|
Hey All,
One of the biggest things I heard people complain about with 3.0/3.5 when it came to spells and magic was the relative weakness of lower level spells at high level play because of static DCs. Using the core mechanics, spell DCs don't scale (without Feats, and even then it's only a one time boost). Yet, saving throws continue to increase with levels.
The effect for many spells that targeted high level opponents became pretty predictable. Unless the opponent rolled really low, they were probably going to save.
To scale DCs, I simply adjusted the mechanic slightly. The current formula is [spell's DC following the 10 + spell level + relevant ability modifier formula + any Feats]. Once that is set, only boosting ability scores (Fox's Cunning, the like) or reducing them (poison, ability damage, ect) would really change the DC for a spell.
However, if you want the DC of a spell to scale by level (effectively allowing spells to become more powerful as the characters become more powerful), you can use the following optional formula:
Method 1) 11 + 1/2 character's level + relevant ability modifier
Let's look at how they stack up for a standard 10th level Wizard (no special Feats) with an Int 18 casting a 5th level spell:
Standard 3.5 DC: 10 + 5 (spell level) + 4 (Int) = 19.
Method 1) 11 + 5 (1/2 character level) + 4 (Int) = DC 20. This is close to the original method, but yields a slightly more potent spell.
If we take a 1st level spell, however, we see the difference:
Standard 3.5 DC: 10 + 1 (spell level) + 4 (Int) = 15
Method 1) 11 + 5 (1/2 character level) + 4 (Int) = 20
Obviously, the highest level spells a character can cast for his caster level scale pretty evenly. However, a more powerful character (10th level) casting lower level spells (using Method 1) sees a more accurate representation of his command of magic/connection to deity.
So, what does everyone think?
The method I've seen proposed in the past was similar, but had some crucial differences.
1. Unless you are making a change to benefit multiclass casters, it's probably best set to caster level instead of character level. Meaning, a person gets better at magic when training in magic, specifically.
2. The formula I've seen is more like this: 10 + 1 for first level and every 2 levels thereafter (3rd, 5th, 7th, etc) as it matches the levels you gain spells better.
The difference is that instead of a DC of 14 (10 + 1/2 of 1 round down + 4 int) at 1st level, it's DC 15. This more closely matches 3e. Also, it increases at the same time as in 3.5e for the top level spells.
.
One last thing to keep in mind is that you eventually have a +1 boost by 19th and 20th level, since normally there is no 10th level spell slot, but you can go up to +10 from 1/2 caster levels (whether you start at 2nd or 3rd).
If you keep 11 + 1/2 caster level, you end up having 2 points higher than 3.5e.
I don't think improving the top end of the save DCs was the intent of this change, but it would become a possible unintended boost.
I like it.
BUT the only thing is, it's basically making spellcasters ALOT more powerful.
(ex: With Quicken Spell, casting your 'max' Save DC Colorspray/Sleep/etc on TOP of normal spell/action. There's a reason why Empower Spell raises the spell level.)
I don't know if casters need more buffs vs. Fighters.
It WOULD simplify things somewhat, since you'd only have one Save DC for all spells (or a secondary one for Domain SLAs)... Much easier than keeping track of your save DC for each spell level (along with SLAs) or calculating them on the fly... But like I said, it totally destroys balance.
This COULD be dealt with by reforming the Metamagic system:
Just remove the Feat requirement to Empower a spell. If you want to raise it's effective level (& save DC), just say so when memorizing it, and it uses a higher level spell slot. This seem inherently balanced, since you're giving up casting an actual higher level spell.
Metamagic like Extend, Enlarge, Quicken should still require a feat, IMHO.
|
|
The method I've seen proposed in the past was similar, but had some crucial differences.
1. Unless you are making a change to benefit multiclass casters, it's probably best set to caster level instead of character level. Meaning, a person gets better at magic when training in magic, specifically.
I meant caster level. Good catch.
2. The formula I've seen is more like this: 10 + 1 for first level and every 2 levels thereafter (3rd, 5th, 7th, etc) as it matches the levels you gain spells better.
It's really close, actually. I'd have to do the math and compare. Thanks.
The difference is that instead of a DC of 14 (10 + 1/2 of 1 round down + 4 int) at 1st level, it's DC 15.
That's why it's 11 (not 10) + 1/2 lvl + ability modifier.
This more closely matches 3e. Also, it increases at the same time as in 3.5e for the top level spells.
I'll have a look at this.
One last thing to keep in mind is that you eventually have a +1 boost by 19th and 20th level, since normally there is no 10th level spell slot, but you can go up to +10 from 1/2 caster levels (whether you start at 2nd or 3rd).
If you keep 11 + 1/2 caster level, you end up having 2 points higher than 3.5e.
I don't think improving the top end of the save DCs was the intent of this change, but it would become a possible unintended boost.
Indeed, it would. A nice reward for a character that choose to focus on magic for their entire career, as opposed to dual and multi-class characters.
I agree with Quandary. they made the empower spell feat for just that reason. level 1 spells are simple and weak compared to higher tiered magic. thats why their saving throws are so much weaker. and besides, what 20th level wizards really gonna use a color spray on something strong enough to challenge him? at that level the lvl 1 spells are gonna be used to impress simple folk and take out the goblin horde ravaging the town he's resting in.
(the wizard yawns as the rampaging horde closes in on the town, he lifts his hand and casts an enlarged color spray over his shoulder, dazzling the town people and stunning half the goblin horde. the remnants of the horde scramble to escape as the town militia chases down the disorganized goblins.)
