How often should you make a save?

I am looking for opinions here.

How often do you expect to pass your good save?

How often do you expect to pass your poor save?

I ask because looking at base numbers at 20th level, no gear, feats, minimum casting stat, no stat bonus on saves.
[+12 Save, +6 Save, DC 23]

A good save will pass 55% of the time.
A poor save will pass 25% of the time.

This doesn't look too bad until your start looking at how hard it is to boost your Saves versus how hard it is to boost your DCs.

I looked at a caster starting with a stat of 16, +5 from Leveling, +6 from stat booster and you get a stat of 27(+8 bonus) Making the new DC 27. If we go ahead and give the Saves a +5 Cloak of Resistance Saves become +17/+11.

The difference in the boost (+5 Save - 8 DC) shows the percentage shift (-15%)
A good save will pass 40% of the time.
A poor save will pass 10% of the time.

Even if you adjust the saving player for stats higher than 10 the shift will only be 5% for every bonus the character has. Meaning in order to "break even" the PC will need a 16 in a stat to get back to the pre-buffed saves.

So what do you guys think?

Thank you all for helping me think this through.

Exactly. This is actually one of the hot button topics you find as the game progresses.

Caster DCs scale faster than Saves will. This makes Casters immensely powerful as eventually they can always target a bad save with a deadly effect.

On the Saves side however you can add another +2 as most characters have Heroism going most of the time.

On the monster guideline chart, you find that your best save only have a 25% chance of success against a Monster's primary ability DC and a 60% chance against it's secondary abilities.

So unless you're a class with a cool ability that boosts your saves, expect to fail your saves the majority of the time whether they're your good or bad save. At high levels the math breaks down and it's one of the main reasons why PFS doesn't go past 12th level and APs don't usually reach to 20.

Heroism, as Scavion pointed out, is a good start. Another spell that a level 20 party will often have up on everybody is mind blank, which provides an additional +3 bonus against most Will saves beyond the Cloak +5. With standard Wealth by Level at level 20, you have the wealth of several small nations, so the PCs can also afford stat boosters for Con and Dex at the least (there's other good reasons to buy those anyway), and starting with 10 Con and Dex is pretty unrealistic.

From what I've seen, PCs usually make their saves. Even with a monster like Giant Gorgon, which has a Primary Ability DC of 23 (way higher than normal for its CR), the level 11 party's ninja made three consecutive saves against the breath weapon. I think he even only had a +2 cloak, which is unusually low for level 11 (with good hope and mass bear's endurance active), though a 1 level dip in Youkai Hunter Ranger after he got Invisible Blade grants him a +5 base save. And that was his weak save. He got pretty lucky though.

I think that is a fair analysis if you put minimal effort into increasing your save vs. a caster putting maximum effort into increasing his DCs.

Getting a cloak of resistance is the minimum. There is a lot more you can do than that though. Attribute increases, feats, and other magic items can all increase one or more saves.

Thanks Scavion!

With standard Wealth by Level at level 20, you have the wealth of several small nations, so the PCs can also afford stat boosters for Con and Dex at the least (there's other good reasons to buy those anyway),

I just don't think having multiple stat boosters is that common. It isn't in the games I have experienced.

Is it "normal" for PC to have multiple stat boosters in your games?

and starting with 10 Con and Dex is pretty unrealistic.

I think that is a fair analysis if you put minimal effort into increasing your save vs. a caster putting maximum effort into increasing his DCs.

I meant this as a base line. I do not expect everyone to have 10 in those stats. But it may be possible for a player to have 10 in one of those stats. So I started it there.

From what I've seen, PCs usually make their saves.

Thank you. This is what I am looking for.

But, I still wonder though how often you guys expect a PC to Pass a good save and poor save?

I really think that a PC should pass their good save 75% of the time and the poor save 45% of the time.

Thank you guys!

Thanks Scavion!

Rogue Eidolon wrote:

With standard Wealth by Level at level 20, you have the wealth of several small nations, so the PCs can also afford stat boosters for Con and Dex at the least (there's other good reasons to buy those anyway),

I just don't think having multiple stat boosters is that common. It isn't in the games I have experienced.

Is it "normal" for PC to have multiple stat boosters in your games?

This is another problem of the game. The game is designed around enhancement bonuses to stats and attributes being on every character of a certain level, and the game is full of 1st edition D&D grognards who despise magic marts and the though of having the ability as a player to choose your magic items. (not a criticism, I've been doing this since the 80s too.)

But with those items gone, your stats are not at the level they need to be to deal with CR appropriate foes, so you fail saves, miss, and get hit more than you should.

If you GM designs encounters around this it's ok. But most don't account for the lack of items, and things go badly.

I looked at a caster starting with a stat of 16, +5 from Leveling, +6 from stat booster and you get a stat of 27(+8 bonus) Making the new DC 27. If we go ahead and give the Saves a +5 Cloak of Resistance Saves become +17/+11.

