Director of Narrative
|
I haven't played many Wiz/Sorc's in my 3.5 experience, but have done a decent run of cleric a time or two. Now that I'm DM'ing, one thing I have found is that a party can beat most saves from my NPC's. Example: last game out of 11 spells cast against the party (or individual members) only 4 worked. What am I doing wrong? I spend the feats and ability points as fairly as I think I can, but maybe I'm just suckin'.
Any DM's who are highly proficient with casters want to give me some tips other than fudging the dice for story flavor?
Any DM's who are highly proficient with casters want to give me some tips other than fudging the dice for story flavor?
Part of the problem is the fact that we're talking about NPC casters who can only affort a +2 Int/Wis/Cha booster item, while the players can affort a +3 cloak of resistance. This can't really be helped, aside from massively revamping certain parts of the game (which I am doing, but will not get into as you are probably in the middle of a campaign).
One thing that you can make sure to do right is to use the right spells. Arcane casters, more than divine, can pick and choose spells that target the PCs' poor saves. When you pit your NPC caster against the PCs, he/she shouldn't be blasting the rogue and disintegrating the fighter, but rather disintegrating the rogue and blasting the fighter. It may seem like metagaming but any arcane caster worth his salt learns which spells work better against which foes.
True, and if your party has much of a reputation at all, of any kind, the NPC spellcasters are likely to ask about them, send spies, and even assassins and minions to fight them. Whether they succeed or not, it illustrates the party's strengths and weaknesses, which gives the enemy time to prepare an ideal setting AND spell-list to combat them.
As a player of sorcerers and a DM against magic heavy parties, this is the deal that I found out that works well.......
Use will saves v fighter types and rogues, and fort saves v the others.
Of course if your players roll as badly as I do, then the point is mute.
My 11th level Fiend Sorcerer 2nd lvl monk was ambushed with a spell (forget the name) that cut him off from using any magic!
Well that really sucked! So my character pummeled the enemy wizard to death! Monk really works well with sorcerer.
First, limit access to items which boost saves and items which boost ability scores(and boost saves)
As for your spellcasters, try the spells such as fox's cunning they will temporarily boost the spellcaster's DCs by 2
Don't forget to give them spell focus and greater spell focus feats. I personally boost NPCs scores sometimes also.If the PCs all start with 18s in their main spellcasting scores so should the NPCs.
Look for spells that give automatic half damage with a successful save or have no save.Use a conjurer on occasion, the creatures can't be saved against unless the PCs have spell resistance.
And last don't overlook rewarding the PCs for giving emphasis to buying items which boost saves instead of boosting armor/weapons. Sometimes its nice to let them walk over a spellcaster because of being well prepared.They should'nt be punished for it.Hope this helps.
If it's saving throws that are the problem then go for rays and touch effects, if the PCs are the sort to load up on heavy armour for AC then you shouldn't have too much of a problem hitting them and a good number of rays/touch spells don't offer a save or still have a decent effect if the PCs make their saves. Ray of Enfeeblement is a good 1st level example.
On the topic of limiting magic items (i rarely allow players to by wonderious items) and i normally give my players special magic items (i make them up) so they don't get over-powered but npc spellcasters should not be as powerful as PCs (and remember the rules dont need to be final) and for me they rarely are.
On the topic of limiting magic items (i rarely allow players to by wonderious items) and i normally give my players special magic items (i make them up) so they don't get over-powered but npc spellcasters should not be as powerful as PCs (and remember the rules dont need to be final) and for me they rarely are.
Really? I hate that NPCs suck compared to PCs. I've completely reworked magic items and the wealth guidelines so that NPCs are on par with PCs, without dirupting game balance.
Really? I hate that NPCs suck compared to PCs. I've completely reworked magic items and the wealth guidelines so that NPCs are on par with PCs, without dirupting game balance.
How did you acomplish that? I like NPCs that are stout...