If you want a low level spell to be useful at higher levels use empower spell.
It's not that low level spells should be totally useless,
but if they are as difficult to resist as your highest level spell, they should take up the same high level slot.
Sleep, Color Spray, Sanctuary, Silence, Shatter, to name a few...
if these have max Save DCs, without even need to use your highest level spells,
you can fight 'bosses' all day long without touching scrolls/wands.
The 'balance' of the system is predicated on the casters having X number of high level/difficult save spells available. A BUNCH of low level spells 'knock out', nullify attacks, destroy weapons, etc, etc, which if the save is failed, are effective against many high level opponents.
The rules are certainly kindof cludgy, but: CASTERS DON'T NEED ANY HELP.
|
|
I agree with Quandary. they made the empower spell feat for just that reason.
Actually, Empower Spell doesn't effect the DC of the spell at all.
"EMPOWER SPELL [METAMAGIC]
Benefit: All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by one-half. Saving throws and opposed rolls are not affected, nor are spells without random variables. An empowered spell uses up a spell slot two levels higher than the spell’s actual level."
I think the Heighten Spell Feat is what you mean. But even then, it's a matter of selecting one or two lower level spells at the cost of higher level slots. The above mechanic is intended to increase the overall potency of spells in general, representing the caster's increasing potency. His increasing understanding is already represented by increasing spell levels.
Heighten Spell, however, could still be used without unbalancing the system. Because the spell prepared occupies a higher level slot.
yeah, I meant Heighten of course. :-)
But like I said, caster's don't need any help...
You can already assume that the caster is increasing their relevant stat
every 4 levels, so +1/8 levels, and they are getting feats every 2 levels that they can get Spell Focus/etc in. Besides Owl's Wisdom/etc and items.
|
|
It's not that low level spells should be totally useless,
but if they are as difficult to resist as your highest level spell, they should take up the same high level slot.
It's a scaled system, so low level spells will be harder to defeat. They will never, however, be as powerful as the higher level spells. A 1st level spell will always have DC lower than, say, a 5th level spell.
Sleep, Color Spray, Sanctuary, Silence, Shatter, to name a few...
if these have max Save DCs, without even need to use your highest level spells,
you can fight 'bosses' all day long without touching scrolls/wands.
Even with a higher DC, most of the spells have other variables that minimize their effectiveness against higher level opponents. Sleep, for instance, only affects 4 HD worth of creatures. Color Spray only stuns opponents with more than 5 HD. Silence, in higher level play, still has to beat SR and a Will save. There are plenty of other checks built into the spells themselves.
Overall, this is an optional rule. If you feel your game is balanced, as is, then by all means.
However, the current trend with games like 4E and even, to a lesser extent Pathfinder, seems to be moving toward a more "Stuff" per level. Sorcerers are getting built in Bloodlines, Fighters and Rogues are getting talents to augment Feats, ect. I think leaving casters completely along will result in them getting the short end of the stick in the long run. This is my attempt to balance that.
By all means, if you don't feel the need to use the rule, don't. ;)
Thanks for the feedback!!
|
|
Sleep, Color Spray, Sanctuary, Silence, Shatter, to name a few...
if these have max Save DCs, without even need to use your highest level spells, you can fight 'bosses' all day long without touching scrolls/wands.
But there are already lots of low level spells that retain a lot of utility at higher levels, like ray of enfeeblements or scorching ray. Only spells that allow saves become nearly useless at higher levels, so tighing Save DC to caster level actually balances the spells against each other.
I'm also in favor of making the DC 10 + 1/2 caster level. While it might be a bit of a change to the highest spell level, it also balances against the higher save DC at level 20.
|
I'm all for this. Any spell that allows a save, when playing at mid-high levels, that isn't your highest level spell is generally going to be useless.
It basically falls into two ways of explaining magic.
1 - Each spell takes x amount of "magic power" and that's it.
In this one, a first level spell takes x amount of magic power and being a higher level caster doesn't really change that. It gives you the ability to modify it somewhat (ie. with metamagic) but it doesn't make it more *powerful* (other than Heighten, which, to be honest, is something I've never seen any caster use). This way relies on the scenario where each spell is like a recipe, and no matter how good a chef you are, as long as you follow the recipe, it's going to turn out the same for every wizard who prepares it. Like franchise restaurants... :)
2 - The caster controls how much power is poured into each spell, and any spell he casts is affected by his experience with magic.
In the second one, it's the capability of the wizard that controls how powerful any spell is, without regard to what level the spell actually is filed under. The effects aren't generally changed, but they are simply created from magic in a more tight-knit way. This way relies much more on the caster's ability with magic than the actual spell. This (to carry through on the simile above), the recipe gets you the basics, but the actual taste and interesting bits of the dish are determined by which chef prepares it.
Both ways of thinking about it are valid, and D&D has always assumed #1. I've always been partial to #2, though, and would be happy to see something like this in the core rules (especially since every class seems to be getting cool stuff except the wizard).
I remembered after my last post another system to deal with this:
Spell Point Casting, which is in the SRD, though not core 3.5
Using spell point casting, you can more-or-less spend ALL of your points on your highest level spells (or Heightened to highest level) if you want to, instead of the usual 6/4/2/etc spell level distribution of the standard rules. Combining this with the Heighten Spell Feat, this means you can choose the Save DC for every spell you cast, up to your max level.