The difference in the boost (+5 Save - 8 DC) shows the percentage shift (-15%)
A good save will pass 40% of the time.
A poor save will pass 10% of the time.

Math error: increasing your stat by 8 only increases the save DC by 4. +17/+11 vs a DC of 27 means:

Also your original %s were off as well. This represents a 5% improvement over the "unbuffed" stats.

"Good" saves advance at the same rate as DCs (+1/2 per level, where DCs increase by 1/2 HD or spell level, which is +1/2 per level for 9th level casters).

"Average/Poor" saves advance at +1/3 per level, which I guess keeps track with 6th level casters, but generally speaking can be assumed to fall behind steadily.

And generally speaking, it is cheaper to increase a save than a DC: Great Fortitude/Iron Will/Lightning Reflexes increase saves by 2, where Spell Focus or Ability Focus only increase DCs by 1. And a cloak of resistance has no counterpart for increasing DCs.

The trouble is that an attacker generally only has to focus on one ability score (spellcasting attribute for characters, Con or Chr for monsters), while a defender would need to invest into Con, Wis, and Dex to keep up.

Similarly, Iron Will, naively speaking, applies to 1/3 of saves. Spell Focus should only apply to 1/8 of attacks, except the part where a spellcaster gets to choose which spells they use.

Cloaks of resistance are the only thing keeping saves fair. If you assume you get cloak with a bonus equal to 1/3 your level, then average/poor saves keep up with spell DCs (again, except for the fact the wizard only has to focus on Int but your character has three defense stats), while the 'Good' save can steadily pull ahead.

Edit: That's not quite right, actually. A cloak with +1/3 your level means 'average/poor' saves effectively advance at +2/3 a level, slightly better than DC scaling, all other things being equal.

On the other hand, casters have some abilities to reduce the target's saving throws. Enervation is a classic tool, Witches have Evil Eye, and there is the very powerful Void Wizard school power Reveal Weakness.

Thanks Scavion!

Rogue Eidolon wrote:

With standard Wealth by Level at level 20, you have the wealth of several small nations, so the PCs can also afford stat boosters for Con and Dex at the least (there's other good reasons to buy those anyway),

I just don't think having multiple stat boosters is that common. It isn't in the games I have experienced.

Is it "normal" for PC to have multiple stat boosters in your games?

Not at most levels, no. Maybe a +2 ioun stone. But everything changes big time starting after level 16 or 17 or so. It's when the amount of money you're raking in really starts to get crazy, and that's when the multi-stat boosters start being more common simply because there's no other way to improve your stat boosters anyway. And since you picked level 20, then yeah, at level 20, pretty much everyone has +6 to all the stats they remotely care about, and the PCs can wish for +4 or +5 to ones they really like.

Now, if you bring your analysis back down to level 13 or so, then few people have the double boosters.

I have this working theory that the game should (it is not) be a coin toss on any event (50/50). There are two factors that change the fate, numeric bonuses and tactics.

Players should be able to counter numeric bonus on a 1-to-1 bases returning the field to 50/50.

Tactics is an X factor. Better tactics can overcome a numeric or dice disadvantage, but not likely both.

I have been mucking around in the gears and trying to play a little "Moneyball" with system. The more you know right?

I have this working theory that the game should (it is not) be a coin toss on any event (50/50). There are two factors that change the fate, numeric bonuses and tactics.

Players should be able to counter numeric bonus on a 1-to-1 bases returning the field to 50/50.

Tactics is an X factor. Better tactics can overcome a numeric or dice disadvantage, but not likely both.

I have been mucking around in the gears and trying to play a little "Moneyball" with system. The more you know right?

It sounds like you would be happier playing FATE. :P

Effects that increase DCs or lower your saves are more numerous than effects that increase saves.

So the game is tipped towards you failing your saves rather than succeeding them.

Math error

Your right.

increasing your stat by 8 only increases the save DC by 4.

I am actually increasing the stat by 11. 16 base +5 from leveling+ 6 from Stat booster = 27 which should be the +8 bonus DC 10+9th level spell+8 bonus should get me the DC 27.

A good save will pass 55% of the time
A poor save will pass 25% of the time

Also your original %s were off as well. This represents a 5% improvement over the "unbuffed" stats.

Your right here though.

My error was in the base save calculations.

I ask because looking at base numbers at 20th level, no gear, feats, minimum casting stat, no stat bonus on saves.
[+12 Save, +6 Save, DC 23]

A good save will pass 55% of the time.
A poor save will pass 25% of the time.

My good save should have been 50%.

My poor save should have been 20%.
6+17=23, (20-17+1)=4 *5% to get 20%

My bad.

SO MUCH AWESOME!

I have been noticing this.

And generally speaking, it is cheaper to increase a save than a DC: Great Fortitude/Iron Will/Lightning Reflexes increase saves by 2, where Spell Focus or Ability Focus only increase DCs by 1.

