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.
Have the Munchkins on the Wizards CO boards been getting it wrong all these years?
Are Wizards not the 3rd most powerful class [behind Druids and Clerics] in the game?
Hasn't there been consistence calls to bring Wizards down a peg or two?
Hmm,
I don't know for sure but I'm not convinced the Wizard needs anything to make it stronger.
Can't the Wizard use some of those powerful 8th and 9th level spell slots to cast Metamagic-ed Buffs rather than try to directly target the Monsters? Surely after identifying what the Monster is and therefore its likely SR and saves, common sense would direct the Wizard away from direct attacks, even if only to not draw attention his way! There are many ways to skin a cat!
|
Have the Munchkins on the Wizards CO boards been getting it wrong all these years?
I couldn't say. It's not a board I frequent regularly. That being said, I'm not a power-gamer, nor are my players. So, for the most part, I'm a shade weaker in the Max-Min department.
Are Wizards not the 3rd most powerful class [behind Druids and Clerics] in the game?
Actually, I'm not sure that one class is more powerful than another. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses. Of course, we aren't talking about the mighty Flumph.
Hasn't there been consistence calls to bring Wizards down a peg or two?
I honestly can't say, but I'm sure just as many people feel strongly about nerfing caster classes as do those that want to boost them. Myself, I'm looking for overall balance..
Hmm,
I don't know for sure but I'm not convinced the Wizard needs anything to make it stronger.
Then this probably won't be a rule you'll use.
Can't the Wizard use some of those powerful 8th and 9th level spell slots to cast Metamagic-ed Buffs rather than try to directly target the Monsters? Surely after identifying what the Monster is and therefore its likely SR and saves, common sense would direct the Wizard away from direct attacks, even if only to not draw attention his way! There are many ways to skin a cat!
I'm sure people playing casters of all sorts are interested in a wide variety of tactics, to include environmental routes, direct damage routes, damage per round routes, and "buff the team" routes. I wouldn't want to pigeonhole any method or style of play. Of course, I wouldn't want to hold a class back just because one or two people think casters are for buffing alone. Casters should have the freedom to attack monsters directly (if they so choose) and stand a fair chance of damaging them.
If you have a look above, that's precisely what Dragonchess and I have been discussing.
Yeah I have read your posts.
Where do you draw the line on whats a realistic chance of damaging a creature? I mean what percentage chance are you aiming for? I think you need to figure that out first for level 9 spells and then work back through the levels.
Of course, what ever value you come up with, expect others to want to alter it! Good luck!
Feat
Insane Spell Power [or whatever]
Pre-requisite Ability to cast 5th level Arcane Spells
You may burn spells of 5th level and above to increase the DC of the spell you are casting. A 5th level spell adds 1 to the DC, 6th adds 2, 7th adds 3, 8th adds 4 & 9th adds 5.
You may increase the DC of a spell you cast once per 5 caster levels you have per day.
|
|
Yeah I have read your posts.
Where do you draw the line on whats a realistic chance of damaging a creature? I mean what percentage chance are you aiming for? I think you need to figure that out first for level 9 spells and then work back through the levels.
Of course, what ever value you come up with, expect others to want to alter it! Good luck!
At 20th level, 9th level spells should stand a chance (ideally, a 50% chance) of effecting CR 20 creatures. That's the goal. Moreover, spells below 9th level should still have a chance of affecting monsters (ideally at 45% at 8th level, 40% at 7th level, ect).
At 20th level, 9th level spells should stand a chance (ideally, a 50% chance) of effecting CR 20 creatures. That's the goal. Moreover, spells below 9th level should still have a chance of affecting monsters (ideally at 45% at 8th level, 40% at 7th level, ect).
Ok, I'm guessing that excludes any possible SR the monster may have.
So the DC is dependant on, Firstly, Spell level, but we're starting at level 9 here so thats 9. Secondly, Int modifier. This is where the problems really start.
What will your Int modifier be?
How did you start the game.. Random Die rolling?, or Point buy, if so how many points did you get [25, 28, 32?].
Are you using a Race with an Int boost?
Are you in a wealthy campaign setting?
Did you have other character concepts that would mean putting more stat points into other Stats for role-playing potential/flavour? A good example of this is Charisma for the DC's of your bonus spells gained through specialization.
To achieve the 50% you want you will need to maximise everything toward that single goal, now I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that but not everyone wants to be that single minded.
However, if the 50% is achievable through average Stats and average equipment then the Munchkins will turn that 50% into 70-80% making the Wizard the powerhouse that I thought Pathfinder was trying to stop it being, at least a bit.
|
|
However, if the 50% is achievable through average Stats and average equipment then the Munchkins will turn that 50% into 70-80% making the Wizard the powerhouse that I thought Pathfinder was trying to stop it being, at least a bit.
