I disagree and agree. I personally feel that the saves for all of the spell-like abilities for classes should be:
DC = 10 + Cha Bonus + Primary Casting Bonus + Spell level
For example, a Lightning Bolt cast by a Evoker with an Int of 16 and Cha of 13 has a DC = 10 + 1 + 3 + 3 = 17, one higher than a normal Lightning Bolt cast by the Wiz.
This still leaves in the idea that some of the power of these abilities are based on personal power, but lets them be less weak than normal. In fact, these basic tenets of a Wiz or Clr's art are in fact stronger, as one would think central, limited abilities would be.
Cha. Spellcasters need some incentive to not always choose stats that go "casting stat is biggest, then Con or Dex, then Con or Dex."
|
I know DCs for specialist school powers are CHA based because they are spell like abilies, but at higher levels, when opponents have save boni of +15 or +20 or +30, the school power DC will be too weak to be important. Wiz usually are weak on Cha.
CHA based DCs weaken the school powers in higher level games substantially.
Question to other playtesters:
do you agree or not that DCs should be INT-based?
Just reply by "int" or "cha" to give Paizo something of a larger vote.
I see the logic in keeping them Cha based - simply due to the precedence set by 3.5 D&D in regards to the rules on spell-like abilities; so in keeping with tradition, this is fair.
however, sometimes tradition needs to be debunked in favor of pragmatism - and your point that the DCs would just be too low is something I've already considered and thought that it should be Int based instead.
So I see both sides - but if I was the final say I think i would lean just a little towards Int.
That being said - I think Gnome's idea for adding the two together is an awsome idea.
Robert
My favorite Character is the Wizard...but Charisma.
The SLA's don't need a bump. Wizards, sorcerer's, and clerics need flavor and the ability to overcome a few hitches that screw them up like running out of spells... not added muscle.
I understand balance-wise why they use Cha for the DCs, but not flavor-wise. I think I must address two things about this:
(1) First off, these are supposed to be the most basic tenets of a Wizard or Cleric's abilities; they are supposed to be the powers that have developed so clearly from arcane or divine training they require little effort. Why, then, should they often be weaker than the actual spells? If they are the basis upon which a specialist builds his flavor, why should they be typically less effective than other, possibly non-related spells? They shouldn't, which is why they should be a little stronger.
(2) Cha need not be a dump stat. These domains and specialties are, as I said, the basis of the character's power. Even with my formula, to make a more powerful character, you should still put Cha up there near the top of abilities. Also, no one says you have to "pimp yo character;" you could make a Charismatic Wizard anyways, even without the Cha bonus to spell-likes; nothing prevents or even really discourages it.
I still believe that the spell-likes should be given my formula; it gives these basic parts of the Wiz or Clr's power more oomph.
They are spell like abilities, so it should be based on charisma. For anyone worried about the power of some of the school powers, its a good balance that to "maximize" their effectiveness, the wizard has to assign a good score to charisma, which will likely short him somewhere else.
I see the logic in keeping them Cha based - simply due to the precedence set by 3.5 D&D in regards to the rules on spell-like abilities; so in keeping with tradition, this is fair.
The rogue's SLAs are Int-based.
Cha. Spellcasters need some incentive to not always choose stats that go "casting stat is biggest, then Con or Dex, then Con or Dex."
In practice, I thin what you'll find is that instead of making sacrifices to their primary stat to make secondary abilities viable, players will make sacrifices to their secondary abilities to make their primary stat more viable. You can see this with paladins: the only stat they don't use for anything is intelligence, so you'll find that oftentimes spellcasting gets dumped (allowing wisdom to be low).
More importantly, the "incentive" model only really works for point buy. If I roll my stats and I get something like 18 16 15 12 11 8, I shouldn't have to choose between hit points, AC, and class abilities. That array will produce a very good first-level wizard, or a fairly pathetic first-level monk.
Single-stat dependency is the refuge of "one good stat, five s#&$ stats" rolls. Any class with serious requirements of more than one of strength, intelligence, wisdom, and charisma needs consolidation.