But Spell focus will apply to all spells of that school regardless of what save they attack. I know schools focus on saves, but is there enough cross over to worry about this?

Ability focus does increase by 2. It is limited to one ability, so at least it will only attack one save.

And a cloak of resistance has no counterpart for increasing DCs.

I noticed this and its absence actually started all this digging.

Cloaks of resistance are the only thing keeping saves fair. If you assume you get cloak with a bonus equal to 1/3 your level

It doesn’t keep up though. Since the cloak maxes out at +5 your saves fall behind post 15th level.

WHOA!

Ok, that is a headache for later...

Now, if you bring your analysis back down to level 13 or so, then few people have the double boosters.

I will see what I can put together.

All of this is awesome guys. But does anyone have a opinion on how often a person should make a good/poor save?

Thank you all!

A Good save should be made slightly more than 50% of the time. An average/poor save should be made less than 50% of the time.

That is, the game is more fun when the bad guys abilities work, and when the PCs abilities work. A fighter should never feel confident drinking poison, but he should feel safer than the wizard does.

A Good save should be made slightly more than 50% of the time. An average/poor save should be made less than 50% of the time.

That is, the game is more fun when the bad guys abilities work, and when the PCs abilities work. A fighter should never feel confident drinking poison, but he should feel safer than the wizard does.

Unless he has spent the last few years developing an immunity to iocane powder.

Touche.

A Good save should be made slightly more than 50% of the time. An average/poor save should be made less than 50% of the time.

That is, the game is more fun when the bad guys abilities work, and when the PCs abilities work. A fighter should never feel confident drinking poison, but he should feel safer than the wizard does.

I might agree if there were not quite such a plethora of abilities which either outright killed you or removed you completely from the game. Getting turned to stone, dazed for 6 rounds or plane shifted to hell on round 1 of a fight which lasts for two hours is really very tedious.

Also when thinking about the chance to have spells work you have to consider the impact of Persistent Spell. That 50% chance to save just dropped to 25%. That 25% just dropped to 6%. You also need to account for Dazing Spell which allows casters to impose very powerful control against any save without problem.

It's a double edged sword: When a PC casts finger of death, they should have a reasonable expectation that the thing they're pointing at will die. That means that monsters and NPCs should be able to expect their own abilities to work against the PCs. Maybe not all the time, but enough of the time that the ability is worth having.

Save for half abilities are generally good game design. You're happy when you make your save, but you don't feel like you completely wasted a turn when your target makes their save. That is, you fireball a room, every critter without Improved Evasion took some fire damage.

Save negates are the tricky ones: Make saves too infrequent and they're nasty when used against the PCs. Make them too frequent and they're a waste of time to use. (This is why many, but not all, save-or-die spells now have a partial effect of some damage or the like.)

Also when thinking about the chance to have spells work you have to consider the impact of Persistent Spell. That 50% chance to save just dropped to 25%. That 25% just dropped to 6%. You also need to account for Dazing Spell which allows casters to impose very powerful control against any save without problem.

Those aren't Core, and problems with them probably are more informative to flaws in those feats than with the save system as a whole.

andreww wrote:

Also when thinking about the chance to have spells work you have to consider the impact of Persistent Spell. That 50% chance to save just dropped to 25%. That 25% just dropped to 6%. You also need to account for Dazing Spell which allows casters to impose very powerful control against any save without problem.

Those aren't Core, and problems with them probably are more informative to flaws in those feats than with the save system as a whole.

Both Dazing Spell and Persistent are in the Core Line for Pathfinder.

Both Dazing Spell and Persistent are in the Core Line for Pathfinder.

They are in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game line, but what I mean is they are not in the Core Rulebook.

I expect to make my good save and fail my poor save just about every time after about 10th level...

However, that is why I also expect the resident cleric or wiz to make sure that I am protected from my weaknesses.

For example my fighter will make his fort saves but fail his reflex saves, I thus expect mass energy resistance to be used in a party by the time this becomes an issue. In this way things generally even out.

Scavion wrote:

Both Dazing Spell and Persistent are in the Core Line for Pathfinder.

They are in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game line, but what I mean is they are not in the Core Rulebook.

Not just the Game Line. They are in what the Developers consider the Core Line of Pathfinder. The APG is in the same category as the Core Rulebook.

Ross Byers wrote:

Scavion wrote:

Both Dazing Spell and Persistent are in the Core Line for Pathfinder.

They are in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game line, but what I mean is they are not in the Core Rulebook.

Not just the Game Line. They are in what the Developers consider the Core Line of Pathfinder. The APG is in the same category as the Core Rulebook.

You are entitled to that opinion. I am not required to agree, nor does it change what I said.

The save system, with its level-based save bonuses and DCs is laid out in the Core Rulebook and the first Bestiary. If a later book made that system more fragile, it is the fault of the later book, not the save-by-level tables in the Core Rulebook.

