Casting 2 spells at +6 BAB? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Casting 2 spells at +6 BAB? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
darcdante
07-07-06, 04:26 PM I've played under a few DMs now, and the one I currently have is the first to not allow spellcasters to cast two spells a round with a +6 BAB. Maybe it's simply because I'm used to it, but this seems to make spellcasters underpowered at higher levels compared to a fighter class. I don't really want to make a case for or against this rule, I simply want to know if letting the spellcasters have their extra spell at level 12 (or whenever they hit +6 BAB) is a common house rule or if you all think it's overpowering spellcasters.
Furion Thamior
07-07-06, 04:34 PM I assume that if you elect to cast two spells in one round, it's a full round action, so you can't move more than 5ft?

Even if still, it's blatantly overpowered.

The only other way to cast 2 spells in one round short of epic levels is with Quicken Spell, or perhaps some CO trickery.
Aramek
07-07-06, 04:36 PM Um, mages have never been allowed to cast multiple spells (sans Quicken_ in the same round.

All spells are standard actions to cast. Some are full-round, and some are even 1 Round casting times. Your 10/5 BAB at level 20 does not give you 2 spells. For you do not have 2 standard actions.

If you are to melee or use a ranged weapon, then, yes, you would get 2 attacks. But not 2 spells.
darcdante
07-07-06, 04:37 PM Yeah, it's a full round action every time we've done it.
Aramek
07-07-06, 04:39 PM Yeah, it's a full round action every time we've done it.
But what about those Gish builds? Wherin you have high level spells and a +16 BAB at the end?

The House rule is crazy overpowered if you can cast 4 spells a round, 3 spells a round, or anything other than the intended spell-action rules.
Furion Thamior
07-07-06, 04:39 PM It's still broken though, man.
tarkin
07-07-06, 04:43 PM There are lots of ways to legally cast two spells per round.

But it sounds like you are asking to do it for free, just because fighters get two attacks. That is WAY over-powered - something that no Strict, Loose or even Power Gamer will allow. Only an Anything Goes Gamer plays like that.

Legal ways to cast multiple spells per round:

1) One of them is an immediate action/swift action spell, such as Featherfall or any spell modified by Quicken, Sudden Quicken, or a similar effect that makes a spell immediate/swift.

2) You are using Contigency or a similar effect

3) You are using Time Stop or a similar effect.

4) You are using Shape Change and taking the form of a Choker.

5) You are playing 3.0 (not 3.5) and using Haste/boots of Haste

6) You are getting the 2nd spell from an npc, such as a cohort/magic weapon/special mount/summoned monster/etc. Note, this is often the easiest way to do it.

7) You are activating two wands at once via a feat like Dual wand Wielder
Bulletproof_Condom
07-07-06, 04:47 PM Making a single attack is a standard action known as the Attack action. Making more than one attack due to a high BAB, Two-Weapon Fighting, or what have you is a full-round action known as the Full Attack action.

Casting a spell is usually a standard action. Sometimes it's a free action. Sometimes it's a full-round action. It varies. But there is no such thing as a "Full Spell" action that lets you cast more than one spell. Casting times don't change because you have a higher BAB. Given spells like finger of death and harm, doing so would likely be highly broken.

However, you can cast a Quickened Spell as a swift action and then another spell as a standard action.

Welcome to D&D. I'm not sure what you were playing before, but I hope you enjoy the real thing.
tui
07-07-06, 04:49 PM I played in a campaign where the DM had a rule like this.. it actually worked out pretty well, since all the power-gamers (myselft included) were playing non-spellcasters and the cleric and sorcerer were both played by non-power-gamers that were pretty new to D&D. They got it at 12th level (when the sorcerer got the +6 BAB), and it gave them a nice bump at around the time they were frustrated about their power level compared to the optimized characters.

But in any other circumstances, such as with someone who actually knows how to play a spellcaster, it is much too powerful.

It was never clear to me if the DM thought the iterative spells was the way it was supposed to be, or if he just did it for in-game balance that one time... He had so many weird house rules it could have gone either way.
ShinAkuma2
07-07-06, 04:50 PM *spews Pepsi all over the moniter*

Spell casters underpowered compared to Fighters?!