Personally, I'd have to vote for Int. It's not so much because those powers will be naturally that much more powerful, but from where in-game the powers are supposed to come from. I'm currently operating under the assumption that the powers that the specialist schools gain are a result of the intense learning (Intelligence) that the specialist goes through rather than the powers manifesting themselves through force of will (Charisma) as the specialist gains levels.
Personally, I'd have to vote for Int. It's not so much because those powers will be naturally that much more powerful, but from where in-game the powers are supposed to come from. I'm currently operating under the assumption that the powers that the specialist schools gain are a result of the intense learning (Intelligence) that the specialist goes through rather than the powers manifesting themselves through force of will (Charisma) as the specialist gains levels.
Ding-ding-ding!
First of all, the plural of bonus is bonuses, not boni. If we were speaking Latin, which we are not, the plural would be bones (Boh-Nehs). But as we speak English, the plural is bonuses. Saying Boni makes you sound like a pretentious jack.
Anyway, giving Wizards a little taste of Multiple Attribute Dependency is all to the good. Forcing Wizards to have two stats up to keep their Save DCs in line puts them on the same footing as Fighters who need to keep up their Strength and Dex. I approve.
But importantly, not all the spells even allow saves. And that's a problem. If you're trying to instill a need for MAD on Wizards, you should check to make sure that the spells actually allow a Savingthrow if Save DCs are the only thing being modified.
Either you should comb through all the powers to give effects which allow saves every couple of levels, or you should introduce additional Charisma dependent bonuses (uses/day and such), or more likely both.
-Frank
|
|
I vote for Charisma.
I absolutely do not vote for +Int and + Chr.
These are not supposed to be the 'best' powers of the wizard. These are supposed to be a flavorful alternative to using up precious spells. They should not be the best ability, otherwise there would be little use in actually using the spells available, which should be the primary attraction of the wizard class.
1) Not all of the specialist abilities require a saving throw. This just makes evokers more powerful at the expense of transmuters, etc. It is unnecssary.
2) Charisma is the rule for spell-like abilities. No reason to change it for one thing.
3) This does make sense. I don't know if any of you have trained in something to the point where it becomes 'automatic'. Your body knows what to do and you do it without any conscious thought? Essentially you are performing something you've mastered without regard to actually thinking - thus intelligence is not the best stat. Since Charisma has something to do with how much power you can draw from yourself, this is doubly appropriate, since there is nothing currently representing a wizard's ability to 'pull magic from himself'. Under the 3.5 rules, magic is almost like a completely external force, and the wizard is able to direct it - requiring nothing from the wizard himself but knowledge of the gestures, etc. The real problem with that is that if it just requires the right gestures and words, anyone should be able to memorize a 9th level spell even if they don't understand it or learn any other spells - they just go through the motions and it works. Tying some aspect of spell-casting to personal power is EXTREMELY appropriate.
I think school powers should use Charisma for DC.
I think even wizard spells should use Charisma for DC (and Intelligence for the number of spell per day). This should be generalized to every spellcasting class (Charisma for DC and Intelligence or Wisdom for spells per day).
Spellcasting classes are strong because they are SAD. This change would put them more in line with MAD classes.
I think school powers should use Charisma for DC.
I think even wizard spells should use Charisma for DC (and Intelligence for the number of spell per day). This should be generalized to every spellcasting class (Charisma for DC and Intelligence or Wisdom for spells per day).
Spellcasting classes are strong because they are SAD. This change would put them more in line with MAD classes.
I think school powers should use INT for DC.
I thought they were called "specialists" for a reason. The CHA base makes their "specialist" abilities all but useless. I don't support adding INT and CHA together for it, but these are abilities they've learned well enough to know and always have at their fingertips. They are abilities mastered through diligence and practice. They aren't songs made famous, nor are they powers innate to the blood.
True!
Allow me to repeat myself:
Although SLAs traditionally use Charisma for their DCs, the rogue's SLAs use Intelligence. Thus, the arguments based on "streamlining" cannot be used unless those SLAs are changed.
Allow me to repeat myself:
Although SLAs traditionally use Charisma for their DCs, the rogue's SLAs use Intelligence. Thus, the arguments based on "streamlining" cannot be used unless those SLAs are changed.
