|
Pretty much the one thing that really bugs me about d20/Pathfinder is spell save DCs. There is a logic to how they work, but it's not a logic that I like as much as an alternative.
The first of the two main problems I have is that save DCs don't scale much at all, particularly not compared to save bonuses. At high level play, you'll be using pretty much only your high level spells not just because they're powerful, but because your lower level spells will be having an excessively hard time breaking DC 20, while having a save bonus of +20 is child's play. Even a class's poor save should make that at least half the time. If you're min-maxing, you probably won't even bother with spells that allow saves at any level.
The second is more of a flavour discrepancy. Namely that, because high level spells have both stronger effects and are harder to resist, you might run into a situation where you can outright kill a creature with finger of death, but attempts to simply subdue the creature with something like ray of enfeeblement have absolutely no effect. Now, sure, it also makes sense for powerful creatures to be able to shrug off the effects of low-level spells, but because low-level spells have low-level effects, a couple -2 penalties can still be easily ignored by them, even when they are inflicted.
Additionally, it makes sense (at least to me) for mages to grow more familiar with spells that they've used for longer, and so be able to make them harder to resist. Yes, there are feats like Spell Focus that exist to represent this, but that seems like relying on fighters to take Weapon Focus in order to increase their BAB.
Now, of course, the obvious counter to this is that spellcasters are already notoriously more powerful than non-spellcasters, however A) this seems to rely more on self-transmutation and other indirect spells rather than save spells - again, save spells seem to be pretty much avoided by min-maxers, and B) I'm kind of drawn to the idea of more-or-less reversing the standard save DC curve. That is to say, lower level spells have higher save DCs than higher level spells. True, this warps the game's balance assumptions pretty drastically, but is it possible that it may actually correct some for the Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards problem, without inverting it completely?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Make heighten spell free for everyone. Make ray of enfeeblement have an 8th level spell slot or whatever, the saves suddenly match the power level?
|
|
That doesn't really seem like much of a solution... (Although I'll probably still be implementing in my games. Thanks.)
It doesn't do anything to alter the core problem that your low-level spell slots become almost useless at high levels. If you come across a problem and end up having to expend all of your... let's say 7th-level spells and up, then you might as well just wade into melee for all the good trying to throw a freezing sphere or chain lightning will do you, and you can't Heighten all of your spells. Now, yes, as I've said, if you care more about maximizing your effectiveness than fluff, then buffing up with a few transmutations and wading into melee may very well be your primary strategy, but this sort of thing doesn't seem very much in the spirit of the high fantasy. The evoker should really be a more viable battlemage than it is.
I'm actually kind of leaning towards doing something closer to reversing the standard save DCs (so that 0-level spells have DC 19 and 9th-level spells have DC 10, plus ability modifier, etc.). Of course, then I feel like the high level spells are far too weak since a 9th-level spell with a base save DC of 10 would never hit anything that it would actually be used against.
1. not all spells allow saving throws.
2. use the right spell vs the right opponent.
Don't target fort saves on a fighter or will saves on a cleric, etc. People pass ref off as being the least important, but it is also frequently the weakest: nobody fighting a golem has ever call Grease useless.
|
|
Well no, I'm exaggerating some in an attempt to more clearly illustrate a point. Personally, I love utility spells as much as anyone, and I've even made one of those melee transmuters I was complaining about earlier, and I really liked him as a character (think Darwin if he lived in a fantasy world). But I've also had to toss ideas for caster characters like a sorcerer obsessed with fear magic because of how reliant the concept is on save spells.
Persistent spell metamagic is really good and better than the equivalent +2 DC from Heighten.
Make heighten spell free for everyone. Make ray of enfeeblement have an 8th level spell slot or whatever, the saves suddenly match the power level?
I've had the same thought for years. A lower level spell's effect is already lessened, so what's wrong with using a higher level spell slot to raise the DC... for a spell with a less powerful effect.
There's a lot of low level spells that are still useful at high levels of play, so you really don't need to make low level spells more useful beyond a free Heighten Spell.
there are some of the Unchained options like Overclocking or Esoteric components
alternatively you could throw the idea the Spell level is important to the save and just go "All save DCs = 10 + 1/2 Caster Level + Attribute Modifier."
Again, Persistent Spell >>> Heighten in most situations, and > Heighten in almost all.
Example: Target saves on a 11 vs. a level 1 spell like Charm Person, a 50% chance. If you heighten to level 6 he now saves on a 16, a 25% chance. Or you can Persist up to only level 3 and he has to save twice at 50%, for the same 25% cumulative chance. But you saved 3 spell levels.