I never take Muchkins into account. They will break the system if possible, regardless. I'm looking for balance, on average, for the everyday gamer. People like my friends and myself (that don't Max-Min).
My point is you can't adjust the class for the minority, and at the high end, it feels like it is.
A Wizard that is maxed out in Int can hardly be called a munchkin-character. You can fairly assume an Int modifier of +11 at level 20.
16 starting value, +5 because of level, +6 because of magic items, and another +5 by using his of own wish spells. DC of 9th level spell is
10 + 11 +9 = 30
And if you factor in specialized school or prestige classes like archmage this would be higher still. None of that has anything to do with beeing a munchkin, because dedicated wizards who strife to master magic above anything else is a staple archetype and in some settings like FR can even be considered the norm.
|
|
A Wizard that is maxed out in Int can hardly be called a munchkin-character. You can fairly assume an Int modifier of +11 at level 20.
16 starting value, +5 because of level, +6 because of magic items, and another +5 by using his of own wish spells. DC of 9th level spell is
10 + 11 +9 = 30And if you factor in specialized school or prestige classes like archmage this would be higher still. None of that has anything to do with beeing a munchkin, because dedicated wizards who strife to master magic above anything else is a staple archetype and in some settings like FR can even be considered the norm.
Well, I can't honestly argue much with that. I still think, however, that some of the lower end spells should scale up ever so slightly as the character levels. I just need to figure a fair, balanced, and logical way to do it.
I'm leaning heavily toward a mid-level Feat that would accomplish this.
Well, I can't honestly argue much with that. I still think, however, that some of the lower end spells should scale up ever so slightly as the character levels. I just need to figure a fair, balanced, and logical way to do it.I'm leaning heavily toward a mid-level Feat that would accomplish this.
Well here could be a few ways to accomplish this. One could be a PrC that lets you boost your DC´s at the cost of full caster progression. Another possiblity would be a feat that raises the DCs of spells up to a certain level ( for example +2 to DCs for all 4th level or lower spells). This would unfotunatly lead to the paradox that your 4th level spells are hasder to resist than your spells of fith level. A feat that gives a flat bonus above 1 to all spells would be probably to good since you could stack it with every other method of raising the DC through raising your int. But as a house rule it would be entirely up to you to decide.
|
A Wizard that is maxed out in Int can hardly be called a munchkin-character. You can fairly assume an Int modifier of +11 at level 20.
16 starting value, +5 because of level, +6 because of magic items, and another +5 by using his of own wish spells. DC of 9th level spell is
10 + 11 +9 = 30And if you factor in specialized school or prestige classes like archmage this would be higher still. None of that has anything to do with beeing a munchkin, because dedicated wizards who strife to master magic above anything else is a staple archetype and in some settings like FR can even be considered the norm.
That's true, unless someone does something so foolish as to cause the Wizard to need to put stat points into something else - like CHA - for silly SLAs because of school powers. But nobody would do something like that, would they? ;)
That's true, unless someone does something so foolish as to cause the Wizard to need to put stat points into something else - like CHA - for silly SLAs because of school powers. But nobody would do something like that, would they? ;)
Do i sense little irony in your post ?? ;)
To answer in kind:
Because the above example of mine completly und utterly destroy the ressources of a level 20 charcter to boost another attribute or two. And because it would utterly ruin the wizard class if it had to cope with more than one attribute.
A Wizard that is maxed out in Int can hardly be called a munchkin-character. You can fairly assume an Int modifier of +11 at level 20.
16 starting value, +5 because of level, +6 because of magic items, and another +5 by using his of own wish spells. DC of 9th level spell is
10 + 11 +9 = 30And if you factor in specialized school or prestige classes like archmage this would be higher still. None of that has anything to do with beeing a munchkin, because dedicated wizards who strife to master magic above anything else is a staple archetype and in some settings like FR can even be considered the norm.
The point I was making is that if all that is average, then a Munchkin could break the class. I'm sure Pathfinder wants to move away from that sort of thing so its a very tricky thing to get just right to satisfy everone.
So, ok lets say the average is 30.
Lets look at those monster again...
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.
Overall average of save = 22
So the monster will pass his save, on average, against an average Wizard, 65% of the time. That looks ok to me.
To answer in kind:
Because the above example of mine completly und utterly destroy the ressources of a level 20 charcter to boost another attribute or two. And because it would utterly ruin the wizard class if it had to cope with more than one attribute.
Some would argue that a Wizard having to think about another attribute would utterly balance the class.