Although Spell Points are supposed to basically make every caster a spontaneous caster, with Sorcerors just getting more Spell Points, you could adapt it if you don't like that, and say non-Sorcerors still need to memorize their spells, they just get to use the Spell Point system to choose how they do so (Heightening Spells, other MetaMagic, etc.)
I think the Spell Point system (but retaining memorization for non-Sorcerors) would actually be a perfect addition to the Pathfinder rules, because it makes Metamagic so much more viable to use.
I was focusing on what is realistic to see in the core Pathfinder RPG, since that's the purpose of this board, but obviously everyone houserules their games as they see fit. Myself, choosing between +INT ranged attacks at-will and bonus spontaneously cast spell, +8HD of controlled undead, and... too much else... has forestalled any worries about Pathfinder keeping my casters gimped ;-) (those being the school specialization powers of Pathfinder)
Marc: I totally get your 1 & 2 analogy... I think it really just shows the 'edges' of the D&D/3.5/Vancian system alot. If you're thinking about a character's "arcane power" than #1 (D&D/3.5) is really saying: "OK the character can manifest so many effects of X power, so many of X-1, so many of X-2, -3, etc. Spell Points let you customize it to whatever 'load-out' you want. #2... really works better with systems outside of D&D, more skill based ones, like West End's D6 (which is now OGL!)
|
|
In the second one, it's the capability of the wizard that controls how powerful any spell is, without regard to what level the spell actually is filed under. The effects aren't generally changed, but they are simply created from magic in a more tight-knit way. This way relies much more on the caster's ability with magic than the actual spell. This (to carry through on the simile above), the recipe gets you the basics, but the actual taste and interesting bits of the dish are determined by which chef prepares it.
This is the view I've taken and why I felt the system, while excellent, needed this sole, minor adjustment.
Glad you enjoyed.
My vote for this rule!!
I've always felt the same, spells don't scale as the Caster gets more powerful. If a 10th level Fireball is stronger than a 6th level one (on damage at least), why shouldn't a 20th level one be more powerful? In this case by the DC.
|
|
I use a scaling system for Epic, but outside of that it's not really necessary IMO. Spellcasters and psionic manifesters all gain a +1 Epic bonus to spell and power DCs for every 2 caster or manifester levels over 20th. A 24th level Sorcerer with a 32 Charisma would have spell DCs of 23 + spell level (10 +11 +2 Epic) instead of 21 + level, for example. 30th level Psion with a 40 Int has base DCs of 35 + power level, etc.
|
|
The system I use combines scaling spell DC with the concept of reserve feats from Complete Mage. Namely, encouraging casters to keep their most powerful spells in reserve for a time when they are truly needed to try and counter this: "go nova, then rest when my top 2 spell levels are depleted". AKA the 5-minute adventuring day.
Instead of Complete Mage's feats that are cooler if you keep your spells in reserve, I just apply the same principle to spell DCs.
The DC is...
10 + ability modifier + the level of the highest level spell currently available to cast (from the same class).
Thus, a 14th level wizard (7th level spells) with 20 Int (+5) has a DC of 22 for ALL of his spells (10 + 5 + 7); as long as he has at least one 7th level spell left to cast. If he uses all his 7th levels and has only 6th level spells remaining the DC drops to 21 (10 + 5 + 6), and so on.
Thus...
(1) Spell DCs scale with level
(2) Casters have some incentive not to go "nova" in the first encounter.
This is an interesting mechanic, and perhaps another optional rule.
|
|
The problem I have with scaling DC systems is that the low spell level is intentional on most spells. Charm Person is level 1 because it is fairly easy for a high level character to resist. Glitterdust would be my best spell always if I could get the DC to scale for the whole game (area blindness? rofldead).
1) It's a powerful spell. It is arguably more powerful than Blindness, in terms of a combat encounter. I don't think it's a good example for a counter-argument.
2) Saves scale with levels. I fail to see why DCs shouldn't. It's a suggested optional rule intended to bring additional balance to the system. A 20th level character should have a +6 (poor) and +12 (good) to saves, without taking into account ability modifiers, gear, Feats, ect.
Essentially, the saves against spells scales with level but the potency of spells does not.
By way of example: A 20th level fighter with 14s across the board is: +14, +8, +8. Add in Feats and gear, he's probably going to be +15, +9, +9 ...at a minimum. His ability to defend himself (saves) scales, in addition to being boosted by gear. The caster cannot. His DCs are linked to ability modifier and Feats alone.
Obviously, if you don't think the system needs improvement, don't incorporate the rule. ;)
Thanks for your feedback!
~Jaye
I like the idea of scaling spell DCs, but I share the concern of some posters that this would give an undue power boost to spellcasters - an increase in power they really do not need.
There are, however, some solutions to this quandary:
1) DC = 10 + 1/4 caster level
Unlike DC = 10 + 1/2 caster level, which sets the DCs at the approximately the maximum it used to be under the standard system for all spells, using DC = 10 + 1/4 caster level would set the DCs approximately at the level of the average DC for the spell levels the caster can cast.
Note: This would actually be an overall power-down for the spellcasting classes, since higher level spells are generally more important for the caster than lower level ones and it is those that would be depowered. Depending on one's point of view, however, depowering the spellcasters somewhat might not be entirely bad.