Heighten only consistently beats Persistent when the unadjusted DC gives the target a 85-95% chance to save. And if your odds are that bad to start I'd toss a debuff like Ill Omen or a shaken-on-successful-save effect before risking a high level metamagiced spell at still poor odds.
10 + 1/2 Caster Level + Attribute Modifier is obviously a flat boost for all casters, which they don't need. You might try 10 + CL/3 + AM, so the DC corresponds to the current DC for a bit over half their best spell level.
eg at CL=10, it's the same as a 3rd level spell is now; at CL=20, 6th level.
Or you could go 10 + (CL-SL)/2 + AM. So lower level spells are harder to resist while higher level are still fairly competitive.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had the same DC 10 + 1/2 CL + Ability Mod idea (both for the simplicity and flavor that others have mentioned), and I ran it past James Jacobs once. His answer was a good one and a point I hadn't considered. He said the low level spells are SUPPOSED to be less useful later to reduce option paralysis. High-level casters have tons of spell choices with just 3 or 4 levels of effective spells. Make it 10 levels of effective spells and their noodle is cooked.
I still like the simplicity and flavor of the idea, but I see his point. The free Heighten Spell thing sounds like a decent compromise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A) this seems to rely more on self-transmutation and other indirect spells rather than save spells - again, save spells seem to be pretty much avoided by min-maxers
Where did you get his idea from? It is not correct. If you have a look at, for example, treeantmonk's wizard guide, you will see he recommends a great deal of spells with saves. Conjuration crowd-control specialists are usually considered the most optimised wizards to be.
It is important to have some spells in your arsenal that don't allow saves for those baddies with inflated defenses, but save DCs are not difficult to pull off with persistent metamagic and other boosters.
Finally, your assumption that save DCs scale worse than saves is actually incorrect as well. Look at the good and bad save progressions in a character advancement chart: you will see that save DCs actually scale almost perfectly in-between good and bad save progressions. It is important as you continue to level to intelligently choose spells to target poor saves as the gap becomes larger as levels increase, but if you focus on keeping your INT in the stratosphere and picking up DC increases, high level opponents are still easy to overcome.
For example:
Level 20 wizard with 20 base, +5 levels, +5 inherent, +6 item = 36 INT, and spell focus conjuration/greater spell focus, has a 10+spell level+16 DC. He could boost this higher with spell perfection etc if he was min-maxing, but this is a good baseline.
Balor's poor save (reflex) is +17.
Against a 9th level spell, the balor needs an 18 to pass his save. Even against a 1st level spell, the balor still fails 50% of the time.
Of course, the Balor's best save (fortitude) is +29 and he passes against the wizard most of the time even against level 9 spells. By level 20 the wizard should have enough in knowledges or general experience to realise targetting fort is a bad idea on a big bruiser balor. His middle save is +25, which passes against a level 9 spell about half the time. A persistent 7th level spell gives him only a 30% chance of passing but has a slightly weaker 7th level effect. Actually works out almost perfectly.
At lower levels this relationship exists but is not as extreme.
As for your other idea: lower level spells having a save dropoff is a deliberate design decision to reduce the number of effective spells a wizard has against high level encounters, to encourage utility spell choices, and to prevent choice paralysis. However, free metamagic heighten is a not too powerful option that increases the viability of those lower level spells a little.
For more extreme houserules, from least to most potentially disrupting:
a) If you want lower level spells to be harder to resist as they are heightened, you could give heighten a 'good' progression non-linear scaling DC. That is, have a houserule that for every 3 (or 2.5 rounded down) levels you heighten a spell by, you increase the save DC by an additional +1. This is enough to keep lower levels a bit more competitive, but you may find people focus excessively on strong low level spells like glitterdust this way -- although perhaps that is what you want?.
b) You can give free heighten when any spell is metamagic'd - but be aware this is very powerful when combined with dazing or persistent metamagics..
c) Finally, you could simply have the save DC as the highest spell level castable instead of the spell's specific spell level, but this is drastically overpowered and I do not recommend it without adjusting caster balance elsewhere.
*Edit*
I do not recommend 10+ 1/2 CL + attribute. Caster level is extremely easy to boost compared to attribute or spell level. If you have cunning players you will find this results in unbeatable save DCs. I guess if your players are unlikely to exploit a power boost (as with Deathmvp) then it doesn't really matter.