Really? I hate that NPCs suck compared to PCs. I've completely reworked magic items and the wealth guidelines so that NPCs are on par with PCs, without dirupting game balance.How did you acomplish that? I like NPCs that are stout...
My solution is lots of one use items like poitions and oils. Most villians are only going to be around long enough to die so it is no great loss if they are using up a whole lot of one use items.
I'm running the Shackled City adventure path, and I've noticed that everyone makes the saves. Everyone. If I have monsters or NPCs cast magic on them, they make the save. If they cast spells on my monsters or NPCs, they make the save. It nearly renders any kind of magic with a save pointless unless you up your primary stat every single time, buy items to up it further, and take all the DC-boosting feats. And then you're just like every other 10th level wizard with a periapt of intelligence and Spell Focus. I think it takes a little of the variety out of making a spellcaster if they can never pump stats not directly related to spellcasting or take feats other than magic feats.
I've thought about making the save DC for spells 15 + spell level + relevant modifier to see if that helps any to make magic more interesting and scary. Thoughts?
I think simpler is better. Making the base DC 12 or 15 + spell level + relevant ability modifier makes magic much scarier and more effective without unbalancing the game. Just add 2 or 5 to all save DCs.
Should this just be with magical abilities, or supernatural as well? I know there are a lot of complaints about poisons being too weak.
An alternate is to slow the save progression rate, but again, this is not at all a simple task just because of the sheer volume of retooling and recalculating involved. Simpler is better. I'll probably test the DC 15 + (all the other stuff) first. If it's too strong, I'll drop it to 12.
|
Also, if you don't want to have to spike the base DC saves, but still want to up the stats that make the save tougher, try adding a template that would add to the challenge.
Again, if you want the game to run a little slow as far as progression, but want to make it a little hard on the PCs, add lich or something of the like.
There are plenty of templates out there that add to stats just enough so that the saves are raised just right. I've even seen a Book of Templates somewhere.
If you don't want to go for templates, just go monster. A lot of the monsters in the MM have stat adjustments, while still keeping the challenge relatively small.
I'd be careful about tinkering too much with the save DC progression or the save progressions. I think it's much better to think tactically. Don't just throw spells at people--use the right spell for the right person. It's not supposed to work every time--but if you hit the tank with a will-save effect it should be about 50-50, assuming your NPC is properly buffed and equipped. I haven't had too much problem with using my NPC spellcasters to good effect, up to as high as 14th level (I've not DM'd a group above that level). The party tank should be able to shake off a bit of poison or a disintegrate spell most of the time--it takes an unlucky role or multiple tries to do him in that way. The party cleric should rarely succumb to a dominate person spell. The party rogue should be able to dodge fireballs and dragon's breath almost all the time. And the game becomes a bit less fun if death effects work 75% of the time--you spend all your time rolling up new characters and all your treasure on true resurrections.
I think if you raise the DC progression to a 12 or 15 base, you'll speed up combat drastically (in terms of rounds per encounter), make the outcome much more dicey if the battle involves spellcasters, and make spellcasters much more powerful in relation to other classes. But you won't necessarily have more fun playing the game. I think it's much better to view the frequent inefficacy of magic as a challenge to overcome (both for DM and players of spellcaster PCs), and to develop effective tactics for improving your odds. This will sharpen your mind and increase your playing enjoyment.
To be honest, the PCs are meant to succeed at their saves frequently - not always, but frequently. After all, they're the heroes. As DM, it's your task to challenge the PCs, not defeat them.
Note, however, that PCs fail more often when making their "poor" saves. Clerics are bad at Reflex, Fighters are bad at Reflex and Will saves, and so on. A clever wizard will know that wizards generally are weak in body but strong in mind (low Fort, high Will) while for fighters the reverse is true, and rogues are strong in neither but are nimble enough to dodge area effects.
