I've seen some threads discussing how 3.5 was problematic because save DCs are too high versus bad saves. I've seen other threads discussing how 3.5 was problematic because save DCs are too low for any of your lower level spells once you become higher level. Are either of these right? or is the problem something else?
My opinion: Having played spellcasters through 20th, I did find that I often couldn't use any spell with a save that negates unless it was one of the highest couple spell levels I could cast. I understand that people say you use those lower level spells against lower level encounters, but I don't often find myself facing goblins when I'm 15th. So, I'd spend all my time trying to boost my saves and do stat damage to other people's save stats.
On the other hand, for years, I've continuously heard people tell me wizards are overpowered, and by default, there shouldn't be any attempt to increase spell DCs of any kind.
I do get that spellcasters have an incentive to boost save DCs and that since they can increase only one stat (their spellcasting stat) and have an effect on save rolls against three different stats of the target, it is generally easier for spellcasters to boost than for targets to boost saves. Nevertheless, I don't know whether my DM arbitrarily boosted monster saves, but I never seemed to outstrip save DCs once we switched to 3.5 (which removed those class and feat powers that allowed easy boosting of save DCs).
I think the feel of overpowering might come not from save DCs, but in part from a wizard/cleric/druid's ability to pick powers suitable to a given situation on a daily basis, which other classes cannot do. Thus, they've always got something precisely useful in a certain situation.
I also think that save or die spells have a lot to do with the problem, since even a 40% chance success rate (the basic rate at which a 20th level target using its bad save saves against a 20th level caster using a 9th level spell), feels overpowering when failure is death. On the other hand, if you're a spell caster, it feels pretty cheap not to have at least a 50/50 chance at your best spell working on an equal opponent. Especially when you feel like you can't use the bottom 2/3rds of your spells.
Also, some of this feeling may come from the fact that, other than direct damage, saves usually negate, which makes magic use very swingy. Whether it's death or blindness, having either a wasted action or a serious condition be the possible options is going to be swingy by necessity.
snip long text
Pretty accurate description of the controversial views on the topic. The only thing I would question is your number of a 40 % succes-rate when a 20th level caster attacks the bad save of an equal counterpart. Maybe I misunderstood you here, but if not I would question that number. (I´m really too tired to do the number crunching myself right now)
I think the DCs are pretty balanced. It should be hard to take out higher level PCs. The main problem in 3.5 was the save or die spells but Pathfinder has pretty much done away with those.
Pretty accurate description of the controversial views on the topic. The only thing I would question is your number of a 40 % succes-rate when a 20th level caster attacks the bad save of an equal counterpart. Maybe I misunderstood you here, but if not I would question that number. (I´m really too tired to do the number crunching myself right now)
20th level bad save is a +6. Base DC of a 9th lvl spell without attribute bonus is a 19. Needing to roll at least a 13 is a 40% chance. Of course, when you factor in attribute bonuses, this can swing a bit towards the caster unless the save in question applies to the target's class's primary stat.
(I´m really too tired to do the number crunching myself right now)20th level bad save is a +6. Base DC of a 9th lvl spell without attribute bonus is a 19.
I don't think the numbers work out that way in practice. I checked out the SRD, and the CR 20 monsters are dragons, outsiders, and the tarrasque. The lowest saving throw I see is +19.
A 20th caster starting with an 18 intelligence and an +6 stat booster that put all 5 stat increases into their spellcasting stat has a 4+6+2=+12 or DC 22 saving throw. Throw in spell focus and that's DC 23, so the monster fails its bad save on a 3.
Weirdly, if I go down to CR 17 and 18 monsters (Marilith, Nightcrawler) the save discrepancy isn't so bad. There's something weird going on with the saving throws of high-level monsters that starts to throw off math and make casters cry.
I wonder if we need some sort of partial save mechanic, or maybe an epic feat that lets your spells do -something- even if the target makes its save, if it makes it by less than 10.
Epic needs its own tweaks, of course. Another DM I know capped epic items at twice the non-epic bonus, which nicely prevents +19 cloaks of resistance.
20th level bad save is a +6. Base DC of a 9th lvl spell without attribute bonus is a 19. Needing to roll at least a 13 is a 40% chance. Of course, when you factor in attribute bonuses, this can swing a bit towards the caster unless the save in question applies to the target's class's primary stat.
