Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Eldren 10-14-03, 01:09 AM	Not liking the fact that while Fighters earn to be more efficient with their weapons at higher levels as a function of level only, but that the primary casting classes (Clerics, Wizards, Sorcerors and Druids) never learn to be more efficient with their casting without the use of the "Quicken Spell" feat, I've come up with this idea. Read on. I haven't done a lot of thought about this, as the idea occurred to me while I was posting in another thread just a few seconds ago, so let's avoid flames and try to keep things in the vein of constructive criticism instead, so we can either find a way to make this system workable, or at least conclude that there's no way to make it work and remain "balanced" (whatever that means...). Since we've lost 3.0 Haste, spellcasters have no way of getting off more than one spell a round without "Quicken Spell". Thus, I've come up with this system: You can cast spells per round whose total level doesn't exceed the highest level spell you can cast at a given level. 0-level spells, by dint of the fact that 0 has no numerical impact, are exempt from this system. You are still limited to the number of spells per day that your level and class indicate in the Player's Handbook. So if you start casting more than one spell a round, you're going to be using up your daily allotment a lot faster. The system works something like this: Say you can cast 2nd level spells. If you choose to cast a 2nd level spell in a round, that's going to be the only spell that round you can cast, aside from any spells you've quickened. However, you could instead choose to cast two 1st level spells in the round. However, if you do so, those will be the only spells you cast that round. Additionally, since you've chosen to cast more than one spell a round through this method, you are unable to use any quickened spells. The number of spells per round tops out at 2. If you only cast one spell a round of your highest level, then you are still able to cast a quickened spell. But if you can cast a 9th level spell in a round, and instead choose to cast a 5th level and a 4th level in that round, or even an 8th level and a 1st level, then you aren't going to get a third spell that round from "Quicken Spell". This obviously works all the way up to 9th level magic, as I just mentioned. You can choose to cast a single 9th level spell if your class and level allow it, or you could choose any two spells whose levels equal 9 (such as an 8th and a 1st, or a 6th and a 3rd, or a 4th and a 5th, etc.). This ability doesn't kick in until 10th level, so that we don't have 3rd level Wizards busting off with two spells a round at a time when all other classes are still only making one attack a round. This allows the very sensical approach of the primary casters getting more efficient and skilled with their spellcasting as they become more experienced, but keeps them from being too horrendously overpowered by allowing more than two spells a round, which is all they could currently acquire in Core Rules if they're using the "Quicken Spell" feat. What do people think?
Gingerbread Guy 10-14-03, 01:19 AM	Hiho, No, I'm afraid this is horrendously overpowered. I really don't think spellcasters need to get any more powerful. You're right in that they never get quicker with their spells, but I don't see at all why they would have to. Think of it this way.. A 10 level wizard can cast spells at the same speed as a 1st level wizard, but he can cast HIGHER level spells, and thus technically more spell power per round. Know what I mean? ~Ginger
Eldren 10-15-03, 11:13 PM	:bump:
canamrock 10-15-03, 11:22 PM	Actually, what I think might work better is to allow 'iterative' spellcasting. Basically, you can cast any spell as your primary action. In addition, you can cast a spell no higher than the highest level spell you can cast minus 3 or 4 as a MEA. So, a Wiz7 can cast a Fireball and a Ghost Sound in the same round. Quicken Spell can be broken up into three separate feats that cover different functions: allowing an iterative spell to be cast as a free action, reduce the needed casting time of any given spell, or cast a higher level spell as an iterative spell (retaining the MEA cost).
Illithid Tentacles 10-15-03, 11:26 PM	I think it's brilliant. Why, it makes fighters and all the other non-primary spellcasting classes TOTALLY and UNQUESTIONABLY obsolete at higher levels, instead of just MOSTLY obsolete! I'm going to implement this immediately and get rid of all classes besides the primary spellcasters altogether!
Darklion 10-15-03, 11:32 PM	I'm going to implement this immediately and get rid of all classes besides the primary spellcasters altogether!No need to be that drastic. Just give all high-level melee characters some spellcasting ability. :D
Super Draco Whitewind 10-15-03, 11:34 PM	i like high magic, but even this makes me scream broken of sorts. it's just iffy. personally, i'm up for only 2 spells per round with quicken. I USED to like haste, until the "both sides" fairness of it caused most of my battles to break down into mage duels, with whomever packed the most firepower and smarts. ~Draco
ConfusedUs 10-16-03, 12:22 AM	So a 15th level caster (7th lvl spells) could cast true strike (+20 to attack roll, 1st lvl) and then disentegrate (ranged touch attack, 6th lvl) and be virtually GUARANTTED to hit with it? I like the idea, but simply adding the spell levels together is broken. Nor can I see how to implement it without changing the entire magic system.
Talchar 10-16-03, 02:28 PM	I like the idea of 'iterative' spellcasting'. ( based off of the wizards BAB) A bigger problem that needs to be addressed is the weakness of wizards (iterative spell casting compounds that) . While a wizard may be overpowered in any one encounter, a wizard is very weak in addressing multiple encounters. The wizard needs addtional spell slots ( primarily low level slots levels 1-3) or let all wizards have a choice at 1st level: the Miser of Magic feat or Scribe Scroll Feat or Combat Mage- Iterative spell casting ability.
Super Draco Whitewind 10-16-03, 02:33 PM	it has been proven time and time again that wizards need no power. they STILL dominate combat, even with the 3.5 nerfs. they were near godly before. now they are somehwhat along the lines of getting close to balanced. the reason this is so bad, is due to spell combos. the true strike + disentegrate is a good example of that, or for matter, at epic levels, it could get worse. much worse. ever seen with improved spell capacity true strike followed up by a temporal stasis? it's just too good. it's such a major power increase. i mean, not that magic missiles is a bad spell, but someone who casts 2, at caster level 9, and a quickened one, get's 30-75 damage no save versus a target. it just adds the potential for SO much more firepower. ~Draco
split infinitude 10-16-03, 02:43 PM	Interesting idea, but a 17th level wizard could let loose 45 magic missiles in one round. Or 9 charm persons, and wait for the victim to roll a 1. I'd have to say, very overpowered.
Tony111 10-16-03, 03:43 PM	A few of you didn't read the post very carefully. Eldren said that the system does not kick in until level 10, and you can cast at most 2 spells per round, and if you use your option to do so you may *not* use the quicken spell feat. At least read him before you criticize. Having said that, I must agree that spellcasters need no more power. It is powerful enough that they gain more and more spell casting in addition to gaining BAB. Meanwhile, the fighters and barbarians gain BAB but *no* spellcasting. (Maybe we should give spellcasters a +0 BAB progression.) (Or maybe fighters and barbarians should gain 1-5th levels spells :smirk: :smirk: ) That would be more balanced. The wizard can memorize spells to substitute for the fighter. Meanwhile, the fighter remains nothing but a commoner with a shovel, unable to even detect magic at level 40. Eldren is unlike 95% of the people on this board. He actually feels that the scales are strongly tilted in favor of the fighter-types!. It comes up again and again in his long posts. I wish I could teleport over and play in one of his campaigns to see first-hand how he manages to hold his opinions.
Sorxores 10-16-03, 04:40 PM	Ok let just see what those thing mean. Prepare spell caster: subtitute the quicken feat for cheaper (no level adjustment) and give him the possiblity to use it when he want (like a sorcerer but without the time increase) Judgement: Majorly BROKEN nothing to do, it almost impossible to balance that for the wizard Sponteneous caster: Sorcerer cannot use quicken spell at all so it could make a subtitute, but the fact that it still won't increase the spell level make it broken. Judgement: Broken, but with some adjustment it could become near balanced Mix: For the cleric cure/inflict spell and for the Druid summon spell the judgment is the same then for the sponteneous casting so it could be repared, but for all other spell, it impossible to do a thing. Judgement:: Too hard to balance it since it some sponteneous, some prepared, so I'll wouldn't try to fix it for them CONCLUSION: modifie it a little bit, and give it to the sorcerer at lvl 10 (it make a reason to stay it the class 1 stone, 2 birds :P
Talchar 10-16-03, 06:25 PM	Eldren is unlike 95% of the people on this board. He actually feels that the scales are strongly tilted in favor of the fighter-types!. It comes up again and again in his long posts. Because he is right. The game does favor fighter types. What people fixate on is the flashy spell combo's. What you miss is the day in day out encounters where the fighter quietly excels. Generally the wizard is exception character who has the power to dominate the field for a brief point, but it is the fighter who owns the field.
ManTimeForgot 10-16-03, 06:44 PM	I'm sorry but after 10th level fighter types all but disappear from the battlefield. My cleric can do just as well as your fighter given the right equipment. My elven druid will have 4,000,000 hps by the time he is 400 years old due to awaken cheese. My cleric and druid can have more strength, more to hit, and more ac. How does your fighter contend with that? A cleric or druid under this system just became even more ridiculous. The cleric could cast divine power and righteous might in one round without needing any special abilities, then maybe cast bless to boot. How do level 0 spells count in terms of your iterative spell casting, btw eldren? What's worse is once the cleric gains the BAB of a fighter through divine power he could cast cast 4 spells in a round of low level if need be. 5ft step back and cast 4 cure moderate wound spells instead of casting heal spell and using a 6th level spell. As far as battlefield domination goes at high levels, the sorceror is King. This would only make the sorceror KING of the battle field. Now I get to cast chain lightning and web in one round. Once I've softened them up with chain lightnings I can cast DB fireball no delay, then recast web and screw with them some more. No amount of fighters can deal with that. Doesn't matter if the things make their reflex save because they still have push through the web. The sorceror under iterative spellcasting gains nearly haste on all rounds. There is just absolutely no reason why casting types need any more power than they already do. A wizard or sorceror can already use gate to summon something far more powerful than anything any fighter type could manage to do, so no fighter types don't manage the battlefield, EVER. A wizard or sorceror using astral projection (not even cheesing by duping items) is immortal. What does you fighter do to duplicate that? I'm sorry but under normal circumstances fighter's don't even matter late game. Paladins, rangers, and monks have some staying power but still are largely outdone by anything that a spellcaster can cook up. A sorceror with gate can end 6 major combats in a row each through one single use of gate. I don't know what your guy's definition of protracted encounters or how many combats you all get into, but I know of no fighter that can survive 6 major combats in a row. A sorceror can. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
split infinitude 10-16-03, 08:44 PM	Originally posted by Tony111 A few of you didn't read the post very carefully. Eldren said that the system does not kick in until level 10, and you can cast at most 2 spells per round, and if you use your option to do so you may *not* use the quicken spell feat. At least read him before you criticize. Yeah, you're right, I stopped reading after the 4th paragraph, when it appeared he had finished describing the rule, and was going on to defending it. Which I didn't need to read. The last thing D&D needs is high-level wizards with more power.
Talchar 10-17-03, 11:47 AM	I find it interesting, that the moment people even contemplate that DnD is slanted in favor of the melee types, people go ballistic. Even amusing at times. I love how the examples roundly dis the fighter and magnify the power of a spell caster. That is a straw man agruement. Especially when you argue that casting multiple spells breaks the game when a caster is using spells that can argueable be called broken. So single or multiple castings of a broken spells still results in an unbalanced game. Now I do agree that a cleric should not get multiple spells. I personally believe that the cleric/druid classes are over powered when compared to melee /arcane types. Socerer vs Wizard, A sorcerer is a mobile artillery platform. Unfortunately DnD spells in general are not good for doing damage. Casting fireball at creatures over CR10 for the most part a waste of time. The spell DC and damage cap are serious impeditments, not mention the critters HP are generally high enough to take the damage till the cows come home. So giving the sorcerer the abiliy to cast multiple spells in one round is not going to kill the game. Amazing as it was, 3.0 survived for a number of years with haste, and yet people still played fighters, rogues and the like. Are that many people completly blind? A wizard with multiple spells, will bring in the more exotic spell combo's. Which is what the wizards advantage vs sorcerers should be. Chain lightening? Is a waste of 6th level slot. Seriously this spell should be 4rd level, if not for the damage cap. A caster that depends on this spell for doing damage, has issues.( Full or half dmg to primary, 1/2 or 1/4 to secondary targets) The only advantage this spell has over fireball is that it does not cause friendly fire damage. I do not think that such an advantage is worth a 3 level bump in power.