2) DC = 10 + 1/3 caster level
This would set the DC at about 2/3 (of the above 10 component) of the maximum under the old system. Because higher levels spells are more important than lower level ones, I feel this would be approximately balanced, since they would be depowered slightly, but the lower level ones would see their DCs increase by approximately twice that amount.
|
|
I like the idea of scaling spell DCs, but I share the concern of some posters that this would give an undue power boost to spellcasters - an increase in power they really do not need.
I... wow. That's all I can say. :)
So your solution to the proposed scaling of DCs to match the scaling of the way they are defended against is to make them worse for higher level spells? As it is, lower-level spells are almost auto-saves, and higher level spells are pretty iffy, too.
I don't know if you've been playing through the adventure paths, but nothing has bad saves (I'm in Rise of the Runelords, so I don't know if the others are this way or not). If something *does* have a bad save, they write in some kind of ridiculous "morale" bonus, or "silly" bonus, or "out-of-nowhere" bonus that boosts the enemies' saves to the point of almost making spells useless on them at the appropriate PC level. I just assume that any spell I cast that allows a save is either wasted or is going to do half damage. (Although to counter this I've been sort of specializing in spells that don't require a save - lemme tell you that *really* cuts down on the number of spells that I can cast effectively, and it doesn't really do what the wizard class is supposed to do - affect multiple targets).
Wizards already suffer from all-or-nothing (or all-or-insignificant) major class abilities (spells), while every other class has very limited instances where its major class abilities are rendered useless.
Cut the wizards some slack... they're already lying on the floor with their heads kicked in. No need to break a few ribs just for the heck of it. :)
That said, I reiterate my support of a scaling DC system (not sure yet what would be the best way to do it) - but one that doesn't *decrease* the DC of spells at any level..... It's counter to the point of this entire discussion.
I don't think that casters need this kind of boost.
It's already built into the system - Heighten Spell feat covers this. In my home games, I allow this to be used by any caster without taking a feat or extra casting time.
A L1 spell slot only has so much power. As a caster gets better, he learns to manipulate stronger energies. The same spell in a L4 slot is harder to resist and is balanced by the number of powerful slots he has to use each day.
I play a 16th level druid, who has a WIS of 30. His ability modifier has definitel scaled as he's gone up in level. His DC for L1 spells is 21, and it's 29 for L8 spells. This has certainly kept him competitive with the higher saves of other classes, and I think it would be gross to have all of his saves at DC 29. This doesn't even count the Owl's Insight spell (SpC) that adds in another +4 to the DC for an hour each day.
I vote to keep DCs based on spell level. If anything, make Heighten a standard spellcasting option rather than a feat. Then casters all have the choice to increase the DCs for lower-level spells.
-Scott
|
|
Scaling Spell DCs is a MUST be rule for PFRPG.
However, to introduce it you have to make some other adjustments to make HIGHER LEVEL SPELL still better than low level damaging spells.
In order to do that you should introduce a damage cap on these spells, as following:
9th level spells - max. dmg 20d6 (and rework meteor swarm).
8th level spells - max. dmg 18d6.
7th level spells - max. dmg 16d6.
6th level spells - max. dmg 14d6.
5th level spells - max. dmg 12d6.
4th level spells - max. dmg 10d6.
3rd level spells - max. dmg 10d6 (as they already are).
Without this dmg cap, you cannot use spell scaling DCs.
Most spells have caps, but I agree that those that don't need them.
Thanks for the support and feedback!
Cheers,
Jaye
I like the idea of scaling spell DCs, but I share the concern of some posters that this would give an undue power boost to spellcasters - an increase in power they really do not need...So, you guys, what would be wrong with having Spell DCs set to this:
Spell DC = 10 + Spell level + 1/2 Caster's level + Ability mod.
I've always thought that it was silly how the lower level spells became more useless at higher levels. I know, I know... they ARE lower level spells... but, they are the caster's primary weapons... Since when does a fighter's sword become less effective at higher levels, forcing him to look for new ones? (And I'm not talking about magical bonuses and crap, people...)
The problem with what you describe is that it gives a huge power boost to the Spellcasters (clerics, druids, sorcerers and wizards in particular, but even the 'lesser' spellcasters to some extent), since their spell DCs will be much higher than they were before.
I like the idea of scaling spell DCs, but I share the concern of some posters that this would give an undue power boost to spellcasters - an increase in power they really do not need.I... wow. That's all I can say. :)
So your solution to the proposed scaling of DCs to match the scaling of the way they are defended against is to make them worse for higher level spells? As it is, lower-level spells are almost auto-saves, and higher level spells are pretty iffy, too.
I don't know if you've been playing through the adventure paths, but nothing has bad saves (I'm in Rise of the Runelords, so I don't know if the others are this way or not). If something *does* have a bad save, they write in some kind of ridiculous "morale" bonus, or "silly" bonus, or "out-of-nowhere" bonus that boosts the enemies' saves to the point of almost making spells useless on them at the appropriate PC level. I just assume that any spell I cast that allows a save is either wasted or is going to do half damage. (Although to counter this I've been sort of specializing in spells that don't require a save - lemme tell you that *really* cuts down on the number of spells that I can cast effectively, and it doesn't really do what the wizard class is supposed to do - affect multiple targets).
Wizards already suffer from all-or-nothing (or all-or-insignificant) major class abilities (spells), while every other class has very limited instances where its major class abilities are rendered useless.
Cut the wizards some slack... they're already lying on the floor with their heads kicked in. No need to break a few ribs just for the heck of it. :)
That said, I reiterate my support of a scaling DC system (not sure yet what would be the best way to do it) - but one that doesn't *decrease* the DC of spells at any level..... It's counter to the point of this entire discussion.