Pretty accurate description of the controversial views on the topic. The only thing I would question is your number of a 40 % succes-rate when a 20th level caster attacks the bad save of an equal counterpart. Maybe I misunderstood you here, but if not I would question that number. (I´m really too tired to do the number crunching myself right now)
I had posted on this topic under Races & Classes. You have to remember that a 20th level wizard is fighting various 20th level+ monsters and in a large party (5+ characters) 25th+ level monsters. These monsters have the saving throws ccapable of dealing with DC13-19 no problems.
Examples:
STORM GIANT - 19HD CR:13(requires 2) Saves: F +17, R +8, W +13
YOUNG ADULT RED DRAGON - 19d12+95HD* (218) Saves: F +16, R +11, W +13
(*Dragon CRs are kinda off IMO<low-end>, but I'm betting a 19HD Dragon isn't a CR20.)
--------------------------((REPOST))--------------------------
MY SUGGESTION:
At every EVEN level (2,4,6,8...) the caster would get +1 to their spell DCs. (rounded down) This helps casters use lower level spells at higher levels, but at the same time does not become game breaking. No to mention that is also gives you something at that slightly crappy level where you usually only get 1 more spell per day and some skill points. (example: level 2... you can cast, 2 - 1st level spells instead of 1.)
SPELL DC:
10 (base) + Spell Level + Ability Modifier + 1/2 Caster Level (rounded down)
Example:
6th Level wizard with an 16 Int casting Grease... DC 17
Not entirely difficult for a CR 6-10 monster, ( CR depending on party size) but better than a 14... and not game breaking.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone then says, "but that makes them super powerful!"
No, not really...
a 19HD Dragon has F +16, R +11, W +13.
a 32HD Dragon has F +25, R +17, W +23.
A wizard casting a 9th level spell with say 22 Int.(+6) has a 35 DC. So a 32HD Dragon has to roll the following to save... F 10, R 18, W 12. AND don't forget the Dragon isn't pulling punches with his "6 attacks at +40 to hit" or a 18d10 (DC 33) Breath Weapon. Oh yea and don't forget a ton of those higher level/CR baddies also have Spell Resistance which is usually more frustrating than the Saves. You aren't suppose to be fighting 200, CR1 goblins. ;p
And don't worry, cuz I'm sure you'll save against the DC33 breath weapon with your super saves 20th level wizard... F +6, R +6, W +12. It had better be a darn good 9th level spell is all I'm saying.
-END OF LINE-
(I´m really too tired to do the number crunching myself right now)20th level bad save is a +6. Base DC of a 9th lvl spell without attribute bonus is a 19.I don't think the numbers work out that way in practice. I checked out the SRD, and the CR 20 monsters are dragons, outsiders, and the tarrasque. The lowest saving throw I see is +19.
A 20th caster starting with an 18 intelligence and an +6 stat booster that put all 5 stat increases into their spellcasting stat has a 4+6+2=+12 or DC 22 saving throw. Throw in spell focus and that's DC 23, so the monster fails its bad save on a 3.
tergiver: DC you described is 28 (4+3+2 = 9, + 9th level spell, + 10 = 28). So the monster fails bad save on an 8 - 40% chance.
Mailman: Figure seems roughly right. 19 DC without attribute, vs. bad save +11 (+6 base, +5 resistance) = 7 fails, 35%.
For what its worth, I'm considering allowing a feat to switch a caster's save DC's to 10/11 + 1/3 caster level + attribute. Can't quite decide between 10 and 11 - 10 is probably "fairer", but 11 makes the first few levels much closer - a full difference vs. highest spell level only coming at 9th, then every 6 levels. Also you are expending a feat to do it.
Edit: Wow - Here I'm worried about 11 + 1/3 caster level, and Daniel Moyer just suggested 10 + 1/2 caster level + Spell Level - ROTFL. Gotta love our varied perspectives.
I don't think the numbers work out that way in practice. I checked out the SRD, and the CR 20 monsters are dragons, outsiders, and the tarrasque. The lowest saving throw I see is +19.
A 20th caster starting with an 18 intelligence and an +6 stat booster that put all 5 stat increases into their spellcasting stat has a 4+6+2=+12 or DC 22 saving throw. Throw in spell focus and that's DC 23, so the monster fails its bad save on a 3.
Weirdly, if I go down to CR 17 and 18 monsters (Marilith, Nightcrawler) the save discrepancy isn't so bad. There's something weird going on with the saving throws of high-level monsters that starts to throw off math and make casters cry.
I'm afraid you missed a couple modifiers there.
20th level primary caster
Base 18 in their casting stat
+6 Enhancement
+5 Levelling
+3 or +5 Inherent (They do have Wish/Miracle right? If not, there's always Manuals)
Giving them a final total of 32 or 34 in their casting stat, so either +11 or +12 to DC.