There have been many calls for all full casters to have their spell progression based off the Spirit Shaman's chart from CAdv. Something many say is a thing of beauty no less!!
|
|
Some would argue that a Wizard having to think about another attribute would utterly balance the class.
There have been many calls for all full casters to have their spell progression based off the Spirit Shaman's chart from CAdv. Something many say is a thing of beauty no less!!
Heheh... yah, make it worse because the wizard's spells are already only 65% effective when he's as powerful as he can possibly be without being Epic.
As for the spell progression for the Spirit Shaman... wow, I've never looked at that til now (we don't generally do base classes out of the addon books in my group). I assume you're continuing the string of facetious posting. :)
OK, that's fair if the creature also has 65% immunity to physical damage.
Thats a little silly, as you know some monsters are easier to hit and some are easier to cast spells at.
If you're looking for total balance I suggest you look at 4th edition :-)
Heheh... yah, make it worse because the wizard's spells are already only 65% effective when he's as powerful as he can possibly be without being Epic.
No, apparently that’s an Average Wizard, so I'm told!
As for the spell progression for the Spirit Shaman... wow, I've never looked at that til now (we don't generally do base classes out of the addon books in my group). I assume you're continuing the string of facetious posting. :)
Sarcasm through naiveté really doesn't become you :-)
You obviously don't or haven't read the WotC CO boards regarding Wizard builds and spell casting progression balance.
OK, that's fair if the creature also has 65% immunity to physical damage.
It is really astounding how you always simplify it to melee damage <-> magical damage, or spell to hit <-> melee to hit. Totally diregarding all the other options a spellcaster has besides going for the targets HP. On top of that you keep disregarding everything that would keep the melee character from reaching the target in the first place. Or the fact that charging a dragon, even if you can do it, is such a good idea, considering the full attack as soon as the dragons turn starts.
And if aou thin these 65% are the best that you can achieve you are way off.
@Stuart: I read your replys to my post but really we don´t differ in opinion too much. My last post was meant ironically as a reply to hmarcbower previous post
|
|
OK, that's fair if the creature also has 65% immunity to physical damage.
Thats a little silly, as you know some monsters are easier to hit and some are easier to cast spells at.
If you're looking for total balance I suggest you look at 4th edition :-)
Yah, I know it was silly. I actually got my threads mixed up, and wouldn't normally have even brought that into this one. (There's a Power Attack thread where the person who thinks that the whole fighting class thing is now destroyed because of the new way Power Attack is limited, and he constantly says that they can't compete with the wizard's spells now.)
My bad - but I was just being silly. :)
As for 4e... I did look at it. Don't like it. That's why I'm here on these boards.
|
|
You obviously don't or haven't read the WotC CO boards regarding Wizard builds and spell casting progression balance.
Nope... I don't read the CO boards. I've never been motivated to build such a character.
Although, that does bring up something that I think affects this discussion - and others have brought it up too. It doesn't take a munchkin (and I use the term with affection) to break a class. There are so many degrees of optimization that I think now we're arguing from two different angles that aren't really talking about the same thing.
Some are saying that Wizards are WAY too powerful. Yes, I can see that is probably the case if you peruse the CO boards a lot for optimal builds.
Some are saying that Wizards are underpowered. That's my position, but that is probably because I don't make super-optimized wizards (and I suspect many on here are in the same boat that way). So we want the wizards we build to be more effective without having to resort to going to the CO boards and copying a template down for how to make the best damned wizard ever to appear in the game world of your choice that bends all rules to near the breaking point, possibly exploiting poor wording, and taking half a dozen different prestige classes and obscure feats from Mongoose products in order to even exist.
We're trying to make the middle-of-the-road more effective without resorting to excessive number-crunching, and you're trying to protect against super-optimization. Both are valid and important positions to take. I guess it just comes down to which is more important: making the game more balanced for the average character, or making sure that the super-optimizer is balanced against mediocre builds of other classes and monsters. The problem with the latter, of course, is that it totally buggers the middle-of-the-road wizard players because they're so nerfed just to protect against something they won't do anyway.
Not sure this can be resolved when we're discussing different endpoints. But it's an interesting discussion anyway.
|
|
OK, that's fair if the creature also has 65% immunity to physical damage.
It is really astounding how you always simplify it to melee damage <-> magical damage, or spell to hit <-> melee to hit. Totally diregarding all the other options a spellcaster has besides going for the targets HP. On top of that you keep disregarding everything that would keep the melee character from reaching the target in the first place. Or the fact that charging a dragon, even if you can do it, is such a good idea, considering the full attack as soon as the dragons turn starts.
And if aou thin these 65% are the best that you can achieve you are way off.