I have not been playing or running the adventure paths. As a DM, and I am primarily a DM, I design and run my own adventures and campaigns. Hence, I cannot comment on the adventure paths and the enemies they contain or their interactions with spells and can only go by my own experience.
There is considerable resentment by some players of the fact that clerics, druids, wizards and sorcerers outshine the other classes at high levels. Increasing the DCs of all spells would not help solve that at all, hence my proposal to flatten the scaling curve so to speak and have only 1/3 of caster level as the bonus to DC. This would leave 9th level spells (as an example) with DCs 3 points lower than under the old system, whereas 1st level spells (as another example) would have DCs 5 points higher than they used to. I feel that this is a fair balance, but I have not playtested it (and have no intention playtesting any scaling DC system unless it appears in the Beta).
|
|
The problem with what you describe is that it gives a huge power boost to the Spellcasters (clerics, druids, sorcerers and wizards in particular, but even the 'lesser' spellcasters to some extent), since their spell DCs will be much higher than they were before.
Not really. At 20th level, the DC is 2 points higher. That's a whopping 10% increase. Scaling DCs really only affects low to mid-level spells (1-5) in any significant manner. And even then, you're only looking at a 20% increase on average. It's easily scales with saving throw increases.
Since when does a fighter's sword become less effective at higher levels, forcing him to look for new ones?
bingo
The problem with what you describe is that it gives a huge power boost to the Spellcasters (clerics, druids, sorcerers and wizards in particular, but even the 'lesser' spellcasters to some extent), since their spell DCs will be much higher than they were before.Not really. At 20th level, the DC is 2 points higher. That's a whopping 10% increase. Scaling DCs really only affects low to mid-level spells (1-5) in any significant manner. And even then, you're only looking at a 20% increase on average. It's easily scales with saving throw increases.
Since when does a fighter's sword become less effective at higher levels, forcing him to look for new ones?bingo
You mixed up my quote and Nueanda's quote.
The DC increases under the system that Nueanda is proposing are much greater than what you describe: note that Nueanda's system is not the same as the system you proposed, as it sets the DC at: 10 + spell level + 1/2 caster level + ability score bonus
As such, under Nueanda's system, spellcasters would have DCs of 9th level spells that are a full 10 points higher than under the existing system and the increases for other spell levels would be even greater (the DC of 1st level spells would be 18 points higher than under the current system!).
Your proposal boosts the spellcasters too, though nowhere near as much as Nueanda would. Yes, the DCs of 9th level spells are only 1 or 2 points (depending on whether we add to 10 or 11) higher at 20th level (though that is a boost already), but the DCs of lower levels spells increase by much greater amounts. That is simply unbalancing vis-a-vis other classes unless something is done to compensate for that.
The Fighter's first sword was possibly Masterwork, at best. At 20th level, it's a +5 flaming vorpal blade. That's quite a bit different if you ask me.
So, like the Wizard, he has the choice to choosing to use that weapon he had a first level, or his new, powerful near-artifact. When that artifact is taken away (sunder, disarm, story reasons), he has to use his lesser item and is handicapped just like when the Wizard no longer has his higher level spells.
I know no analogy can be perfect (a Fighter rarely loses use of his sword, while a Wizard runs out every day, but is guaranteed to get it back after 8 hours rest). Let's keep our analogies clear as we can here though, heh.
..
All in all though, this proposal DOES change the power dynamic of the class. A wizard no longer loses quite so much use of his lower level spells, and doesn't necessarily have to resort to non-Save spells for his low level slots (self buffers, etc).
It does give a bit more power to the class, but not in the same sense as straight up pluses and damage boosts. What this change does is allow for more choices to be valid, providing more options to the class. This is a definately a power increase, but not one that would normally break balance between classes.
The Wizard can still only nuke or control as powerfully as he could before. His "nova" hasn't gotten bigger. What will happen though, it he will have more options later. This reduces the 15 minute day problem.
Personally.. if it becomes an issue where Wizards and such are getting more options per day and others seem lesser because of it, I'd be inclined to boost the other classes to have more options per day as well.
This, I think, is the main thrust of Pathfinders changes however, because it was already the case where Casters had more options than everyone else.
Spellcasters don't need any boosts. Druids, Clerics and Wizards have been overpowered for too long. Thankfully PF is addressing this imbalance.
Low level spells are not useless if you pick the right spell for the job. If your Wizard or Bard has identified the monster you are fighting, you should have a pretty good idea where it's weaknesses are. Most monsters have a poor save, even high level ones.
And as others have said, some low level spells last the distance very well [Ray of Enfeeblement, Shield etc.].
However I do like the feel of a dedicated Mage having a boost to DC's from a Caster level point of view, it does make sense but they really don't need it!
|
|
You mixed up my quote and Nueanda's quote.The DC increases under the system that Nueanda is proposing are much greater than what you describe: note that Nueanda's system is not the same as the system you proposed, as it sets the DC at: 10 + spell level + 1/2 caster level + ability score bonus
As such, under Nueanda's system, spellcasters would have DCs of 9th level spells that are a full 10 points higher than under the existing system and the increases for other spell levels would be even greater (the DC of 1st level spells would be 18 points higher than under the current system!).
Your proposal boosts the spellcasters too, though nowhere near as much as Nueanda would. Yes, the DCs of 9th level spells are only 1 or 2 points (depending on whether we add to 10 or 11) higher at 20th level (though that is a boost already), but the DCs of lower levels spells increase by much greater amounts. That is simply unbalancing vis-a-vis other classes unless something is done to compensate for that.