Blackmane, I'm curious why you think 1/2 CL would be much more powerful than spell level. I don't have the wizard chart in front of me right now, but 1/2 CL is only 1 for 1st/2nd level, which is 1 higher than normal for standard for cantrips and the same for 1st level spells. It doesn't hit 9 until 18th level, at which point I think they have 9th level spells, right? So at 20th they're at 10 instead of 9. At 20th,they're supposed to be epic. The benefit isn't more power; it's a consistent calculation across all levels which is simpler. It does make lower level spells tougher, but it's about 6's for highest-level spells available, right?
I think it is a bad idea to give Heighten Spell away for free. Having the option to cast low-level spells at competitive DCs is a boost in power and it's not like spellcasters are feat-starved. Also, it would make the use of other metamagic feats far less desirable (and therefore less likely to occur). Unless you rule that metamagically-enhanced spells are treated as spells of their modified level in all regards, including save DC, in which case you just gave spellcasters another boost. (And I'm saying that as someone who is not a big fan of the metamagic system in its current form, where you have to pay for spell modifications with spell level increases.)
|
|
Where did you get his idea from?
In short, CoDzilla. I've heard a lot about the cleric and druid's reputation for potential game-breaking. I'm pretty sure I read, though may have assumed, that this centers around the classes' buff spells, since - certainly at least compared to arcane casters - they don't have much in the way of direct offensive spells. I therefore assumed that a similar strategy for wizards would be what min-maxers focus on, too.
Clearly, I'm not as well-versed in the nuances of the rules as some, but I kind of try not to be too familiar since I really like making any sort of random build best represents the flavour of a character I want to make, but my practicality has a tendency to overrule this desire when there are decidedly superior mechanical options that I am aware of. Luckily, tabletop RPGs are not competitive and have a human adjudicator that makes this sort of thing possible.
Varying DC by spell level makes offensive spells with saves decline rapidly in utility while other spells remain steady or become more useful.
In my mind at least (see above for why this may not be fully accurate), this is best illustrated by magic missile. This seems to be pretty universally acknowledged as being one of the - possibly [u]the[/u] - best 1st-level spells. No attack roll, no save, only spell resistance can stop it. On top of this, it's force which means that it affects incorporeal creatures just as well as corporeal ones, and there's no energy resistance. If you don't have spell resistance (or one specific spell, shield), you are taking all the damage the spell has to deal. Yes, in the grand scheme of things, 5d4+5 damage isn't game-changing, but that doesn't prevent magic missile from being perhaps the most useful 1st-level spell in late game. Convincing me that a 20th-level wizard would be better off filling his 2nd-level spell slots with meta-magic missiles rather than any actual 2nd-level spells would probably be a DC 15 Bluff check at best.
I don't really have any solution for this. I couldn't say whether it would be better to nerf magic missile or buff other spells, although I'm certain either option has it's problems. Ultimately, it's just an observation I've made. (Again, as I said, it may not be entirely accurate, so if that's the case do please - politely - point out my oversights.)
In my mind at least (see above for why this may not be fully accurate), this is best illustrated by magic missile. This seems to be pretty universally acknowledged as being one of the - possibly [u]the[/u] - best 1st-level spells. No attack roll, no save, only spell resistance can stop it. On top of this, it's force which means that it affects incorporeal creatures just as well as corporeal ones, and there's no energy resistance.
Again, have a read of Treeantmonk's guide or some other wizard optimisation guides. Magic missile isn't a terrible spell, but it is not considered anywhere near the best 1st level spell. At low levels, spells like Colour spray, sleep and grease are much more powerful - which all have save DCs.
Wizards don't usually become wizillas like clerics/druids do. They rely on control spells to shut down fights - which usually have save DCs.
To wildebob: people are calling for half caster level here. Caster level is extremely easy to boost - prayer beads alone is a +4 CL and thus +2 DC.
SLAs have half character level. This isn't as painful but still means you increase the overall power of low level spells without any drawback. The design decision was deliberately to prevent an exponentional power increase as wizards level, but it's an OK houserule if you don't have caster supremacy issues in your group.
Free heighten isn't over powerful: it's a free feat on a spell not usually picked outside of some spell specialisation/perfection/magical knack/spellhunter shenanigans.
Casters don't need to be more powerful.
They certainly don't.
