Caster Idea

[torrasque666]

After reading (well, skimming) the copy of the Gospel of Everything goes, I came across that one of the things that melee has against it vs casters is that melees are always dependent on their dice rolls, while casters aren't. So I was wondering....


How much would a balancing factor would it be to have casters have to make a Spellcasting roll to cast? Probably do the inverse of how BAB tends to work. Full casters (including Bards. I consider 6th or higher to be "full", and any PrC that grants 8/10 or higher advancement equivalent. Pretty much anything that offers less than 2 lost levels.) have full Base Spellcasting Bonus, partial casters would have partial BSB (so things like paladins and rangers, and PrCs that are around 5/10) and non-casters would have poor BSB (anything that gets less than 4th. I'm sure there are some PrCs that have a unique progression that only goers up to 4th or so. Or PrCs that have less than 5/10 casting) Roll would likely be 1d20+BSB+Casting Mod. My only quandary is how to determine the equivalent AC goal. I'd likely need some sort of Average AC per CR chart to do that, while factoring in the expected availability of spells at that CR range (so say CR<1 to CR 4-6ish is expected to only have access to 1st level spells, while CR 15 would be the high end of expecting 6ths.)

I'm figuring I'd need some sort of Exponential difficulty. Any ideas on how to work that out?

Monsters would probably get Full BSB for Spell-Likes and anything that can cast as X class would get BSB as that class. So usually full.



And before anyone says "but casters have a limited supply of spell slots while melees can swing all day long!" they really don't. Ask anyone here and they'll likely say something about how past low levels Spells Per Day can basically not exist for all practical purposes.

[sovin_ndore]

Well, excluding the fact that some spells require no save, you could always reverse the save mechanic...

Caster rolls 1d20+(spellcasting stat modifier)+(spell level) vs 10+(Fort/Ref/Will as appropriate).

This doesn't really mechanically fix anything, but does put the dice rolls in the caster's hand.

[Flickerdart]

How much would a balancing factor would it be to have casters have to make a Spellcasting roll to cast?
Not a factor whatsoever. In fact, it makes things worse.

The kind of spellcasters who rely on tactical-level spells (instantaneous or rounds/level) are not the problem. They're still better than mundanes, but you're hurting "fireball for 17" guy as much as the "solid fog + quickened black tentacles" guy. So the fireball guy thinks, if every spell I cast might fail, why shouldn't I pick a better spell than one-and-done fireball?

Meanwhile, the wizard who stacks contingencies, switches bodies with dragons, raises undead, and binds outsiders doesn't actually care. This guy right here? He's the guy you want to nerf. But your rule actually encourages people to be this guy.

Your rule attacks the wrong side of the problem. Mundanes aren't underpowered because they might miss. Mundanes are underpowered because when they hit, not much happens. Fix that.