Amen, brother.
Charisma
While I would like the casters to made to want more than just one stat I don't think the SLA DC is the correct place to do it.
I think it should be an Int based DC because they are supposed to be something you are actually going to want to stick around for.
Given a character with a +3 intelligence bonus and +2 charisma bonus lightning bolt SLA would have a DC of one lower than the spell they cast. That is not much. Also I looks as if you don't get your specialist bonus to your SLAs so it also deals two less damage.
But at this level the character probably would have a headband of intellect +2. The DC is then two lower than their spells.
If they spent feats on it they also might have a Spell Focus and a Varisian Tattoo boost the caster level and DCs of their spells by one.
So at 6th level I'm thinking that if they were to acutally cast the lightning bolt instead it would deal two more damage, the caster level would be one higher, and the DC would three higher. And that was if the caster had a good charisma to begin with.
The difference in DCs will only grow as you get higher levels.
I thought the point of these powers was to make it so characters don't jump into a prestige class at the first oppertunity. If so, I'm not sure why evoker's would stick around to get class abilities that have DCs five lower than your normal spells, I think they would likely be back looking for some presitige class that gives them neat abilities rather than continue to get the stuff from the Wizard class that they will likely never use unless they run out of their other spells. And staff charges.
Int
As others have stated, my feelin is that the SLAs should be as good, or better, than casting a spell of the same level.
I wonder if sorcerer's "special abilities" (whether they are bloodline-related or what not) will be INT or WIS based? If wizards are being stretched out over stats, then sorcerers should be to, right? What about cleric's abilities? Shouldn't those be INT-based to to require another stat if wizards have been given this treatment?
Honestly, if you want to get rid of wizards depending on one single stat, how about removing the limitation of having to have a high Int to cast higher spells? If that restriction wasn't in place, my current wizards would probably have started with a 14 in INT instead of 16. Fighters and rogues are not limited to using their primary abilities by lower primary stats, so why should spellcasters?
I thought it was a typo and my group has been operating with it being Int for mages. Cha is the one for Sorcerers, unless that is changing.
Personally, I say Int, not Cha. Cha makes no sense for a MAGE.
From a purely game mechanics standpoint, if the SLAs are replacing bonus spells, which used Int for wizards, then using Int for the SLAs as well would make sense -- unless the SLAs are ignificantly better than the bonus spells were, enough better to compensate for the lack of flexibility AND the loss of higher save DCs.
A Wizard in 3.5 got an extra spell per day per level of their choice, and this spell had a DC based on Int.
In Alpha, the Wizard gets a spell like ability that is not open to what the Wizard wants to have, but is a forced choice. That's the first strike against this approach. Then we're telling wizards that that spell like ability they are getting is going to have save DCs based on their Cha. So, a spell like ability that you may not even want or intend to use gets a lower save DC.
As a Wizard... why would I bother using the spell like ability? Wouldn't using Acid splash at will be more effective (no save!) rather than do something you know the save will be made?
How high will a Wizard in this system make their charisma? 12? 14? Maybe. Is that +2 v. a +6 for Int. going to make the save even a challenge for most monsters? As it is, I tend to not cast spells with saves because most monsters will make their saves. It's a waste, even going off my highest ability score. Going off of a mediocre ability score is just a wasted action.
Then there's the simplification question. I know going into a game session that all my level 1 spells have a save DC of X, or if I have spell Focus, I can bump certain spells up one or two. Using charisma for the spell like ability is just one more different save DC to keep track of. This will slow gameplay.
Then there's the fact that in game it doesn't make sense. Wizards gain spell casting abilities through study. spells per day is based on Int.! The Archmage gets spell like abilities... the saves aren't based upon Cha., but are based upon Int. Why? 'cause the Wizard gained the ability through study and learning and practice. It's not a natural force of will thing. Charisma just doesn't fit.
unless the SLAs are ignificantly better than the bonus spells were, enough better to compensate for the lack of flexibility AND the loss of higher save DCs.
They're not.
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Totally on board with Charisma. In Pathfinder, ability scores are a little higher than before, so nothing is lost.