Save DCs are 10 + stat + spell level, which on a full caster goes up every two levels. Similarly, most class-granted save-based abilities (such as witch hexes) have a DC of 10 + stat + 1/2 level. Now let's take out the 10 from that, because that represents a (roughly) 50/50 shot on the d20 roll. So what the DC side of the thing is bringing to the table is Stat + 1/2 level.

By comparison, a good save is bringing Stat + 2 + 1/2 level.

So the good save has the leg up (2 points higher than DC), right?

Well, maybe. The stat for a save DC is almost always the highest stat. If we assume the 15pt Heroic NPC stat array that the game is built around, then (after racial adjustments), we're looking at a starting casting stat of 17, for a +3 bonus.

So for the good save to "break even", you need to have at least a +1 modifier in the relevant save stat. Do you have at least a 12 in all your save stats? Because if not, then your allegedly "good" save is failing more than half the time. I personally wouldn't call that "good".

Thus, we're left trying to fill in the gaps with items and feats. We can boost the save stats, but the caster can boost his DC stat, so that's a wash (at best; there's still the whole "3 save stats to one DC stat" issue). Save-boosting feats (ala Iron Will) are bigger than DC-boosting feats (ala Spell Focus), but then there's also Greater Spell Focus.

Ultimately, the only way to tip the scales and have your "good" save actually be "good" (i.e., typically succeeding more than half the time) is with save-boosting items, such as the standard cloak of resistance, or save-boosting spells, such as heroism.

I don't remember where I was going with all this, but now I feel upset about how people are pretty much required to have a cloak of resistance. :(

So for the good save to "break even", you need to have at least a +1 modifier in the relevant save stat.

The person making the save wins ties (a person with a +2 bonus in a save needs to roll a 10 to make a save with a DC of 12, winning 55% of the time). You 'break even' on a 10 in your defensive stats.

I'm nitpicking: Your analysis is correct. The Core Rulebook calls them 'Good' and 'Average' saves, but the truth is that they're really 'Average' and 'Poor'.

Scavion wrote:

Ross Byers wrote:

Scavion wrote:

Both Dazing Spell and Persistent are in the Core Line for Pathfinder.

They are in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game line, but what I mean is they are not in the Core Rulebook.

Not just the Game Line. They are in what the Developers consider the Core Line of Pathfinder. The APG is in the same category as the Core Rulebook.

You are entitled to that opinion. I am not required to agree.

This is not an opinion. I'm simply pointing out how the books are categorized together.

Another fact would be pointing out the PRD includes the APG, but not splatbook options.

My opinion would be that it is incredibly silly to call "Not a core option!" when we have the developer interpretation on what Core is and it is supported by the PRD.

Even if you ignore persistent spell the issue still exists simply within the CRB. By level 12 a dedicated caster can easily be looking at a casting stat of 30. With greater spell focus their best spells are looking at a DC of 28. Even within the CRB it isn't hard to have spells which target each save available, even if they are a level or two lower.

So spellcasters can easily be throwing out DC26-28DC spells routinely targeting a low save. Low save at this level is 4. Even with a +5 cloak, feat and 4 point stat bonus you are only at +15. Multiple feats, a 25k item and bonuses to stats you may not otherwise use is a big investment to still have a 60% chance of failure.

It is also worth bearing in mind this is assuming PC level wealth. NPC wealth levels are far lower and as a result their saves tend to be crap.

I'm not interested in debating semantics. Nothing I was trying to convey hinges on the meaning of the word 'Core'.
My point was merely that it would require time travel for the Core Rulebook and monsters printed in the first Bestiary to account for options introduced in the Advanced Player's Guide.
Therefore, any problems introduced by using the two books together are the fault of the later book.

I have not played with Persistent or Dazing spell enough to know if they are problems or not. +2 spell levels is steep. Using a 5th level spell slot to cast a 3rd level spell, even if you could force the save to fail outright, is pretty steep.

I'm not interested in debating semantics. Nothing I was trying to convey hinges on the meaning of the word 'Core'.

My point was merely that it would require time travel for the Core Rulebook and monsters printed in the first Bestiary to account for options introduced in the Advanced Player's Guide.
Therefore, any problems introduced by using the two books together are the fault of the later book.

I have not played with Persistent or Dazing spell enough to know if they are problems or not. +2 spell levels is steep. Using a 5th level spell slot to cast a 3rd level spell, even if you could force the save to fail outright, is pretty steep.

Monsters from the later bestiaries have the same problems though as they use the same maths to generate their saves. Have a skim through the bestiary 3 opponents and you still find many have some form of glaring weakness in their save array.

Therefore, any problems introduced by using the two books together are the fault of the later book.

It certainly couldn't be an issue with the system of the game itself that was presented by the earlier book. The latter book may have exasperated the problem, but it certainly didn't create it.

