PDA

View Full Version : Quick potential casting nerf-- "Full-Casting"



Grod_The_Giant
2013-02-27, 09:39 PM
An idea: split spellcasting up along similar lines to mundane attacks, into standard action and full-round action forms.

Standard action casting: Cast the spell at the minimum caster level necessary to cast that level of spell, and don't add your ability modifier to the save DC.

Full-round action casting: normal.

Thoughts?

JoshuaZ
2013-02-27, 09:52 PM
An idea: split spellcasting up along similar lines to mundane attacks, into standard action and full-round action forms.

Standard action casting: Cast the spell at the minimum caster level necessary to cast that level of spell, and don't add your ability modifier to the save DC.

Full-round action casting: normal.

Thoughts?

This idea is interesting. A lot of the broken things with 3.5 casting are non-combat utility things or spells that last a long time. This won't do anything to those. The ability to use your standard action and then move is convenient but the primary issue is in the other direction- melee doesn't have enough options where they can do something and then move. This will have the interesting impact of making it easier to disrupt in combat casting.

Overall, the idea has merit and might be worth experimenting with.

NichG
2013-02-27, 09:56 PM
Since most spells are ranged, requiring a full round action doesn't really make that big of a difference. The caster can even still take a 5ft step to avoid AoOs this way.

Furthermore, there are a number of spells that wouldn't really be impacted very much by this, either because they don't allow a save or don't work in a way where a save is meaningful, or because they have a high enough minimum caster level to get the job done.

It also doesn't effect out of combat casting at all, which may or may not be an issue here.

I guess the question is, what are you trying to achieve? Are you trying to adjust a specific thing you've seen happen in game that seems unfair or unbalanced, or is this an attempt to address the kind of broad sentiment of 'casters are the only game in town at high levels'? Or do you just want to create a new dynamic where casters 'feel' different in play? That's going to impact the kind of change you should make.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-02-27, 10:13 PM
I dunno, it was just a quick thought I had. It's certainly not going to affect all, or even many of the issues that make spellcasters so powerful.

Yitzi
2013-02-27, 10:51 PM
An idea: split spellcasting up along similar lines to mundane attacks, into standard action and full-round action forms.

Standard action casting: Cast the spell at the minimum caster level necessary to cast that level of spell, and don't add your ability modifier to the save DC.

Full-round action casting: normal.

Thoughts?

That means that your most powerful spells suffer from standard action casting less than your less-powerful spells do. I'd say a better approach is to set a flat penalty to effective CL for the spell, and if that puts it below the minimum caster level for that spell level, then you just can't cast that spell as a standard action.

I also don't like the idea of "don't add your ability modifier to the save DC" as part of the penalty for standard action casting, as that means that buffs and control spells are better choices for standard-action casting than debuffs and damage spells are. There are situations where "don't add your ability modifier to the save DC" might make sense (as a way to depower wizards but not sorcerers, for instance), but I don't think this is one of them.

Don't get me wrong; I think the basic concept is a good one (I in fact had it planned for my system rebuild that I plan to get around to continuing sometime), but the application could use improvement.

Also, as others have said, it's not going to fix the major issues...but at least it'll help somewhat.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-02-27, 10:56 PM
That means that your most powerful spells suffer from standard action casting less than your less-powerful spells do. I'd say a better approach is to set a flat penalty to effective CL for the spell, and if that puts it below the minimum caster level for that spell level, then you just can't cast that spell as a standard action.
Makes sense.


I also don't like the idea of "don't add your ability modifier to the save DC" as part of the penalty for standard action casting, as that means that buffs and control spells are better choices for standard-action casting than debuffs and damage spells are. There are situations where "don't add your ability modifier to the save DC" might make sense (as a way to depower wizards but not sorcerers, for instance), but I don't think this is one of them.
The idea was that the CL penalty hurt buffs and BFC-- dependent on duration-- as well as damage, with the the DC penalty to hurt save-or-X spells.

Yitzi
2013-02-28, 10:00 AM
Makes sense.


The idea was that the CL penalty hurt buffs and BFC-- dependent on duration-- as well as damage, with the the DC penalty to hurt save-or-X spells.

Still, the DC penalty is a lot more significant...I think that the new way of doing the CL penalty will hurt save-or-X spells simply because you won't be able to use your highest-level (and thus highest-DC) spells as a standard action.

Deepbluediver
2013-02-28, 10:37 AM
Other posters have already pointed out most of the potential pitfalls, but I certainly agree with the sentiment here.

IMO, a lot more high-level spells should be full-round actions.
I support a design that has no full-round level 0 spells, but 100% of 9th level spells take a full-round action. And everything else falls somewhere in between on a relatively linear slope. But of course, that would require a lot more effort.

If you need a starting point, just get a list of the most unbalancing options and start by converting all of those to full-round action, at least.