I don't think everyone should be making their saves frequently though. It renders spellcasters ineffective- after all, the fighter of equal level may not do quite as much damage per action taken, but he's not gonna run out of times he can swing his sword per day either. Every game I've played in and the one I'm DMing in right now, the arcane member of the party usually casts about 1/3 of their spells per day in a given combat, then has to revert to his longbow which is near pointless considering his base attack bonus. I guess I've just heard "OK, save for half, oh look, I didn't roll a 1, I make the save" too many times.
Using the right spell on the right person is a valid point, but when it's a dragon or an erinyes devil or something you can't really say which is the right spell without metagaming, and even then their weak save is usually a +10. Why bother casting offensive spells that allow saves then? In fact, why not do away with the whole evocation tree?
As a player of sorcerers and a DM against magic heavy parties, this is the deal that I found out that works well.......
Use will saves v fighter types and rogues, and fort saves v the others.Of course if your players roll as badly as I do, then the point is mute.
My 11th level Fiend Sorcerer 2nd lvl monk was ambushed with a spell (forget the name) that cut him off from using any magic!
Well that really sucked! So my character pummeled the enemy wizard to death! Monk really works well with sorcerer.
I agree about the find out weaknesses technique. Generally I mix up my spells against the enemies I know will take a while. Knowing your enemys weakness is not metagaming and is a great way to think about what your doing instead of throwing around fireballs and disentegrates. Good sorcerers/wizards should come prepared with spells to defeat all types of enemys, this should be no problem for wizards and easy for sorcerers. When you know a fight will be a huge one don't be afraid to try all types of spells against foes and find out their weaknesses and then exploit them. Usually it will take me a while until I can find out an enemy's weakness. And even if the enemys can make saves you gotta think about how much damage a disentegrate could do compared to 3-4 hits a round with great swords.
Enemys being able to make saves is to balance the big differences between casters and tanks. However, I don't know too much about making PC's more vulnerable to magic. If you think it is fair though and if it makes the game more fun increasing DCs by all means you should change it. Ask your players what they think about it.
Oh and Ray'Kal, does that monk sorcerer combo work out. I might try it, once I get epic spells and sorcerer levels are no longer relevant. Only two more lvls to go. Tell me how that multiclass worked out though.
~GtG
So something like Fly + Invisibility + Wand of Fireballs isn't enough for you? In my experience, individual spells might not be that impressive, but when they are coupled together in ways that create effects that are not typical to the adventuring experience they really shine. A sorcerer with Ray of Enfeeblement can devastate a party's tanks, Touch of Idiocy can do the same for their casters. An illusion and a big pit full of spikes can be huge as well.
You really have to rely less on the mathematics of spells and look more at how to use them to their potential. No one with years of training and an 18 intelligence is going to be a "Yay! Fireballs! Yaaaaaaaay!" kind of mage.
Wand of Fireballs? God, I hate wands. The save DC is the LOWEST IT CAN POSSIBLY BE. By the time you can afford one of the things, the enemies you fight will all make the saves, and with energy resistance and often spell resistance, the vaunted Wand of Fireballs is reduced to a PoS. Thus, any type of magic item other than staffs that I use, as DM or player, is the type that doesn't allow a save. If it does allow one, prepare the spell if you want any chance for it to work.
Spending several rounds to figure out someone's weakness is all well and good, except that most combats last about three rounds or so, meaning that you don't actually have time to experiment before the fighters kill the thing without you, leaving you wasting spells per day with no effect, so when you get to the big battle that last long enough to try different things, you don't have the spells left anymore to do that!
And, I agree with Padan Slade. Quite often, you get the "I have to roll a 1 to fail this" thing. Casters have a very limited number of spells per day before they are down to piddle. Not fighters! Fighters and their ilk can keep it up all day, and to tell the truth, have a much easier time getting throuh AC and DR than a wizard through saves, SR, and energy resistance. Not to mention, with things like power attack, they can do damage that almost, if not actually, exceeds spell damage. The only advantage a Fireball has over a greatsword-wielding brute at this point is that it can basically deliver one (average) swing worth of damage to everyone in 20 feet. Whoop-de-doo.