Nope. Clearly the game shouldn't have diverged at all from the CRB. Clearly the issue wasn't a problem when the game was just the CRB.

Except it was. Casters being able to pump their DCs beyond what creatures or players could handle has been a part of the game since the CRB. Easily.

I have not played with Persistent or Dazing spell enough to know if they are problems or not. +2 spell levels is steep. Using a 5th level spell slot to cast a 3rd level spell, even if you could force the save to fail outright, is pretty steep.

Magical Lineage can offset a level for a key spell and the lesser rod of persistent spell is fairly cheap. Also dropping a persistent level 3 control spell is almost certainly going to be better than a level 5 spell. Persistent stinking cloud has a far better chance of working than baleful polymorph as rolling twice reduces the chance of a save far more than increasing the DC by 2.

Run the numbers:

If you have a 80% chance of success:

Persistent changes it to 64%
+2DC changes it to 70%

If you have a 50% chance of success:

Persistent changes it to 25%
+2DC changes it to 40%

If you have a 20% chance of success:

Persistent changes it to 4%
+2DC changes it to 10%

Dazing is just bonkers. 3 spell levels is steep but you can attach it to spells which don't allow SR and/or which target any save.. Nothing is natively immune to dazing, not undead, not plants, not oozes, not golems and there are very few ways to remove it.

Even if you ignore persistent spell the issue still exists simply within the CRB. By level 12 a dedicated caster can easily be looking at a casting stat of 30. With greater spell focus their best spells are looking at a DC of 28. Even within the CRB it isn't hard to have spells which target each save available, even if they are a level or two lower.

So spellcasters can easily be throwing out DC26-28DC spells routinely targeting a low save. Low save at this level is 4. Even with a +5 cloak, feat and 4 point stat bonus you are only at +15. Multiple feats, a 25k item and bonuses to stats you may not otherwise use is a big investment to still have a 60% chance of failure.

It is also worth bearing in mind this is assuming PC level wealth. NPC wealth levels are far lower and as a result their saves tend to be crap.

I'd be interested in seeming your math for how a spellcaster has 30 in their casting stat at level 12. I'm sure it's possible, but I'm curious how much of your resources you're investing in it.

Let's also assume that you can guess with perfect accuracy what your target's good and bad saves are.

The average/poor save line is supposed to be more likely to fail. Let's look at the 'good' save. (I am calling it 'good' because that's what the book calls it, not because it is actually good.) Good save at level 12 is +8. Let's max stuff out because you maxed out your caster's DCs: +5 cloak, an 18 in the stat after magic, and the appropriate save boosting feat. That's +19. That makes your DC 28 spell 60% of the time (needs to roll a 9).

(Yes, in practice you won't have an 18 in every save, and a level 12 character is likely to have a +3 or +4 cloak instead, and might not have invested in a feat for their saves. But not every caster will have invested everything into their DCs, either, and that's why I want to know how much you had to spend to get there.)

Nope. Clearly the game shouldn't have diverged at all from the CRB. Clearly the issue wasn't a problem when the game was just the CRB.

I'm not saying the Core Rulebook is perfect. I'm just trying to narrow down where the fault, if any, exists.

Except it was. Casters being able to pump their DCs beyond what creatures or players could handle has been a part of the game since the CRB. Easily.

Great. Let's talk about that. Persistent Spell doesn't prove that casters can pump their DCs too high.

If you have a 80% chance of success:

Persistent changes it to 64%
+2DC changes it to 70%

If you have a 50% chance of success:

Persistent changes it to 25%
+2DC changes it to 40%

If you have a 20% chance of success:

Persistent changes it to 4%
+2DC changes it to 10%

This ignores that the higher-level spell also has a stronger effect.

I'd be interested in seeming your math for how a spellcaster has 30 in their casting stat at level 12. I'm sure it's possible, but I'm curious how much of your resources you're investing in it.

Starting stat of 19-20.

Admittedly the latter is considered cheesy by some so lets dispense with it. Instead lets use an Arcane Bloodline Sorcerer who adds +1DC whenever he casts a spell with metamagic which should be all of them so it is a wash. Or we could make him Sage bloodline with the 16k Robe of Arcane Heritage for +2DC to an entire school. Or Fey for +2DC to all compulsion spells.

Let's also assume that you can guess with perfect accuracy what your target's good and bad saves are.

This is generally not difficult to do. Knowledge skills will let you identify the type of creature and honestly if you see a big giant most players will know not to throw fort saves. Looks like a spellcaster, best avoid will. Dual wielding daggers, avoid reflex. Looks like a cleric, target reflex.

(Yes, in practice you won't have an 18 in every save, and a level 12 character is likely to have a +3 or +4 cloak instead, and might not have invested in a feat for their saves. But not every caster will have invested everything into their DCs, either, and that's why I want to know how much you had to spend to get there.)

