Hypothetical Concept : MAD Casters

[Chris_Nightwing]

Non spellcasters currently have the same issue, wanting to boost just one stat (Str or Dex) for attacks.

Spellcasters benefit from Dex/Con same as everyone else.

I can see a version of this working, using all six stats, but as has been noted, it would not be D&D.

 

[tlantl]

I was listening to the latest podcast and something they mentioned about simplicity and ease of use brought this thread to mind.

Having something like this in place would certainly add complexity to the system . It might be too much complexity.

I can see the finer elements of this being forgotten in play. My head feels like it's ready to explode just trying to keep track of save DCs in stressful situations, having to remember the DCs and the ability involved will make my job harder and will certainly slow things down on my end. Things are slow enough when I have a pile of monsters, effects, and conditions to track in a combat or high stakes situation.

I do like the idea I just see it as being a lot of work for little gain.

 

[Incenjucar]

If they're going to try it, it should really be a new class that can be allowed to die if their attempt fails.

Say you have some sort of shadowcaster that has a mix of melee and ranged attacks.

Dex for AC
Con for HP
Int for To-Hit
Wisdom for ranged attack range
Cha for ranged attack damage
Str for melee attack damage

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Now I know this will never happen and "it aint D&D", but in my work place every idea is welcome, so here goes.

A recent thread proposed Charisma as the casting stats for clerics.

Got me thinking. What if casters were NOT based on a single stat (so bonus to hit, save dc, damage bonus e.t.c.)? What if that stat that a spell was based on was derived based on the nature of the spell itself. For instance, A "Charm" spell was actually based on charisma? Or an illusion spell is based on your Intelligence, or a "detect" spell was based on wisdom.

Why?

One of the discrepancies in the current approach is that in order to cast a spell with potency, you need 1 good stat. In order to be able to resist that spell on an equal basis, given the save could be based on ANY stat, you need 6 good stats.

The other thing is that martial character have always been kinda mad. They benefit from all physical stats, where casters have always been 1. So, caster are a little more MAD.

Pure spit-balling, feel free to burn me for a heresy.

Actually, charm person in 3rd edition allowed a charisma contest (using the new language here ) to make someone do as you want.

ranged touch spells were based on dex, melee touch on str.

So actually, that idea is not bad.

But: as already mentioned it was tried twice with psionics, original psionic rules in 2nd edition as well as in 3rd edition tried to do it that way and were later replaced by a single stat dependancy.

And in my opinion, single stat dependancy for casters is primary. But you could have secondary effects for some spells, that are determined by the nature of the spell (not like 4th edition, where the secondary stat is based on your class, rather than the nature of the spell)

example:
Sleep: a target with current hp 10+wisdom modifier falls into a deep slumber.

 

[arscott]

If your goal is to increase specialization, then having different spells based on different stats will do that: in order to be effective, characters will pick one or two stats and focus on spells related to those.

But if your goal is to simply prevent imbalance and create greater parity between casters and non-casters, then I don't think you'll accomplish that. As mentioned above, none of the classes really have MAD right now in terms of attack. And in terms of defense, casters (at least, wizards) actually rely on dex and con more than fighters (who have high hp and armor that the wizards don't)

As far as the one attack stat vs. six defense stats, keep in mind that attack shouldn't be equal to defense. Attacks should be successful at least 60-65% of the time, otherwise players feel like they're being ineffective. Which means that the casting stat modifier should be two or three higher than the saving throw modifier for most defenses. I do think that 6 is a bit much and wish they'd go back to fort/ref/will, but asking spellcasters to spread their stats around because they can target multiple defenses is a bit much.

Personally, I wish that attacks and save DCs weren't modified by Ability scores at all, but that's obviously opposite where WotC was headed.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I've been doing it with all caster classes for years. One ability for spells/day, another one for DCs.

To the people saying it is some kind of radical idea or that it needs a pilot test, some late 3.5 casters did this (favored soul, for example), without any real complaints that I'm aware of.

You can key it different ways; by class, by subclass, by spell, by school, etc. For the life of me I can't understand why they haven't done something like this.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Here's another related thought. I'll present it as stand-alone with nothing else changed, but obviously it can be mixed and matched with some of the previous ideas, readily enough:

To finish casting a spell, the caster must make an ability check, which will naturally vary by the type of spell (e.g. Cha for charms, Con for draining spells, etc.) Failing the roll does not kill the spell, but mean the caster can try again next round. By default, once a spell starts, the caster must either finish it or abandon it--i.e. if he stays with it, it will eventually cast or be allowed to fizzle out, but once started the slot is used. The DC to cast is 10+spell level. If hit while so casting, the next check is at disadvantage.

Comments: That makes this check effectively a "casting time" mechanic. You can always get the spell off, but you don't know exactly when it will go off. Simple spells are highly likely to go off on the first try, and thus never give a foe a chance to interrupt. Powerful spells are likely to take at least two rounds, and if pounded on, even longer. I'm assuming that the flat math makes the DC reasonable, but if not it could be higher or scale differently.

The added complexity is kept to a minimum here, and I think many new players would find the check intuitive. I'm not the only one that has had players confused by the wizard not needing to roll at all, but this form is "cast the spell on time" instead of a copy of melee or ranged attack rolls. It also has the side virtue of giving powerful casters pause where powerful spells are concerned. People have proposed may similar such systems before, but the key bit is not losing the spell on a failed casting check, as the usual proposals have. That doesn't really work with D&D because of the nature of the slots.

Alternative: I like this one better actually, but more confusing to explain without giving the preceding first. Make the prime casting stat (e.g. Int for wizards) work as the casting check above on all spells, then vary the saving throws by different abilities. This has a more direct flavor application, make the prime casting stat still very important, and I think would probably work better with hybrid and multiclass casters.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

[MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION]'s idea about casting checks being used for casting time is brilliant. I love it. Combine that with the separated casting stats...

Say that for Wizards, Intelligence governs spell slots and Charisma governs casting checks.

Then, for Clerics, Charisma governs spell slots but Wisdom governs casting checks.

And instead of flat DCs, the save DC of the effect is equal to the result on the casting check.