Yep - sorry. As I noted my brain was in another thread, and I was just replying in a silly fashion, not to be taken seriously. Check my post a couple up for explanation.
Oh... and "always"?
Nope... I don't read the CO boards. I've never been motivated to build such a character.Although, that does bring up something that I think affects this discussion - and others have brought it up too. It doesn't take a munchkin (and I use the term with affection) to break a class. There are so many degrees of optimization that I think now we're arguing from two different angles that aren't really talking about the same thing.
Some are saying that Wizards are WAY too powerful. Yes, I can see that is probably the case if you peruse the CO boards a lot for optimal builds.
Some are saying that Wizards are underpowered. That's my position, but that is probably because I don't make super-optimized wizards (and I suspect many on here are in the same boat that way). So we want the wizards we build to be more effective without having to resort to going to the CO boards and copying a template down for how to make the best damned wizard ever to appear in the game world of your choice that bends all rules to near the breaking point, possibly exploiting poor wording, and taking half a dozen different prestige classes and obscure feats from Mongoose products in order to even exist.
We're trying to make the middle-of-the-road more effective without resorting to excessive number-crunching, and you're trying to protect against super-optimization. Both are valid and important positions to take. I guess it just comes down to which is more important: making the game more balanced for the average character, or making sure that the super-optimizer is balanced against mediocre builds of other classes and monsters. The problem with the latter, of course, is that it totally buggers the middle-of-the-road wizard players because they're so nerfed just to protect against something they won't do anyway.
Not sure this can be resolved when we're discussing...
It´s not about perfect builds. These exist of course, and they exist as well for melee characters. Most people are aguing that this difference in power starts at core base classes. Regarding the casters (clerics, wizards and druids), they just have so many options with their spells that you can use. For example we are arguing about saving throws and the above mentioned level 20 creatures can be affected 65% of the time using ninth level spells. But if you look at the spells of the core books (3.5) there are a number of spells which totally change the outcome of a battle without any of the creatures being allowed to roll a save at all. To list a few of them ( you will find much more if you search for them):
Bigbys crushing hands
energy drain
gate
Power words
All of these are core. Some of them maybe have been changed in PF I don´t have the time to double check. But you get the point. Summoning high-CR cratures, shaping the battlefield through creating new walls (which are real and so theres no counter through Saves, SR or antimagic fields). The evocation spells are actually considered by some the weakest spells a wizard can cast.
Oh... and "always"?
Ok, I should have said: in your last few posts. Sorry, but with those one-liners you never really know if a person is actually interested in making an argument. Your last post I can wok with.
Jassin
|
|
Some are saying that Wizards are underpowered. That's my position, but that is probably because I don't make super-optimized wizards (and I suspect many on here are in the same boat that way). So we want the wizards we build to be more effective without having to resort to going to the CO boards and copying a template down for how to make the best damned wizard ever to appear in the game world of your choice that bends all rules to near the breaking point, possibly exploiting poor wording, and taking half a dozen different prestige classes and obscure feats from Mongoose products in order to even exist.
We're trying to make the middle-of-the-road more effective without resorting to excessive number-crunching, and you're trying to protect against super-optimization. Both are valid and important positions to take. I guess it just comes down to which is more important: making the game more balanced for the average character, or making sure that the super-optimizer is balanced against mediocre builds of other classes and monsters. The problem with the latter, of course, is that it totally buggers the middle-of-the-road wizard players because they're so nerfed just to protect against something they won't do anyway.
That's pretty much how I feel about it, even if I didn't put it nearly as elegantly as you just did. I'm looking for an average Boost to spell DCs for an overall improvement for casters in general. We don't pour through books over here in my parts looking to super-optimize our characters, and since the whole edition is being streamlined, I say, why not build an optional rule (or Feat, or whatever) that does that.
I haven't been all that interested in arguing about how people view the relative power of the caster (which, strangely enough, people just assume is a Wizard ... perhaps because I used one in the example, I suppose).
I am interested in a fair and balance mechanic that scales DCs for spells.
Right now, I'm thinking this formula (in the form of a Feat or otherwise) might be the answer for my games:
10 + spell level + 1/4 character level + ability modifier.
I'm for the average gamer really too.
I think a lot of the broken stuff come from poor DM-ing to be quite frank. If a player wants to play some hideously min-maxed build that will clearly break the game then show them the door.
I think the monster saves could be lower so that the average Wizard can target them [with non damaging spells!] and have a good chance to succeed and then use the SR system for creatures that are supposed to be hard to hurt with magical effects.
