The Gaming Den

This is a completely alternate system for a d20 (D&D-ish hopefully) combat system. I like the idea of D&D having BAB and augmenting attacks and all... but how about the casting version of such? Base Casting Bonus--BCB. You can have poor, med, or good BCB as per BAB, and it effects what potency your spells are at. So, say at level 20 with full BCB, you can cast a spell at caster level 20, then one at level 15, and your iteratives follow as per usual. This takes a full-round action.

Buffs... I'm not sure about... and the system basically just gives standard D&D casters more spells to cast in a turn (which is a bad idea).

Any suggetions?

Frank and I dabbled with just letting people have a caster level equal to character level. If you don't do that, it basically makes any partial casting worthless in all caster check situations.

Giving out more spells to partial casters is probably a bad idea though.

Interesting idea! As a possible other way to handle it, could be a way to implement an edge system for casting...though that'd likely screw the melee classes pretty hard. Another way might be to grant some nice, but minor bonuses for having a good BCB, like better counterspelling, SR penetration, or a better chance of avoiding screwing up a spell because of damage taken, bad circumstances or whatever.

Has anyone ever used the similar system from Unearthed Arcana?

Do you mean the Magic Rating variant? I have not. I've only tried Spell Points and Recharge.

Possibilty: Generate a uniform spell slot chart from 1 to 20, and you get slots based on your BCB. Your Caster Level is always equal to your level though, so your low slot spells have the oomph they should (though they're sill low slot).

Then you can do the normal things like adjusting the spell level of different spells and such when you hand them out to the various classes. And maybe it'll all work out.

RobbyPants wrote:Do you mean the Magic Rating variant? I have not. I've only tried Spell Points and Recharge.

Can you discuss your experience with either or both of these systems, please? Perhaps a new thread is in order, but I would like to hear how these systems fared in-game.

I did an alternate where everyone got spontaneous casting, and had spells per day following the cleric chart, no bonus spells. Choosing a casting class only gave you access to it's spells per day chart and bonuses (but limited to its casting, refresh style), and you could take domains as feats. And I turned some feats into domains.

-Crissa

Lich-Loved wrote:

RobbyPants wrote:Do you mean the Magic Rating variant? I have not. I've only tried Spell Points and Recharge.

Can you discuss your experience with either or both of these systems, please? Perhaps a new thread is in order, but I would like to hear how these systems fared in-game.

okay.

Ditto what someone said about more spells/turn for casters being a bad idea. As well as the power factor, each spell involves choices which will slow down turns.

Giving fighters "poor" BCB (or Magic Rating) did look to me like it has the issue of strongly encouraging fighters to multiclass out at higher levels, so they can take a wizard level and exploit their caster level bonus.

I'm also not sure how a BCB would handle multicasters like cleric/wizards...(and I forget how UA did it).

As another option, you could have caster level for wizard being tied to (say) Spellcraft ranks, say skill rank -3, then do the same for clerics with Knowledge (religion) or druids with Knowledge (nature). Not sure what skill you'd use for sorcerors, given that their magic is more innate that learned.

Basing caster level on spellcraft ranks somehow is going to screw multiclassed casters even more, really.

Because they have to put two points into it every other level instead of one point per level?

-Crissa

So, say at level 20 with full BCB, you can cast a spell at caster level 20, then one at level 15, and your iteratives follow as per usual. This takes a full-round action.

This feels like a bad idea.

What if the iteratives were just blasting evocations? It seems like no one likes those, might as well give people something to do with them.

CCarter wrote:Not sure what skill you'd use for sorcerors, given that their magic is more innate that learned.

Concentration, perhaps, but every caster already wants Concentration.

RobbyPants wrote:Concentration, perhaps, but every caster already wants Concentration.

Seems semi-reasonable to me, actually. In the grand scheme of things that might even be a balancing factor .

Oh and Perform for bard, obviously.

If multiclassing casters were in any way balanced, this sort of thing would not be. Let's consider the case where a player takes a level of Ranger or some damn thing with their Wizard. Not generally a good idea, but there are reasons to do it. Now, one level of a warrior class doesn't give a caster level, right? But a second one does. So why would you take another level of d4 hit points and nothing but a caster level, when a second level of Ranger with mad stacks of skill points, 2 extra hit points, better abilities and a BAB would get you the same spells?

The multiclassing rules don't really work with spellcasters. But the solution isn't this.

-Username17

Frank, you made a single statement to a varied suggestion. If access to spells was restricted by levels in classes - like feats in warrior classes - why wouldn't it be a possible solution?

-Crissa

Crissa wrote:Frank, you made a single statement to a varied suggestion. If access to spells was restricted by levels in classes - like feats in warrior classes - why wouldn't it be a possible solution?

-Crissa

So your new suggestion is that you need 7 levels of Wizard to get 4th level wizard spells and 9 levels of wizard to get 5th level wizard spells? Gosh, that would make taking your 8th level as Ranger in all ways superior to taking your 8th level in Wizard in a game that wasn't going to reach 9th level, and really painfully bad in a game that was.

Giving players differing levels of power based on whether they can guess when the campaign is over is on the whole a bad thing.

-Username17

It's better to know these problems specifically, than to poo-poo the whole idea without mentioning it.

-Crissa