The issue is that it is much easier for the caster to invest everything into their DC's because increase their casting stat also increases their number of spells per day which is important to them. Beyond that we are looking at a couple of feats in spell focus which directly contribute to actually making your primary "thing" work.

It is much harder to heavily invest in the save boosting stats as their are three of them and you may not have much use for, say Dex, as a platemail wearing cleric.

And bear in mind this is just talking about low to mid levels. When we hit level 15+ spell perfection comes online and everyone else may as well go home.

This ignores that the higher-level spell also has a stronger effect.

It does have a more powerful effect but in practice does that matter. Nauseating a spellcaster for the duration of the fight is likely to be as effective as turning them into a squirrel. Trapping a golem in a persistent aqueous orb they have a 0.25% chance of escaping is far more effective than any other level 6 spell you might throw at them and can be done using level 3 slots with a fairly cheap rod.

18k for a +6 headband. You are a caster so you will pick Create Wondrous Item if you have any sense.

I really wish that the stat-booster items had caster-level limits the same way that the amulet of natural armor and the other +X items do, because it would reduce things like this. Craft Wondrous Item should let you get effects for less gold, so that you can have more different bonuses, not just make the one bonus bigger. I'll also point out that means that this bonus won't be any bigger at 16th level.

The issue is that it is much easier for the caster to invest everything into their DC's because increase their casting stat also increases their number of spells per day which is important to them. Beyond that we are looking at a couple of feats in spell focus which directly contribute to actually making your primary "thing" work.

It is much harder to heavily invest in the save boosting stats as their are three of them and you may not have much use for, say Dex, as a platemail wearing cleric.

Yeah. Your maxed out caster might have weak saves of his own (since he clearly didn't put any point buy into Con/Dex (or Wis, if he isn't a cleric/oracle.) But the real root of the problem isn't the scaling, it's that spellcasters can disproportionately invest in a single stat, while everyone else has to spread their stats around.

One other nitpick: Sorcerers are behind by a level in spell progression, which is effectively a -1/2 on their best saves, on average.

Great. Let's talk about that. Persistent Spell doesn't prove that casters can pump their DCs too high.

20 point buy(Standard play, roughly equivalent to 4d6 drop the lowest)

DC 17 base. 5th Level spell brings it up to 22. Spell Focus and GSF brings it up to 24. A CR10 creature has a 45% chance of success if it's their good save. Bad save? 25%

Playerwise, you have a +7 base if it's your good save, possibly a +3 Cloak of Resistance and maybe a +1 or +2 if you luckily have points in that stat.

That's an excellent analysis.

Also when thinking about the chance to have spells work you have to consider the impact of Persistent Spell. That 50% chance to save just dropped to 25%. That 25% just dropped to 6%. You also need to account for Dazing Spell which allows casters to impose very powerful control against any save without problem.

It's also not as bad as it looks: Persistent Spell increases the slot required by two, that's at best 4 levels later so:

A 50% chance with your good save against a normal spell of that slot becomes a 70% chance against the Persistent spell: -2 DC, +2 save bonus. Net probability of making your save after the Persistent spell: 49%

A 25% chance with your weak save would become 40% against the Persistent spell: -2 DC, +1 save bonus. Net probability = 16%

Dazing spells will be saved more often than unmodified versions as well: A 30% increase in the chance of saving if against a strong save, 25% better chance if against a weak save. (Going from 50% to 80% chance of saving means that 60% more saves will be made, going from 25% to 50% chance of saving doubles the number of saves that will be made.)

So, everything else being equal, a Persistent spell is barely better against a strong save but will be failed about a third more often (16/25 = 36% change)when it hits the target's weak save. <Disclaimer: Not everything will be equal: 6 level casters will get less value out of it; casters who had an odd casting stat when they could first cast the unmodified spell will gain an extra DC when they can first cast the Persistent version; casters will possibly be more likely to have increased their save DCs with something else in the meantime; defenders should have upgraded their cloak of resistance in the meantime as well; metamagic cost reducing traits and Spell Perfection really throw a wrench into the math as well, the list goes on and on. But (aside from the last part,) these factors impact all spells, not just Persistent spells.)

Yeah. Your maxed out caster might have weak saves of his own (since he clearly didn't put any point buy into Con/Dex (or Wis, if he isn't a cleric/oracle.) But the real root of the problem isn't the scaling, it's that spellcasters can disproportionately invest in a single stat, while everyone else has to spread their stats around.

Maybe, it very much depends on the class and how many stats they can dump. Wizards can easily start with charisma and strength 7. Neither stat does very much for them. This allows 14 dex/con and 11 wis with 20 int. Charisma based sorcerers are in a different position as dumping wis, con or dex is a bad idea. Sage sorcerers work like wizards. Casting focused oracles and clerics have similar issues although nature/lunar/lore oracles can dump dex.

Some people while moan about how dumping strength means str poisons and shadows will kill you and they will, at early levels. But they will do the same thing with str10. Cha 7 is bad if you want to go down the face route but there are traits now that solve that, clever wordplay and scholar of philosophy almost entirely compensate for low base charisma.