Opps. Sorry about the mix up. I agree that 10 + spell level + 1/2 caster level + ability modifier would be insane. I'm aiming for balance, not overkill.
So far, I've been using this system in my game and it really hasn't upset anyone (or game balance, for that matter). I suppose I'll know more when my players hit the 12-15 level area and start using those higher level spells.
Thanks for the feedback.
Cheers,
Jaye
|
|
However I do like the feel of a dedicated Mage having a boost to DC's from a Caster level point of view, it does make sense but they really don't need it!
This is why I suggested it as an optional rule.
Actually, I could write it up as a Feat, too. Taking a cue from you, I'd call it:
Dedicated Mage
Requirement: Ability to cast 1st level Arcane spells.
Benefit: The DCs of all your spells are now equal to 11 + 1/2 your caster level + your relevant ability modifier.
Special: The DCs of all spells you know revert if you gain a new class other than Wizard.
I imagine you could do something similar for every class (Dedicated Cleric, Dedicated Sorcerer, ect) if you really wanted.
The system I use combines scaling spell DC with the concept of reserve feats from Complete Mage. Namely, encouraging casters to keep their most powerful spells in reserve for a time when they are truly needed to try and counter this: "go nova, then rest when my top 2 spell levels are depleted". AKA the 5-minute adventuring day.
Instead of Complete Mage's feats that are cooler if you keep your spells in reserve, I just apply the same principle to spell DCs.
The DC is...
10 + ability modifier + the level of the highest level spell currently available to cast (from the same class).
Thus, a 14th level wizard (7th level spells) with 20 Int (+5) has a DC of 22 for ALL of his spells (10 + 5 + 7); as long as he has at least one 7th level spell left to cast. If he uses all his 7th levels and has only 6th level spells remaining the DC drops to 21 (10 + 5 + 6), and so on.
Thus...
(1) Spell DCs scale with level
(2) Casters have some incentive not to go "nova" in the first encounter.
This is really interesting. Wish I'd thought of it.
You can rationalize it in game terms as saving mana or something.
It might add to roleplaying.
Definitely provides some interesting choices for the caster.
Personally I don't think spellcasters need a boost, but it drives me nuts that all other things being equal, its as easy to resist the first level spells of Paul the Prestidigitator as those of the Archmage Mithrandir.
Anyway here's my 2 cp.
DC = 10 + (M+L) + other mods
where M is the maximum in class spell level the character can cast, and L is the level of the spell.
Sampling a few levels:
1st: M,1; L,1 = DC 11
3rd: M,2 ; L,1 = DC 11 ; L,2 = DC 12
9th: M,5 ; L,1 = DC 13 ; L,2 = DC 13 ; L,3 = DC 14 ; L,4 = DC 14 ; L,5 = DC 15
17th : M,9 ; L,1 = DC 15 ; L,2 = DC 15 ; L,3 = DC 15 ; L,4 = DC 15 ; L,5 = DC 17 ; L,6 = DC 17 ; L,7 = DC 18 ; L,8 = DC 18 ; L,9 = DC 19
It provides a small scaling boost.
|
|
... but it drives me nuts that all other things being equal, its as easy to resist the first level spells of Paul the Prestidigitator as those of the Archmage Mithrandir.
That was a frustration for my players, as well. It prompted me to create this optional rule (house-ruled here) and throw it up on the boards for eval.
|
|
Personally I don't think spellcasters need a boost, but it drives me nuts that all other things being equal, its as easy to resist the first level spells of Paul the Prestidigitator as those of the Archmage Mithrandir.
That's only true if Paul and Mithrandir have the same Intelligence, and if an archmage only has at best a 20, then how much of an archmage is he?
Wizard 20: Int 15
+2 racial
+5 from level increases
+6 enhancement
I'd figure any Archmage worth a damn would have at the very least a 28 Int, and thus a significantly better save DC than any 1st level Prestidigitator who can have at the absolute most a 20 Int.
|
|
2)Saves scale with levels because the levels available scale with level. By level 20 a characters bad save is only +6 or +9 as you put it with you assumed actual value, which is perfect since the spell level of the caster's spell is 9th which means the spellcaster still has his ability modifier over the opponent. An ability modifier which should be high enough to counter the extra 6 points of his good save too.
What I was saying is that the weakness of low level slots is its low level slot affect DC. Height spell balances this by making the player use a higher level slot to improve the effectiveness of the spell he wants to use.
I'd rather get rid of Heighten Spell and make it a permanent option any caster can use than simply have a caster with lvl 1 DC 25+ saves.
I didn't take this as an attack, so no worries.
Like most things, high level play always presents a problem. So, this optional rule isn't really immune. I'm looking at caps, but all things being relevant, high ability scores (an INT of 24 or higher) is going to be the culprit when it comes to unbalancing this.
Granted, my system would create much higher DCs for level 1 spells, but not so much that they couldn't be beaten with an average roll (10 or so).
Let's look at a Balor's saves (CR 20):
Fort +22, Ref +19, Will +19. Oh, and SR 28.
(http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersDtoDe.htm l#balor-demon)
Now assuming a Wizard in a party of 4 is trying to use his spells to overcome this monster, what sort of luck is he really going to have?
