Many of the threads and posts mention the uselessness of lower level spells at the high end of the game, ‘over powered’ spell casters dominating the game, crappy saves relegating non-spell casters to ‘gish’ status.
Therefore I can only assume many people feel the spell casting and resisting systems are out of whack. So I had a few rough ideas that I hope people can help me refine.
1) Uselessness of lower level spells
Spell DCs are typically 10 + spell level + attribute bonus. Therefore spell DCs increase at roughly 1 point per 2 levels. I say roughly because when you take into account the impacts of permanent attribute increases every four levels and temporary attribute bonuses from equipment the DCs increase a bit quicker than 1 point per two levels.
To balance the DC increases, ‘good’ save bonuses increase at a rate of 1 point per 2 levels. As a result, the DCs for lower level spells are considerably easier for mid to high level characters to resist. Several poster have proposed 10 + caster level or some fraction of caster level. This helps make the lower level spells harder to resist but it also makes the higher level spells harder to resist.
What if we calculate Spell DCs as 10 + caster level – spell level + attribute bonus. This would make lower level spells harder to resist while keeping higher level spells on par with the current system. For example:
- DC for 18 Wizard, with 22 Int casting Charm Monster is 10 + 18 - 4 + 6 = 30 (Under the current system the DC would be 20)
- DC for 18 Wizard, with 22 Int casting Dominate Monster is 10 + 18 - 9 + 6 = 25 (Under the current system the DC would be 25)
I realize I didn’t add the extra 8-10 Int that some believe the 18 Wizard should have but the exact amount of temporary attribute bonuses from equipment seems to vary greatly from campaign to campaign.
2) ‘Over powered’ spell casters dominating the game
I realize what I propose could easily make this worse so we need to focus on the third point. Also the common cases for this argument include the long duration ‘save or I take you out of the combat’ spells and seldom the instant direct damage spells.
3) Crappy saves relegating non-spell casters to ‘gish’ status
Setting aside the ‘save or die’ direct damage spells, is the actual problem the crappy saves or the single chance to resist a spell using crappy saves. Would a character getting a chance to break a spell every turn after failing to resist the spell help offset the ‘save or I take you out of the combat’ spells? That way a single bad roll doesn’t doom a character and a single high roll would help a character.
Additionally the Great Fortitude, Iron Will, and Lightning Reflexes feats could be changed to read:
+2 bonus on <Insert Type> saves against instant or extended duration effects. Grants an additional +1 per round to break or resist extended duration effects.
(I’m honestly not sure if there are any extended duration effects in the game that a character would make a reflex save against but I included Lightning Reflexes for parity.)
Of course it would be easy to add follow-on feats that offered increased bonuses or automatic breaks or resists of instant or extended duration effects.
On an unrelated note, in 3.5 characters reach level 20 with 190,000 XP. In Pathfinder the same 190,000 XP gets them to level 10, 11, or 12 depending on which of the three experience charts your game uses.
Will the slowing of character advancement help with spell issues since there should be more time for everyone to get better equipment?
Will the new XP charts get used? Will Pathfinder story lines have to get individually longer or include more issues to feel as rewarding?
Just some quick thoughts.
What are yours?
|
Why not calculate save DCs for spells like save DCs for virtually everything else in the game? 10 + 1/2 HD + stat mod. Its what every monster ability uses, and monster HD scale questionably with CR whereas PC HD scale perfectly with level.
While we're at it, fix other DC scaling to this as well (ie, PrC ability DCs - especially the 5-level PrCs whose save DC is unexciting and stops at 15+attribute mod instead of actually scaling with the character. Abilities should remain useful after you finish the PrC).
This doesn't address the fact that it then equates low/high level spells in terms of power, which is a pretty big change. It also makes casters less powerful at low levels, and more powerful at higher levels, which seems to be the exact opposite of what you yourself advocate as being wrong with casters already (dominating the game at high levels).
Monster spell-like abilities also use the spell-style calculations. Only supernatural and extraordinary abilities use the 1/2 HD or CL method. Two systems use one, two use another. That is hardly EVERY monster ability.
I see a simpler, MINIMAL way to approach this:
Heighten Spell Metamagic shouldn't require a Feat, and shouldn't extend casting time for Spontaneous Casters. The spells are LESS POWERFUL than ACTUAL higher level spells, so there's no reason to require a Feat. This means that any spell can be cast at a Save DC appropriate to the opponent, within the power of the caster.
At higher levels, lower level spell slots become most useful for things that don't require Saves, like Buffs.
This doesn't alter the power balance of casters at all, and just recognizes that a certain portion of their spells aren't meant for offensive casting vs. enemies (or at least ones that require Saves), but are best used for other purposes (Buffs, non-Save Effects, etc)
That's less flexible than some might like, of course. So a better way is, along with Feat-less Heighten Spell, to use the Spell Point system, which is layed out on the SRD, in the Unearthed Arcana section.