In my mind at least (see above for why this may not be fully accurate), this is best illustrated by magic missile. This seems to be pretty universally acknowledged as being one of the - possibly [u]the[/u] - best 1st-level spells. No attack roll, no save, only spell resistance can stop it. On top of this, it's force which means that it affects incorporeal creatures just as well as corporeal ones, and there's no energy resistance. If you don't have spell resistance (or one specific spell, shield), you are taking all the damage the spell has to deal. Yes, in the grand scheme of things, 5d4+5 damage isn't game-changing, but that doesn't prevent magic missile from being perhaps the most useful 1st-level spell in late game.
Ill Omen is far and away the most useful 1st level spell in late game, especially in a thread concerned with spell DCs. If you combine a quickened Ill Omen with a Persistent Spell the target not only has to pass two saves, for each of those attempts it has to roll twice and take the low result. Brutal.
Edit: I see Atarlost made the same point in the very next post.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Casters don't need to be more powerful.
I've been mentioning things like reversing the DCs so that 0-level spells have base DCs of 19 and 9th-level spells DCs start at 10. If anything that's making them less powerful. (Which I'm not confident is a solution, but the point is that I'd rather increase early saves and reduce late saves before I increase saves across the board since obviously that would make casters into gods.)
As for ill omen, that's a witch-only spell, and I was rather focusing on sorcerer/wizard spells. Sorry, should've made that clear. And yes, I know that colour spray is better than magic missile at-level, but the point of my entire topic was that I felt low-level spells didn't scale well, as a general rule. Yes, there are notable exceptions, but only a few that you might as well populate all 9 or more spells/day slots with at high levels. Struggling with "illusion of choice" is a common problem in d20 and Pathfinder, and that more than class balance or anything like that is why I really started this thread.
Anyway, clearly the topic's getting nowhere. I guess save DCs are as functional as they can be short of an extensive overhaul to pretty much the entire casting system which just isn't worth it in my mind.
As for ill omen, that's a witch-only spell, and I was rather focusing on sorcerer/wizard spells. Sorry, should've made that clear.
Psychics have it, too, and with other abilities (i.e. Overpowering Mind phrenic amplification and some discipline +DC abilities, ability to effect undead) it makes them the best save or lose mind affecting casters.
Casters don't need to be more powerful.I've been mentioning things like reversing the DCs so that 0-level spells have base DCs of 19 and 9th-level spells DCs start at 10. If anything that's making them less powerful. (Which I'm not confident is a solution, but the point is that I'd rather increase early saves and reduce late saves before I increase saves across the board since obviously that would make casters into gods.)
As for ill omen, that's a witch-only spell, and I was rather focusing on sorcerer/wizard spells. Sorry, should've made that clear. And yes, I know that colour spray is better than magic missile at-level, but the point of my entire topic was that I felt low-level spells didn't scale well, as a general rule. Yes, there are notable exceptions, but only a few that you might as well populate all 9 or more spells/day slots with at high levels. Struggling with "illusion of choice" is a common problem in d20 and Pathfinder, and that more than class balance or anything like that is why I really started this thread.
Anyway, clearly the topic's getting nowhere. I guess save DCs are as functional as they can be short of an extensive overhaul to pretty much the entire casting system which just isn't worth it in my mind.
You could just have the DC be something like 5+1/2 caster level+stat bonus, or something like that... That way lower level spells get more powerful... Of course, as your stats increase, the higher level casters get even MORE powerful (after level 10, better than before using this method).
You could just have the DC be something like 5+1/2 caster level+stat bonus, or something like that... That way lower level spells get more powerful... Of course, as your stats increase, the higher level casters get even MORE powerful (after level 10, better than before using this method).Casters don't need to be more powerful.I've been mentioning things like reversing the DCs so that 0-level spells have base DCs of 19 and 9th-level spells DCs start at 10. If anything that's making them less powerful. (Which I'm not confident is a solution, but the point is that I'd rather increase early saves and reduce late saves before I increase saves across the board since obviously that would make casters into gods.)
As for ill omen, that's a witch-only spell, and I was rather focusing on sorcerer/wizard spells. Sorry, should've made that clear. And yes, I know that colour spray is better than magic missile at-level, but the point of my entire topic was that I felt low-level spells didn't scale well, as a general rule. Yes, there are notable exceptions, but only a few that you might as well populate all 9 or more spells/day slots with at high levels. Struggling with "illusion of choice" is a common problem in d20 and Pathfinder, and that more than class balance or anything like that is why I really started this thread.
Anyway, clearly the topic's getting nowhere. I guess save DCs are as functional as they can be short of an extensive overhaul to pretty much the entire casting system which just isn't worth it in my mind.