At mid levels of course the other issue which arises is that casters get all sorts of ways to shore up their defences so they can cover their weaknesses.

All of this really does assume PC level wealth. NPC's with NPC wealth are generally awful as opponents if your group contains even one competent spellcaster.

A 50% chance with your good save against a normal spell of that slot becomes a 70% chance against the Persistent spell: -2 DC, +2 save bonus. Net probability of making your save after the Persistent spell: 49%

Your maths is wrong, you have included a 20% swing in save chance rather than 10%.

Take a level 10 sorcerer choosing between persistent stinking cloud and baleful polymorph. Lets assume a charisma of 26 and greater spell focus. The save DC of the cloud is 23, the polymorph is 25.

Let us assume his target has a fortitude save of +12. An unmodoified cloud has a 50% chance of success, the baleful polymorph 60%. Adding persistent to the cloud increases the chance of success to 75%.

Ross Byers wrote:

Great. Let's talk about that. Persistent Spell doesn't prove that casters can pump their DCs too high.

20 point buy(Standard play, roughly equivalent to 4d6 drop the lowest)

10th Level Wizard. Starting Int 18 with +2 Racial already added in. 2 Level increases. Headband of Vast Intelligence +4 or Fox's Cunning.

DC 17 base. 5th Level spell brings it up to 22. Spell Focus and GSF brings it up to 24. A CR10 creatures has a 45% chance of success if it's their good save. Bad save? 25%

Playerwise, you have a +7 base if it's your good save, possibly a +3 Cloak of Resistance and maybe a +1 or +2 if you luckily have points in that stat.

Except that there's a trait for every save, which adds +1 or even more. And there's a feat for every save. And, you have biased this by spending 16K on offense, but only 9K on defense- let's make it 16K for the cloak, to be fair.

The issue of having DC's outpace saves only occurs if you play rocket tag or glass cannon.

As for "maybe a +1 or +2 if you luckily have points in that stat." the main issue is with Fort & Will. You are a idiot* if you don't have at least a 12 in CON, preferably a 14. Martials will have more. A Popular guide to Fighters suggest a 14 in both CON & WIS. Iron Will is a Blue or Best feat. Throw in a +1 trait, and you have +5, and a +4 cloak. Now, at 10th level your good save is +16.

Poor save? +12.

Not even counting Heroism, which @ 10th level is just about a norm. That's a +18 or +14. Even with Spell Focus and GSF it's a 55% chance of making that save.

Just don't; build a glass cannon and there's no issue.

And Spell Focus and GSF? For what school? Hmm, Enchantment? Many monsters are immune. Evocation? Hit Point damage is the easier to soak.

* Of course, playing a Elric or Doc Holiday type with a 7 con for RPing is possible, but very very rare.

The problem is the exact opposite from what this forum is describing. Boosting saves is to easy at high levels and casting spells with DCs get resisted too often. DCs essentially plateau at a very low level and remain almost the same throughout the life of the caster.

My level 15 character in my last campaign (Level 1 to Level 15 until a party member wiped the group) had the following saves:
Fort +21 +5 vs. cold weather, Ref +21, Will +19, +2 vs. Fear; +2 vs. Enchantment

Bear in mind this is not talking about PvP.

Except that there's a trait for every save, which adds +1 or even more.

NPC's don't get traits.

The issue of having DC's outpace saves only occurs if you play rocket tag or glass cannon.

Nope, it applies as a natural outgrowth of offence being easier to boost than defence because offence is largely based on one stat while defence is based on 3.

As for "maybe a +1 or +2 if you luckily have points in that stat." the main issue is with Fort & Will. You are a idiot* if you don't have at least a 12 in CON, preferably a 14. Martials will have more. A Popular guide to Fighters suggest a 14 in both CON & WIS. Iron Will is a Blue or Best feat. Throw in a +1 trait, and you have +5, and a +4 cloak. Now, at 10th level your good save is +16.

Nowadays Dex is just as important because dazing spell turns every damaging spell into a potentially crippling status condition.

A +4 cloak costs 16k. A level 10NPC with NPC wealth has somewhere between 10-12k total wealth to spend on everything. Your average CR10 monster doesn't even have that. The CR10 guardian nagas saves for example are 9/12/12, pretty terrible. A CR10 encounter should have about 5k in treasure.

Not even counting Heroism, which @ 10th level is just about a norm. That's a +18 or +14. Even with Spell Focus and GSF it's a 55% chance of making that save.

For PC's yes, for NPC's and monsters no it isn't.

And Spell Focus and GSF? For what school? Hmm, Enchantment? Many monsters are immune. Evocation? Hit Point damage is the easier to soak.

Your best bet is generally conjuration. It has control spells targeting all three saves and damage dealing no SR spells you can attach dazing to which also target all three.