ManTimeForgot 10-17-03, 03:53 PM	Yeah, So you only implement iterative castings for the wizard and sorceror? The stated game reason being... Not that it really matters, with astral projection cheese a wizard or sorceror is just as abusive as any cleric or druid if not more so. And you still haven't told me why a 20th level sorceror needs to even consider a fighter a comparable opponent? Gate. Nuff Said. Summon monster IX: With the right choices even a 16 HD monster can lay the smack down. Wail of the Banshee: For those monsters that have low fort save and come in packs (which strangely enough is all those monsters with high reflex saves). Don't like chain lightning? How about if I cast it at you 3 times before you can get close enough to melee with me? Web will do that. So while a chain lightning may be low damaging (not everything has killer reflex saves and an artillery sorc who doesn't have spell focus is non-existant), multiple chain lightnings is not a joke. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Draco Argentum 10-17-03, 09:50 PM	Multiple chain lightnings may not be a joke but Eldren didn't suggest allowing it either, whats your point?
ManTimeForgot 10-17-03, 10:12 PM	Reading my posts would help for starters. Casting web and other restricting spells every round along side chain lightning means my opponents won't move while I barbecue them. The sorceror and wizard don't need any more powering up. Period. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
toomre 10-18-03, 12:35 AM	Novel idea. Kind of like giving them the ability "flurry of attacks", or rather "flurry of spells". Any such modification would have to start with the assertion that spellcasters are weaker than non-spellcasters and need a leg-up, which is where this whole debate falls to pieces and becomes irresolvable. The few who think that the melee types are mightier in combat will not be swayed, neither will the many who think the opposite. Before you all blow your tops, please recognize this fact: my brother Eldren logs onto this board from a different gaming dimension, and therefore Tony111, you'd need plane shift and not teleport to get to his sessions, but if you do, take me along, it'd be very educational I'm sure. Eldren, your posts are well written and clear, you're obviously no gaming amateur, and know the rules as well as anyone, but reading your posts clearly indicates that you reject the admittedly somewhat subjective concept of balance that the rest of us swear by. And as long as you put quotes around the word balance, our mojo just won't work on you.
Eldren 10-18-03, 01:03 AM	Toomre, Talchar and other Supporters: Thanks for your words of support. I'm glad that once I bumped this thread, it shot up to 20 posts. To those who disagree with this concept: You've given some great food for thought. As I said in the initial post, this is a very basic idea, and hasn't been thought through yet. I figured I'd throw it out here for brainstorming. However, my excessive diarrhea of the keyboard often causes my ideas to sometimes get lost in the morass. So I'm going to cut this post short with a simple statement of the concept, and then an illustration, and let the discussions continue. The Concept: Iterative spellcasting (I liked the term, so I'll appropriate it). Starting at 10th level and onward, casters (not just Wizards and Clerics; all primary caster classes, which means Wizard, Sorceror, Druid and Cleric) could choose to cast up to two, and no more than two, spells per round. This combination is limited by the total level of the spells being cast in that round not being higher than the highest-level spell they are capable of casting at that given level. At any point in which they choose to cast two spells through this method, they are not able to utilize any spells which have been affected by the metamagic feat "Quicken Spell". They are, from 10th level to wherever the campaign ends, limited to no more than two spells per round. If they choose to not use this method, they may still cast two spells per round by casting a normal spell and a quickened spell, subject at that point only to the rules relevant to the "Quicken Spell" feat. The Illustration: Delegond Fortrius, Wizard 15/Archmage 5, is in quite a bind as a pit fiend has just summoned a large contingent of lesser devils to plague Delegond and his party. He has some quickened magicks available to him, but nothing that he's prepared as a quickened spell applies to this situation. However, he has a particularly nasty combination of spells that he has prepared (but not quickened) which he thinks could really help him out this round. He can cast 9th level magic. He decides that he's going to cast Horrid Wilting, an 8th level spell, to deal with the lesser minions the pit fiend has summoned. For the pit fiend, he's decided he's going to cast Ray of Enfeeblement to lessen its considerable melee abilities, as it was looking rather hungrily at his Fighter companion, who was caught flat-footed by the summoned beasties and hasn't had an opportunity yet to draw his weapon. The total level of the spells Delegond has cast is 9, which is no higher than the highest-level spell he can cast. This is how I propose the system works. You don't get more than two spells a round ever, and if you choose to cast two prepared or known spells, you aren't getting a third spell from a quickened spell. But sometimes you need that extra spell on the spot, at which point you're going to choose your quickened spell. Maybe the quickened spell is more useful than anything you could cast with the "levels you have left" after your first spell was cast. You're going to have to be the one to decide. Continue discussion, please. I'll shut up now. :)
Draco Argentum 10-18-03, 02:54 AM	Full round action to cast two spells? Two AoOs? Does damage disrupt one or both spells? What about other times a concentration check is called for, two checks or one check for both spells. The biggest use for this is to cast two spells of similar level IMO. Two SoDs per round helps the wizard. Two buffs would let a cleric get around the time to activate those short duration spells without useing quicken effects. Bludgeon some choice cleric battle buffs and this is semi doable. I think it needs more restrictions though.
wdarkk 10-18-03, 06:27 AM	What you're trying to do partially invalidates TWO EPIC FEATS (Multispell and Automatic Quicken Spell). NO.
Eldren 10-18-03, 04:42 PM	Draco Argentum: Yes, it would require a full-round action to cast two spells. So doing so allows you to only take at most a five-foot step, the same as iterative attacks for the warrior types. And yes, normal spellcasting rules also apply: You could suffer two AoOs if casting in the wrong place (and with the 3.5 adjustments to Attacks of Opportunity, you could actually suffer both those AoOs from the same person who threatened you now!). I haven't honestly thought about damage. I would say that given the intensity of what the spellcaster is trying to accomplish, with casting two spells in a round like that, it would probably be the same as attempting to cast a quickened spell after your normal spell was ruined: You have to make Concentration checks for both spells to keep them going. What do you think? Wdarkk: Epic play has to have completely different considerations, whether you're using just the Core Rules (well, if you're in Epic play, you're no longer using Core Rules anyway...) or Core Rules plus optional and house rules. In this case, however, "Multispell" isn't negated at all, as that Epic feat is specifically dependent on the "Quicken Spell" feat, which operates outside of my proposed rule. "Multispell" allows you to get off one more quickened spell in a round. If you're using a quickened spell in the first place, you aren't going to be using my two-spells-per-round system, as you have to choose either one or the other. The benefit of using "Quicken Spell" is that you aren't limited by anything other than the feat's level adjustment itself in what you could cast. If you've got "Improved Spell Capacity" in Epic play enough times to give yourself a 13th level spell slot, you can fire off a normal 9th level spell and fire off a quickened 9th level spell as well. Even in Epic play, my system maintains itself: If you cast an 8th level spell and want to cast another spell, it can either be a quickened spell of any level you've quickened, or it can be a 1st level spell that you have prepared. So "Multispell" is in no way affected. Likewise with "Automatic Quicken Spell", as it again is working under the rules for quickened magic. If you're going to use this feat, which the Epic Level Handbook indicates is subject to the normal limits for casting quickened spells, then you aren't going to be casting more than one "normal" spell in addition. You may get more from "Multispell", but see the paragraph above for that. In other words, in the system I'm proposing, quickened magic exists entirely peacefully with "Iterative Casting".
wdarkk 10-18-03, 09:29 PM	The problem isn't that it makes it useless. The problem is that it makes its equivilent available before it should be. Does the second spell under your system count as a quickened spell or not? Also, it makes normal quickened spell almost useless.
Eldren 10-18-03, 10:14 PM	The second spell in "my system" doesn't count as a quickened spell because it isn't a quickened spell. If you're 10th level or higher as a primary caster class (Wizard, Sorceror, Cleric or Druid), you can choose to use either a second spell or a quickened spell, but not both. It doesn't give casters an ability they could have before its time at all. A 10th level Wizard can cast 5th level spells. This means that they could also only cast 1st level spells as a quickened spell. In the system I'm proposing, they might want something with more punch for the situation that calls for two spells. In such a case, as long as the two spells' levels that are cast that round don't add up to more than 5, they're capable of casting the spells. However, if they cast a 5th level spell, they can only cast that spell that round, unless they want to use a quickened spell. The point is that their total "normal" spellcasting can't exceed the highest-level spell they can cast for total levels of spells cast that round, and it's limited to two spells no matter what. So they could cast a 3rd level spell and a 2nd level spell in one round if they wanted, or any other combination whose total levels add up to 5, since 5th level spells are the highest they could cast. Or they could cast a single 5th level spell, or any other spell, and if they have one prepared, they could then cast a quickened 1st level spell. They aren't realistically being given any huge jack up in power, as the limitation of no more than two spells per round, and the fact that you can't use quickened magic in any round in which you cast two spells from my method, insure that the power levels stay more or less appropriate for any given level of experience.
wdarkk 10-18-03, 10:57 PM	It does count as quickened spell because it takes the place of one. They are being given a jack up in power because they no longer use up higher level slots to quicken. It's like handing out Improved Metamagic (Epic Feat) for free.
Draco Argentum 10-18-03, 11:18 PM	Well being more powerful than quicken spell is a good thing. That feat is generally lame.
wdarkk 10-18-03, 11:23 PM	Hmm. I'm still not sure handing out epic feats for free is a good idea.
Eldren 10-18-03, 11:33 PM	I'm willing to admit that it might perhaps lessen the impact of "Quicken Spell", but it doesn't negate it entirely. The one benefit of a quickened spell over choosing to use iterative casting is that you're only limited by an available spell slot of the appropriate level. The second spell you cast isn't limited in its power by the level of the first spell you cast, as it is with iterative casting. Once you're into Epic play, and "Improved Spell Capacity" becomes available (and for metamagic-happy casters, that feat is a lock multiple times), quickened magic becomes even more useful as you're able to quicken higher-level spells. Even in Epic play with iterative casting, if you cast a 9th level spell, you aren't going to get off another spell that round unless the spell is quickened. However, if you choose to go with a metamagicked spell, you could cast a 9th level spell and then, if you had the appropriate level spell slot from "Improved Spell Capacity", you could bust off with another quickened 9th level spell if you wanted, something iterative casting doesn't allow you to do. Because of this, "Quicken Spell" still very much has value, and exists peacefully side-by-side with iterative casting. Draco, I agree with you that "Quicken Spell" sucks. I think it would be more useful if the level adjustment were only +2. I realize that getting off a second spell a round is always a major consideration (if it weren't, the debate over Haste in 3.0 wouldn't have raged as much as it did), but +4 to the spell level is a bit much. High-level casters should know enough to be able to quicken 7th level magic if they want, and once you're into Epic, where there's no longer such a thing as "broken", they should be able to metamagic even higher level spells without having to take a single feat no less than three times just to be able to quicken 9th level spells. That insures that you have to be at least 27th level to quicken 9th level spells, since you'd have to take "Improved Spell Capacity" at 21st level, 24th level and 27th level. It seems like they're even determined to insure that it's as difficult as humanly possible to keep spellcasters from getting off more than one spell a round, even in Epic play. :nonono:
ConfusedUs 10-19-03, 02:44 AM	I'm still leery about the whole idea. Your version is very well laid out and self explanitory. My biggest gripe is the spell combos you can pull off in one round. True Strike + any ray = instant hit unless you roll a 1. Wall of Ice (Hemisphere) at 4th level + cloudkill at 5th level would be nasty. Some things could break out of the ice. Some couldn't, and would be totally screwed. A pair of circular Walls of Fire, one frying inside, one outside. The circles are sizable, so it's possible to have them back to back. Flame damage on the inside, for passing through 2 walls, then again on the outside if they don't get far enough. Rock to Mud, then Mud to Rock, trapping all those who failed their saves. Some of these are more powerful than others, and some have their weakensses. But the fact is, being able to cast both spells in rapid succession without delay is VERY powerful, and shouldn't be taken lightly. I DO like the idea presented here, don't get me wrong, but it has too much potential for abuse without a major overhaul of the magic system.