Actually that is a huge nerf if he dont make this only count from a certain level and up and only for low level spells.
To begin with you have 10 + spell level + ability modifier.
This means anything from level 5 and up already either didnt benefit from this change or is actually made worse by it , since at most your method will give 15 + ability modifier.
At lower level:
5 + 1 + 5 = 11
10 + 1 + 5 = 16
With 20 in a stat we can already see how this wont be a benefit until you get on high levels where 1/2 caster level is actually worth anything at all to pay for the 5 you lost , and nope , i dont mean level 10 , since at 10 you would have 5 + 5 = 10 , which is lower than the 11 you start with , you would need level 12 for this method to even be worth it for a level 1 spell.
It's all on pfsrd now, no need to buy it for new class stuff. But I would anyway for the background occult stuff and to support the product.
Casters don't need to be more powerful.I've been mentioning things like reversing the DCs so that 0-level spells have base DCs of 19 and 9th-level spells DCs start at 10. If anything that's making them less powerful. (Which I'm not confident is a solution, but the point is that I'd rather increase early saves and reduce late saves before I increase saves across the board since obviously that would make casters into gods.)
With a 1st level wizard at 20 INT and spell focus, IE slightly but not overly optimised, you can be putting out colour sprays or greases with a save DC of 24 when your opponents have saves in the +0 to +5 range. This is not making wizards less powerful as the majority of an adventuring career is at low level.
At higher levels the saves will drop off sharply, forcing all wizards to move to non save DC spells -- which I think you wanted to avoid in the first place, right? They have enough options by this point that it probably doesn't hurt them too much unless they try to focus on it (enchanters probably become terrible).
So, I don't see how this would help all that much, sadly. I think the solution really is 'use heighten'. Any more than that and the maths starts to get really fiddly.
I think the solution really is 'use heighten'. Any more than that and the maths starts to get really fiddly.
Again, Persistent Spell is much better for reducing chances of making a save.
Not to mention that, like, the reason spell DCs taper off is pretty simple. At the end of the day, a wizard only has so much stamina. After getting the DC all the way up like three, four times in a day it starts getting harder to get things quite that high--and by the end of the day he's tired and his DCs just want to cuddle.
|
|
Casters don't need to be more powerful.I've been mentioning things like reversing the DCs so that 0-level spells have base DCs of 19 and 9th-level spells DCs start at 10. If anything that's making them less powerful. (Which I'm not confident is a solution, but the point is that I'd rather increase early saves and reduce late saves before I increase saves across the board since obviously that would make casters into gods.)With a 1st level wizard at 20 INT and spell focus, IE slightly but not overly optimised, you can be putting out colour sprays or greases with a save DC of 24 when your opponents have saves in the +0 to +5 range. This is not making wizards less powerful as the majority of an adventuring career is at low level.
At higher levels the saves will drop off sharply, forcing all wizards to move to non save DC spells -- which I think you wanted to avoid in the first place, right? They have enough options by this point that it probably doesn't hurt them too much unless they try to focus on it (enchanters probably become terrible).
So, I don't see how this would help all that much, sadly. I think the solution really is 'use heighten'. Any more than that and the maths starts to get really fiddly.
1) I said "things like". If I did think that simply reversing spell DCs would work, then the actual implementation would be something like the DC being 10 + ability mod + 1 per spell level higher that you can cast. So a 5th-level wizard with 18 Intelligence (20 Int at 1st level isn't optimised? What the hell kind of overpowered games are you playing?! Standard 15-point buy you'd have to put all your points into Int, drop another score to 8, and pick a race with +2 Int. In fact, you can't get higher than 20 at 1st-level with RAW, and if that's not optimised, what the hell is? ...This is all rhetorical. Please don't reply to it.) would have a 1st-level spell save DC of 16 (10 + 4 for Int + 2 for casting 2nd- and 3rd-level spells).
2) I also said I wasn't confident that was a solution, regardless. Without optimization - which is antithetical to my personal view of how the game should be played or designed - this means that your most powerful 8th- and 9th-level spells will be practically useless against boss-type fights when that's the sort of situation that you'd most want to use such spells.I think the solution really is 'use heighten'. Any more than that and the maths starts to get really fiddly.Again, Persistent Spell is much better for reducing chances of making a save.
Yeah, you've said many times now. Probably the reason no one is bringing that up is that they are suggesting free Heighten Spell feats, and free Persistent Spell would be too much better. I don't like free Heighten Spell because A) I think the whole curve needs reworking, which Heighten Spell does nothing to change, and B) as has been mentioned a few times now, casters don't need free boosts.