Pardon me, but I think throwing 10-20d6 or more otherwise unavoidable damage (without Evasion/Mettle, etc) per turn, without placing oneself in significant melee risk, or the ability to shut down, weaken, or otherwise remove an enemy from combat is not "underpowered" compared to the chance at 4 or 5 swings for a couple dozen points per turn.
darcdante
07-07-06, 04:58 PM I played in a campaign where the DM had a rule like this.. it actually worked out pretty well, since all the power-gamers (myselft included) were playing non-spellcasters and the cleric and sorcerer were both played by non-power-gamers that were pretty new to D&D. They got it at 12th level (when the sorcerer got the +6 BAB), and it gave them a nice bump at around the time they were frustrated about their power level compared to the optimized characters.

But in any other circumstances, such as with someone who actually knows how to play a spellcaster, it is much too powerful.

It was never clear to me if the DM thought the iterative spells was the way it was supposed to be, or if he just did it for in-game balance that one time... He had so many weird house rules it could have gone either way.

Eya, it could have been that our first DM did it because the rest of us were completely new to the game (about four years ago now) and we just stuck with it and considered it reasonably normal. Also, our highest level campaigns stall out around level 12-14 when DMs seemingly tend to move away, so it wasn't played out too long anyway so that we could properly test it.

I was looking for input because I'm supposed to take the game over in a month and wanted to see whether I should reinstall the house rule or leave it the way it's meant to be. We do have several new players, but they're all playing fighter classes while the experienced players are playing the casters. So I'll keep it the way it's supposed to be so that I don't have a demigod mage running around casting two disintegrates every round. Thanks for the input, everyone, it really was helpful! :)
utilitarian
07-07-06, 05:04 PM What... the... hell?

alright first of all edit your topic so it doesn't say "+65 BAB"

And secondly, by what startling series of misunderstandings did you and your former DMs get this strange and ridiculous idea that having a higher BAB lets you cast more spells a round?

It doesn't work that way, it never has!

BAB is Base Attack Bonus, ATTACK bonus. It has nothing to do with your ability to cast magic! Nothing!

As for balance, being able to cast multiple spells in a single round was quite possibly one of the most game breaking balance issue. Haste was specifically re-written to NOT give multiple spells in a single round.

Abandon this crazy concept before someone throws the yak at you.
Karak_Nechot
07-07-06, 05:07 PM Fighters being overpowered at high levels? Compared to spellcasters?

Hmm...let me ponder how to responds to that...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Seriously, though, what you propose will break the game. Anyone who knows even halfway how to use a spellcaster will ruin it for everyone else. There will be no point in ever playing a non-spellcasting class, because the spellcasters will toast all opponents before the non-casters even know they exist (which spellcasters can kind of do anyways under normal rules, but at least it takes more than just one round).

No, it's a bad idea, and if you get a player who knows how to abuse what you propose (and I practically guarantee it), your game will be ruined after only one session.

Just for the record, in D&D, all non-spellcasters classes are underpowered compared to spellcaster at high levels. Very rarely do you have a non-spellcaster who can even remotely keep up with any form of spellcasters. And fighters are the absolute weakest of the bunch. A high level fighter is nothing more than the party's waterboy at high level play.
darcdante
07-07-06, 05:38 PM Yeah, my experience of the game at higher levels is extremely lacking, so I really do appreciate the input you've all given me. I have another question for those who don't mind offering further advice.

As I mentioned, I'm taking over the campaign in a month or so.
Here's my group:

Human barbarian
Elf ranger
Halfling rogue
Dwarven spellsword/fighter/sorcerer
Human mage
Fire Genasi hexblade

There are a couple of others who pop up once every six weeks or so, but that's the core party right there. What's the best way, as a DM, to deal with healing in a group like that? The only one who can use wands or scrolls of healing is the ranger, right? Unless the rogue makes a use magic device check? Up to this point, I've been playing the cleric of the group, but I planned on removing him from the party once I start DMing it. Our DM has, thus far, let anyone use a wand (saying you just have to know the command word to use it), and I was wondering if it's best to keep that house rule or if there was a better way to keep the group alive. Letting anyone use any old wand scares me when the players figure out that this can transcend healing wands. So far the only wands in the group are a magic missle wand and three wands of cure light, but a barbarian running around with a wand of fireballs frightens me. Any suggestions on how to keep the party alive without letting them all just use wands?
yonman
07-07-06, 05:42 PM Wayyy overpowered if you let casters get free casting based on their base attack bonus. I can't even being to imagine the metagaming possibilities allowed for high level spellcasters.