That's pretty much how I feel about it, even if I didn't put it nearly as elegantly as you just did. I'm looking for an average Boost to spell DCs for an overall improvement for casters in general. We don't pour through books over here in my parts looking to super-optimize our characters, and since the whole edition is being streamlined, I say, why not build an optional rule (or Feat, or whatever) that does that.I haven't been all that interested in arguing about how people view the relative power of the caster (which, strangely enough, people just assume is a Wizard ... perhaps because I used one in the example, I suppose).
I am interested in a fair and balance mechanic that scales DCs for spells.
Right now, I'm thinking this formula (in the...
Well, though I can´t agree with you concerning your problem at hand, I don´t want to try and change your mind. You and your players will work out if it suits you or not.
But if your goal is only to take the pressure from casters I would recommend you to just lower the saves of the monsters. Why. Because that way your players at least wont be on the receiving and of augmented save DCs of NSC casters. And by that way only be forcing them to minmax their saves.
|
|
But if your goal is only to take the pressure from casters I would recommend you to just lower the saves of the monsters. Why. Because that way your players at least wont be on the receiving and of augmented save DCs of NSC casters. And by that way only be forcing them to minmax their saves.
As it stands, the DC system works. I don't really have a problem with it. But I think it can be better. I've argued that I don't like how it works at high levels, and others have provided some concrete counter-arguments. I've argued that I like the idea of it scaling in power as the character progresses. Others have argued it shouldn't.
At the heart of this debate, I'm looking for a safe, optional mechanic that doesn't force me to completely overhaul every monster in the book. ;)
So far, I'm leaning heavily toward the DC 10 + spell level + ability modifier + 1/4 character level, and only then as a Feat.
I'll probably be posting the Feat soon enough.
Thanks for your feedback.
Just to return a cross-reference to this thread where we're having a related discussion. We're focused more on the underlying problems people see with DCs rather than an optional rule fix.
To summarize: some players feel their PC spellcasters have a hard time getting high level monsters to fail even their best saves, while other players feel like they're getting reamed by high level monsters because their saves are too low. I'm wondering whether the problem isn't the gap between PC saves and DCs and Monster saves and DCs of a given CR.
|
|
Just to return a cross-reference to this thread where we're having a related discussion. We're focused more on the underlying problems people see with DCs rather than an optional rule fix.
To summarize: some players feel their PC spellcasters have a hard time getting high level monsters to fail even their best saves, while other players feel like they're getting reamed by high level monsters because their saves are too low. I'm wondering whether the problem isn't the gap between PC saves and DCs and Monster saves and DCs of a given CR.
Yeah, I've been following your thread, too. Just wanted to offer up some potential solutions to an agreed upon problem.
Just to return a cross-reference to this thread where we're having a related discussion. We're focused more on the underlying problems people see with DCs rather than an optional rule fix.
To summarize: some players feel their PC spellcasters have a hard time getting high level monsters to fail even their best saves, while other players feel like they're getting reamed by high level monsters because their saves are too low. I'm wondering whether the problem isn't the gap between PC saves and DCs and Monster saves and DCs of a given CR.
I think the main problem is the diversity of the casting system. With melee combat you use always the same factors. To hit vs. AC and damage vs HP, that is it basically. The magic system however entails a lot of different factors. There are 3 saves to begin with. On top of that there are touch spells and spells which just work 100% of the time, no chance of failure. The effects are equally diverse. Some target HP, some abilitys, some restrict movement ect. ect. While I think that Paizo should´t take away too much at the effect diversity, since this makes up much of the flair of the spellcasters, I really start to think it would be good to get rid of the spells which do not target one of the 3 saves ( or change them in a way that they do target one save) That way you can at least make a observation concerning the abilitys of spellcasters without totally ignoring the other aspects.
|
|
Here's an idea that might work for the non-optimizers:
Focusing:
Spend a round casting a spell with a normal casting time of 1 standard action or swift action or immediate action (I don't know. just in case). The spell goes off at the beginning of your next turn as a standard action. You may not move before casting the spell. You receive a +2 to the spell DC. Spellcraft checks to recognize the spell can be made as soon as you declare you're focusing the spell.Improved Focusing:
Prereqs: Caster level 10+.
When focusing the spell DC goes up by +4 (instead of +2). On the turn after you focused you may make your move action before finishing casting the spell. Any attacks of opportunity made during this move are still treated as interrupting spellcasting and require concentration checks as normal.this may seem like a big boost, and others may say its not a big enough boost for the cost but this idea also adds to the tactical style of playing.
I like these, too.
|
|
I guess a 65% chance is ok for some of the huge affects some spells can have on monsters, but I think accepting those odds as being all the character does for a turn is why it feels so bad. tell a fighter he'll miss 60% of the time and he only gets 1 attack he'll be pretty disappointed too.