SLAs are extra abilities, and they should be thought of as such. Wizards already might be out of control with spell-like abilities and charater feats every other level and a d6 hit die.
The game should reward ecelectic ability scores,and also not punish people with mediocre scores. As is, it's okat to have a 14 Int and 14 Cha as your highest scores, rather than a 16 Int and 12 Cha.
I cast infinity votes for Charisma.
But there are some things I take issue with regarding wizards. I am looking for the right thread or email address to post that.
Totally on board with Charisma. In Pathfinder, ability scores are a little higher than before, so nothing is lost.
SLAs are extra abilities, and they should be thought of as such. Wizards already might be out of control with spell-like abilities and charater feats every other level and a d6 hit die.
Ok. If I think of them like extra abilities then most wizards will not care about them. The will just go back to working toward prestige classes like the Arch Mage because the extra abilities they would get from being a better wizard suck a lot more than what they get from the prestige classes.
For prestige classes to be less appitizing the base classes abilities have to be stuff the characters care about.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
But if the SLAs are treated for wizard level instead of caster level, there's lots of incentive. How many prestige classes offer you a free chain lightning, a free Greater Spell Focus for all spells, or a free Persistent Monster Summoning IX? Those are fantastic abilities, and you shouldn't get them unless you ignore prestige classes and ride wizard all the way up.
Or, in the case of my malconvoker, play up to 29th level. : }
Moreover, treating them as spell-like abilities means their mechanics have completely changed and you need to keep the rules the same. If create undead can be used as a standard action, or charm person can be activted as a swift action three times per day, they ought not have their saved DCs, if any, raised out of some perception that wizards aren't as powerful as other classes.
A persistent Summon Monster IX, at level twenty is not fantastic, it is a joke. You get one biggish monster following you around every day. But it's not biggish by 20th level standards. Seriously, how many people honestly care if you have an extra Barbed Devil more or less at 20th level?
The Cohort of your Cohort can can greater planar binding. If you want an army of Barbed Devils doing your bidding, you can just do that. Barbed Devils are CR 11, in 3.5 rules a 20th level Conjurer wouldn't even get XP for defeating one.
-Frank
I'm voting CHA
Getting a free chain lightning SLA means nothing to a character when the DC is already four behind the chain lightning they can cast (that is if the Charisma of the character was reasonable good at first level).
Those single abilities are neat, but alone they do not compare well to prestige class abilities. You need the other abilities from the wizard and if they have horrible save DCs they will just ignore them and treat them as if they were not there.
A few points I feel are important for the topic:
1) The wizard doesn't really need a boost in strength.
2) SLA's are typically CHA based and a change in that is a variation.
3) The key attribute doesn't matter for many of the spells on the lists. Even with the difference in ability, lets not forget that the wizard has the innate ability to jack his CHA an extra 4 with a 2nd level spell for an occasion where it would be crucial to have(unless of course it's of a restricted school, and even then he could carry around a scroll or wand with no penalty).
4) The ability to cast spontaneously is a feat the wizard couldn't pull previously. This adds versatility to an already versatile class...which is a benefit. I'm not sure the benefit needs to be more than that.
That was... odd. The board posted the response in the wrong thread, just because I looked at this one briefly.
Anyway, definitely charisma. Some classes need their MAD reduced, but some definitely need it increased. If you only need one stat to be viable, you're going to be dominating the rest of the party out of the gate.
I agree that having some use for charima or wisdom for a wizard would be nice, but I do not think that attaching it to the DCs will do much as people will just avoid taking later levels of wizard.
|
|
A few points I feel are important for the topic:
1) The wizard doesn't really need a boost in strength.
But does it need a reduction in strength? Because that's what this is when compared to Specialization.
2) SLA's are typically CHA based and a change in that is a variation.
See above in several posts where other classes have INT-based SLAs.
3) The key attribute doesn't matter for many of the spells on the lists. Even with the difference in ability, lets not forget that the wizard has the innate ability to jack his CHA an extra 4 with a 2nd level spell for an occasion where it would be crucial to have(unless of course it's of a restricted school, and even then he could carry around a scroll or wand with no penalty).
