nuts.

Chambers
2010-07-16, 06:17 PM
Magic Rating? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/magicRating.htm) Doesn't allow iterative spells, but changes how characters get their caster level.

Umael
2010-07-16, 06:24 PM
Problem: Define 'attacks'?

Fireball would, of course, be an attack. But if I pop off Dominate Monster, does that count as an attack? Baleful Transposition? Solid Fog? Ray of Exhaustion?

Hmm...

Well, this is how I see it (and I might not have conveyed this):

The iterative spells limits the number of spells that a spellcaster can currently have going at once. So you have a 20th-level wizard with 20/15/10/5 CL, and +10/5 BAB. In comparison, a 20th-level fighter would have +20/15/10/5 BAB (and 10/5 CL, although the fighter casts no spells).

Now if a fighter, as a full-round action, declared a full-attack, that would be 4 attacks. A fighter could make a single attack as a standard action. An earlier idea allows the fighter to "hang" two buffs on him (because of his CL 10/5).

In comparison, a wizard could put four buffs on herself and do a full attack at +10/5, or put two buffs on and attack for two more - where an attack would be a standard action.

So... if a spell has a casting time of one standard action, a wizard can cast two spells as long as he has no more than two buffs currently in place.

Huh.

So this method just went from giving the 20th-level wizard four spells to cast in a single round to two - by tying the number of spells that can be cast to the BAB.

The theory gets revised again.

(And yes, I know, buffs are still taking it. One thing at a time.)

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-07-16, 06:54 PM
Well, the problem there is that the classes without any real casting generally need the buffs the most. So the fighter that would normally be given Haste, Rage, Heroics, Protection from X, Fly, and Enlarge Person now only gets two of those spells instead.

With this set-up, you're titling the largely aggressive system farther that way on the aggressive-defensive scale as everyone will have fewer buffs available, so most casters will simply forgo them entirely so they can dump all their spells at once. That or, assuming you only get one offensive spell a turn, then people will instead just have fewer defenses allowing anyone with a large bag of tricks to simply punch through the openings.

Umael
2010-07-16, 11:03 PM
On buffs - in Iron Heroes, you don't use buffs. You don't need them. It is possible to play a game without them.

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-07-16, 11:18 PM
On buffs - in Iron Heroes, you don't use buffs. You don't need them. It is possible to play a game without them.

Unless you are attempting to replicate Iron Heroes through DND, remodeling the system in the process, this means nothing.

Hyooz
2010-07-16, 11:20 PM
On buffs - in Iron Heroes, you don't use buffs. You don't need them. It is possible to play a game without them.

I'm sure you can, but why would you want to make an entire genre of spells useless/pointless/gone? A lot of people like playing buff clerics and the like.

Umael
2010-07-17, 10:32 AM
Unless you are attempting to replicate Iron Heroes through DND, remodeling the system in the process, this means nothing.

Not Iron Heroes, but yes, eventually I do plan on remodeling the entire system.

Look, I have in mind something that will be quite a bit different from D&D. The problem is, I don't have all the pieces and I don't know how the pieces I do have will fit together.

So I suggested this idea.

A lot of people don't see the point of what I was doing and start protesting that it is a bad idea. When they start to actually explain why it is a bad idea, I have to consider:

Is their complaint valid?
Can I work with this problem?
Can I fix this problem?

Two major issues have been brought up - multiple spell attacks and buffs.

Multiple spell attacks are a valid complaint, but not for the reasons people are thinking about. A spellcaster who can have four spells going at once still should not be allowed to make more attacks than their BAB will allow. But is that enough?

Pausing there for a moment, if I recall correctly, you cannot cast more than one Quicken Spell in a round. In my modified system, a 12th-level wizard has a CL 12/7/2 (6th, 3rd, 1st level spells) and a BAB +6/1. So the wizard can cast one chain lightning spell and one fireball spell, while maintaining a shield spell. In regular D&D, the 12th-level wizard can cast one chain lightning and one Quickened scorching ray, while maintaining a lot more buffs.

For comparison, a 13th-level wizard, CL 13/8/2, can cast a prismatic spray and a fireball under my system, while a regular D&D wizard can cast a prismatic spray and a Quickened fireball. The buff issues are separate.

So what does my system do?

If I was using spell slots, the Quicken Feat would take either three or four spell slots higher, depending, instead of four - but since it is based on BAB, a wizard wouldn't get access to it until 12th level.

A 7th-level wizard can cast 1 4th-level spell and 1 Quickened 0th-level spell - assuming he had an 18 Intelligence, of course. Of course, he would be done with all of his 4th-level spells for the day.

8th-level wizard is the same, only he has 1 more 4th-level slot open.

9th-level wizard casts 1 5th-level and 1 Quickened 1st-level, assuming 20 Intelligence, and has no more 5th-level spells for the day.