Eldren 10-19-03, 11:45 AM	I agree there are some interesting spell combos, and it brings back the ability that casters had in 3.0 from Haste to get off more than one spell a round. Somehow 3.0 survived for three years, though. :) I, personally, as well as several I know, and even more from these boards, never had a problem with 3.0 Haste. The instances you're noting are powerful, yes, but also consider that to get off a combo which equals 9 spell levels, you're going to have to be 17th level as a Wizard or 18th level as a Sorceror, nearly at the end of Core Rules play as it is. You're going to be facing off against some pretty bad nasties, in which case you're going to need power like that. Sure, the introduction of True Strike in conjunction with a ray spell is nasty, but it's no different than delaying that by a round by casting True Strike in round 1 and then your ray spell in round 2. It just removes that one-round delay. If your caster is intelligent, they aren't close enough to the action to be in danger of getting swatted by a melee type (or even a really good ranged type) in that one round delay, so the loss of that round doesn't really have significant impact. Thanks for your input. I don't think the magic system needs to be overhauled, and the more I think about it, the more this seems workable as a system. I think I might try it in my next campaign. Nevertheless, there are likely still some bugs which need to be worked out, so I'm interested in others' input on it.
ConfusedUs 10-19-03, 06:24 PM	Begin Argument The True Strike + Ray (lets use disentegrate for an example) combo IS different than true strike, then disentegrating. It lets you get off twice as many sure-hit disentegrates, forcing twice as many saves. And if you're throwing the disentegrates at low-fortitude enemies...chances are they'll fail a save sooner than later. I don't have much of an issue with low-level rays + TS, but instant death + TS rays bother me. In my campaign, few combats last more than 5 rounds, unless the party is fighting another party or a big intelligent beastie like a dragon. Most things of equivalent CR only take 3 to 5 rounds. In a five round combat, it would be possible to get off two true strike, then disentegrate combos. That's the possibility of two deaths. In a five round combat under this system, it would be possible to get off FIVE true strike/disentegrate combos, causing the possibility of five deaths. One of the balancing factors of most ray spells is the ranged touch attack, with a possibility of missing a target. And while many creatures have a very low touch AC, some don't. This combo allows you to completely (except on a roll of 1, and with the variant rule of 1 = -10, could still hit) bypass the main weakness of ray spells. A simple solution would be to ban True Strike to avoid this...but what of the other examples I presented above? Banning spells is not the solution. I'll get to suggestions later. Like I said before, I'm not against the idea of casting two spells per round, but under the current spell system, iterative casting seriously leads itself to abuse. This was the main problem most people had with 3.0 haste. I never DM'd a game with 3.0 haste, and I never used it when I played my rogue/wizard. But I do agree with the fact that it was a bit overpowered. My problem is not that you can cast twice a round. A pair of fireballs is going to do the same (or similar) average damage as a maximized single fireball. My problem is that casting two DIFFERENT spells in a round leads to all sorts of abuse. End Argument ====== Begin Suggestions If you look at the above combos I mentioned, only Rock To Mud/Mud to Rock and the Firewalls are of the same level. There's plenty of other spell combos that I can come up with, but at least 3/4 of them involve spells of varying levels. Perhaps limiting 'iterative casting' to spells of the same level would be a solution. If that's not desirable, perhaps limiting it to a difference of no more than 1 level in either direction. This would allow you to get off several low-level spells per round, or one powerful one. Example: George the Mage can cast 7th level spells, and has the iterative casting feat, which is limited to spells of no more than one level apart. He could cast two fireballs. (3 + 3) Or a firewall and a lightning bolt (4 + 3) Perhaps a True-Strike/Ray of Enfeeblement. (1 + 1) But not True Stike and Disentegrate (1 + 6) This limitation will eliminate most of the super-powerful spell combos while allowing more than one spell per round. At its worst, it would allow a 5th level spell and a 4th level spell to be cast in the same round. End Suggestions ====== Begin Message I would like to see both versions playtested, yours and mine, to see which one is more balanced. This kind of thing could be very intersting to play around with. I've been beta testing games for about three years now, and can usually find problems with but a little bit of work. If you'd like to contact me, my info is in my sig. I'd be more than happy to help. Edit: Also, it wasn't clear to me, but does casting a 5th and a 4th level spell iteratively use a 9th level slot, or just the 5th/4th? I may just be dense, but I couldn't really tell.
Eldren 10-19-03, 08:36 PM	I agree with you that this system allows for some interesting combinations, many of which could be quite deadly. To me, however, things balance out quite a bit when the opponents can do the same things the PCs can. Without going into this, however, the issue of, to use your example, True Strike+Disintegrate is interesting, and very valid. However, it's no different than if it had been done (and it likely wasdone) in 3.0 with Haste from that iteration of the game. Sure, in a five-round combat, someone could get off five of those combos. But do you really see many people preparing five True Strike and five Disintegrate spells each day? Admittedly, this combination could be more deadly in the hands of a Sorceror than a Wizard, due to their lack of need to prepare their spells ahead of time, but their issue of only having a limited number of spells to choose from in the first place, as well as blowing all their 1st and 6th level spell slots for the day from one battle, tends to balance things out again. Think about it: You aren't going to have that many spell slots of each level in this instance until 15th level, maybe 14th or 13th if your Charisma is high enough to grant you bonus spells of that level. And that's still blowing your wad of 6th level magic for the day, something not advisable. The Sorceror has the benefit of on-the-spot versatility, but they have to temper their increased spells per day with the fact that they can't afford to blow it all at once, in case something nastier comes along before they have the chance to rest. As it stands, someone could still get off the True Strike/Disintegrate combo by using quickened True Strike spells. Over five rounds, that's only five 5th level slots. Finally, to answer your question, using iterative casting wouldn't use up a 9th level spell slot if you wanted to cast a 4th level and 5th level spell in the round. It would use up a 4th level slot and a 5th level slot. The actual spells and their preparation/daily use slots are used, as per normal, but you're using them faster, that's all. As always, if you choose to do this too often, you're going to use up your daily allotment of spells that much quicker, which could place you in quite the bind if you're playing with a devious Dungeon Master.
ConfusedUs 10-19-03, 09:23 PM	I can easily see myself preparing five True Strike + <insert instant death ray here> combos. It's deadly, and works. Same with any other combo that I find to be very deadly. However, I prefer sorcerers to wizards (I'm one of the few), and this is doubly deadly when you can cast spontaneously. Now I know that you're comparing this to 3.0 haste, but do remember that that was changed, for balance reasons, in 3.5. I've said all that I'm going to say on the subject, and you can take it or leave it as you see fit. I've posted my last long and drawn-out rebuttal. My offer to help you playtest still stands though. ;)
Eldren 10-19-03, 10:42 PM	Well, we don't live in the same area, and I don't play play-by-email games, so we wouldn't quite be able to playtest it together. As I'm currently involved as a player in a long-running game right now, it's going to be some time before I'm a Dungeon Master again. All this to say, you're more than welcome to take the idea and try it out in your own campaign(s), and see how it works, then report back here if you'd like. :)
(Psi)SeveredHead 10-19-03, 11:18 PM	But do you really see many people preparing five True Strike and five Disintegrate spells each day? Yes, and you can never assume what a spellcaster will prepare. Each one is different, and a wizard can be different from one day to the next. And yes, I'm being serious. I'll do that even without iterative spellcasting. BTW iterative attacks suffer a penalty ... toss in a -5 cumulative penalty to save DC per spell and it should be fine. Almost like Quicken Spell, but not so expensive.
ConfusedUs 10-19-03, 11:28 PM	Well, we don't live in the same area, and I don't play play-by-email games, so we wouldn't quite be able to playtest it together. As I'm currently involved as a player in a long-running game right now, it's going to be some time before I'm a Dungeon Master again. All this to say, you're more than welcome to take the idea and try it out in your own campaign(s), and see how it works, then report back here if you'd like. I was thinking more of an IRC-based thing...but hey, whatever works for me! I might try throwing this in on my group at some point, but I'm not going to change the way casting works this late in the game. BTW iterative attacks suffer a penalty ... toss in a -5 cumulative penalty to save DC per spell and it should be fine. The -5 penalty to DC sounds ok, but what about spells that have no save? A -2 to DC for all spells cast this way might be a bit better. Maybe give the same penalty to beat SR. It even makes sense in a way. You could either cast one devastating spell, or two smaller, easier to avoid spells. Eldren: Thoughts on a penalty to DC and rolls to penetrate SR? I think that with an easier to save against spell, it would balance out. Sure you could throw all the auto-hit rays you wanted, but it'd be easier to make the save. Also, is this a feat you can take (my preference), or just the way magic works?
Eldren 10-20-03, 12:27 AM	Given that I'm limiting it to 10th level, which isn't normally a spellcaster feat level (although Wizards can take a bonus metamagic feat at that level), I hadn't really envisioned it so much as a feat as I did a bonus class ability. It also isn't limited to just Wizards, as Clerics, Druids and Sorcerors can benefit from this as well. It's an ability there for the primary caster classes. Its existence as a feat has possibilities, but would necessitate it not becoming available until either 9th level or 12th level. Personally, I'd probably just prefer it to be a class ability that Wizards, Sorcerors, Clerics and Druids receive at 10th level (class level, not character level; likewise, any prestige classes which offer additional caster levels in an existing casting class don't make someone eligible for this ability; you have to be a 10th level Wizard, Sorceror, Cleric or Druid to have it). The -5 penalty to save DCs is intriguing, and has definite possibilities. But, as noted, spells which offer no save would be exempt from this. Perhaps, if a spell is cast iteratively as opposed to being quickened, but normally offers no save, it might instead at that point offer a save at the normal DC for a spell of that level from a caster of that level? Of course feats that raise the save DC still apply (although those are extremely hard to come by in 3.5). So it would be -5 on the save DC for any iteratively-cast spell if the spell normally offers a save, but if it doesn't normally offer a save, the target can receive a save at the normal DC for a spell of that level cast by that level of caster. How's that sound?
ConfusedUs 10-20-03, 12:46 AM	I like the -2 to both spells' cast DC and SR rolls better. -5 is very very steep.
falon27 10-20-03, 05:25 AM	Originally posted by ConfusedUs Perhaps limiting 'iterative casting' to spells of the same level would be a solution. If that's not desirable, perhaps limiting it to a difference of no more than 1 level in either direction. This would allow you to get off several low-level spells per round, or one powerful one. I think that limit is a step in the right direction. However the Heighten Spell metamagic feat could partially get around it. From the 3.5 SRD HEIGHTEN SPELL [METAMAGIC] Benefit: A heightened spell has a higher spell level than normal (up to a maximum of 9th level). Unlike other metamagic feats, Heighten Spell actually increases the effective level of the spell that it modifies. All effects dependent on spell level (such as saving throw DCs and ability to penetrate a lesser globe of invulnerability) are calculated according to the heightened level. The heightened spell is as difficult to prepare and cast as a spell of its effective level. Your solution would still fix the True Strike + Disintegrate combo, since casting those spells iteratively, with True Strike Heightened to 5th level, would require an 11th level slot. (Of course for a non-Sorcerer it would be better to just Quicken the True Strike since you're using a 5th level slot anyway.) Also while this solution won't prevent abusive combos as well as you might like, it will restrict spells above 5th level from being used iteratively by a non-epic spellcaster. You could even look on this use of Heighten Spell as a feature that creates a variable level adjustment for some spell combinations. I think a penalty to spell save DCs and caster level checks to beat SR is a good idea. You might also impose an attack roll penalty on spells requiring one.
ConfusedUs 10-20-03, 12:36 PM	True, metamagic would partially get around this, but the cost is the equalizer. Who would WANT to heighten TrueStrike. There are a lot of way better spells at higher levels. ;) Hmmm...an attack roll penalty. I don't really think it's that necessary, but its up to you guys. I think that limiting spells to within one level of each other and imposing a -2 penalty to DCs and caster level checks would balance it out.
