Caster Levels like BAB extra attacks

[Umael]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/Recha...ariant_Rule%29

[Milskidasith]

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/Recha...ariant_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]

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]

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]

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?

[Umael]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

{Scrubbed}

[Milskidasith]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

{Scrubbed}

[Frog Dragon]

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]

{Scrubbed}

[Hyooz]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.)