The Wizard is level 20 with an INT of 24. His spell DCs are:
10 + 1 (1st level spell) + 7 (Int modifier) = 18
thru
10 + 9 (9th level spell) + 7 (Int modifier) = 26
As you can see, the Balor only needs to roll a 1 to defeat the lowest level spells and a 7 to defeat 9th level saves. Oh, and that's IF the caster can beat his SR (I realize not all spells are effected by SR, saves, or a combination of both, but follow me here).
Now assume the Balor uses some of his own SLAs. He can boost his saves using Unholy Aura (+4 to saves) and guess what. He's rolling 3's to beat the caster's 9th level spells.
See the problem?
With my optional rule, the DCs increase to:
11 + 10 (1/2 caster level) +7 (ability modifier) = DC 28 (for all spells)
The DC is 2 points higher than the traditional 3.5 method for the 9th level spells and 10 points higher for the 1st level spell. But at least the caster has more of a change of affecting the Balor (the Balor needing to roll 6's and 9's to save). With Unholy Aura, it becomes 2's and 5's, but the caster has more of a chance...
Interesting Idea, however, it begs me to ask; does no mage ever take Heighten Spell? I mean that's what it boils down to. Automatic Heighten Spell, without the need to prepare the spell to a higher level slot. Why bother, then we can all just do away with the meta magic feats entirely.
I quite like the idea of auto Heighten. If you want Fireball to be harder to avoid then prepare it at a higher level, it'll still max out at 10d6 but the save will be harder to make.
As to caster level bonuses for DC's it seems like you're asking for a double whammy here as higher caster levels already equals higher level spell availability which equals higher DC's !
Personally I don't think spellcasters need a boost, but it drives me nuts that all other things being equal, its as easy to resist the first level spells of Paul the Prestidigitator as those of the Archmage Mithrandir.That's only true if Paul and Mithrandir have the same Intelligence, and if an archmage only has at best a 20, then how much of an archmage is he?
Wizard 20: Int 15
+2 racial
+5 from level increases
+6 enhancementI'd figure any Archmage worth a damn would have at the very least a 28 Int, and thus a significantly better save DC than any 1st level Prestidigitator who can have at the absolute most a 20 Int.
I was deliberately not considering racial and equipment adjustments.
You do have a point about the ability level increases. They add up to +2 or +3 on the DC depending on where the character started. Possibly a significant improvement.
|
|
I was deliberately not considering racial and equipment adjustments.
You do have a point about the ability level increases. They add up to +2 or +3 on the DC depending on where the character started. Possibly a significant improvement.
Over the course of play, if NO other attributes are raised, 5 points will go to the caster's primary casting attribute. At best, a player may start with a 20, end with a 25. With gear and so on, it's reasonable to assume 4-5 more points. It's feasible to have a 28-30 INT and a +7 to +9 ability modifier.
However, have a look at the saves on a CR 20 monster. Even with a +9 ability modifier, a 20th level Wizard has a 9th level DC of 28 (10 +9 +9). If you have a look at the Balor example above, it doesn't mean much. Caster's become highly ineffectual with their main weapon!!
Let's look at some high-end monster* saves:
Black Dragon, Great Wyrm (CR 22): +Fort 28, Ref +20, Will +25
Titan (CR 21): Fort +26, Ref +13, Will +21
Pit Fiend (CR 20): Fort +19, Ref +19, Will +21
Balor (CR 20): Fort +22, Ref +19, Will +19
Tarrasque (CR 20): Fort +38, Ref +29, Will +20
Green Dragon, Ancient (CR 21): Fort +25, Ref +18, Will +23
Red Dragon, Old (CR 20): Fort +23, Ref +16, Will +21.
I am NOT considering things like SR, items, or Feats.
On average, the very best spells a caster has won't work against the monster as they stand because the DCs are too low at high level play.
Then there should be more ways to give your save DC a boost.
Heighten Spell (PHB pg. 95), Spell Focus (PHB pg. 100), Greater Spell Focus (PHB pg. 94), attribute boosting items, and inherent attribute bonuses (via wishes or other means) can combine to give a 20th level spellcaster an effective 30 or more in their spellcasting attribute (15 initial + 5 advancement + 4 inherent + 6 enhancement) and a spell DC of 22 + spell level (assuming both Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus apply). Even assuming no inherent bonuses, that's still a DC of 18-20 + spell level.
Let's look at some high-end monster* saves:
The problem is not as great as you may think. Apart from the tarrasque's Fort save, all of the other monsters are looking at around a 5-25% chance at best (taking the worst DC against the best save; best DC vs. best save gives around 10-35% chance of failure) of failing a save against a 9th level spell. Taking the best DC against the worst save gives around 40-75% chance of failure, even when not counting inherent bonuses. That balor only has a 45% chance of making a save against a Heightened (9th) cone of cold cast by a sorcerer/wizard with Spell Focus (Evocation) and Greater Spell Focus (Evocation) and an effective 30 in Cha/Int (DC 31).
Then there are the spells that don't rely on saving throws (polar ray, etc.)...
|
|
The system I use combines scaling spell DC with the concept of reserve feats from Complete Mage. Namely, encouraging casters to keep their most powerful spells in reserve for a time when they are truly needed to try and counter this: "go nova, then rest when my top 2 spell levels are depleted". AKA the 5-minute adventuring day.
Instead of Complete Mage's feats that are cooler if you keep your spells in reserve, I just apply the same principle to spell DCs.
The DC is...
10 + ability modifier + the level of the highest level spell currently available to cast (from the same class).