Here's an idea that might work for the non-optimizers:
Focusing:
Improved Focusing:
this may seem like a big boost, and others may say its not a big enough boost for the cost but this idea also adds to the tactical style of playing.
While the concept is good, it doesn't make it better for prolonged battle. Even if those small addons make the chance of the spell working 100% (which, mathematically, they don't) now the wizard is only getting off one spell every other round. That reduces the number of spells affecting the creature throughout the duration of the combat down to 50% (top end, assuming that the feat makes the spell an auto-success vs SR and saves - which, as I said, it doesn't).
What it does do, however, is make it more likely that a single, big spell will be effective. That will then cause the wizard to throw a handful of spells at the creature that do or don't work, then spend a round doing nothing so that the big one could get pumped up.
Other than for using it once a combat for the "big gun" it doesn't help address the issue of scaling the spell DCs to keep them up with the saves.
|
|
After reading Mailman's related post (linked above), I went and did the math on saves, and it's already pretty bad... so I have to say that any boost to the mecahnics of spell DCs is a "very very bad idea". It may sorta make sense if you only ever throw monsters against your players and you just want them to hit them with stuff more often, but if you ever throw another full caster against them they're basically screwed. The issue is that saves generally don't grow as quickly as caster's highest level save DCs do, and so characters get screwed worse as you go up in levels and the save disparities increase. Since this is when all the most lethal spells pop up, it's not a pretty picture. Boosting every spell to this highest level or above just doesn't work. Since it sounds like you're only worried about monsters and want your PCs to whomp on team monster more easily, whoever suggested cutting monster saves is probably on the right track. At least then you won't have characters whomping all over other characters any more than they already do.
As to your other point, I quite agree that it sucks that half of your spell selection gets reduced to no saves or utility stuff unless you want to blow a high level slot to heighten it's DC to useful land. But I think you'd be better off boosting the abilities of heighten spell to make it a more useful option than going a more global way. Off the top of my head...
Heighten Option 1) Heightened spells are considered spells of the higher level, so the increased damage die cap should apply: i.e a 5th level heightened fireball has a die cap of 15d6 instead of 10d6.
Heighten Option 2) Spells boosted with heighten spell have better than average save DCs for their spell level. Each level a spell is heightened adds an additional 1 (or 1/2 if you want) to the base DC of the spell. The DC of the heightened spell cannot be greater than the DC of the highest level spell you are capable of casting. So if you could cast 7th level spells, you could heighten a fireball to 5th and it...
Yeah, the more and more I think about it, the more and more this is looking like an optional Feat. Something for a dedicated caster to take at higher levels.
|
|
It doesn't help scaling DC's at all. It's a feat that costs an entire round to do, and makes one spell more likely to succeed (not assured success, either - your round might end up having been a TOTAL waste of time and effort). This would be like requiring Power Attack or any other Fighter feat that provides some kind of boost a full round of "powerup" before it could go off. Remember how poorly received the Combat Feat limitation of one-per-round was? Well at least the Fighter got to do something every round. The proposal was for the fighter to be able to do something neat, and forego a full attack option. That got poo-pooed, but now suggesting that a wizard wastes a full round (during which he could be attacked or suffer continuing damage, requiring major rolls just to keep his spell) casting a spell for a very minimal increase in chance of success of one of his major class features. That doesn't sit well with me. :) As I said, it would be a good feat for someone to use late in a fight, maybe, with the big gun. It's not something that a wizard would use with every spell (and, in fact, I doubt it would get used at all until all of my other spells were nearly useless... and since that's kind of the topic of this thread, forcing wizards to only cast a spell every other round to be slightly more effective is just unfair to the wizard).
I know that we're not trying to compare fighter damage output and wizard damage output in this thread, but it's actually somewhat germane to this concept now: in another thread someone demonstrated a barbarian that was putting out, on average, 500 points of damage per round (at 20th level, and I don't know how optimized it was - he used standard wealth levels to get items, and it was just a straight barbarian). The wizard, by contrast, can do - assuming no saves and no sr - 200 points (at 10xCL). If you have to use this feat to make sure the spell gets off, then you're only doing that once every two rounds, dropping average damage down to 100 per round. The wizard should just stay home, it appears. :) Yes, the wizard has much more utility than dishing out damage, which makes him useful - but if all he does the whole combat is throw out spells that don't deal damage and are constantly being resisted or saved against... yah, hanging out in a secured tower seems like a much less frustrating ordeal.