(Psi)SeveredHead 10-20-03, 05:49 PM	The -5 penalty to save DCs is intriguing, and has definite possibilities. But, as noted, spells which offer no save would be exempt from this. Perhaps, if a spell is cast iteratively as opposed to being quickened, but normally offers no save, it might instead at that point offer a save at the normal DC for a spell of that level from a caster of that level? Of course feats that raise the save DC still apply (although those are extremely hard to come by in 3.5). So it would be -5 on the save DC for any iteratively-cast spell if the spell normally offers a save, but if it doesn't normally offer a save, the target can receive a save at the normal DC for a spell of that level cast by that level of caster. I prefer the -5 penalty because 1) It's a clearer cost than -2 ;) Seriously, -2 wouldn't bother me at all. 2) We don't want to make Quicken Spell entirely useless. (If you do, make it -4 instead.) 3) Fighters suffer for iteratives - so should spellcasters. I also like the idea of giving a save to save-less spells. In any event, most saveless spells are defensive spells, and I'm a bit tired of spending four rounds erecting defenses. Not that I ever want to see 3.0 Haste come back - dishing out two disintegrates per round was just too much for a 3rd-level spell.
falon27 10-21-03, 01:46 AM	Attack rolls and saving throws are usually considered equal ways of balancing out spells. More powerful spells, like Disintegrate, are given both. Thus I think it is vital to impose a penalty on attack rolls as well as saving throws when casting spells iteratively. That way both balancing factors are treated equally and spells like Scorching Ray don't become better candidates than Fireball for iterative spell casting. In addition, spells like Disintegrate will take a double hit so that they are less likely to be abused. The size of the penalties would require some tweaking, but a -5 sounds better than a -2. As for spells that don't require either an attack roll or a saving throw, such as defensive spells, I would recommend a small spell failure chance for simplicity. Since saving throws scale with the target's level, it might be difficult to fairly penalize the casting of a beneficial spell using one.
Eldren 10-21-03, 09:06 PM	The -5 on save DCs sounded like a really workable thing with iterative casting until I considered what it would do to lower-level spells cast in this method. Spell save DCs are set by 10+spell level+relevant ability modifier. Your average 1st level character starts out with 18 in their prime stat (let's just be realistic), which is +4. There are no Core races which offer racial bonuses to Intelligence, Charisma or Wisdom, so we're starting off at 18. At 4th level, that goes up to 19. At 8th level, it goes up to 20, which is then +5. At 12th level, this goes up to 21, 16th goes up to 22, which is +6, and it stays there at 20th, where it goes up to 23. So for your average 1st level spell, particularly in light of the nerfing that abilities to jack up save DCs have undergone in 3.5., this means that if it were cast iteratively by, say, a 20th level caster, the DC would be, with -5 for being iterative, 12. This seems a bit much, and practically guarantees a save against the iterative spell. Fighters have -5 to their iterative attacks, but they also receive their Strength bonus to offset this. Wizards receive their Intelligence bonus, Sorcerors receive their Charisma bonus, and Clerics and Druids receive their Wisdom bonus. So this evens out so far. But from there, Fighters can take feats to further lessen this. Fine, so can the primary casters. But from there it breaks down. Fighters acquire weapons with enhancement bonuses which further reduce, or eliminate entirely, that penalty. The casters don't really gain things that can further eliminate the penalties that would come from iterative casting. Because of this consideration, I'm starting to think that maybe -2 to the save DC would be more appropriate for an iteratively cast spell. What say you all?
(Psi)SeveredHead 10-21-03, 09:48 PM	Did I miss a part of your idea Eldren? Was the wizard supposed to cast an 8th-level spell and then a 4th-level spell in the same round? IMO if the wizard can dish out two 9th-level spells (or two spells of his highest spell level) in the same round that he has to take the -5 penalty to the save DC and attack roll.
Eldren 10-22-03, 12:55 AM	(Psi)Severed-Head: Yes, you missed part of the idea. :) If the maximum level of spell a Wizard could cast is, say, 9th level spells, then the Wizard could choose some combination of two different spell levels (and thus two different spells) whose total level would equal 9 or less. Thus, you couldn't have a Wizard, even an Epic one (I don't count higher-level spell slots from "Improved Spell Capacity" as actual higher-level spells; you're still topped out at 9th) who could cast an 8th level spell and then a 4th level spell, because that would equal 12 levels. If the Wizard could cast 9th level spells, though, they could cast an 8th level spell and a 1st level spell, or any other combination of two spells whose levels equal 9 or less. If they choose to cast two spells in this manner, however, they can't then cast an additional spell from "Quicken Spell". If they want two spells a round, they have to pick, in that round, either iterative casting or a quickened spell. The benefit of quickened magic is that you can get off higher-level magic that iterative casting wouldn't allow. In pre-Epic play, you could cast a 9th level spell, followed by a quickened 5th level spell if you wanted. But if you used iterative casting, you would cast a 9th level spell and get nothing else that round (because you'd used up all 9 levels of that round's casting) or you could cast two lower-level spells whose levels totaled 9 or less. This side-by-side existence with "Quicken Spell" really rocks in Epic levels, because if you take "Improved Spell Capacity" four times, you'll have 13th level spell slots, and could then drop off a 9th level spell and a quickened 9th level spell. But if you want to cast iteratively, you'd be limited to some combination that would total 9 levels or less. Does that help?
ConfusedUs 10-22-03, 01:01 AM	only spells whose combined levels equal the highest level spell you can cast are allowed. Because you'll most likely be casting lower level spells, I believe that -5 to save DCs is TOO harsh, and if you read up, you'll know that I believed this to be too powerful at one point. Assuming a +4 modifier in your casting stat, a 3rd level spell would have 10+3+4=17 for its save. That save would be 15 if cast iteratively. If you're able to cast 7th level spells, many opponents will already laugh at the 17DC. They'd fall to the ground rolling at a 15. ***Disclaimer*** This was a gross generalization, not to be taken into account under specific situations. Spell DCs in 3.5 are a LOT lower than those in 3.0 already. No need to make this ability useless by nerfing them further. However, I agree on the penalty to attack rolls, but -5 is, once again, a bit much. Wizards have low BAB, and few take weapon focus(ray) to improve that. They also don't get enhancement bonuses to their rays. No wizard has a +5 ray of enfeeblement. -2 to attack, save DCs, and caster level checks to beat SR is plenty enough. With this, you have a reduced chance of hitting, a greater chance of them making the save, and a reduced chance of penetrating SR.
lanilifar 10-22-03, 01:20 AM	I like the idea, but can understand many of the problems people have brought up. Some of the mechanical difficulties also bother me (such as how you provoke AoO, and how the damage affects either spell). It also is noted that many combos can now be brought about faster. So I offer this variant, which I feel would be simpler to adjudicate and addresses some of the concerns posted. Concordant Casting Starting at class level 10, all primary casters can choose to cast two spells in a round as a full round action. They can only cast spells whose total levels do not exceed the highest spell level they can cast. Both spells must have casting times of 1 action or less. Using this ability precludes the use of a Quickened spell to cast a 3rd spell in the round. This cannot be attempted at all while grappling or while being pinned. The caster is in essence casting 2 spells simultaneously, weilding and controlling both spells through a more complex casting procedure. Both spells take effect at the same time, so the first spell cast can not have any effect on the second one cast (so if a caster chose to cast Protection from Elements, Fire on himself, and a Fireball at his feet, he would not have the benefit of the abjuration against his own fireball). If either spell requires a somatic component, a failed ASF roll ruins both spells. If either spell requires a verbal component, some failure in the verbal casting ruins both spells (material components do not have this drawback). Any spell cast this way has its save DC and caster level lowered by 2. Any attack rolls, skill checks, or ability checks required by either spell suffer a -2 penalty. The caster must also succeed at a concentration check DC 10 + the total of the spell levels being cast or both spells are lost. If the caster is threatened, he is only subject to one AoO per threatener, but the DC for the concentration check if he his damaged increases to 15 + damage dealt + the total of the spell levels being cast. If he fails, both spells are lost. He can attempt to cast defensively, but the DC of the concentration check increases to 20 + the total of the spell levels being cast. If he fails, both spells are lost. For any other concentration check, increase the base difficulty by 5, and if the level of the spell being cast is added, be sure to instead add the total of the spell levels being cast. For example, normally if you are in a high wind carrying blinding rain or sleet, the DC is 5 + the level of the spell you’re casting. Using concordant casting the DC is 10 + the total of the spell levels being cast. If he fails any concentration check, both spells are lost. Anyone attempting to counterspell the caster must succeed at a spellcraft check DC 15 + the total of the spell levels being cast in order to identify what is being cast. If the spellcraft check succeeds, and the counterspeller has one of the spells being cast in memory, he can use it to automatically counter that one spell (the other spell works normally, unless another counterspeller stops it). Dispel Magic can also be used (even if the spellcraft check fails), and has a chance to counter both spells. The dispel check must be rolled twice, starting with the highest level spell first (if the spells are of equal level, clearly choose which spell before the roll is made). If a character has more than one primary spellcasting class, they can only use this ability for classes where their spellcasting level is 10 or higher, but can mix casting if multiple classes are 10 or higher. Prestige class spellcasting advancement is counted for this, but effects which merely raise caster level are not counted. If they are casting 2 spells from one class only, use the highest spell level castable by that class only. If they are mixing from 2 classes, use the highest spell level available to the character. If mixing, the caster level for each spell is based upon the caster level of the class the spell is coming from (don't forget the -2 penalty).
Eldren 10-22-03, 01:31 AM	Interesting approach, Lanilifar. I rather like it. Let me address a couple of the concerns you brought up: As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the normal rules for Attacks of Opportunity apply if you're casting while threatened. You're either going to have to cast defensively (and you're going to have to make a separate "Concentration" check for each spell) or you're going to suffer AoO's for each spell that you're casting. Under 3.0 this wouldn't have been as nasty, because of the blanket rule that you just can't get more than one AoO in a round on someone. But with 3.5's interpretation of AoO's, you can actually get more than one AoO on the same person if a) You have the "Combat Reflexes" feat and b) That person does two things in the same round which both provoke an AoO. This would be such an instance. Likewise, if someone smacks you in the midst of casting a spell (because they had a readied action; other than poison, that's about the only way to actually "interrupt" someone's casting in 3rd Edition), then you're going to have to make a "Concentration" check to deal with that damage. However, the way I've envisioned it, since their smacking is only interrupting the first spell, you're only going to have to make a single "Concentration" check, and if you fail it, only the first spell is interrupted/ruined. The second spell will still go off like normal, assuming someone doesn't do something to force you into another "Concentration" check from being jostled/damaged, but under the evolving rules for this, the second spell still lowers the save DC by 2, or gives a normal save if the spell doesn't have a saving throw normally. Additionally, I like the -5 to attack rolls for ray spells, so that if a ray spell is cast iteratively, you have -2 automatically to the save DC, and the caster has a -5 on their attack roll to hit with the ray. Of course, in the face of such combinations as True Strike/Disintegrate, this matters too little, as the +20 you gain from casting True Strike isn't too significantly affected by becoming +15, particularly since you're making a ranged touch attack, and touch ACs are notoriously easy to hit. Your idea has possibilities, but I honestly think that the major problem I have with it is the concept of the two spells going off at the exact same time. That's what we have the "Twin Spell" feat for, even though it isn't Core Rules. More to the point, I didn't like the fact that in your version, one spell cast couldn't affect the other (such as casting Protection From Elements - Fire and then a Fireball centered on yourself) because of the close chronological proximity they share. I understand that if the two spells were to actually go off simultaneously, your reasoning would make perfect sense, but the way I'm proposing is that, while it still takes a full-round action to iteratively cast, the spells are still separate enough in terms of casting time that they each provoke different AoOs, each require different "Concentration" checks for attempted interruptions, etc. What are your thoughts?
lanilifar 10-22-03, 02:13 AM	I want to avoid the True Strike - Disintegrate combo in the same turn (or any number of other such combos). I want it to be very hard to accomplish in melee (but I want all spellcasting to be that way). I want readied actions to attack the caster while he is casting to matter, a lot. I don't want Combat Reflexes to be a required anti-caster feat. Accomplish those things, and I don't care about simultaneity. Twin Spell makes the same spell go off twice simultaneously, this allows for different spells to do that. I had always envisioned it as two spells, cast successively as well. Concordant Casting came to me as I was reading this thread, and I realized that doing it simultaneously would solve all the worst problems (if you don't think allowing two spells in one round is a problem to begin with). It is a big enough drawback IMO, that even many people who have problems with 2 spells/round, may not completely balk at the idea. I originally wrote it up as a -2 to save DCs and caster level, but a -5 to attacks, skills, and checks. I made them all -2 for simplfication, and because I thought -5 might be too harsh. I would not be against switching back to the -5 for attacks, skills, and checks.