So you now want the wizard to memorize a second level spell so he can effectively (though likely still not as effectively as if he'd just memorized the spell normally) cast a spell that he could have added to his spellbook one level earlier and has likely been casting at a greater effectiveness for a whole level before the school "bonus" kicks in? For the spells that don't require saves, you're right, it doesn't matter. But for the ones where it does matter it's been made very much weaker than being simply able to cast one spell of my choice from my specialty each day.
4) The ability to cast spontaneously is a feat the wizard couldn't pull previously. This adds versatility to an already versatile class...which is a benefit. I'm not sure the benefit needs to be more than that.
This isn't spontaneous casting... if you compare it to specialization from stock 3.5, basically these rules force a specific use of a spell, one level later, with a lower save (when relevant).
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Well, now I am really bothered. I thought I was pretty dead on with my previous beliefs, but I didn't realize specialist wizards didn't get an extra spell at every level.
So, currently, only 1st level SLAs that deal damage will be on par with the lost first level spell, and it's downhill after that.
I still say all SLAs should use Cha to keep homogeny, but I am less firm than I was.
I also waver on the caster level/wizard level issue. Without the bonus spell at every spell level, I am very likely to multiclass, so I think I prefer the system to reward that.
I'm notmoved by the rogue argument. Sorry fellas, one 0-level and one 1st-level SLA should never be a reason to justify a change n the game.
I am trying not to believe that wizards just took a big step down in Pathfinder. Maybe the extra feats and HP merit this change. Wizards are pretty cool already,and based on higher ability scores, they will cast a few more spells with higher Intelligence. Maybe I am okay with this.
Maybe one helpful fix is for Spell Focus to apply to spells as well as SLAs.
Having a persistent MS 9 is awesome. I don't get that someone wouldn't get that. Conjurers benefit from summoned creatures in that they absord damage, have their own special abilities, afford the player extra actions, and the summoned can be hopped up on magical cheese. The barbed devil example is awesome. He deals more damage over the course of the day than any spell you can cast, he soaks up a lot of damage, he's a great grappler, he never has vision issues. With a few choice spells, he's one bad hombre and bodyguard. And then there's Augmented Summoning or Imbued Summoning. If the ninth level summoned monster list wasn't helpful to 20th level characters, it'd have better monsters on the list. And this one you get all freaking day.
I do think, though, there should be a better list for epic characters. If I cast Monster Summoning 9 as an 11th-level spell, I don't think that's so useful.
My 2 cents is now up to 3. Or down to 1. Sorry.
I just want to point out, for anyone unaware, that Spell-Like Abilities do not require *any* components. Not Verbal, Somatic, Material, XP, or Focus components.
That means Lightning Bolt while tied, gagged, and naked.
That means Maze'ing the T Rex grappling you in its mouth.
That means Dispel Magic when you're suddenly silenced.
SLA's are definitely not any sort of weakening.
Charisma based SLAs.
I just want to point out, for anyone unaware, that Spell-Like Abilities do not require *any* components. Not Verbal, Somatic, Material, XP, or Focus components.
That means Lightning Bolt while tied, gagged, and naked.
That means Maze'ing the T Rex grappling you in its mouth.
That means Dispel Magic when you're suddenly silenced.
SLA's are definitely not any sort of weakening.
But do those situations come up often enough that the player's won't just jump into a prestige class because they think that the SLA lightning bolt would be much less useful than the abilities they get from the prestige class.
Dispel magic and maze are good with this since they don't require saving throws, however I'm still not conviced that lightning bolt with a lower save is going to be anywhere as effective as the dispel magic when the character gets it.
First of all, the plural of bonus is bonuses, not boni. If we were speaking Latin, which we are not, the plural would be bones (Boh-Nehs). But as we speak English, the plural is bonuses. Saying Boni makes you sound like a pretentious jack.
Second of all, if you are going to be a pedant, there the burden of actually being correct.
Bonus is a first/second declension adjective, so the Boni is correct for the plual. Bona (neuter plual) would be even more correct for the sense being used. Only Fifth declension nouns end in -es (for both singular and plural).
Mike