As written in Unearthed Arcana, Spell Points make everyone Spontaneous Casters, but they could be trivially modified so that Prepared Casters still Pray/Memorize, they just use the flexibility of Spell Points to choose which spells, and whatever Metamagics they want to cast. If one prefers, you don't have to memorize ANY low level spells at all, casting everything at max power: The system is balanced so you'd just have less # of spells than someone casting the standard number of 1st & 2nd level spells.
|
|
I see a simpler, MINIMAL way to approach this:
Heighten Spell Metamagic shouldn't require a Feat, and shouldn't extend casting time for Spontaneous Casters. The spells are LESS POWERFUL than ACTUAL higher level spells, so there's no reason to require a Feat. This means that any spell can be cast at a Save DC appropriate to the opponent, within the power of the caster.
At higher levels, lower level spell slots become most useful for things that don't require Saves, like Buffs.
I've successfully used such a houserule before. To me, it only seems logical that a Wizard could prepare less powerful spells in his higher-level spell slots. Like pouring a bottle of soda into a milk jug. The rule faded as I got more into 3rd Edition, but now I'm thinking of bringing it back.
If a sorcerer wants to cast 30 magic missiles a day by using up high-level slots, why stop them?
Monte had some neat ideas about this by giving each spell Heightened and Diminished effects.
I think in addition to Heighten being free (not requiring a Feat), the other MetaMagics (Extend, Maximize, etc) that DO require Feats should also raise the DC to match their effective spell level (level + metamagic 'cost')... If Extend, Maximize, etc, are costed correctly(spell level increase), then there's no reason they shouldn't have the higher DC of their effective spell level.
I really hope that this makes it into Pathfinder, even as a sidebar 'alternate', it just makes everything work better (and make Metamagic actually worthwhile to use, while staying very balanced)
|
This very thing has been discussed in several threads. The first thing that should be addressed is what are the fair odds of a spells effectiveness? Should it be 50%, is that fair? Should the defender have the advantage? Should the spell caster have the advantage?
A lot of people including myself are shooting for the:
DC = 10 + 1/2 caster level + Ability mod
I don't think that spells should be underpowered DC-wise just because they are low level. The reason is that it makes no-save required low level spells the only real option and it would be nice to open up some low level slots to interesting effects that simply are not viable at upper levels. The bonuses for a spell should be in its effects not in the spell level. The flip side to this is that a high level caster can easily out-strip a defender's saves even with the appropriate items. So, any change or not to the DC system, a change in how you generate saves for the defenders is still required. Two reasons: outstrips DCs and multiclassing problems. I would suggest the following for the save changes:
Saves = d20 + 1/2 character level + Ability mod + 2 (for good save)
Essentially it gives poor saves +4 by 20th level and makes it very simple in how to deal with multiclassing and that added little umph, can make a difference against spells.
I also agree with turning save or dies into spells that require multiple rolls rather than a single roll to determine your fate.
I don't think that spells should be underpowered DC-wise just because they are low level.
OK: The current system's premise is that your highest spell level represents your maximum ability to channel magical energy, but you're also most limited in going "all out" in that way. Obviously if someone expends only 1/2 their capacity, or 1/4 or whatever (lower level spells), they can do that more often, which the current system models well. So the current number of spells per day is constructed on the premise that lower level spells are lesser expenditures of energy than the caster is fully capable of.
If you change this, by giving all the spells the basic effect of a Heighten Spell Metamagic without using a higher spell slot, you're radically increasing the overall power. If you do this, you'd really need to reduce the number of spell slots/day to compensate. So it's a rather involved change that indeterminately effects over-all power balance...
The reason is that it makes no-save required low level spells the only real option and it would be nice to open up some low level slots to interesting effects that simply are not viable at upper levels.
Well, high level characters being capable of many low-level effects thru-out the day and fewer "big bangs" seems a reasonable premise to me. And alot of low-level spells ARE really useful, especially as they don't compete for slots with higher level abilities: Prot/Evil, Color Spray, Glitterdust, and of course all the utility spells... Why does EVERY spell slot necessarily need to be useful directly cast against high level opponents?
The thing is, the current system ALREADY has a mechanism to increase the DCs of low-level spells, to be effective against high level opponents (otherwise, they're only good for low-level minions with low Saves, of course): Heighten Spell Metamagic.
It really seems that the less disruptive change to the system would be to improve or extend a mechanism already in place. I feel the Spellpoints system (w/ Feat-less Heighten) is great because it's very flexible, from people like yourself to people who are happy with lots of low-level spells/ day, AND is balanced at every point in-between (if ALL lower level spells' DCs are increased, and the #/day decreased to compensate, then "non-Save" low-level spells would be nerfed when they weren't the problem, right?) Spellpoints are already in the SRD and are quite balanced (no re-jigging spells/day or anything), and modifying them to keep the Spontaneous/prepared distinction just makes it more viable as the standard rule.
I'd really like to hear specific feedback if you feel this DOESN'T sufficiently address the problem (as you see it), because it seems the least problematic/involved solution, and doesn't involve sticky issues like re-balancing the spells/day to reflect the increased power going into lower level spells for the new higher DCs.
(Here's the link on the SRD from Unearthed Arcana for the basic Spell Point system)
I also agree with turning save or dies into spells that require multiple rolls rather than a single roll to determine your fate.
Isn't Pathfinder doing some of this...? I agree, though, it's nice to have a 'partial' effect and a 'full' effect... After all, that's how damage spells work for the most part.