Zardnaar 10-22-03, 02:28 AM	This idea seems really really reallyX10 stupid. In alot of ways its stupid. Theres a reason quicken spell was +4 levels higher than a non quickened one (My personal opinion is it should be +3). The ability to cast 2 spells a round is basically broken. In 2nd ed any spellcaster player would have given his left nut to do this (and probably his right one to). Your counterpoint Eldren is that since fighters get extra attacks wizards should get extra spells. By itself it sounds like a good idea- if wizards were restricted to level 1 spells. A warrior type only gets his full attacks maybe half the time. Since most spells have range a spellcaster effectivly ignores this limitation. True a Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin/ Ranger may (if hes lucky) inflict more damage in 1 round than a wizard (probably only one target though in mellee). However a fighter can do very little to compete with a power word whatever or a hold spell or a instant kill spell. Not to mention clone or astral projections spells. What warrior feat allows them to come back to life if struck down or to create a virtual body. Or even simply fly for example. True Eldren certain spells did get "nerfed" as you mention it but in 3.5 you have things like scorching ray which is horrible for fighters to deal with. Not to mention fly+greater invisability+ offensive spells of your choice. A level 8 Sorceror (CR 8 BTW) damn near killed a 7 member 5th level party IMC- in 3.5 basically due to the above combo. A wizard may not have or have see invisability prepared and that spell is outranged by fireball in any event. Fireball itself isn't to scary but the prospect of getting hit round after round by them starts to add up rather quickly. A spellcaster may run out of spells. However at high level they have to waste them to do this or be involved in an excessive amount of combat to do this. An even then you have wands,staves, scrolls etc not to mention any summoned/controlled minions. In 3.5 Eldren (have you actualy played it or even playtested it?) Spellcasters start to dominate still at level 8+ or so(not so much as in 3.0 though). They don't really need any power ups as such since they're already the best. The only thing they really need perhaps is some spells like sleep which are devastating at low levels and useless at higher levels so you don't have the tradition of wizards/sorcerors sucking at low levels and dominating at higher levels. Trust me Fighters aern't that good at higher levels since virtually every other class can fight better than them alot of the time.
anglar 10-22-03, 02:45 AM	Originally posted by ConfusedUs Now I know that you're comparing this to 3.0 haste, but do remember that that was changed, for balance reasons, in 3.5. I have to disagree with this statement. 3ed Haste was changed because they did a poor job of playtesting the system, IMO. Can somebody please explain why they don't find every powergamer and munchkin around to playtest for them? Those are types of players you need to find holes like this. I like the suggestion. Ultimately, a spell caster only has so many spells per day. This is going to allow him to use them up that much quicker. The tank can swing that sword forever.
ConfusedUs 10-22-03, 03:48 AM	What part of it do you disagree with? It was changed, for balance reasons, because said powergamers were using it to cast 2 spells per round (three with quicken), of ANY level. Haste became THE spell to have at 3rd level. A mage w/o haste was a rare thing indeed. I never jumped on the NERF 3.0 HASTE bandwagon, as I wasn't very active on the boards at that time. However, looking back, it DID need a change. I do believe that this thread here is actually a good start towards multiple spells per round w/o being overpowering. It allows for two spells (no quicken) to be cast as a full round action. Here's a quick description of the ability as we have it so far Iterative Casting (things pretty much settled upon) Allows 2 spells to be cast as a full round action. The combined spell levels may not exceed the highest spell level you can cast. All spells cast take a -2 penalty to DCs and rolls to penetrate SR. Attack rolls take a -5 penalty. Spells cannot be more than 1 level apart. * *Was this in or out, Eldren? I thought it was, but it seems to be overlooked in later posts... The only thing I would prefer, which has been shot down a few times, is to make this a FEAT, and not a default class ability for all spellcasters at lvl 10. Making this a feat, which are few and far between for most casters, would help balance out the power of it. After all, it's not much more powerful than twin spell, and much less powerful than many PrC abilities. I would make this require twin spell and quicken spell. After all, it's kind of a combination of the two.
toomre 10-22-03, 11:25 AM	While I'm still fundamentally opposed to this idea as I wholly disagree with the premise upon which it's being predicated, I've enjoyed reading the ideas on this forum so far, and want to see how it all wraps up. When coming up with your rule, please take into consideration characters who have multiple spellcaster classes, with potentially same or different caster levels in them.
lanilifar 10-22-03, 02:29 PM	I have added multiclass rules to Concordant Casting. ConfusedUs - I have no general problems with casting a 4th level and a 1st level spell. I would be opposed to the "Spells cannot be more than 1 level apart" rule. I would also add to your list of fundamentals that both spells should have a casting time of 1 action or less. This can be a feat for those who want it that way, and for those who don't it can just be a class ability. That is the nice thing about it. Once the rule is made, people can utilize as they wish. If it were a feat, I would make the prereqs: Ability to cast 5th level spells, Spellcraft 10 ranks. Some of the wording would also need to be changed, but the base rules would be the same. I am also not convinced that a -5 to attacks is the way to go, but I prefer the -2 across the board mostly because of simplicity, so I could be swayed. On haste, let us not forget that it also allowed one to take a normal move, granted a +4 to AC, and gave the option of other actions besides 2 (3 with quicken) spells in a round. I think this suggestion is vastly inferior to what haste allowed.
(Psi)SeveredHead 10-22-03, 03:51 PM	Now that I see the idea, I think -2 is fine. I am worried about Combat Reflexes, True Strike + Disintegrate, and the like though.
Eldren 10-22-03, 10:05 PM	Obviously, ideas like True Strike/Disintegrate and other variants are going to occur to players who take even a cursory look at a proposal like this. The delineation is pretty fine in my estimation, of the delay of one round between casting True Strike and Disintegrate under the Core Rules, and being able to do both in one round with Iterative Casting. More to the point, however, there's nothing stopping a Wizard or Sorceror from quickening True Strike and then casting Disintegrate in the same round as it is. True Strike then takes up a 5th level spell slot, and you're casting Disintegrate in its regular 6th level spell slot. I'm not fundamentally opposed to spell combos, although I know the idea makes some Dungeon Masters who frequent this board quake in their shoes, mostly because they're frequently being burned by the munchkins in their playing group. I have nothing against munchkinism, although I personally try to straddle that very fine line between sensible tactical combinations and outright munchkin powergaming. To me, if you have abilities that naturally work well together, and this includes spells, it makes less sense to not combine them. It's for reasons like this that I purchased a Ring of Invisibility for my Rogue, who I'm currently playing (and in answer to a previous question on this thread, which was asked, I believe, by Zardnaar, yes, I've been playing 3.5 since it came out). It works really well with his Sneak Attack. I'm also using two keen weapons (a rapier and a shortsword), which obviously means he's a dual-wielder. This gives him currently a total of three opportunities a round for Sneak Attack. My Dungeon Master has houseruled the stacking of Keen weapons and the "Improved Critical" feat back to 3.0 so that they do stack again, so obviously I'm planning on taking that feat once he hits 12th level, which should probably be after our first combat this Saturday night. My Rogue is right on the edge of 12th level. This goes likewise with magic. There are certain spell combinations that just make sense. Yes, they can be quite powerful. The Dungeon Master is also, however, encouraged to find ways, using the same rules he/she allows their players to use, to combine monster abilities and spellcasting (if the opponents of the party have spellcasters) to make for unique and powerful encounters. The breakdown, and the cries of "overpowered" or "broken!" come from the situations where the players are combining their abilities like mad, but the Dungeon Master isn't doing likewise with the opponents the PCs face. That's a discussion for another time, though. I want to keep this on thread, and it's too easy for me, the thread starter, to go off on tangents. :) I humbly ask all of your forgiveness. :angel: ConfusedUs: I never agreed to the idea of keeping spells no more than one level apart. To me, I have no problem if someone who can cast 9th level spells wants to instead cast an 8th level spell and a 1st level spell. I realize this brings about truly nasty combinations, as True Strike can then be combined with any 8th level ray spells the caster may have access to, but these are the rigors of high-level adventuring, and if you're able to cast 9th level spells, you definitely qualify as high level. Otherwise, you've listed pretty comprehensively what we've managed to agree on so far. Good job. :ayyyy!: Lanilifar: What you want sounds entirely reasonable, but I think I have to chalk it up to a difference in playing style, although the differences aren't quite as pronounced as those I have with other illustrious posters such as Archtyrant Terevoth or Chonjurer. They're both great and intelligent posters, but we're just talking about a radically polar opposite approach to gaming than what I and those I've gamed with over the last 18 years have. I know I wouldn't want to play in one of their games, but that isn't an indictment against the quality of their games, just an admission that the difference in approach is too severe for me to be able to have fun in their games. The combination is reasonably difficult to accomplish in melee, even if you can't get more than one AoO (which would avoid the requirement of "Combat Reflexes" as an anti-caster feat, and I agree with you in general, FSBNNR), as you're still forced to make a single Concentration check to cast defensively, or to deal with the AoO you're provoking if the attack successfully hits you. The danger is still there. "Combat Reflexes" is something that would allow a singular individual to get an additional AoO on you for the second spell, but even if that person doesn't have the feat, if you're casting in melee (something no arcane caster ought to ever be doing anyway), chances are you're threatened by more than one individual, and you're going to suffer an AoO for the second spell as well. Readied actions to attack the caster don't cease to matter, particularly when people are cooperating against the caster (which enemies ought to be doing frequently; one of the first things you do is take out the spellcasters in an enemy encounter; that's just basic, sensible tactics). Someone can ready an action to attack the caster as they're casting. They may ruin the spell and they may not, depending on how many ranks the caster has in "Concentration" (and any primary caster class ought to have "Concentration" maxed out, just like Rogues ought to always have certain skills maxed out). But a second person can also ready an action to deal with any secondary spells cast. However, to assuage concerns, I'm willing to consider this: How about, if the first spell being cast is ruined by an AoO or other interruption, the caster is unable to cast the second spell, as their spellcasting rhythm was ruined for the round? They'll still be able to get off the second spell, as well as obviously the first, if their Concentration check lets them keep casting through the readied attack that comes, but if they fail that Concentration check, the second spell isn't a possibility. How's that? Ultimately, while I'd prefer not to have this be a feat, I can't really come up with comprehensive arguments about why it shouldn't be, so I'm willing to concede the transformation from class ability to feat. If it's made a feat, pre-requisites of "Twin Spell" and "Quicken Spell" aren't unreasonable, but will again make this hold off until even higher than 10th level, which means less mileage out of the ability. Most casters, if they're intelligent, aren't going to take "Quicken Spell" until they're at least 9th level, because they won't have 5th level spell slots before that. Likewise, since "Twin Spell" also adds +4 to the preparation level of the spell, they aren't likely to add that before 10th level, if they're a Wizard, as their bonus metamagic feat for that level. Clerics, Sorcerors and Druids don't receive bonus metamagic feats, so this means that they aren't going to be taking "Twin Spell" until 12th level, assuming they took "Quicken Spell" at 9th, which then means they aren't going to be taking "Iterative Casting" until 15th level. A Wizard could get the feat as soon as 12th if they took "Twin Spell" or "Quicken Spell" as a bonus feat at 10th. However, if we're going to make it into a feat with those pre-requisites, thus insuring that a Wizard is only going to get 8 levels of Core Rules play mileage out of it, and Clerics, Sorcerors and Druids are only going to get 5 levels of Core Rules play mileage, I would like to adjust a couple of things to compensate for the lessened time they could have it (since Epic play is never a guarantee; there are still a lot of people who don't like the rules from the Epic Level Handbook). At that point, I'd want the flat -2 to save DCs and attack rolls (for ray spells), as well as attempts to penetrate Spell Resistance. So as it stands, the way I'd do it if this became a feat (and it's also a valid metamagic feat in this incarnation, which means it becomes available to Wizards as a bonus feat) would be this: Iterative Casting [Metamagic] Pre-Requisites: "Twin Spell" and "Quicken Spell" This feat allows casters to cast two spells in the same round without adjusting their preparation level like "Quicken Spell". The caster may cast any two spells in the same round, so long as their total level does not exceed the highest-level spell the caster may cast. As well, if the caster casts the highest-level spell they're capable of casting in a given round, they may not then use "Iterative Casting", as they have effectively "used up" the spell levels for the round that would have otherwise allowed an iterative casting. Likewise, if a caster chooses to use this feat, they may not then add a third spell in a round through the use of "Quicken Spell". Spells cast iteratively suffer a -2 penalty to their save DCs and any attack rolls required by either of the spells being cast in the round. Likewise, this -2 penalty applies to caster level checks for the purposes of getting past a target's Spell Resistance. This feat is subject to normal combat rules for spellcasting, and both spells will provoke an Attack of Opportunity (one for each spell for those capable of making int) in the right situations. Concentration checks are thus required for those who somehow manage to damage the caster during the casting. Casting in this manner is mentally taxing, and requires a degree of fine control over the magic. As such, if someone can successfully interrupt the casting of the first spell in an interative combination, the second spell is automatically ruined and cannot be cast. Example: Delegond Fortrius, a Wizard 15/Archmage 5, decides that he's in quite a bind, and needs to get off two spells a round. However, he needs something higher-level than the maximum 5th level spell that he could quicken. Seeing that his situation is dire, he instead chooses to iteratively cast True Strike followed by Polar Ray. As 9th level spells are the highest-level spells Delegond can cast, he is well within the limitations of the feat, as True Strike is a 1st level spell and Polar Ray is an 8th level spell, totaling 9 levels. He lets fly with an unerring bolt of icy death as the target begins to realize that Hell may have just frozen over for it... How's that sound?