Thus, a 14th level wizard (7th level spells) with 20 Int (+5) has a DC of 22 for ALL of his spells (10 + 5 + 7); as long as he has at least one 7th level spell left to cast. If he uses all his 7th levels and has only 6th level spells remaining the DC drops to 21 (10 + 5 + 6), and so on.
Thus...
(1) Spell DCs scale with level
(2) Casters have some incentive not to go "nova" in the first encounter.
I like this idea, but it suffers from the same problem my idea does. The DCs scale with caster level, but not with spell level. This is the problem I'm trying to work through. I really want DCs linked to caster level, but subject to spell level, too.
Right now, I'm using this formula:
11 + 1/2 caster level + relevant ability modifier
This suffers from the same problem that your idea (even though I like it) does. ALL DCs are equal. As a few people have pointed out, this means a 1st level spell's DC is equal to a 9th level spell's DC.
I just need to figure this out, mechanically, so that I can scale DCs that make sense..
|
|
Heighten Spell (PHB pg. 95), Spell Focus (PHB pg. 100), Greater Spell Focus (PHB pg. 94), attribute boosting items, and inherent attribute bonuses (via wishes or other means) can combine to give a 20th level spellcaster an effective 30 or more in their spellcasting attribute (15 initial + 5 advancement + 4 inherent + 6 enhancement) and a spell DC of 22 + spell level (assuming both Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus apply). Even assuming no inherent bonuses, that's still a DC of 18-20 + spell level.
The only problem with Heighten Spell is that it requires a slot of equal spell level. So, if you're going to boost, say, Cone of Cold to 9th level, you're going to have to drop another 9th level spell.
Now, unless you have an INT of 34 or higher, you're only getting 1 bonus 9th level spell. So, you've got a maximum of 5 9th level spells you can unleash at the BEBG.
I'm not a mathematician, so I'd have to crunch some numbers to determine the actual percentage of spell penetration. That being said, I'm curious: Did you consider SR when you figured these percentages out?
Heighten Spell (PHB pg. 95), Spell Focus (PHB pg. 100), Greater Spell Focus (PHB pg. 94), attribute boosting items, and inherent attribute bonuses (via wishes or other means) can combine to give a 20th level spellcaster an effective 30 or more in their spellcasting attribute (15 initial + 5 advancement + 4 inherent + 6 enhancement) and a spell DC of 22 + spell level (assuming both Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus apply). Even assuming no inherent bonuses, that's still a DC of 18-20 + spell level.The only problem with Heighten Spell is that it requires a slot of equal spell level. So, if you're going to boost, say, Cone of Cold to 9th level, you're going to have to drop another 9th level spell.
Now, unless you have an INT of 34 or higher, you're only getting 1 bonus 9th level spell. So, you've got a maximum of 5 9th level spells you can unleash at the BEBG.
I'm not a mathematician, so I'd have to crunch some numbers to determine the actual percentage of spell penetration. That being said, I'm curious: Did you consider SR when you figured these percentages out?
Scrolls and staffs can be created with Heightened versions of spells, too (and are a very good investment in high-level games). On another note, if you need all 5 of your 9th-level spell slots to normally have a chance at defeating a BBEG, then you either need to talk to the rest of your party about improving teamwork or your DM about the level of difficulty!
The percentages I gave were strictly saving throws. Spell Resistance is a different consideration, based almost solely on a Caster Level + d20 roll beating the SR rating. There are only a few ways to improve the caster's chances (the Spell Penetration feat, the Spell Power ability of the archmage or red wizard of Thay PrCs, etc.). Demon, Balor - SR 28; Devil, Pit Fiend - SR 32; Dragon, Black Great Wyrm - SR 28; Dragon, Green Ancient - SR 27; Dragon, Red Old - SR 24; Tarrasque - SR 32; Titan - SR 32. None of these is out of reach for a 20th level caster (having a 45% chance of success vs. SR 32, 55% with Spell Penetration). There are also several spells that are not affected by SR (acid fog, incendiary cloud, insect plague, etc.).
|
|
Scrolls and staffs can be created with Heightened versions of spells, too (and are a very good investment in high-level games). On another note, if you need all 5 of your 9th-level spell slots to normally have a chance at defeating a BBEG, then you either need to talk to the rest of your party about improving teamwork or your DM about the level of difficulty!The percentages I gave were strictly saving throws. Spell Resistance is a different consideration, based almost solely on a Caster Level + d20 roll beating the SR rating. There are only a few ways to improve the caster's chances (the Spell Penetration feat, the Spell Power ability of the archmage or red wizard of Thay PrCs, etc.). Demon, Balor - SR 28; Devil, Pit Fiend - SR 32; Dragon, Black Great Wyrm - SR 28; Dragon, Green Ancient - SR 27; Dragon, Red Old - SR 24; Tarrasque - SR 32; Titan - SR...
Heightened Scrolls isn't a bad idea.
As for the math, I'll have to have a look at the math again. Personally, I'm really attracted to the idea of scaling DCs, I just want to make sure I don't upset the balance of the system by doing so.
For what it's worth, I had already considered Heightened Spell, Spell Focus, and Greater Spell Focus in my equation. Attributes in my games (and games I've played in) tend to be lower (22-28 points) because I use point buy from the DMG (pg 169). So, it's not as common for a wizard or other caster to start with a high prime ability score (the highest being 16 at first level).
I think this is probably why my player's characters haven't seen DCs as high as the ones you've mentioned above.