And as you go up in number of dice, the more often you're going to get a number towards the middle of the range. They balance themselves, and while this often saves you from sucky damage, it certainly is nothing impressive, either.
Touch of Idiocy? Hmm, who do you use that on? Spellcasters? Hmm, what type of save is it? Will? Hmmm, what is the good save of the only people you would use that on? I think you see the problem.
Same thing with spells that lower saving throws of their targets- they have to fail the save for it to work! If the thing's saves are low enough to fail the save on this spell, don't bother using it. If the thing's saves are high enough to merit the use of the spell, don't bother using it, since it will save against the spell, unless you cast it five times, at which point the fighters have it so beaten down why even bother casting, provided you actually have any spells left to use on the target after casting so many of these "debuffs."
And, yes, what about the things with all good saves? I don't have a problem with monks being near-immune to magic because of their saves, and the same with dragons but with energy immunity and SR thrown in. That's their point! But at high levels, almost everything has saves high enough across the board, coupled with SR and energy resistance, that magic is about useless, which relegates the mage to a party-buffer, and if you wanted to spend all your time doing that, I'm betting you would have played a bard, so now you aren't having nearly as much fun with your character.
The easiest thing to do here is give save DCs a boost. Maybe just for spells, maybe inculding spell-like and supernatural abilities, or possibly for all special abilities. I'd be inclined, myself, to make it just for spells. Spell-like and other abilities are usually powerful enough as-is, since the game designers jack around with the monsters' abilitie scores to get the saves as high as they want them!
Will that make wizards more powerful? Yes. I personally don't think it's unbalancing. Even if it is, so what? Fear mages! Magic is meant to be powerful and awe-inspiring.
Of course, I'll talk with my players about this, but I'm itching to give upped spell DCs a trial run.
Touch of Idiocy? Hmm, who do you use that on? Spellcasters? Hmm, what type of save is it? Will? Hmmm, what is the good save of the only people you would use that on? I think you see the problem.
A minor point, but a telling one; Touch of Idiocy allows no saving throw. Having played a necromancer wizard into epic levels in the days before I became primarily a DM, I know firsthand how devastating magic and spellcasters can be, with the proper dedication. Study your spells, know what your magic can do, and make every single spell you cast have as much impact as possible by choosing the right spells. Any save-or-die spell without a decent secondary effect is next to pointless against a BBEG, for example. Use the other spells, like low-level save-or-die and area-effect direct damage spells, for the minions. Arcanists are, after all, only supposed to be one fourth of the power of the traditional adventuring party. Wipe out the minions and weaken the BBEG, but realize that it's up to the fighter, with flanking support and SA from the rogue, to take it toe-to-toe with the Evil Baron, or what have you. Every class gets their time to shine, as does every type of spell. Figuring out what spell to use, when to use it, and on which foe, is the real challenge of playing a mage.
I've mentioned it elsewhere, but give this a try:
Change the DC of /all/ spells to 10 + 1/2 Caster Level + Ability Mod. It gives a significant boost to those lower level spells, and thus encourages their use at all times, and at 20th level your base save DC will be 20 + Ability Mod - a slight boost for the upper level spells. Plus, in epic levels, your spells won't become utterly worthless due to all the uber high save bonuses.
Finally, allow any (or most) effects that boost effective caster level to alter the spell DC, and let 'em stack. Few of them are above a +2, so it shouldn't unbalance things.
|
I agree with Peruhain. I wouldn't make changes to DC's too because the system seems balanced. What hasn't been considered yet in the discussion about saving throw-DC's is the fact that in many groups the PC's have more than average ability-scores from the beginning of the campaign. When their lowest score in any ability is 14 and they even gain more points by leveling-up or using magic items it is no wonder the DC's seem too low.