Fighters are Underpowered. One spell and there's nothing they can do if they fail their save or immobilized.
Furion Thamior
07-07-06, 06:14 PM Yeah, my experience of the game at higher levels is extremely lacking, so I really do appreciate the input you've all given me. I have another question for those who don't mind offering further advice.

As I mentioned, I'm taking over the campaign in a month or so.
Here's my group:

Human barbarian
Elf ranger
Halfling rogue
Dwarven spellsword/fighter/sorcerer
Human mage
Fire Genasi hexblade

There are a couple of others who pop up once every six weeks or so, but that's the core party right there. What's the best way, as a DM, to deal with healing in a group like that? The only one who can use wands or scrolls of healing is the ranger, right? Unless the rogue makes a use magic device check? Up to this point, I've been playing the cleric of the group, but I planned on removing him from the party once I start DMing it. Our DM has, thus far, let anyone use a wand (saying you just have to know the command word to use it), and I was wondering if it's best to keep that house rule or if there was a better way to keep the group alive. Letting anyone use any old wand scares me when the players figure out that this can transcend healing wands. So far the only wands in the group are a magic missle wand and three wands of cure light, but a barbarian running around with a wand of fireballs frightens me. Any suggestions on how to keep the party alive without letting them all just use wands?

Consider allowing them to use the Reserve Hit Point pool rules found in UA. It doesn't help them during the actual combat, but it lets them heal up faster afterwards.

For in-combat, you could always make sure they are able to find/ purchase potions. They could also invest skill ranks in Use Magic Device so they can continue to use wands.
Shaggy_Shaggs
07-07-06, 10:56 PM For in-combat, you could always make sure they are able to find/ purchase potions. They could also invest skill ranks in Use Magic Device so they can continue to use wands.
I'm reminded of a session where an urban ranger in single-digit hp found himself being carried off a battlefield in the jaws of a mother dinosaur, making a Bluff check to play unconscious while subtly drinking a Cure Moderate potion, and praying the dino wouldn't chew. :smirk:

Good times.

No, she didn't chew. After an allied spellcaster stunned her and she dropped me, I finished her off with a TWFing full attack - and then she fell on me. :rofl:
Carai_al_Caldazar
07-08-06, 11:21 AM 2 spells??? would be nice....

this would mean you could cast 6 (2 normal and 1 quickened per round) fireballs in the first 2 rounds of battle: result 60d6 (av. 105) damage, or 4 times finger of death... sure you won't make all 4 saves....
Nom
07-09-06, 08:46 AM Ranting aside: physical combatants get more attacks, with a minor power increase. Spellcasters are generally limited to a single spell, but the power of each spell increases dramatically.

Note that spellcasters still have it better. A warrior must use a full attack to get full benefit. A spellcaster can do it with a standard action, meaning that they can (1) still move and (2) do it during the surprise round.
MarkB
07-09-06, 11:18 AM A spellcaster can do it with a standard action
Hey, I just got a great idea for a T-shirt slogan. :D
jaelis
07-09-06, 05:35 PM Now, if your "iterative" spell took a -5 penalty on spell level, so that for instance you had to burn an 8th level spot to cast a 3rd level spell, it would be a nice benefit for spell casters, but probably not overpowered.
Vanigo
07-11-06, 01:07 AM Now, if your "iterative" spell took a -5 penalty on spell level, so that for instance you had to burn an 8th level spot to cast a 3rd level spell, it would be a nice benefit for spell casters, but probably not overpowered.
That's pretty much what Quicken Spell does, except it's four levels instead of five.
Masterfulks
07-11-06, 01:11 PM Fighters get more attacks and feats.