ConfusedUs 10-22-03, 10:57 PM	I like it, especially with the added "Lose the first, kiss the second goodbye" clause. And I can live without the one-level difference.
lanilifar 10-22-03, 11:11 PM	It is my opinion that you should add that both spells must have a casting time of 1 action or less. I don't think it should be a feat, because nobody would ever suggest that it should require a feat to get a third attack if your BAB is 11. But as I said before, once a base rule is determined, implementation can be up to individual gaming groups. Multi-class rules? I like the loss of the second spell, if the first is successfully disrupted. What does loss mean exactly? Does the second spell fizzle, or is it never cast? It is nice to see two versions here that are both workable.
ConfusedUs 10-22-03, 11:36 PM	I agree, only spells with casting times of one action. And I like it as a feat. I think that blowing a feat on this is the final balancing act.
Eldren 10-22-03, 11:40 PM	There are convincing arguments for it being either a feat or a class ability. The feat insures that the earliest someone gets it is going to be a Wizard at 12th level. Otherwise, Sorcerors, Druids and Clerics will get it at 15th. This creates a disparity, though. The primary caster classes are, for the most part, pretty evenly-balanced, and if this is a metamagic feat, allowing the Wizard to take it at 12th level instead of 15th like the other classes, this could presumably overbalance the power of the Wizard in comparison to the other casting classes. This is a good case being made for it being a class ability instead of a feat. Either that, or perhaps just not make it a metamagic feat. It's not actively affecting magic itself, so much as it is allowing additional magic to be cast. However, "Twin Spell" does the same thing, albeit doubling an individual spell, and that's a metamagic feat. I'd be up for some discussion on this. Yeah, I definitely think that use of this ability/feat (we're going to have to ultimately decide which) should be limited to spells with a casting time of 1 action. It just doesn't make sense to apply it to spells with longer casting times. And in response to the "loss" of the second spell if the first is successfully interrupted, I'm willing to go either way. I would probably lean, however, on the fact that the second spell isn't lost, because that's too much of a penalty, from where I sit. Obviously, looked at from a realism standpoint here, someone iteratively casting is doing one spell after the other in very rapid succession. Having the one spell spoiled (the first spell) kinda removes that vital second or two that would be needed to successfully cast another spell within the same action, so I would probably rule that the spell isn't lost, but they don't have the time to cast another one. Additionally, since it wasn't their intent to begin with, and you can't change your action in the middle of the round, they wouldn't be able to instead bust off with a quickened spell. Once you commit to two spells from iterative casting instead of normal spell/quickened spell, you can't shift gears in the middle just because someone ruined your iterative casting. As for multiclass rules, a lot of that depends on whether this is a class ability or a feat. The original iteration of this, back on the first page of this thread, had a clarification from me that you actually had to be 10th level in your caster class, and not just 10th character level, to be able to use this. If we go with this as class ability instead of feat, then that would hold. You could be a 5th level Sorceror/5th level Druid, but you aren't going to get this ability until you're either a 10th level Sorceror or a 10th level Druid. Otherwise, multiclassing shouldn't really affect this much one way or the other. If we go with this as a feat, you still have to meet the pre-requisites of "Twin Spell" and "Quicken Spell" before you can take this feat. Multiclass could conceivably delay that a bit, but that's the price you pay for having the power of two classes at once: You lose focus, and thus more rapid advancement, in either class. Concordantly (wow, don't I sound like The Architect from the last Matrix film? :angel: ), you'd thus have to wait longer to be able to take this feat. Vis a vis... Sorry, couldn't resist. :angel: How do you think it should work with multiclassing, if you're thinking something different than me?
lanilifar 10-23-03, 12:15 AM	From my Concordant Casting post: If a character has more than one primary spellcasting class, they can only use this ability for classes where their spellcasting level is 10 or higher, but can mix casting if multiple classes are 10 or higher. Prestige class spellcasting advancement is counted for this, but effects which merely raise caster level are not counted. If they are casting 2 spells from one class only, use the highest spell level castable by that class only. If they are mixing from 2 classes, use the highest spell level available to the character. If mixing, the caster level for each spell is based upon the caster level of the class the spell is coming from (don't forget the -2 penalty). That is what I think about multiclassing. I am obviously pro class ability / anti-feat. I disagree that we need to decide this particular issue here, as I feel each gaming group can decide whether they would prefer a feat or a class ability. As far as the loss of the 2nd spell, I am ok either way. It makes more sense as you have it written, not to lose the 2nd spell from memory/slots per day, but just lose the opportunity to cast it that round.
Eldren 10-23-03, 02:17 AM	Sounds like we have a working model here. Since I'm not a Dungeon Master at the moment, I can't playtest this in my group, and I don't think my Dungeon Master is going to want to start playing around with something like this as far as we are into his campaign. I might have to try it out the next time I'm running a campaign, though. If anyone else is a Dungeon Master at the moment, I'd encourage you to try it out. Just read the last few posts in this thread and you'll get the specifics of our de-facto "final version", and you can decide for yourself whether you want it to be a feat or a class ability. I'm interested in hearing how this plays out in actual gameplay.
fractal 10-23-03, 02:52 AM	Well, you guys have gone to a lot of work on this, and I certainly don't want to overturn that. However, I have an observation. In general, the power of an effect is partly decided by caster level, but mostly determined by the level of the spell slot used. This holds true whether you're casting a spell of that level, or using a spell of lower level enhanced by metamagic. For example, you are Wizard A. Using a 6th level spell slot, you could cast Chain Lightning, Maximized Lightning Bolt, or Quickened Scorching Ray. Chain Lightning damages many targets, Maxed Lightning Bolt deals massive damage to a few, and Quickened Scorching Ray inflicts damage while saving you the valuable resource of your action for the turn. They all have their advantages, based on the fact that they all require a slot of 6th level power. Now compare to the ability/feat Iterative Spell. For example, Wizard B will cast two level 3 spells in a turn. Sure, using two 3rd level spells (two Lightning Bolts, for example) or whatever other combination may not be any more powerful of an action for the round than casting one 6th level spell would have been. However, unlike Wizard A, above, Wizard B didn't have to use a 6th level slot to do it. Wizard B only had to use a couple of his less valuable level 3 slots. In effect, those level 3 slots became much more powerful than they would otherwise have been, because each one cost Wizard B only half of his spellcasting ability for the round. This is completely different from (non-epic) metamagic, which never changes the power of a spell slot, but only the variety of spells you can cast with it. I would consider this to be a major upheaval to the normal balance of the game, and probably undesirable (although your mileage may vary, and I can see a lot of work has been done to keep it from being over-powering). Alternatively, I would suggest reworking the ability as a single metamagic feat, Link Spell. This puts the power of the ability back in line with the power of the spell slot used. Link Spell Prerequisites: Twin Spell (I don't think Quicken is necessary) Benefit: Two spells are cast together as a single spell. The two spells resolve sequentially, targets are selected normally for each. Casting time is the same as the longer casting time of the two spells. Each spell must be counterspelled separately. Link Spell takes up a slot equal to the sum of the levels of the two spells +2. Is that a good level of spell slot to use? I considered just making it the sum of the two spell levels, but then compared it to feats like Quicken and Twin, and +0 just didn't seem like enough. Other thoughts?
ConfusedUs 10-23-03, 11:40 AM	Eldren doesn't want to make it use a higher level slot, although I'd be happy just to have it use a slot equal to the sum of the spells. That means True Strike + Disentegrate would be a 7th level spell. Or a pair of fireballs would be 6th level. This would keep things on par with most other metamagic feats. But hey, it's not my game mechanic. I was partially opposed to this in the beginning, but we've now got it down to managable levels. I don't feel the insane need to object on principle anymore. ;)
fractal 10-23-03, 06:16 PM	Originally posted by ConfusedUs Eldren doesn't want to make it use a higher level slot, although I'd be happy just to have it use a slot equal to the sum of the spells. Okay, I hadn't seen the possibility of it using a higher level slot even discussed much, although I can see why he might want to reject the prepared nature of a metamagic spell (for non-sorcerers). That means True Strike + Disentegrate would be a 7th level spell. Or a pair of fireballs would be 6th level. This would keep things on par with most other metamagic feats. Actually, just adding the levels is more powerful than most metamagic feats, especially for lower level spells. Twin Spell on a Scorching Ray takes up a 5th level slot, not a 4th level one the way this would. And even for higher level spells, you have the advantage of being able to two different targets, and different spells. A pair of fireballs aimed at different targets is more powerful than a pair that have to be fired at the same place. The option to have the first spell be a Dispel Magic (for elemental resistance buffs) is a big plus too. That's why I had the +2 spell slot adjustment. But hey, it's not my game mechanic. I was partially opposed to this in the beginning, but we've now got it down to managable levels. I don't feel the insane need to object on principle anymore. ;) True, but the thing about the "manageable levels", is, the restrictions are quite powerful against some spells, and meaningless when applied to others. For example, buff spells don't mind at all that they get a saving throw penalty and a minus to hit. Also, the restriction of having to be between 1 level of each other, while potentially balancing, seems artificial to me. Plus all of that stuff (in my opinion) makes the rule a bit awkward to actually apply. With apologies for moving this thread away from the finished product, what would happen if we went back to the original idea (cast two spells in a round, total level <= maximum castable, no quicken spell, nothing else), but then required the caster to burn an unused spell slot greater than or equal to the total level of the two spells, in order to power the accelerated casting? This allows casters to combine spells on the fly, but without magnifying the power of low level spell slots so much. It also doesn't make the ability to cast one spell of a given level, much more valuable than the ability to cast 2 or 3. (Sorcerers were really getting a horrible deal before, I think this way is fairer to them.) Thus, if you want to spontaneously cast 2 Fireballs in a round, that's fine, if you have them prepared, but you have to give up an unused 6th level spell for the day. Or that True Strike+Disintegrate takes a 1st level, a 6th level, and a 7th level slot to cast.