That's what high ability-scores are there for... This seems to be due to weird point-buy systems or the decision of many DMs to allow more than average points because "the campaign will be a killer" :)...
Several years back i had a DM that was very serious about the starting ability-scores being rolled and not point-bought. The outcome was that we had, at best, average characters. The campaigns we played under this DM were very challenging, scary, deadly and lots and lots of fun. Sure, the characters that survived leveled up too and upgraded their scores with items, but this progression seemed to be slower because it started at lower level. When a character begins the game with 18 and advances it is no wonder they seem unbeatable from the beginning on. And sometimes they really are...
Too summon up, i'd try to solve the problem at character creation. Sure, this is an useless advice when you're in the middle of the campaign. I wouldn't change something in a running campaign. I'd end it or give it a break and then try something new with the considered changes.
Btw, this is one of the most interesting threads i stumbled upon recently. Well done...:)
Having played a necromancer wizard into epic levels in the days before I became primarily a DM, I know firsthand how devastating magic and spellcasters can be, with the proper dedication. Study your spells, know what your magic can do, and make every single spell you cast have as much impact as possible by choosing the right spells.
I have to agree. I suspect most of the "problem" people are having with saving throws stems from their imperfect grasp of spellcasting tactics.
Save DCs were generally higher in 3.0, with Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus bumping the DCs by +2 each, for example. They were deliberately lowered in 3.5 for good reason.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Here's my answer:
New Feat (General): Invocative Spellcasting
Prerequisites: Caster level 5th, Spellcraft 8 ranks
The spellcaster may now empower his spells by spending an entire round invoking words of power before releasing the energy. If a spellcaster uses this feat, he must declare it at the beginning of a round before initiative is rolled. If the caster is using this feat, he automatically goes LAST in the initiative order. Any spell he casts with this feat (which cannot have a casting time longer than 1 full round) now takes the entire round and the spellcasting provokes attacks of opportunity (no casting on the defensive). When the spell is cast, the caster makes a Spellcraft check (DC 15). If it succeeds, the DC for his spell is increased by 1. For every 10 points over 15, it is increased by another 1. Therefore, a wizard using this feat who gets a 25 on the Spellcraft check gains a +2 to the save DC for his spell on top of any other applicable bonuses to save DCs. It should be noted that use of this feat is tremendously obvious as it surrounds the caster in shimmers of light and glowing sigils and requires verbal and somatic components, even if the spell itself would not normally require them. If the Spellcraft roll fails, the spell is lost as if it had been disrupted by damage.
I agree with Peruhain. I wouldn't make changes to DC's too because the system seems balanced. What hasn't been considered yet in the discussion about saving throw-DC's is the fact that in many groups the PC's have more than average ability-scores from the beginning of the campaign. When their lowest score in any ability is 14 and they even gain more points by leveling-up or using magic items it is no wonder the DC's seem too low.
That's what high ability-scores are there for... This seems to be due to weird point-buy systems or the decision of many DMs to allow more than average points because "the campaign will be a killer" :)...
Several years back i had a DM that was very serious about the starting ability-scores being rolled and not point-bought. The outcome was that we had, at best, average characters. The campaigns we played under this DM were very challenging, scary, deadly and lots and lots of fun. Sure, the characters that survived leveled up too and upgraded their scores with items, but this progression seemed to be slower because it started at lower level. When a character begins the game with 18 and advances it is no wonder they seem unbeatable from the beginning on. And sometimes they really are...Too summon up, i'd try to solve the problem at character creation. Sure, this is an useless advice when you're in the middle of the campaign. I wouldn't change something in a running campaign. I'd end it or give it a break and then try something new with the considered changes.
Btw, this is one of the most interesting threads i stumbled upon recently. Well done...:)
I agree with you regarding the point buy. I allowed one that is way to high and I regret it know. For the moment I'm going to starve the PCs of treasure by trying to keep them about two levels below what is recomended but its an ad hoc solution that would have been better served by forcing the PCs to play characters with lower stats.