Casters get new spells.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
darcdante 07-07-06, 04:26 PM	I've played under a few DMs now, and the one I currently have is the first to not allow spellcasters to cast two spells a round with a +6 BAB. Maybe it's simply because I'm used to it, but this seems to make spellcasters underpowered at higher levels compared to a fighter class. I don't really want to make a case for or against this rule, I simply want to know if letting the spellcasters have their extra spell at level 12 (or whenever they hit +6 BAB) is a common house rule or if you all think it's overpowering spellcasters.
Furion Thamior 07-07-06, 04:34 PM	I assume that if you elect to cast two spells in one round, it's a full round action, so you can't move more than 5ft? Even if still, it's blatantly overpowered. The only other way to cast 2 spells in one round short of epic levels is with Quicken Spell, or perhaps some CO trickery.
Aramek 07-07-06, 04:36 PM	Um, mages have never been allowed to cast multiple spells (sans Quicken_ in the same round. All spells are standard actions to cast. Some are full-round, and some are even 1 Round casting times. Your 10/5 BAB at level 20 does not give you 2 spells. For you do not have 2 standard actions. If you are to melee or use a ranged weapon, then, yes, you would get 2 attacks. But not 2 spells.
darcdante 07-07-06, 04:37 PM	Yeah, it's a full round action every time we've done it.
Aramek 07-07-06, 04:39 PM	Yeah, it's a full round action every time we've done it. But what about those Gish builds? Wherin you have high level spells and a +16 BAB at the end? The House rule is crazy overpowered if you can cast 4 spells a round, 3 spells a round, or anything other than the intended spell-action rules.
Furion Thamior 07-07-06, 04:39 PM	It's still broken though, man.
tarkin 07-07-06, 04:43 PM	There are lots of ways to legally cast two spells per round. But it sounds like you are asking to do it for free, just because fighters get two attacks. That is WAY over-powered - something that no Strict, Loose or even Power Gamer will allow. Only an Anything Goes Gamer plays like that. Legal ways to cast multiple spells per round: 1) One of them is an immediate action/swift action spell, such as Featherfall or any spell modified by Quicken, Sudden Quicken, or a similar effect that makes a spell immediate/swift. 2) You are using Contigency or a similar effect 3) You are using Time Stop or a similar effect. 4) You are using Shape Change and taking the form of a Choker. 5) You are playing 3.0 (not 3.5) and using Haste/boots of Haste 6) You are getting the 2nd spell from an npc, such as a cohort/magic weapon/special mount/summoned monster/etc. Note, this is often the easiest way to do it. 7) You are activating two wands at once via a feat like Dual wand Wielder
Bulletproof_Condom 07-07-06, 04:47 PM	Making a single attack is a standard action known as the Attack action. Making more than one attack due to a high BAB, Two-Weapon Fighting, or what have you is a full-round action known as the Full Attack action. Casting a spell is usually a standard action. Sometimes it's a free action. Sometimes it's a full-round action. It varies. But there is no such thing as a "Full Spell" action that lets you cast more than one spell. Casting times don't change because you have a higher BAB. Given spells like finger of death and harm, doing so would likely be highly broken. However, you can cast a Quickened Spell as a swift action and then another spell as a standard action. Welcome to D&D. I'm not sure what you were playing before, but I hope you enjoy the real thing.
tui 07-07-06, 04:49 PM	I played in a campaign where the DM had a rule like this.. it actually worked out pretty well, since all the power-gamers (myselft included) were playing non-spellcasters and the cleric and sorcerer were both played by non-power-gamers that were pretty new to D&D. They got it at 12th level (when the sorcerer got the +6 BAB), and it gave them a nice bump at around the time they were frustrated about their power level compared to the optimized characters. But in any other circumstances, such as with someone who actually knows how to play a spellcaster, it is much too powerful. It was never clear to me if the DM thought the iterative spells was the way it was supposed to be, or if he just did it for in-game balance that one time... He had so many weird house rules it could have gone either way.
ShinAkuma2 07-07-06, 04:50 PM	spews Pepsi all over the moniter Spell casters underpowered compared to Fighters?! Pardon me, but I think throwing 10-20d6 or more otherwise unavoidable damage (without Evasion/Mettle, etc) per turn, without placing oneself in significant melee risk, or the ability to shut down, weaken, or otherwise remove an enemy from combat is not "underpowered" compared to the chance at 4 or 5 swings for a couple dozen points per turn.