Now throw in Spell Focus and (possibly) Greater Focus, along with +DC from 8th/9th level spells, and you have a final DC range of somewhere between 30 and 33 for level appropriate and heightened spells.
Against the 33, the +19 saves are going to need to roll a 14 to save, meaning the 20th level mages spells hig 65% of the time, or roughly two thirds. That's not half bad.
Cloak of resistances are mostly meant to give humanoid opponents that have fewer HD/lower base stats than monster manual foes a way to bring their saves up to snuff.
For example, vs. the same caster as before, a 20th level foe has a base low save of +6 and probably +2 to +6 from their stats, giving them a total of +8 to +12 to that save. Meaning they would need to roll a flat 20 every time to have any chance. Add in a +6 cloak of resistance and it's +14 to +18, still not great, depending on the combination of caster stats and how much they improved their off stats, they could have as bad as a 10% chance of saving, or as good as a 40% chance.. still not that high.
Unfortunately the only way to really fix saves is to tie Monster CR to HD. Large/Huge mobs that were designed with higher HD than CR should instead have bonus HP or Con, etc. etc. etc.
That's a heck of a lot of work though, and kind of breaks backwards compatibility.
Without that fix, or breaking the tie between HD and total saves, some monsters are always going to have saves that are too high, and everyone else is going to have saves that are too low.
|
Wow, this is the same, exact debate I've been having over here.
Several optional rules for boosting DCs have been suggested, including a few of my own.
20th level bad save is a +6. Base DC of a 9th lvl spell without attribute bonus is a 19. Needing to roll at least a 13 is a 40% chance. Of course, when you factor in attribute bonuses, this can swing a bit towards the caster unless the save in question applies to the target's class's primary stat.
Just to point out what others have said: at level 20, you're not necessarily facing 20 HD opponents. Unless they're outsiders, maybe, who don't have any poor saves.
I see a lot of people are beating my 20th level example to death.
For the record, in my experience, wizard DCs haven't been too high, they've been too low against relatively even CR monsters (see the examples several people have provided here). With min/maxxed attributes and buffs, I still ended up settling for a 50/50 chance or worse with my best spells, let alone anything a level or two off my best.
I provided the unmodified example because it runs to the counterargument. While I'm complaining about player wizard DCs against monsters, others seem to feel DM's NPC DCs are too high against their saves. The basic unmodified "bad save at 20" versus unmodified 9th lvl spell DC seemed a good place to start.
Based on what's been said here, it sounds like player class saves or DCs aren't the thing that needs fixing. What seems to need fixing is the gap between player class saves and DCs and monster saves and DCs.
Any agreement?
Based on what's been said here, it sounds like player class saves or DCs aren't the thing that needs fixing. What seems to need fixing is the gap between player class saves and DCs and monster saves and DCs.
Any agreement?
I'll agree with most of that. I do think player class saves need some fixing, but what's preventing that is the monster saves (if you fix the values for players, monster saves would be impossible to beat), so yeah, that might need fixing first.
Like I said earlier, unless CR is tied to HD, or Saves are untied from HD, there's no clean way to fix it for every monster.
And unfortunately either solution would break compatibility, so we're unlikely to see it outside of houserules.
Really I think CR should have been tied to HD from the very beginning, it would have solved a lot of problems.
I provided the unmodified example because it runs to the counterargument. While I'm complaining about player wizard DCs against monsters, others seem to feel DM's NPC DCs are too high against their saves.
I haven't necessarily heard that complaint, except for specific creatures. For instance, you have to add a lot of hit dice to an undead creature for it to be a challenge (because the lack of a Con score makes them a bit fragile), but that in turn jacks up the DCs of various (Su) abilities that are based on HD.
The other issue is that at high levels the rogue's Reflex save and the Cleric's Will save (or either one for a Monk) will be much higher than someone who has a poor base Reflex or Will save. So it's difficult to have a DC that will have a chance at affecting them without making it an almost automatic failure for the rest of the party. I don't know if that's a big problem, though.
The other issue is that at high levels the rogue's Reflex save and the Cleric's Will save (or either one for a Monk) will be much higher than someone who has a poor base Reflex or Will save. So it's difficult to have a DC that will have a chance at affecting them without making it an almost automatic failure for the rest of the party. I don't know if that's a big problem, though.