Reney 10-23-03, 07:27 PM	I'm sorry to say I ended up skipping a whole bunch of posts to make a reply, but I'll get back to them later. All I wanted to say was that I hate DMing enough as it is. If any of my players had this feat I'd probably poison him to death and move on. 10d6 initial con damage and if that doesn't do it, another 20d6 a minute later. It's the special anti-itinerate magic feat poison.
Eldren 10-23-03, 09:40 PM	*ahem* Reney... :P You're being a spoilsport. :D Fractal: Your approach has some definite possibilities, and don't feel bad about moving the thread away from the "finished product" at all. It's going to, at best, be a house rule in campaigns where it's used, because WotC isn't likely to come up with something like this. They might, but they're a bit gunshy about massive complaints about more than one spell a round outside of "Quicken Spell" now that they so heavily nerfed Haste in 3.5. For the most part, I just think the third spell slot is a bit too high of a cost. I realize there needs to be some cost associated with using "Iterative Casting", whether you choose to use it as a class ability or a feat, but I think the -2 to the save DCs, attempts to get past Spell Resistance, and to attack rolls that the spell(s) require is probably enough. It's a meaningful penalty, but not so powerful of one that it makes people as players want to shy away from this feat (and the more I think about it, the more I realize it probably should be a feat, and not a class ability). The idea of a feat is to make someone want to take it in spite of its drawbacks (one of the reasons why I see so few people taking the dual-wielding feats past the initial one, at least unless they're looking forward to Epic play and want to take "Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting"). This being said, I do rather like the idea of instead using a single spell slot to cast the spells. However, the way it's worded right now, it favors Sorcerors much more highly than Wizards, Clerics and Druids, who all have to prepare their spells ahead of time. I'd like to strike some kind of balance between all the primary casters if we're going to work with something like this. As it stands, you could use up a 6th level spell slot to cast two Lightning Bolt spells, but the question is, do those who have to prepare their spells ahead of time then have to use that 6th level slot to prepare two 3rd level spells? If not, then it highly favors Sorcerors, and needlessly penalizes the prepared casters, who would have to prepare the spells in their normal 3rd level slots, and use those up as well as having to use the 6th level slot to actually power the casting. This is closer to your idea of using a third spell slot to power the casting, which as I said, I'd like to stay away from if we could. The more I think about it, the more I realize that using a single slot of a level equalling the total level of the two spells being cast is a bit too favorite towards Sorcerors period, whether you prepare those spells ahead of time or not. Sorcerors have additional slots per day to burn, and they can cast their spells on the spot. Using a single higher-level slot to power two spells of lower level is the ultimate in efficiency for them, but penalizes those who have to prepare their spells ahead of time, as they're risking not having a 6th level spell available to power two 3rd level spells being cast. If they prepare those two 3rd level spells as a 6th level spell and don't use them, they've wasted a valuable 6th level spell slot. The Sorceror, on the other hand, can take or leave it. If they use the 6th level slot for a 6th level spell, that's fine, and if they use the 6th level slot for two 3rd level spells, that's fine as well. The additional freedom makes this a little too sweet for Sorcerors, I think. :( It sounds like a nice variant, but I think it would need some tweaking. What does everyone else think?
ConfusedUs 10-23-03, 10:08 PM	Putting as a feat is part of the cost of this, and one of the more balancing things. I've said it several times, making it a feat is the way to go. About the higher-level spell slot, yes it DOES favor sorcerers. I'm of the opinion that sorcerers, although they're my favorite arcane casters, get the shaft. However, as it stands, it's pretty much useless for people who prepare spells... And I'm at a loss on how to balance it out. Maybe I'll think of something later tonight.
fractal 10-24-03, 12:01 AM	Originally posted by Eldren For the most part, I just think the third spell slot is a bit too high of a cost. I realize there needs to be some cost associated with using "Iterative Casting", whether you choose to use it as a class ability or a feat, but I think the -2 to the save DCs, attempts to get past Spell Resistance, and to attack rolls that the spell(s) require is probably enough. It's a meaningful penalty, but not so powerful of one that it makes people as players want to shy away from this feat It is a meaningful penalty in situations where the save DC, Spell Resistance, or attack roll is important. In other situations, such as spells with no target, it's irrelevant. This really seems to me like a needlessly complicated and unequal penalty. A different way to get a similar effect, might be to require the caster to split his caster level among the spells, the requirement that each spell get at least as many levels as the minimum necessary caster level for the spell. This could at least replace the SR penalty, DC and attack rolls could be left as above, or adapted in some similar way. Thus, your 17th level Wizard with True Strike and Polar Ray, could cast True Strike at level 1, and Polar Ray at level 16. Of course, that TS could be easily countered, and the Polar Ray would deal only 16d6 damage. A level 20 Wizard casting a Scorching Ray twice, could only get a total of 5 rays. (Two levels short of the 22 needed to devote 11 levels to each casting.) (and the more I think about it, the more I realize it probably should be a feat, and not a class ability). The idea of a feat is to make someone want to take it in spite of its drawbacks (one of the reasons why I see so few people taking the dual-wielding feats past the initial one, at least unless they're looking forward to Epic play and want to take "Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting"). I agree about making it a feat - or possibly a prestige class ability (but that would be a completely different approach). As far as making it useful - yes. But preferably not something so versatile and powerful that everyone would want to take it. It should be optional in practice as well as in theory. Unlike 3.0 Haste. This being said, I do rather like the idea of instead using a single spell slot to cast the spells. However, the way it's worded right now, it favors Sorcerors much more highly than Wizards, Clerics and Druids, who all have to prepare their spells ahead of time. Yes, it does. Just about all metamagic feats are more useful for Sorcerers. They have more spell slots and can choose how to use them. If Sorcerers could benefit from Quicken, it would be much better for them than for anyone else too. Even so, remember that their standard weaknesses still apply: Fewer different spells, and they gain a new level of spells one level later than everyone else. Also, if the goal is to cast a particular spell "combo", rather than to just cast more spells faster, that combo can be prepared together without any real difficulties. A Cleric could reasonably anticipate needing two buff spells at the same time, or the Wizard could routinely make use of TS+Disintegrate. The more I think about it, the more I realize that using a single slot of a level equalling the total level of the two spells being cast is a bit too favorite towards Sorcerors period, whether you prepare those spells ahead of time or not. Sorcerors have additional slots per day to burn, and they can cast their spells on the spot. Using a single higher-level slot to power two spells of lower level is the ultimate in efficiency for them, Actually, I have to disagree with this. The fact that Sorcerers use metamagic on the spot, would help them a lot with Iterative casting. However, the fact that Iterative casting gives two spells for the price of one, is more beneficial to other casters. They have fewer spell slots to work with, so the ability to get multiple spells out of a single slot is very useful. It's not like Sorcerers are likely to run out of low level spells slots while they still have high level ones left, anyway. I know you don't want to burn a third spell slot, but that was my idea of how to give the Wizard (and others) what is effectively "spontaneous metamagic"*, without upsetting the balance between them and the Sorcerer, in either direction. The fact that you can burn a slot regardless of what's prepared in it, actually helps the Wizard in terms of versatility, compared to the Sorcerer. I think we'd find, btw, that although a caster wouldn't cast all of their spells in this spontaneously "quickened" fashion, they would find it an extremely valuable option to do so, and it would frequently happen in those crucial early rounds of combat. (As opposed to your way, where no one would almost ever cast spells the normal way, even with the penalties, if they could squeeze in an extra spell in the round.) *And this definitely is a metamagic type effect - we're changing the way a spell is cast, making it take less than a standard action. Whether we call it Metamagic, High Arcana, or whatever, that's still what it is.
ConfusedUs 10-25-03, 03:25 AM	Does no one have anything else to add? :bump:
Eldren 10-25-03, 03:45 AM	Just haven't had the opportunity to respond. I've been waffling back and forth between sitting in front of the computer and watching the second season of "Angel" on DVD, which I just purchased a couple nights ago. :D I ultimately don't like the idea of splitting caster level, and honestly think that makes things a lot more complicated than simply ruling that iteratively-cast spells incur a -2 penalty to all appropriate die rolls and save DCs, or grant a regular save against spells which normally don't grant a save. Just a little too much math involved. It's kept reasonably simple, and thus easier to implement, if you simply know that the two spells you can cast in a round can't exceed in total level the highest-level spell you can cast, and that casting iteratively incurs the -2 penalty to save DCs, attack rolls, and attempts to bypass Spell Resistance. Anything further just complicates matters needlessly as far as I'm concerned, and the key to the implementation of new feats (I think we've all agreed ultimately that this belongs best as a feat) is to keep them as easy to integrate into existing campaigns as possible. I realize the -2 penalty doesn't make a whit of difference when you're talking about spells which don't involve saving throws, attack rolls, bypassing Spell Resistance, etc., but those spells are often nothing more than buffs at best, and I personally have no problem with a spellcaster going all Dragonball Z as they amp up their protections before entering into a perceivedly powerful/deadly encounter with another spellcaster or other enemy. If anything, this provides a valuable tactical element to the primary spellcasters, as they're able to get defenses up in time to avoid the worst of effects their opponent can throw at them. The battles become more epic in nature (not Epic as in the book, although they can be that as well), and that makes them more memorable. It truly becomes a battle of highly-powerful magic against highly-powerful magic at higher levels, and really enhances the overall mystique of magic in general, something I feel is lacking on this particular board, as we all tend to treat magic as something really blase' while we get busy with mechanics minutia. So personally, I'd prefer to have "Iterative Casting" be a feat that insures that you can't cast more than two spells a round, whose total level equals the highest-level spell you can normally cast. A -2 penalty is attached to each spell with respect to saving throw Difficulty Classes, attack rolls involved with rays or other ranged attacks inherent to the spell, and getting past a target's Spell Resistance. If the first spell is somehow ruined during casting, you lose that spell as normal, and while you won't lose your second spell, since you hadn't actually started casting it yet, you won't have the opportunity that round to cast it. The pre-requisite for this feat, to insure that it doesn't come into the game too early, are the feats "Twin Spell" and "Quicken Spell". Does anyone have anything else to add?
ConfusedUs 10-25-03, 10:10 PM	I agree on the effects of the feat. However, remember that twin spell has a prereq of 'any other metamagic feat'. This, in effect, delays gaining iterative casting till you gain your 4th metamagic feat. Wizards will gain this earlier, if they wish, but it'll be 9th level before a human sorc can grab it, and 12th before any other race. However, I think that sorcs will benefit more from this, and as such, can afford to wait. Iterative Casting [MetaMagic] You can cast two spells per round. Prerequisites: Twin Spell (Tome and Blood p.42), Quicken Spell, any other metamagic spell. Benefit: You man cast any two spells per round whose total spell level does not exceed the highest spell level you may currently cast. Any spell modified by this feat takes a -2 penalty to save DCs, attack rolls, and caster level checks to penetrate Spell Resistance. Normal: You may only cast one spell per round. I still feel that overall, this is overpowered. However, if you wish to use it, it's not going to get much more toned down than this without becoming hideously complicated.