I think the solution really is 'use heighten'. Any more than that and the maths starts to get really fiddly.Again, Persistent Spell is much better for reducing chances of making a save.
You'll note I said the same thing too - but I think a free persisent is probably a bit much.
1) I said "things like". If I did think that simply reversing spell DCs would work, then the actual implementation would be something like the DC being 10 + ability mod + 1 per spell level higher that you can cast. So a 5th-level wizard with 18 Intelligence (20 Int at 1st level isn't optimised? What the hell kind of overpowered games are you playing?!) would have a 1st-level save DC of 16 (10 + 4 for Int + 2 for casting 2nd- and 3rd-level spells).
Now your wizard is basically forced to use the same 3-4 spells for the rest of his career if he wants to focus on spells with saves, because the DCs for his new levels are abysmal and the gap gets worse over time. The system should encourage you to use your new abilities at each level, not discourage you. But, as you said, you didn't think this was necessarily the solution either, so I'm probably being a bit critical.
The issue with wizard nerfs in particular is that the class is powerful but also mechanically quite tight - it is effective, flavourful and has a lot of options. The hardest thing about nerfing is that you want to reduce the power of the class without reducing how enjoyable it is to play. I don't think anything here really achieves that. Generally I think the best way to balance the disparity in PF is to only control the most broken aspects (simulacrum, wish engines etc) and otherwise make lower tiers more effective, so that everyone can do fun stuff.
Somewhat tangentally: if your save focused wizards are starting with a 17 INT at level 1, we really are playing completely different games. If so, I posit wizards are probably totally fine if your games are low-optimisation and you really don't need to change anything at all.
Yeah, you've said many times now. Probably the reason no one is bringing that up is that they are suggesting free Heighten Spell feats, and free Persistent Spell would be too much better. I don't like free Heighten Spell because A) I think the whole curve needs reworking, which Heighten Spell does nothing to change, and B) as has been mentioned a few times now, casters don't need free boosts.
a) Swap it for free craft scroll at level 1. Now it's a nerf, not a buff.
b) As for the curve: after looking at the math i'm not convinced there's an issue at all. High level saves are about right. If you really want to use a lower level spell, you just use persistent or heighten. Lower level spell slots really shouldn't be as or more effective. It's starting to look like a solution hunting for a problem.
|
|
Now your wizard is basically forced to use the same 3-4 spells for the rest of his career if he wants to focus on spells with saves, because the DCs for his new levels are abysmal and the gap gets worse over time. The system should encourage you to use your new abilities at each level, not discourage you. But, as you said, you didn't think this was necessarily the solution either, so I'm probably being a bit critical.
2) I also said I wasn't confident that was a solution, regardless. Without optimization - which is antithetical to my personal view of how the game should be played or designed - this means that your most powerful 8th- and 9th-level spells will be practically useless against boss-type fights when that's the sort of situation that you'd most want to use such spells.
~~~
It's starting to look like a solution hunting for a problem.
Except that I haven't got anything remotely resembling a solution.
Reply to your tangent: I forgot that 5th level means there'd be an ability increase, but 19 Intelligence wouldn't change anything in the equation so it wasn't important. I was going to just go with 13 Intelligence since that's the minimum to cast 3rd-level spells and, otherwise, Intelligence has nothing to do with the aspect I was trying illustrate. Still, my wizards do typically start with an Intelligence of 18 - occasionally 19 or 20 if I'm making an old Gandalf-y character - but I'm not uncomfortable starting with 16 Intelligence, either. But even aside from that, it's probably safe to say that we play very differently. While I very rarely play games above the mid teens in level (I'm sure this isn't uncommon), I do frequently make 20th-level character sheets just as a hobby and experimenting with the rules, however unlike what I imagine the norm for such experiments is, I do so to see how much I can bend the fluff or how closely I can represent a concept in my head. For example, this character was based on adapting this painting into a Pathfinder character. I once built another character around the concept of a robot intended to be a walking encyclopaedia. So yeah... That's the Pathfinder that I play.
Now your wizard is basically forced to use the same 3-4 spells for the rest of his career if he wants to focus on spells with saves, because the DCs for his new levels are abysmal and the gap gets worse over time. The system should encourage you to use your new abilities at each level, not discourage you. But, as you said, you didn't think this was necessarily the solution either, so I'm probably being a bit critical.2) I also said I wasn't confident that was a solution, regardless. Without optimization - which is antithetical to my personal view of how the game should be played or designed - this means that your most powerful 8th- and 9th-level spells will be practically useless against boss-type fights when that's the sort of situation that you'd most want to use such spells.