I guess I'm just getting more and more annoyed with the nerfing of wizards and their spells, and the continued efforts of people on the messageboards trying to help "fix" (read: debilitate) them further. (Not you - your feat is a neat idea, just doesn't really help to address the topic of this thread.) And I'm not even a wizard player! I have only ever played one in all of 3.x. However, I've seen one from the DM side of the table, and when other players have played them, and I've seen what a frustrating experience it can be for the player when he basically is just there to take up space and the occasional attack since none of the spells are effective. (Oh, I'm playing a wizard specialising in rays... often no saves, and touch attacks all around - more effective, but only against single targets generally... not exactly the typical role a wizard is supposed to fill... but I refused to play a wizard who just spent whole combats making lots of flash but having no effect.)
Anyway, I suspect nothing was done about this in the beta, either. Jason also seems to believe that wizards were overly powerful in core 3.x. I guess the only way people are expected to play a wizard is to troll through the CO boards at wizards and make something from there.
After reading Mailman's related post (linked above), I went and did the math on saves, and it's already pretty bad... so I have to say that any boost to the mecahnics of spell DCs is a "very very bad idea". It may sorta make sense if you only ever throw monsters against your players and you just want them to hit them with stuff more often, but if you ever throw another full caster against them they're basically screwed. The issue is that saves generally don't grow as quickly as caster's highest level save DCs do, and so characters get screwed worse as you go up in levels and the save disparities increase. Since this is when all the most lethal spells pop up, it's not a pretty picture. Boosting every spell to this highest level or above just doesn't work. Since it sounds like you're only worried about monsters and want your PCs to whomp on team monster more easily, whoever suggested cutting monster saves is probably on the right track. At least then you won't have characters whomping all over other characters any more than they already do.
As to your other point, I quite agree that it sucks that half of your spell selection gets reduced to no saves or utility stuff unless you want to blow a high level slot to heighten it's DC to useful land. But I think you'd be better off boosting the abilities of heighten spell to make it a more useful option than going a more global way. Off the top of my head...
Heighten Option 1) Heightened spells are considered spells of the higher level, so the increased damage die cap should apply: i.e a 5th level heightened fireball has a die cap of 15d6 instead of 10d6.
Heighten Option 2) Spells boosted with heighten spell have better than average save DCs for their spell level. Each level a spell is heightened adds an additional 1 (or 1/2 if you want) to the base DC of the spell. The DC of the heightened spell cannot be greater than the DC of the highest level spell you are capable of casting. So if you could cast 7th level spells, you could heighten a fireball to 5th and it...
Just to follow up -- I agree with Tarkis's math, but I don't think it's overly bad across the board. We noticed there that base saves versus base DCs before any attributes, items, feats, or other min/maxxing, good saves offer between 60-70% saves and bad saves offer between 40-50%. This isn't bad for the saver. Any better saves and the spellcaster's going to be wasting his/her time on anything where saves negate. The problem from the saver's side, is that attributes/items/feats stretch the gap between DCs and bad saves until there's a 20% or so success rate, which becomes a real problem for the saver on anything where saves negate.
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.
I agree with this (except that it's Heighten, not Empower, of course). Allow every caster there is to Heighten their spells, by simple virtue of being a spellcaster and not because they had to spend a feat on it (although, with more character level feats, this is not so painful now). If they've got the higher level spell slots, let them use those slots for their otherwise lower spells.
|
|
The thing that I don't like is that it equates the spell levels, which are intrinsically ties to caster level anyway. In other words, a 20th-level caster has the same DC for Wierd that she does for Color Spray. That seems a little off to me.
I would prefer to go back to the 3.0 rules for Spell Focus, which gave a +2 to the DC instead of +1.
Failing that, you could create a special feat for casters that allows them to boost lower level spells (maybe a +2, stacking with Spell Focus, for all spell levels below the highest level you can currently cast).
Contributor
|
I know this is a long-running discussion, at this point, but I thought I'd offer an alternate option that provides scaling while maintaining something close to a balance. In this thread:
In Starspeaker, my homebrew setting from several years ago, the saving throw against a spell is affected by the level of the spellcaster. As a spellcaster increases his knowledge of the art, he should gain more insight into the best way to cast his spells on others. A 1st-Level spell cast by a 20th-Level cleric is more difficult to resist than the same spell cast by a 1st-Level cleric. Additionally, as spells become more difficult to cast, they also become a bit more difficult to inflict on others. As such, the relative DC number decreases compared to lower-level spells.
A caster’s saving throw is determine by DC = 10 + Caster Level – Spell Level + caster’s bonus for the relevant ability. For example, a 5th-Level Sorcerer (Cha 13) casting a 3rd-Level Spell has a saving throw DC = 10 + 5 – 3 + 1 = 13. This number is lower (for a 5th-Level Sorcerer) than that derived from the formula on page 150 of the Player’s Handbook (DC 14). However, a 1st-Level spell cast by the same Sorcerer would have a save DC 15, whereas the Player’s Handbook formula would result in a save DC 12.