Maybe that's a more precise way of putting the problem. I always hear people complain that spellcasters are too powerful. I think some of that goes to particular spells that need to be nerfed and the swingy-ness of save or die spells, but when someone suggests that a wizard has problems using lower level spells because of low DCs, the answer is always: hey, let's not help the spellcasters anymore, they're already broken. I'm trying to find a way to separate these two problems in this thread, but I digress.
To get back to your point about the gap between good and bad saves, why should the NPC monster have it any different than the PC caster? When I face an equal level CR as a wizard, I usually have at best a 50% chance at success with my best spells against their BAD save. That's the difficulty really. Thus, in reverse, there really shouldn't be a situation where the monster gets to jack up its DC to have a good chance at affecting a GOOD save, and thus trashes the PC with the relevant BAD save. The monster should instead have to try and target bad saves, just like I do as a PC wizard.
To put it another way, perhaps: if you're fighting a monster that's better than any individual party member, the monster is always going to trash any individual PC if it decides to focus solely on that PC, be it through saving throws or beatdown.
Thus, in reverse, there really shouldn't be a situation where the monster gets to jack up its DC to have a good chance at affecting a GOOD save, and thus trashes the PC with the relevant BAD save. The monster should instead have to try and target bad saves, just like I do as a PC wizard.
I agree. I don't think it's a big problem. At high levels, rogues have earned the fight to yawn when a dragon breathes fire on them.
Why not base the system of monster save DC's on monster CR +/- their relevant ability modifier. Beefcake monsters get better than average FORT saves for example.
Then use the SR system to make certain magic resistant monsters harder to target by effectively adding an addition line of defence.
Tarkis,
I think you're right that they're two separate problems, but they're definitely related, and I think your analysis of the first one is right. Which means we either need to make it harder for mages to pump their DC (which was tried going into 3.5) or make it easier to increase saves. However, (and this gets into the interrelatedness of the problems) we've already got a system where DCs are too high for non-best-level spells, so maybe 4E got this one right, in getting rid of good and bad saves. Still, 4E made both saves only slightly better than 3.X bad saves, when it probably should have instead been slightly worse than 3.X good saves.
Your suggested heighten spell changes (at least your second one), I think, may end up with results similar to DC boosts in the psionics system. Actually, I much prefer playing straight-class psionics users than pure spellcasters -- not because I want to go nova or use some silly combo, but because I can feel good about using all my resources. And you still have to ration because it's too easy to blow all your powerpoints on fully pumped powers and low level powers are still useful even unpumped. Low-level spells don't maintain that kind of utility at high levels unless they're buffs - and there's still usually a better option.
In any event, the reason why your suggestion (and psionics for that matter) solve at least one of these interrelated problems is that they allow for increasing low-level spell DCs without permitting increases to high-level spell DCs.
|
|
Roll a d20 and add bonuses instead of starting at 10. Every now and then spells will have awesomely high save DCs and now and again awfully easy to beat DCs.
I don't like this idea because I think adding more dice rolls than are already there hurts the game. Further, it makes spellcasting even more random in its effect than it already is. If BBEG is a lich and casts Wail of the Banshee, you not only have to worry about rolling poorly on your own save, but the Lich rolling high on his d20 to modify the DC. I think the goal is to try to find a way to fix the discrepancies and make them less random and not more so. JMHO.
Yeah, they're related, and the intersection is the spellcaster DC formula. To be effective against monsters, you have to blow your biggest spells and optimize a bit, which then puts you well over the save bonuses of most characters of your level. We're in a crappy middle ground right now. Yay. Having thought on it more, I think there's really only two was to resolve it:
1) You can leave things mostly alone, and just drop bloated monster saves where appropriate/necessary.
2) You can revert to the 3.0 DC boosting feats, and boost character saves to bring them into line with "many more HD" monster saves.
There's a third option here related to option 1.
Tie HD to CR, and use another method for "pumping" creatures that need to be stronger in one area. It really seems like throughout the MM, creatures were given additional HD (sometimes twice their CR or more) just to get their BAB and total HP up to their CR, because they happened to be a creature type that didn't get a good BAB. (Giant, Dire Animals, etc. Dragons are huge offenders in terms of HD-to-CR too, but they're supposed to be stupid hard so they get a pass.) This HD inflation is the real reason that high CR encounters seem so rough on saves. If you look at the high CR encounters for creatures that don't have inflated HD the saves are right in line with what a players would be at that level.It might be a good idea to change the BAB/HD/Saves from being tied to the creature type to being tied to a [role] or [subtype] instead. Otherwise a lot of great creature ideas are just flat out impossible to build in d20 without breaking something. For example, it might be possible to make stats for a Redcap in d20, but with d6 base hd and a wizard base attack, it would need to either have massively overinflated hd (breaking it's saves against casters) or have massively overinflated stats/abilities (breaking polymorph and making it hard to balance as a playable race).