Fair, you do mention that - but why even suggest it if you knew it wasn't a constructive idea?
It's starting to look like a solution hunting for a problem.Except that I haven't got anything remotely resembling a solution.
Also fair, so it's kinda no solution to no problem at this point. The DC curve just isn't really a problem that you can't fix with already existing abilities (metamagic).
However, if you and your players really are super low optimisation, wizards are unlikely to be overpowered in your games --- so I think 10+ 1/2 CL plus ability mod really is a solution. If your players dont' exploit it, it isn't going to break the game.
|
|
Fair, you do mention that - but why even suggest it if you knew it wasn't a constructive idea?
In short, I brought it up the first time because it was closest to something I liked of all the options I could come up with, and I thought that maybe the suggestion would spark an idea in someone more adept with rules and crunch than myself.
I brought it up at the time that this chain of replies traces directly back to because of the influx of suggestions that simply boosted DCs across the board and people thinking that that was the sort of thing I was looking for which, in fact, closer to the opposite is true.
Anyway, it may not seem a problem to you, but I don't like the cognitive disconnect that the bare rules create in my mind. However, I do admit that I have a likely flabbergastingly absurd tendency to forget about metamagic, even though I do use it fairly regularly. Persistent and Heighten Spell do help patch that disconnect (I'm about 70% sure I said something to that effect somewhere in the middle of this thread), although I still think that the underlying mechanics are a bit... counter to my intuition. Magic being fantasy, of course, nothing really says it needs to obey anyone's intuition. At least not anyone in this reality.
Yeah, you don't need free Persistent or Heighten, you just need to use Persistent as is. Then your problems with lower level spells largely go away. Use 1st and 2nd spells for non-scaling stuff like invisibility.
I've thought about altering DCs or boosting low level DCs too, for the same reasons you've stated.
I've also tried boosting DCs to a flat 10+CL (or 1/2 Class level if you prefer. Or you could disallow/alter prayer beads, or you could call it 'base caster level' to be distinguished from effective caster level/etc) - and I think it worked ok, not great.
To add another angle to this discussion though, I think you should consider characters that *only* get lower level spells. Minor and Medium casters are screwed when it comes to spells with DCs, dramatically reducing their options for magical awesome.
If you imagine a hypothetical minor caster who gets something like Stinking Cloud - great and awesome control spell, but they get it at 10th level, 2.5 levels behind the curve. Add to that that their casting stat is a secondary stat that's going to be ~ -2-4 from the DC compared to the wizard. And they're sure not casting persistent spell.
I think medium casters frequently fall on the same side of the line (though to a lesser degree obviously) - which I think is a shame. They're already getting fewer spells, lower levels, slower progression. In my ideal world partial casters wouldn't have "weaker" magic, just more narrow magic, or fewer uses, etc.
Just random thoughts. I like the heighten idea though - or to rip off 5e or the 'undercast' able spells, if spells scaled with spell slot level. Actually really that might be what you want. And you sound like you don't like optimization too much as a philosophy. Perhaps yet another case of '5e is a better game'! =P
|
|
Sorry, but concerning 5e, the advantage system alone sets me in a very disfavourable stance towards it. That said, I've taken a look and there are some interesting ideas it introduces. Not much that - at this point - I could really see co-opting for d20/Pathfinder, though. Optimization in a ..."classical" sense may not be my goal, but I do like to optimize for... story. My aforementioned encyclopaedic robot was basically a munchkin but for Knowledge skills and languages known rather than any sort of combat role. It was an archivist bard (I made him before ACG was announced, and may take another look at the concept using that class) with 20 Intelligence. Er... Got off track. My point is that 5e's advantage system is far too simplistic to be cinematically or narratively satisfying, and at least from the look I took, it's too deeply ingrained to casually toss out in favour of the original system of circumstance bonuses and penalties.
Anyway, yeah, it probably would be better to have reframed this to focus on partial casters. Some partial casters (specifically those that get 6th-level spells and can cast from 1st-level) could probably get away with focusing on their caster stat, but most are designed to pull dual-duty or even focus more on something else like melee combat that requires they have better Str, Dex, and/or Con than full casters. Thinking on it, I haven't even noticed how often I just default to picking buff spells (or touch attack spells for bloodragers, magi, etc.) to populate my partial casters' spell lists.