Initially, this change of rules sacrifices some of the deadliness of higher level spells until the caster reaches slightly higher levels. A Wizard casting a 9th-Level spell, say Power Word, Kill, will have a minimum DC 22 (10 + 17th Level – 9th Spell Level + 4 Int Bonus), which is still a pretty high number for lower level characters to beat. As that wizard grows in power to 20th Level, his DC rises to 25. According to the old rules, his DC would always have been 23, regardless of whether the wizard had just learned to cast 9th-Level spells or he had been casting them for years.
This rule obviously makes it harder for characters to fight against spellcasters of much higher level than themselves. However, it provides a means of adjudicating the expertise a higher-level caster will develop with lower-level spells over time. After all, at 17th Level the same wizard caster of Power Word, Kill above will have a better chance of successfully using the 5th-Level spell Dominate Person (DC 26) than he had at 9th-Level (DC 18 = 10 + 9 – 5 + 4).
Spellcasters only are overpowered if you mixmaxes them.
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.
True. DC spell is a real problem- a problem that if you don’t play at high levels don’t see. Worst, many people play (or DMing) a few spellcasters, and they have a misconception about their power (I don’t speak about mixmax play – this isn’t my style of game) The scrying and teleport “problem” also shows that many DMs do not know how to use the D&D magic in their campaigns (this “problem” is absurd), but this don’t mean that the spellcasters are overpowered.
I’m DM and I have had this problem in my game (my players aren’t minmaxers) I returned to 3.0 magic- this has solved some problems (spell durations, spell focus feat is +2 DC). 3.5 magic is frustrating- players must mixmax their wizard/sorcerer (the classes more dependant on their magic- The only classes that have nothing more) because their spells have been too weakened in this edition (although some changes are fine and I use the 3.5 spells because in 3.0 they are too strong)
If you know how to play a spellcaster they are good characters anyway (because they are versatile), but there are a problem. You can’t use a low level spell with DC at high levels—it sucks. The effects of a low level spell are worse than the effects of a high level spell. That should be the difference between the two. That was true in AD&D where the DCs of low and high level spells weren’t different.
I too think that the beta will not solve this problem. I will not use pathfinder magic- it will be a problem (one bigger than 3.5 magic) Spells with more saves? Weaker spells? The players will want to optimize their spellcasters more, and raising their int/char will be a obsession (divine magic is less dependent of DC spell, divine magic has more buffs) And I do not let characteres optimized.
In 3.5, spell durations are too short, evocation spells are a lame (if you aren’t a minmaxer), and monsters saves are too high at mid-high levels. Wizards/sorcerers must have their intelligence/charisma at their top, but I don’t like inherent enhancements at high levels, I think that they must be something special- not the norm (Paizo must think this too, as they have changed the Wish rules) Spell focus in 3.5 is a waste. +1 DC to ONE school? This don’t solve nothing. There are nine schools of magic (eight to practical purposes)
I think that DC spell must be bigger (and spells duration too), but SoD spells (they must stay, too) must have different mechanica than regular (not death) spells. Or perhaps they must give to PCs ‘fate points’ that allow to repeat a fatal roll (death roll); I use this, and is great.
I read you. I hope that you find a solution to this problem. I do not think that Paizo is interested in deal with it.
A Wizard that is maxed out in Int can hardly be called a munchkin-character. You can fairly assume an Int modifier of +11 at level 20.
16 starting value, +5 because of level, +6 because of magic items, and another +5 by using his of own wish spells. DC of 9th level spell is
10 + 11 +9 = 30And if you factor in specialized school or prestige classes like archmage this would be higher still. None of that has anything to do with beeing a munchkin, because dedicated wizards who strife to master magic above anything else is a staple archetype and in some settings like FR can even be considered the norm.
But if the player wants to play a wizard with a little charisma (eg, is a enchanter, or a charming woman)? Or a wizard wise as Gandalf? Can not because his intelligence must be maximized?
The system assumes that your intelligence is maximized if you want to be competent with spells with DCs. This sucks. High intelligence, yes, of course. Maximized ... should not be the case.
Archmage does not increase the DC spell, although you have to take two Spell Focus (it is a poor feat) In 3.5 is not easy to raise spell DC.
However, if the 50% is achievable through average Stats and average equipment then the Munchkins will turn that 50% into 70-80% making the Wizard the powerhouse that I thought Pathfinder was trying to stop it being, at least a bit.
It is easy to solve this problem: you should say *no*, this build is aberrant. And now, problem solved. The rules can not fix the Muchkins. The DM should do.
Sorry for my poor English.