Admittedly this would require a good bit of work, but in the long run it would make everything much, much easier to balance, and would make creating new creatures much, much, much faster and easier.
I can only hope that at the very least there are some better guidelines for creating new creatures included with Pathfinder.
|
|
I really don't think the good save/bad save discrepency is much of an issue. There are feats that can be taken and applied to any saving throw type (Lightning Reflexes, Iron Will, and Great Fort) to close the gap by +2. What I've experienced that gets back to the 'spellcasters are overpowered' argument is with all the new splatbooks the number of 1)swift/immediate spells and 2)spells bypassing SR and/or not allowing saves both increase greatly. And with my group of admitted min/maxers much of their spell selection is often based on such criteria.
Are spell DCs too high? too low? or just askew overall?
No. Not really.
Are spell DCs too high? too low? or just askew overall?No. Not really.
Care to back that up with some sort of logical argument?
I really don't think the good save/bad save discrepency is much of an issue. There are feats that can be taken and applied to any saving throw type (Lightning Reflexes, Iron Will, and Great Fort) to close the gap by +2. What I've experienced that gets back to the 'spellcasters are overpowered' argument is with all the new splatbooks the number of 1)swift/immediate spells and 2)spells bypassing SR and/or not allowing saves both increase greatly. And with my group of admitted min/maxers much of their spell selection is often based on such criteria.
Do you really know people who regularly take those feats? Even if you were to take one, it only boosts one save, and to argue from the savERs' side, that doesn't really close the gap. For example, if you start with a 45% save rate (and that's considered acceptable), casters can lean on one stat all the way up and increase all their saves by 20% or more, while those feats will only improve one of three saves by 10% success, and they certainly aren't able to boost all three save attributes like casters boost their one prime stat.
SR: people keep bringing up SR bypass. In my experience, SR is a prime culprit of why I have to min/max a caster. Only my high level spells have a reasonable chance at success, and now I have to deal with SR as well. So of course I pick spells conjuration spells that avoid SR, in the same way that I only pick non-save-negate spells for my useless low-level spells. At the same time, since SR usually is better for stuff with better saves, the SR is low enough on stuff with crappy saves that I don't care about it anyways. If you want SR to matter, give decent SR to stuff with lower saves to force the caster to think about spell selection, but don't give sick SR to high save creatures that already only fail on the best spells.
...SPELL DC:
10 (base) + Spell Level + Ability Modifier + 1/2 Caster Level (rounded down)...
I don't know if this has been said, already resolved, or even talked about but I think using this idea but instead making it like this,
"Spell DC = 10 (the base, silly) + Spell Casting Ability Modifier (as above but different name) + 1/2 Spell Casting Class Level"(the bolded part is my solution but only if it hasn't already been said)
Gaining levels in prestige classes that increase caster levels should also count as gaining levels in the base class. And anything that increases [u]caster level[/u] (nothing else) does not increase the caster's DC's.
So how's this? (Mind you, I have not read most of this thread so please don't kill me)
I'll try to adress this in logical sections.
1.. Concerning Lower Level Spells being Easily Saveable at High Level.
IMO, thank god. Now I'll go ahead and conceede that it might be nice if my 19th level sorcerer could still get some use out of his 3rd level fireball. It sucks, a Delayed Blast Fireball has a reasonable chance of hitting for 19d6, a fireball will probably only hit for 5d6. But fireballs aren't the problem. Problem is spells like Hold Person, etc. Sure Paizo may have softened save-or-dies, but save-or-lose spells are just as potent as ever. Hold Person, Glitterdust, Slow, Bestow Curse, Blindness/Deafness, and Silence are all 3rd level or lower spells that could, if the save was failed, hamper a high level monster so severely, that combat would be effectively over. The monster really *needs* the 90% or so chance that he has to pass these DCs, or casters would be the only thing worth playing. Increasing DCs for lower level spells using methods like +1/2 caster level to DC certainly tripples or better the number of save-or-lose spells available to the wizard per day. Spells like Slow are particularly violent offenders, because they can effect multiple creatures of any type and will vastly debuff the target/s. Casting your strongest save-or-lose spell at a monster and having a 50% chance of basically disabling the monster is as good as these spells need to be!