Shaftiel 10-26-03, 01:53 AM	Well, I just saw this thread now, and I'm glad I finished reading it because Fractal chimed in at the end to say what I was going to say. First, I have to admit that I was only thinking of this for Sorcerers. Clerics & Druids and, IMO, easily powerful enough. Sorcerers got screwed in 3.5. They got Bluff but no Diplomacy, they still can't get into the prestige classes without getting Education (which isn't even core, and should have been added to the 3.5 PHB anyway) as their first feat b/c they don't have the Knowledge skills, they can't use Quicken, and the introduction of all the new metamagic rods (which are great) they got the finger b/c it takes them a full round to use them. 3.0 haste was broken, though. My main 3.0 character was a Sorcerer 5/Incantrix X/War Wizard X/Paladin 1 (yeah, I'm a power gamer) and I was one of those people who would use haste, then true strike & disintigrate 2-3 times every day (in game), on average. Just so that you know that some people do do it. I'd make this just available to classes that can spontaneously cast and I'd make it cost a flat [total levels +2] spell slot. I know this isn't exactly what you were looking for, but I think that under the current rules Clerics & Druids > Wizards >> Sorcerers, especially at high levels. I dunno if it'd be a feat or a class ability, I'm going to have to think about that one... The -2 to everything is okay but seems a little clumsy. Plus, it wouldn't do anything to slow down the clerics that are primarily going to be using this for divine favor + [insert personal buff spell here]. Maybe reducing the effective caster level would be a better limitation, like both spells are cast at an effective caster level of -2. Seems cleaner, and would affect damage and duration. So, I'm going to use my version (which is basicly Fractal's) just for spontaneous casters, and I suggest that you might want to try lowering the effective caster level for your version (rather than the -2 save, -2 spell pen, etc). Great idea, though, whichever way you end up going with it. -Shaftiel
Goldwillow 10-26-03, 12:13 PM	Partly this discussion appears to be 'arguing apples with oranges. Talchar has some very good points - in many ways Fighters totally rule. Some important things to consider are - what level are we discussing? Using Wiz vs Fighter at Lv2 compared to Wiz vs Ftr at Lv 20 shows the classes aren't balanced across the levels. Also, it is important to do the math. Yes, Wizards have some very flashy things they can do. But if you: - look at the ave. damage per round between the classes (e.g. over 15 rounds (three encounters) ) it would change your mind - Fighters kick ass. - look at the saving throws as levels go up. Try the math. ---Spells become relatively easier to save against. ---Monsters pick up little things like SR, MR, and other immunities (fire, whatever) that greatly weaken the effectiveness of the caster. ---HP of monster and Ftr PCs go up faster than the damage of the spells - therefore the spells are porportionally weaker and easier to save against. ---And that isn't even including abilities the other PCs can pick up ... like 'Ludicrous Dodge' - now there is a broken ability - how the hell can you completely dodge a fireball. Can't, unless maybe you were on the edge of the effect and saw the spell coming and knew what it was, and took a prone penality for diving out of the way. ------ And why are clerics viewed as being so powerful? No honestly. The spells are worse, and functionally they are obliged to keep about half (or more) of their spells in reserve to cast healing on the party. Which then means, they need to stay alive and available to heal - and therefore shouldn't be in the thick of combat - and therefore their fighting abilities and combat spells partly go to waste. Leaving them as a sideline character petter suited to being an NPC (as far as combat goes). BTW, I like clerics, just think they are poorly designed. Goldwillow
toomre 10-26-03, 12:34 PM	The goal of this thread was not the discussion of power discrepencies at various levels between the core classes. The superiority of fighters was the premise that Eldren started with (correct or not). The goal of this thread is to try to iron out the mechanics of the ability/feat Iterative or Concordant Casting or whatever it's called. It seems they've gotten it to a final revision more or less, so please only suggest ideas on how to refine this ability/feat. The relative powers of various classes should be discussed elsewhere.
Kyuketsukiouji 10-26-03, 01:02 PM	Part of the problem seems to stem from the fact you're all trying to apply one feat to two spells. How about just applying the feat to one spell? Like: Concordant Spell [MetaMagic] You can prepare a spell to be cast with another spell. Prerequisites: Quicken Spell, Caster Level 10. Benefit: A spell prepared with Concordant Spell may be cast at the same time as another spell, as long as its level is not higher than the spell it is concordant to. A spell prepared with Concordant Spell takes a slot 4 (or whatever you want to put here) levels higher than normal. A spell modified with Concordant Spell cannot be joined to a spell modified with Quickened Spell (Thought a quickened spell could be cast in the same round as a Concordant Spell). A spell modified with Concordant Spell must be targetted at the same target than the spell it is concordant to. Normal: You may only cast one spell per round. (And yes, I know you can cast 3 spells a round with this feat, but honestly, if you've got the spell slots to burn on a normal spell, a Quickened Spell, and a Concorded Spell, go for it.)
(Psi)SeveredHead 10-26-03, 03:03 PM	Originally posted by ConfusedUs Eldren doesn't want to make it use a higher level slot, although I'd be happy just to have it use a slot equal to the sum of the spells. That means True Strike + Disentegrate would be a 7th level spell. Or a pair of fireballs would be 6th level. This would keep things on par with most other metamagic feats. But hey, it's not my game mechanic. I was partially opposed to this in the beginning, but we've now got it down to managable levels. I don't feel the insane need to object on principle anymore. ;) This is cool. Like all other metamagic, it should have this cost.
ConfusedUs 10-26-03, 04:13 PM	I like it too. Combine it with the -2 to DC/Attack rolls/SR penetration and you would have a pretty balanced version of this, with a simple mechanic.
fractal 10-30-03, 04:31 AM	I've been thinking about this concept a bunch, and how tolerable it is to lower the level of your spells, in order to get more of them. One possible implementation seemed to be to create a prestige class with only a partial caster level progression. So, this is what I came up with. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=124152 The Spell Speed ability was the original core of the class, and are most similar to the various potential feats discussed here. I added on the extra class features when I decided that losing 5 caster levels was really a pretty big penalty.
Bob Gein 10-30-03, 12:31 PM	I'm against wizards being able to cast two spells per round so easily. However, very little of my objection is based on actual game balance concerns. Don't get me wrong, there are potentially very serious game balance concerns, but some things look more dangerous on paper than they are in the game. I'm uncomfortable damning anything before I've had a chance to play test it myself. The old argument that the NPCs can use it too so it's ok doesn't hold up in most of my adventures. I run very few spellcasting NPCs. I prefer to keep them rare, making the spellcasting PCs feel that much more unique. This is one of the reasons why I am so glad they changed 3.0 haste. And for all those who felt 3.0 was fine, I ended two long running campaigns because of high level spellcasting abuses. So it might have been fine for you, but it wasn't for everyone. The biggest concern I have with this approach to spellcasting is that it will slow down high level combat. Already 9th level plus combat seems to take forever, mostly in part to the spellcasters. I'm sure this isn't the same for every group, and more experienced players would be quicker in making spellcasting decisions, but in my group (and likely many others) not everyone is a veteran player. All the effort and thought put into the idea of a spellcaster casting more than one spell per round makes me think you'd rather just have the 3.0 haste back. I don't see anything wrong with that, as long as you throw in enough NPC enemy wizards/sorcerers to even the playing field.
lanilifar 10-30-03, 08:37 PM	Already 9th level plus combat seems to take forever, mostly in part to the spellcasters. This amuses me highly. It never ceases to amaze me how different groups can have different experiences. Spellcasters in 3.0 generally could choose to cast 2 spells/ round, 3 if they quickened one. IME they generally did not do this (contrary to the apparently common experience), but often used the xtra action to move/drink a potion/etc. Spellcaster actions IME, go quickly (except when time stop is cast). Fighter actions OTOH often take forever. 4 attacks, 5 with haste, 7 with improved 2-weapon fighting, more with great cleave. Rolling, rolling rolling, rolling, waiting forever. During this time, the spellcasters are considering their next action. In 2e I often thought spellcaster players were cheesed at higher levels. The rest of the players would be taking 3 or 4 attacks, while the caster got his one spell off (please note: I am not talking about power level, I am talking about fun at the table). When I heard that in 3e casters could cast multiple spells in a round I was excited. However, neither haste nor quicken were very satisfactory in my mind. Haste came too early IMO, and granted too many other abilities. Quicken came too late and was too costly. I like the general concept of a base casting rate, and the concepts discussed in this thread, are a good basis for anyone else who feels this way.
Eldren 10-30-03, 09:20 PM	Bob Gein: You're right, I'd much rather have the 3.0 Haste back. In my campaigns, the spell remains in its 3.0 iteration, as do several other spells which I feel were either unfairly, needlessly, or overenthusiastically, nerfed in 3.5. This being said, someone noted earlier that I'm working from the premise of the superiority of Fighters. While I still maintain, as I have all along, that an intelligently-constructed Fighter, using nothing more than Core Rules feats, is easily in the top two of the most powerful Core classes, that isn't my rationale for suggesting this thread. My rationale is the lack of logic, from my perspective, of the current paradigm where spellcasters never learn to become more efficient with their magic, to the point that they can use it more often within a given span of time (i.e., a round). All other classes, and in fact, even Wizards and Sorcerors, eventually receive another melee attack per round. However, this has varying effects and usefulness, honestly. The Fighters, Paladins, Rangers, Monks and Barbarians can all benefit incredibly from the increased number of attacks, because they're all, at their core, melee classes. They pick up a weapon, and they hit things with it until those things stop moving. If you're a Barbarian, you probably hit it a few more times after that for good measure. :) Clerics, Rogues and Bards can benefit from this only marginally less than the primary melee classes, and in all honesty, Rogues can almost be put up in the main melee bracket of this post if you build a Rogue around Sneak Attacks. I've done that with my current Rogue, and thus have taken "Two-Weapon Fighting" for him, and I'm having him wield a rapier and a shortsword, both of which are Keen. He's a finesse warrior (uses the "Weapon Finesse" feat), so he uses his Dexterity to determine his accuracy. My Dungeon Master has houseruled the stacking of Keen and "Improved Critical" back to 3.0, and as I just hit 12th level, I'm taking "Improved Critical - Rapier". He's going to be critting quite often, and with his Ring of Invisibility, more often than not his hits are Sneak Attacks. What I'm getting at is that bonus iterative melee attacks are a nice thing to have in any class, but the classes I've mentioned benefit from more melee attacks a lot more than the classes I haven't mentioned. Bards, Druids, Wizards and Sorcerors aren't by nature melee warriors. They tend to stay back a bit and let their other abilities contribute to the battle for them. Because of this, I thought about why it was the warrior types all get a lot more attacks at higher levels. I concluded that it was because they were so experienced that they'd learned to be more efficient with their attacks. Looked at realistically, they probably aren't attacking any more than they already were; they're just hitting more often. But the primary spellcasters, in a 1st through 20th level career, somehow never learn to become more efficient in spellcasting as a function of basic experience in their profession. They require additional training (feats) to get off more than one spell a round. Even in 3.0, they required either a feat or an additional spell in order to get off more than one spell per round. It made no sense to me that while the warrior types got more of their basic combat input with foundational, basic experience in their profession (i.e., levels, as opposed to additional training manifested as feats), but the primary spellcasters didn't. Thus, I came up with a way for the primary spellcasters to eventually get more than one spell a round, a way that for the most part wasn't unbalancing, unless you tend to like a lower-level of magic in your game (and there are those who do; I'm not one of them; I prefer at least the level of magic that Core Rules Dungeons & Dragons offers). Over the course of this thread, what was a class ability has instead become a feat, and while that violates the original idea I had, we've still been able to get things to a point where you aren't being denied your highest-level spells by casting more than one spell a round, which is the primary weakness of "Quicken Spell". You aren't getting off higher than a 5th level spell until you're in Epic play, and if your Dungeon Master doesn't want to use the Epic Level Handbook, then you're never going to get higher than a 5th level spell as a second spell in the round. The reality is that the spellcasters need more of their higher-level spells just as the warrior types need their additional attacks. That's the method by which they contribute to combative encounters. If the feat, as we've currently agreed on, used a level differential for preparation, I'd complain, but it doesn't. It simply forces you to make a choice: If you can cast 9th level spells, but you still want to cast two spells a round, this keeps you from your 9th level spells, and at best allows you an 8th level and a 1st level spell to be cast in the same round. Any lower-level combination is acceptable as long as the total levels don't exceed 9. This continues into Epic play; while you have higher-level spell slots, they aren't actually higher-level spells. Those slots are used for additional preparation slots for lower-level spells, or to apply metamagic feats to higher-level spells. Even then, you have to take another feat to get those higher-level spell slots. Personally, I think this has become about as workable as it's going to get. I'm interested in any further tweaks to the finalized feat, and of course I'm not in control of the thread at all, but I'd appreciate any further posts to not be a variant two-spell-a-round system (although the couple of variants that have been offered are rather nice; just not to my personal tastes), but instead any final niggling little tweaks someone feels the feat requires before it's something they'd consider offering as a viable ability in their own games.