Caster level boosters are of little concern. +1 CL is equivalent to wizards and clerics getting level 5 spells at level 9 instead of level 10. +2 CL is equivalent to spell focus.
This is a really confused paragraph. How is +1CL equivalent to earlier spell access? How is a +2 CL equivalent to a +1 DC on a single school of magic from spell focus? (Sometimes I'd rather than one, other times the other, but they aren't equivalent.)
Caster level boosters are of little concern... those don't constitute a good reason to not use caster level as equivalent to hit dice. Arnakalar mentions prayer beads, but pfsrd says those have absolutely nothing to do with caster level. Perhaps he's confusing them with a 3.5 item that does not exist in Pathfinder?
Re: Prayer beads - I honestly didn't even look it up. Just referencing
Caster level is extremely easy to boost - prayer beads alone is a +4 CL and thus +2 DC.
Sorry, but concerning 5e, the advantage system alone sets me in a very disfavourable stance towards it. That said, I've taken a look and there are some interesting ideas it introduces. Not much that - at this point - I could really see co-opting for d20/Pathfinder, though.
Advantage is whatever, but, are you looking at the magic system? Because that's what I'm referencing. I think it is easily the best modification/version of the Vancian/d&d magic system that has been created far and away.
Specifically what I was talking about was the idea that many or most spells can be 'overcast' (not a 5e term) - wherein increasing their spell level also increases their effect. e.g. Hold Person is a second level spell, that can be overcast as a 3+ level spell. Each spell level adds an additional target (and by PF, would increase the save. 5e already has saves based off the Caster, not on the spell level).
This would be an expansion of the 'heighten' spell idea, where you actually get something from the higher spell slot. For example a fireball might increase in size and damage as you heighten the spell. Polymorph spells and summon monsters could be a single spell that can be prepared or spontaneously heightened to the appropriate spell slot.
It would take significant reworking of the spell list though. I don't think it's realistic, but worth considering in theory.
|
|
I can't say concerning the first part, but I think that +2 CL = Spell Focus is concerning the idea of using +1/2 CL to boost spell DCs.
Thinking on it, I guess I'd like to take a moment to expand on the defense of +1/2 CL. At least to counter those who are talking about how easy it is to boost CL. Most of what boosts CL is magic items, and I believe I recall reading somewhere that Pathfinder was designed to minimize the need for "best in slot" magic items in order to allow for the more unique and flavourful items to find a use, as opposed to the standard belts of giant strength and cloaks of resistance. Additionally, pretty much any time Pathfinder talks about item availability it says that players shouldn't have carte blanche to purchase anything and everything that they want and that even settlements with the gp limit high enough for a certain magic item should roll a random chance for having such items. Personally, I run things so that the "boring" flat-bonus-to-stuff items are treated as items a step up in expense when using these rules, and I'll even admit to sometimes switching out the stat-boosting equipment a boss might have with more unique items for the party to loot from that boss. An enemy's headband of unshakeable resolve, for example, might become a headband of deathless devotion when the party picks it up. Mechanically speaking, of course. As far as the party knows, it was the same item the whole time.
Specifically what I was talking about was the idea that many or most spells can be 'overcast' (not a 5e term) - wherein increasing their spell level also increases their effect. e.g. Hold Person is a second level spell, that can be overcast as a 3+ level spell. Each spell level adds an additional target (and by PF, would increase the save. 5e already has saves based off the Caster, not on the spell level).
This would be an expansion of the 'heighten' spell idea, where you actually get something from the higher spell slot. For example a fireball might increase in size and damage as you heighten the spell. Polymorph spells and summon monsters could be a single spell that can be prepared or spontaneously heightened to the appropriate spell slot.
It would take significant reworking of the spell list though. I don't think it's realistic, but worth considering in theory.
While that seems like a neat idea, and I'm sure works fine for 5e, "significant reworking" is an understatement when it comes to trying to put it into PF. Obviously, the spells themselves would need to be rebalanced to take the ability to overcast into account. You'd probably be better off just trying to adapt 5e spells to PF rules. And that's before we even consider things outside the spells themselves that would have to change. IIRC, 5e doesn't have metamagic feats, so overcasting strikes me as being a replacement (one way or another) for that system. Pathfinder already has metamagic feats, and I don't see the two systems coinciding peacefully. But we can't simply nix metamagic feats, because wizards and sorcerers get them as bonus feats. You'd have to come up with extra feats to replace those options lost.