2... Concerning the "Save Gap"
This is indeed somewhat of a problem, although it can be mitigated by spells and effects that provide save bonuses or partial counter-effects to spells. Examples include but are not limited to; Protection From Spells, Spell Resistance, Magic Circle Against Evil (blocks mental domination), Death Ward, Resist Energy, Protection from Energy, Holy/Unholy Aura, any magic item that duplicates the ability of one or more of the above (rings of energy resistance, scarabs of protection), ionstones, rods of absorbtion, rings of counterspells, and the Apparatus of Kwalish.
.... er, so maybe not that last one. But the point remains. There is a lot of stuff that can be done to reduce or nullify save stuff. A rogue with a decent UMD and a wand of Protection from Evil should have very little problem with most will saves.
But I'm kind of digressing a bit. What I really wanted to bring up was there is the fact that having a bad save in some categories is considerably worse than having a bad save in others. Having a poor reflex save means you basically fail every fireball that comes at you, which hurts. But especially with energy resistance, you can take this. Having a bad fortidude save can be a death sentnece, having a bad will save makes you a prime target for Hold spells and others, which suck. If you got to pick which save is your bad one... everyone would pick reflex. And that kind of sucks, but it's the nature of magic, unfortunately..
1.. Concerning Lower Level Spells being Easily Saveable at High Level.
IMO, thank god. Now I'll go ahead and conceede that it might be nice if my 19th level sorcerer could still get some use out of his 3rd level fireball. It sucks, a Delayed Blast Fireball has a reasonable chance of hitting for 19d6, a fireball will probably only hit for 5d6. But fireballs aren't the problem. Problem is spells like Hold Person, etc. Sure Paizo may have softened save-or-dies, but save-or-lose spells are just as potent as ever. Hold Person, Glitterdust, Slow, Bestow Curse, Blindness/Deafness, and Silence are all 3rd level or lower spells that could, if the save was failed, hamper a high level monster so severely, that combat would be effectively over. The monster really *needs* the 90% or so chance that he has to pass these DCs, or casters would be the only thing worth playing. Increasing DCs for lower level spells using methods like +1/2 caster level to DC certainly tripples or better the number of save-or-lose spells available to the wizard per day. Spells like Slow are particularly violent offenders, because they can effect multiple creatures of any type and will vastly debuff the target/s. Casting your strongest save-or-lose spell at a monster and having a 50% chance of basically disabling the monster is as good as these spells need to be!
I'm gonna go ahead and disagree. It's not the 50% with my best spells I disagree with -- it's the 25% or so with the remaining bulk of my spells. If I could guarantee a 50% success rating with most of my spells, I might not feel so bad, but that's not the case.
If only my top spell level or two has a reasonable (read: about 50%) success rate, that means that I only get about, let's say 3-6, spells per day that have a reasonable success rate against equal CR opponents. If you figure at least three or so combats per day and at least 5 rounds per combat, that's only about a third of the time where a wizard has a 50% success rate at the thing he's supposed to do best -- and that's assuming all highest spells are combat spells with saves.
Also, let's not get crazy. While some of those spells can have a substantial penalty on a single creature (as a spellcaster's highest spells should have against equal CR monsters) I think you're overstating the point. At high level play (13 and up) a blinded or silent monster is not dead. Hold person and mind control spells are difficult to target (ie, lots of stuff immune/resistant) and have repeating saves (at a 50% rate, they should save by their second opportunity, statistically). And, we haven't even discussed SR yet.
Lets not kid around here, a monster that is Held even for a single round is dead, unless his initiative is immidiately after the wizards, in which case he gets another chance. Otherwise he is coup-de-gras-ed.
It's difficult to judge the effect of many of these spells admittedly, specifically because monsters have vastly differing abilities. Being blinded if you have tremmorsense or blindsense, or even the blind fight feat, is not so bad. If you don't, you suddenly lose 50% of your combat effectiveness. Hence, save-or-lose. if the monster has no way to counteract this effect, monster is no longer a legitamate challenge.
I recognize that you might only have 3-4 top notch spells, but your other spells are not useless, just down an increment of 5% per spell level. Your second tier is nearly as potent, and even your third tier has a good chance of sucess. Even 4th tier and lower have a fair chance of success when employed against a creature's bad save.
20th level wiz Hold person (or Slow, since that is far harder to counter with a spell or item): DC 10+10 (int... a fair assumption i think) +3= dc 23. 20th level rogue's will save 6+2(wis, i feel that's generous) +5 resistance item... looking at about +13... a 50% chance of success for a 3rd level spell at 20th level!
So I feel making the DCs scale up any more is not the best idea. Many wizards choose to employ lower level slots for utility spells, which is fine... but alternatively you can still prepare save-or-bad spells with decent effect, so long as you're smart about what to use it on.