darcdante 07-07-06, 04:58 PM	I played in a campaign where the DM had a rule like this.. it actually worked out pretty well, since all the power-gamers (myselft included) were playing non-spellcasters and the cleric and sorcerer were both played by non-power-gamers that were pretty new to D&D. They got it at 12th level (when the sorcerer got the +6 BAB), and it gave them a nice bump at around the time they were frustrated about their power level compared to the optimized characters. But in any other circumstances, such as with someone who actually knows how to play a spellcaster, it is much too powerful. It was never clear to me if the DM thought the iterative spells was the way it was supposed to be, or if he just did it for in-game balance that one time... He had so many weird house rules it could have gone either way. Eya, it could have been that our first DM did it because the rest of us were completely new to the game (about four years ago now) and we just stuck with it and considered it reasonably normal. Also, our highest level campaigns stall out around level 12-14 when DMs seemingly tend to move away, so it wasn't played out too long anyway so that we could properly test it. I was looking for input because I'm supposed to take the game over in a month and wanted to see whether I should reinstall the house rule or leave it the way it's meant to be. We do have several new players, but they're all playing fighter classes while the experienced players are playing the casters. So I'll keep it the way it's supposed to be so that I don't have a demigod mage running around casting two disintegrates every round. Thanks for the input, everyone, it really was helpful! :)
utilitarian 07-07-06, 05:04 PM	What... the... hell? alright first of all edit your topic so it doesn't say "+65 BAB" And secondly, by what startling series of misunderstandings did you and your former DMs get this strange and ridiculous idea that having a higher BAB lets you cast more spells a round? It doesn't work that way, it never has! BAB is Base Attack Bonus, ATTACK bonus. It has nothing to do with your ability to cast magic! Nothing! As for balance, being able to cast multiple spells in a single round was quite possibly one of the most game breaking balance issue. Haste was specifically re-written to NOT give multiple spells in a single round. Abandon this crazy concept before someone throws the yak at you.
Karak_Nechot 07-07-06, 05:07 PM	Fighters being overpowered at high levels? Compared to spellcasters? Hmm...let me ponder how to responds to that... :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Seriously, though, what you propose will break the game. Anyone who knows even halfway how to use a spellcaster will ruin it for everyone else. There will be no point in ever playing a non-spellcasting class, because the spellcasters will toast all opponents before the non-casters even know they exist (which spellcasters can kind of do anyways under normal rules, but at least it takes more than just one round). No, it's a bad idea, and if you get a player who knows how to abuse what you propose (and I practically guarantee it), your game will be ruined after only one session. Just for the record, in D&D, all non-spellcasters classes are underpowered compared to spellcaster at high levels. Very rarely do you have a non-spellcaster who can even remotely keep up with any form of spellcasters. And fighters are the absolute weakest of the bunch. A high level fighter is nothing more than the party's waterboy at high level play.
darcdante 07-07-06, 05:38 PM	Yeah, my experience of the game at higher levels is extremely lacking, so I really do appreciate the input you've all given me. I have another question for those who don't mind offering further advice. As I mentioned, I'm taking over the campaign in a month or so. Here's my group: Human barbarian Elf ranger Halfling rogue Dwarven spellsword/fighter/sorcerer Human mage Fire Genasi hexblade There are a couple of others who pop up once every six weeks or so, but that's the core party right there. What's the best way, as a DM, to deal with healing in a group like that? The only one who can use wands or scrolls of healing is the ranger, right? Unless the rogue makes a use magic device check? Up to this point, I've been playing the cleric of the group, but I planned on removing him from the party once I start DMing it. Our DM has, thus far, let anyone use a wand (saying you just have to know the command word to use it), and I was wondering if it's best to keep that house rule or if there was a better way to keep the group alive. Letting anyone use any old wand scares me when the players figure out that this can transcend healing wands. So far the only wands in the group are a magic missle wand and three wands of cure light, but a barbarian running around with a wand of fireballs frightens me. Any suggestions on how to keep the party alive without letting them all just use wands?