10th-level wizard as above, only he has 1 more 5th-level slot open.

11th-level wizard casts 1 6th-level and 1 Quickened 2nd-level, assuming 22 Intelligence, and has no more 6th-level spells for the day.

So at this point, all my modification is doing is limiting the wizard from 7th-level to 11th-level by not allowing them to pull off their Quickened spells. Are Quicken spells that useful at 7th-level? Are they useful by 11th-level?

My impression is, no, they are not that useful. Because I hope to do away with spell slots (Vancian system, I want to use a Fatigue-based system), making my Quicken spell equivalent 3.5 spell slots above the original spell instead of 4 spell slots makes the equivalent of a Quickened spell in my system only slightly easier.

Ergo, multiple spell attacks no longer seems like it is a valid complaint to me.

That just leaves buffs.

(Pausing here to see if people see my point.)

Hyooz
2010-07-17, 11:57 AM
I would say get your system to a nearly-finished product before asking for more critique in the future. Until we know everything you intend to do, and what that looks like, literally anything we say is going to be basically useless to you, or just waved away as a "That won't be an issue when I'm done."

As for your point in the above post, where you compare a wizard quickening with your system, you forget one key point: Quickening costs the Wizard something. You can't just say "Oh, under both systems, the Wizard can cast X and Y in the same round" without keeping in mind that to cast a quickened scorching ray or whatever, the wizard is giving up a high-level spell slot to cast a lower-level spell. It's a significant investment. Under your system, it's par for the course, doesn't cost them anything extra, and they have all the added power.

Now, you do make a good point that under your system, the wizard won't have as many buffs up... necessarily. Magic items are still a factor, and with a system that actively discourages buffing yourself and others, they're going to be a LOT more necessary and a lot more common. Additionally, this new system is much further toward the aggressive end of things rather than defensive or controlling end of things. By essentially letting casters nova every round, and making buffing your allies actively limit your abilities, you're encouraging them to end encounters ASAP with the cheesiest spells they can chained together.

As someone who enjoys playing the bufflomancer/area controller/necromancer/summoner type, it doesn't appeal to me. I'd hate to have my entire contribution to a combat take place in the first round (where I drop three buffs on my party at once... which is admittedly kind of cool) and then rely only on magic items to contribute after that. I'll give you that the ability to cast summon monster 6/3/1 in one round to summon a ridiculous amount of... badgers, or something is kind of hilarious.

Still, that's all just me, and I've always thought the best Wizard fix is "Don't be a jerk." So... yeah.

Umael
2010-07-17, 02:36 PM
I would say get your system to a nearly-finished product before asking for more critique in the future. Until we know everything you intend to do, and what that looks like, literally anything we say is going to be basically useless to you, or just waved away as a "That won't be an issue when I'm done."

The trouble with doing things that way is that I might go and spend a long time getting it to a nearly-finished product, only to have someone point out a fatal flaw that makes the system unworkable. Net result: a lot of time wasted and a lot of aggravation.

Despite what you and a few others seem to be saying, I am paying attention and these points are being considered.

For example, you mention that the system allows for a "nova" effect. Ergo, I need to set up something that will discourage it. Obviously, this is going to be the goal of the Fatigue system.

Please note that I emphasize the word "goal" because I'm not waving things away and saying "it won't be an issue when I'm done." I don't know how the Fatigue system will work (although I have some ideas), but I know that I want something in place that will discourage a wizard from going nova with his spells, while still casting a certain number of spells.

In 3.5, a wizard can cast one spell per round, two if one of them is quickened. Broken wizards cast one spell, period, and the combat is over. A more modest wizard will probably cast a spell every round to every other round (unless the wizard has wands or the like). Somehow, I have to make a system that encourages this.

(I believe there are rules of a Fatigue-based system in Unearthed Arcana. Unfortunately, my copy of Unearthed Arcana was lost in the fire, it seems...)

Hyooz
2010-07-17, 02:59 PM
I don't mean to come across harshly, but this project seems to lack a great deal of focus.

One the one hand, you're reworking the magic system and spells to allow casters to cast multiple spells/round, but designing another system to prevent them from doing just that. It seems like you want to re-do magic so that wizards aren't super-powerful, but as most people who set out to do these kinds of things realize, the problem isn't so much the wizard itself, or Vancian casting, as the spells they have available to cast.

The broken wizards you mention who cast one spell and win can still do that as long as they can get access to that spell. Or that other combo of spells.

I'd recommend focusing on your remake of spells first and foremost. Once you have those fleshed out, then design a system to let them compete at the general power level you're after. Spells will need to be reworked sooner or later, so get a spell system you like, then tune casting to fit. It'll be easier than doing it the other way around.