Too be honest I've always missed the +2 bonus Spell Focus and Great SF gave in 3.0.
I agree, but to keep low level characters from having spells in which a save or die spell becomes virtually impossible to save, I would make Spell Focus (+2 DC) have a prerequisite of Caster Level 3 and Greater Spell Focus (+4 DC) have a prerequisite of Caster Level 11 (or at minimum Caster Level 9).
20th level wiz Hold person (or Slow, since that is far harder to counter with a spell or item): DC 10+10 (int... a fair assumption i think) +3= dc 23. 20th level rogue's will save 6+2(wis, i feel that's generous) +5 resistance item... looking at about +13... a 50% chance of success for a 3rd level spell at 20th level!
I'm not sure I'm on board with those numbers. I just took a quick spin around the SRD and monsters CR 17-20 have a bad save that's more in the range of 17-19 than 13. In fact, I think just about all CR 20 monsters have a 19 bad save, bringing your effectiveness down to about 20%...on a bad save. Also, maybe I play a different style game than you do, but a +10 int bonus is only going to happen at 20th if you get a +5 stat item or wishes, and those aren't run of the mill in the games I play in, so you may have to adjust that save down a bit more.
Of course, this all also assumes that you can determine the monster's worst save and have a useful spell ready of the appropriate save type--certainly not a given. These numbers get much worse for the caster when you can't target the worst save (which is sometimes an inherent nerf to spells that are high level because they affect multiple targets).
I recognize that you might only have 3-4 top notch spells, but your other spells are not useless, just down an increment of 5% per spell level. Your second tier is nearly as potent, and even your third tier has a good chance of sucess. Even 4th tier and lower have a fair chance of success when employed against a creature's bad save.
Again, we're assuming identification of the bad save and the appropriate spell, but even so--for maybe a 15-round of combat day, you've got a third of your time with a 45-50% chance of success at the thing you do best, best case scenerio. You then fill up the rest of that day--again, best case scenerio: assuming right spells prepared, identify bad save--with a 25-40% chance of success.
But, maybe that's what we want. Maybe we want spellcasters to be less useful on a round-to-round basis so people play them less.
Also, another interesting thing is that the average bad save for a monster is likely much higher than the average bad save for something of equal CR with character classes. Someone else here or on the other thread mentioned that the disparity is not between save DCs and saves, but between Monster stats and class stats. In going through the SRD just now, I did notice that the monsters of high CR (15 or above) with the lowest bad saves, were generally the lower CR monsters who gained character levels.
Maybe that's an argument to nerf spell DCs and monster saves or maybe it's an argument to improve class bad-saves. This goes back to my earlier point about reducing the disparity between a character's bad and good saves.
I agree with Mainmail. That is my personal experience DMing and playing spellcasters.
Perhaps thats why our numbers were askew, as I was basing my calculations off of Character Class saves, not monster saves. Monsters have lots more HD generally, giving them much better saves than a PC class of the same CR.
Nevertheless, any monster that you can bring up I can counter with a different 20th level PC, which is counted as the same CR, meaning that there are a near-infinite amount of CR 20 encounters that have saves as I described. Maybe that's a problem with the CR system, but as it stands... Tarrasque is CR20, and so is the 20th level rogue I mentioned.
Also, what exactly do you play that a 20th level caster *doesnt* have a 30 in int? start with a 16, +5 from stat boosts (21) +6 from an item (27) and +3 from a tome/wishes? At 20th level, ESPECIALLY now that crafting a tome doesnt cost you any XP, any caster should have a +5! I feel the 30 was low if anything. Starting with an 18 (likely in 3p) would bump it up to 32, and a +5 tome instead of +3 would bump it up to 34. In 3p you could even start with a 20 in your casting stat, making it 36 if you really wanted it to be. If you don't have craft wonderous item and enough time to make a Headband of Vast Intellect (hell, a Headband of Mental Supremacy by that level) and some +5 stat boosting tomes, or casting wish a gajillion times... Something went wrong. I didn't even add in the quite possible Spell Focus that a wizard might have picked up by that level.
Identifying bad saves isn't too hard to do with guesswork. Heavy armored is probably reflex or will, light armored is probably will. "Basher" monsters are reflex or will, "Caster" monsters are probably reflex. If not, try a knowledge (appropriate) check and ask your DM if you can find out what it's weak defense is with you roll.
Perhaps thats why our numbers were askew, as I was basing my calculations off of Character Class saves, not monster saves. Monsters have lots more HD generally, giving them much better saves than a PC class of the same CR.