The problem is the exact opposite from what this forum is describing. Boosting saves is to easy at high levels and casting spells with DCs get resisted too often. DCs essentially plateau at a very low level and remain almost the same throughout the life of the caster.

This is almost entirely the opposite of being true. Look at the numbers posted already. At high levels the mixture of spell perfection and metamagic make it almost impossible not to force enemies to fail saves. By level 15 you can easily be throwing spells with saves in the mid 30's. Look at the various CR15-18 creatures in the bestiaries and see how well they will be making those saves.

Scavion wrote:

Ross Byers wrote:

Great. Let's talk about that. Persistent Spell doesn't prove that casters can pump their DCs too high.

20 point buy(Standard play, roughly equivalent to 4d6 drop the lowest)

10th Level Wizard. Starting Int 18 with +2 Racial already added in. 2 Level increases. Headband of Vast Intelligence +4 or Fox's Cunning.

DC 17 base. 5th Level spell brings it up to 22. Spell Focus and GSF brings it up to 24. A CR10 creatures has a 45% chance of success if it's their good save. Bad save? 25%

Playerwise, you have a +7 base if it's your good save, possibly a +3 Cloak of Resistance and maybe a +1 or +2 if you luckily have points in that stat.

Except that there's a trait for every save, which adds +1 or even more. And there's a feat for every save. And, you have biased this by spending 16K on offense, but only 9K on defense- let's make it 16K for the cloak, to be fair.

And Spell Focus and GSF? For what school? Hmm, Enchantment? Many monsters are immune. Evocation? Hit Point damage is the easier to soak.

Or I spent nothing since you can just cast Fox's Cunning. Conjuration can target all three saves.

The mockup I did was hardly a glass cannon. I only put a 16 in Int outside of the racial bonus. That easily leaves a 14 Con and 14 Dex while letting you dump Charisma for more stats if you wish. Wizards are stupidly easy to make.

Your aggressive post doesn't make much of a point. Ultimately your will save on that Fighter is a 50/50 kills your party.

That reflex save on your Fighter? Still pitiful and gets him locked out of the fight till your party can save you.

+9 Base with +4 cloak and 14 Dex. +11 with Heroism added in. So he has a 35% chance to avoid being taken out of the fight. 40% if you used your second trait for a +1 Reflex.

And you end up spending 16k more than the Wizard who casts Fox's Cunning on himself. And you had an ally spend a Heroism or purchased one.

Amazing comparison. Well done.

Quote:

A 50% chance with your good save against a normal spell of that slot becomes a 70% chance against the Persistent spell: -2 DC, +2 save bonus. Net probability of making your save after the Persistent spell: 49%

Your maths is wrong, you have included a 20% swing in save chance rather than 10%.

Take a level 10 sorcerer choosing between persistent stinking cloud and baleful polymorph. Lets assume a charisma of 26 and greater spell focus. The save DC of the cloud is 23, the polymorph is 25.

Let us assume his target has a fortitude save of +12. An unmodoified cloud has a 50% chance of success, the baleful polymorph 60%. Adding persistent to the cloud increases the chance of success to 75%.

Yeah, I see where you're coming from. If the choice is between casting s Persistent Stinking Cloud and a Baleful Polymorph, the difference is going to be 10%. I was thinking about the effectiveness of Stinking Cloud at level 5 and Persistent Stinking Cloud at level 9. I was thinking in terms of how does the Persistent metamagic feat change the effectiveness of a spell and you're talking about how a Persistent spell compares to other spells of the same level. Your method is more germane to this discussion.

In that case, yes your basic math is right: 50% for a spell of that level verses 36% verses a Persistent spell for good saves and 25% verses 12.5% for a weak save are correct.

Persistent Spell is a definite increase in the probability that an opponent will fail their save compared to another spell of the same level, no question. Fair enough.

Now, back to the original premise: Saves can be pumped up to the point where it is likely that the target will fail. What is that probability and does it matter?

I haven't done the math on saves the way I have on physical damage, but from looking at the rough estimates in this thread, I'm thinking they may be on par. The expected life of an CR=Level monster against a full BAB meleer is 2-3 rounds, using the numbers from the iconics and NPC Codex characters. That's the same expected value of an enemy with around a 50% chance to save against a save or die. That would put casters on par with martials when it comes to straight out killing things. It's also reasonable to believe that an optimized caster can drive the probability of an enemy saving far lower than 50% in the same way an optimized martial can increase their damage output to far more than 50% of their average enemy's HP pool.

I think it's reasonable that casters who focus on killing or otherwise eliminating their enemies should be roughly as good as martials at the same. It would also be reasonable for martials to be just as good as casters at controlling the battlefield. If the average damage dealer can be expected to kill an enemy in two rounds, it's reasonable for the average caster to kill the same enemy with a SoD 50% of the time, give or take a little bit due to the differences in mechanics and usability.