yonman 07-07-06, 05:42 PM	Wayyy overpowered if you let casters get free casting based on their base attack bonus. I can't even being to imagine the metagaming possibilities allowed for high level spellcasters. Fighters are Underpowered. One spell and there's nothing they can do if they fail their save or immobilized.
Furion Thamior 07-07-06, 06:14 PM	Yeah, my experience of the game at higher levels is extremely lacking, so I really do appreciate the input you've all given me. I have another question for those who don't mind offering further advice. As I mentioned, I'm taking over the campaign in a month or so. Here's my group: Human barbarian Elf ranger Halfling rogue Dwarven spellsword/fighter/sorcerer Human mage Fire Genasi hexblade There are a couple of others who pop up once every six weeks or so, but that's the core party right there. What's the best way, as a DM, to deal with healing in a group like that? The only one who can use wands or scrolls of healing is the ranger, right? Unless the rogue makes a use magic device check? Up to this point, I've been playing the cleric of the group, but I planned on removing him from the party once I start DMing it. Our DM has, thus far, let anyone use a wand (saying you just have to know the command word to use it), and I was wondering if it's best to keep that house rule or if there was a better way to keep the group alive. Letting anyone use any old wand scares me when the players figure out that this can transcend healing wands. So far the only wands in the group are a magic missle wand and three wands of cure light, but a barbarian running around with a wand of fireballs frightens me. Any suggestions on how to keep the party alive without letting them all just use wands? Consider allowing them to use the Reserve Hit Point pool rules found in UA. It doesn't help them during the actual combat, but it lets them heal up faster afterwards. For in-combat, you could always make sure they are able to find/ purchase potions. They could also invest skill ranks in Use Magic Device so they can continue to use wands.
Shaggy_Shaggs 07-07-06, 10:56 PM	For in-combat, you could always make sure they are able to find/ purchase potions. They could also invest skill ranks in Use Magic Device so they can continue to use wands. I'm reminded of a session where an urban ranger in single-digit hp found himself being carried off a battlefield in the jaws of a mother dinosaur, making a Bluff check to play unconscious while subtly drinking a Cure Moderate potion, and praying the dino wouldn't chew. :smirk: Good times. No, she didn't chew. After an allied spellcaster stunned her and she dropped me, I finished her off with a TWFing full attack - and then she fell on me. :rofl:
Carai_al_Caldazar 07-08-06, 11:21 AM	2 spells??? would be nice.... this would mean you could cast 6 (2 normal and 1 quickened per round) fireballs in the first 2 rounds of battle: result 60d6 (av. 105) damage, or 4 times finger of death... sure you won't make all 4 saves....
Nom 07-09-06, 08:46 AM	Ranting aside: physical combatants get more attacks, with a minor power increase. Spellcasters are generally limited to a single spell, but the power of each spell increases dramatically. Note that spellcasters still have it better. A warrior must use a full attack to get full benefit. A spellcaster can do it with a standard action, meaning that they can (1) still move and (2) do it during the surprise round.
MarkB 07-09-06, 11:18 AM	A spellcaster can do it with a standard action Hey, I just got a great idea for a T-shirt slogan. :D
jaelis 07-09-06, 05:35 PM	Now, if your "iterative" spell took a -5 penalty on spell level, so that for instance you had to burn an 8th level spot to cast a 3rd level spell, it would be a nice benefit for spell casters, but probably not overpowered.
Vanigo 07-11-06, 01:07 AM	Now, if your "iterative" spell took a -5 penalty on spell level, so that for instance you had to burn an 8th level spot to cast a 3rd level spell, it would be a nice benefit for spell casters, but probably not overpowered. That's pretty much what Quicken Spell does, except it's four levels instead of five.
Masterfulks 07-11-06, 01:11 PM	Fighters get more attacks and feats. Casters get new spells.