Nevertheless, any monster that you can bring up I can counter with a different 20th level PC, which is counted as the same CR, meaning that there are a near-infinite amount of CR 20 encounters that have saves as I described. Maybe that's a problem with the CR system, but as it stands... Tarrasque is CR20, and so is the 20th level rogue I mentioned.
Agreed. That's my point though. That means we need to sync up character saves and monster saves somehow. Our choices seem to be, find some way to lower monster saves to scale with character levels (seems difficult if we want to stay backwards compatable) or make character level "bad" saves less bad. (and simultaneously address lower level spell DCs).
Also, what exactly do you play that a 20th level caster *doesnt* have a 30 in int? start with a 16, +5 from stat boosts (21) +6 from an item (27) and +3 from a tome/wishes? At 20th level, ESPECIALLY now that crafting a tome doesnt cost you any XP, any caster should have a +5! I feel the 30 was low if anything. Starting with an 18 (likely in 3p) would bump it up to 32, and a +5 tome instead of +3 would bump it up to 34. In 3p you could even start with a 20 in your casting stat, making it 36 if you really wanted it to be. If you don't have craft wonderous item and enough time to make a Headband of Vast Intellect (hell, a Headband of Mental Supremacy by that level) and some +5 stat boosting tomes, or casting wish a gajillion times... Something went wrong. I didn't even add in the quite possible Spell Focus that a wizard might have picked up by that level.
I don't know about under the new rules, but I doubt that everyone plays in such a way that every caster min/maxxes their prime req as far as humanly possible, which is your assumption. You've assumed they've: 1) put in all stat boosts; 2) gotten the highest available magic item booster; and 3) they've cast the most powerful spell in the game multiple times.
I know many people who play that way, but I also know plenty of players (and DMs, more importantly) who don't make it that easy to do this sort of thing. In any event, I think it's a mistake to assume this is the "average."
Identifying bad saves isn't too hard to do with guesswork. Heavy armored is probably reflex or will, light armored is probably will. "Basher" monsters are reflex or will, "Caster" monsters are probably reflex. If not, try a knowledge (appropriate) check and ask your DM if you can find out what it's weak defense is with you roll.
While it may not be hard (depending on a charcter's knowledge skills) it does take actions. If your DM requires an action, that's a round lost per monster in your 15 round day. If not, maybe by looking at a monster (without metagaming) tends to rule out one of the three saves, but as you pointed out, you're still left with two saves, which means you've got a 50% chance to pick the right one, and assuming you have the appropriate spell, then have a 50% chance of success. 50% x 50% is 25% -- effectively halving your chance of success with your best spell, doing the thing you do best -- in the best case scenerio. Also, as you mentioned, you can "probably" rule out one save -- meaning sometimes, you're going to be totally wrong, wasting more rounds and spells.
I don't want to beat this to death, but I think it's important to acknowledge that you can't just assume you can target the bad save when we're addressing balance in the system.
It is rather easy to see that there can be a very wide variety of saving throws and spell DCs.
I feel that since there is no general consensus of them being too high or too low, means they are probably *centered* at about the right point.
Given that, I'm generally supportive of ideas to narrow the range, without changing the focus. Caster level based saves (whether a full 10 + 1/2 caster level, or +1/3, + stat, or other) are one method towards that, there are some other solutions out there.
I don't feel any of them are *needed*. The idea of an unbeatable spell cast by a supremely powerful wizard, or a holy champion, untouchable by magic, both work fine as parts of a fantasy world. As doethe more average "Haha, you'll never survive my *Fireball*... oh.. you did.." hit and miss sort.
The disparity between PCs and Monsters (high HD/CR monsters particularly) can be glaring, but also has some precedent. I wouldn't want to see the Tarrasque fall to a random 7th level Bard's Charm Monster simply because it has a low will save. Neither can it sneak up on me in a crowded marketplace and swiftly deal 40d6+ of sneak attack damage by the time I get initiative like a Rogue can. PCs are generally bent a little more towards offense.
Too be honest I've always missed the +2 bonus Spell Focus and Great SF gave in 3.0.
Ditto, and IMC, ive brought those two feats back as they were listed in 3.0. Ive also thought the idea of increasing caster strength as the spellcaster increases in their class level would be a good idea. Nothing too big, but enough to offset some of the disparity ive seen. Basically a +1 to the base spell save DC per 5 caster levels. starting at the base of 10 at level 1. So the base by 20th level is 14. Seems to have worked so far IMC.