Wand of Fireballs? God, I hate wands. The save DC is the LOWEST IT CAN POSSIBLY BE.
Touch of Idiocy? Hmm, who do you use that on? Spellcasters? Hmm, what type of save is it? Will? Hmmm, what is the good save of the only people you would use that on? I think you see the problem.
1) If you have 20 charges in a Wand of Fireballs, are invisible, and flying, and the fighter makes his save every single time but can't see you or have any idea where you are, how is dealing 15-20 points of damage to each character per round a bad thing? Oh no, they all made their saves... but you get as many free attacks as you have spells, and then fly off to rest.
2) Touch of Idiocy is a touch attack, and therefore has no save. I think you see the problem.
Again, be creative, don't focus solely on the mathematics of an individual round or spell, and finally, READ WHAT THE SPELLS ACTUALLY DO.
Or even better, I'm an invisible wizard with a 20 Intelligence, so I Dimension Door to where the party is sleeping (I'm a wizard, so I know they're coming and I'm not nearly dumb enough to either engage them in a frontal assault nor wait for them to invade my domain) and either slit some throats or bring along some ogres with me, which will be great because no one will have armor, weapons ready to hand, or anything of the sort. Heck, with a partner (and I have partners, because I am smart), the invisibly kobolds I bring with me all have Silence cast on them, so when they steal everything and run off in the night no one can see or hear them.
Or hey, maybe I just cast Bestow Curse a bunch of times so that whoever can break the enchantment can't cast spells, and everyone else is reduced to garbage stats. Knock out the caster with Feeblemind and then go to work on the tanks.
Wizards are so ridiculously good in this game. They run into the same problem that monsters with high Int scores do: the people playing them aren't nearly as smart. Most people have such a videogame mentality that they end up ignoring the limitless possibilities that a wizard affords you.
Touch of Idiocy? Hmm, who do you use that on? Spellcasters? Hmm, what type of save is it? Will? Hmmm, what is the good save of the only people you would use that on? I think you see the problem.
And then, several hours later, as I was laying down for bed, I remembered writing this and thinking, "Crap. It doesn't have a save anymore. How big of an ass can I be?"
Sorry about that. I completely forgot that it got the same treatment as Ray of Enfeeblement, and is under the new 3.5 maxim of "Touch attack or save, not both."
2) Touch of Idiocy is a touch attack, and therefore has no save. I think you see the problem.
I was going to come down a little hard on you for this, but then I saw...
I completely forgot that it got the same treatment as Ray of Enfeeblement, and is under the new 3.5 maxim of "Touch attack or save, not both."
...so you're not the only one.
There is no rule that touch attacks don't allow saving throws. I don't even think there's a "maxim" to that effect (though I'm sure there are many, many touch spells that don't allow for saving throws).
Since just one example will disprove the "rule," I give you...inflict light wounds. There are certainly more.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
There is no rule that touch attacks don't allow saving throws. I don't even think there's a "maxim" to that effect (though I'm sure there are many, many touch spells that don't allow for saving throws).
I think there is a maxim with respect to Reflex saving throws for ranged touch attack spells - a spell should not have both. However, a ranged touch attack spell can require another type of save (e.g., the orb spells, which have (I think) Fort saves).
I'm not sure if this maxim appiles to non-ranged touch attack spells, but I would be surprised if it didn't.
I didn't actually mean an official declared policy in spell creation, but there are a few spells that used to require both touch and save (Ray of Enfeeblement and Touch of Idiocy jump to mind) and no longer do, which is obviously from a realization that unless the spell is particularly powerful (such as Harm) or the touch attack is very likely to succeed (such the BAB of a cleric using an Inflict spell), a spell shouldn't have both a save and a touch attack. If given a choice, I'd rather have to succeed on a touch attack (preferably ranged!) than allow a save, as I think they are much harder to resist typically.