So, as I was thinking about all of this, I asked myself: Movies, books, etc, are all filled with great warriors. It's a way more popular hero archetype than the great wizard. Why have we been unable to translate that to D&D? I think the issue is that, ultimate, whereas warriors in fiction are -incredibly- difficult to kill, warriors in D&D are trivial to kill. That persistence and stubbornness just isn't there, mechanically. I mean, they're tough to kill with swords. But so many monsters and characters can attack saves where the fighters are just weak that it's almost pointless for them to have that nice, huge fort save. So I set off to do an overhaul with the following vague ideas:
1.) Offensive spells basically break down into 3 categories - Damage, Debuff, Disable. As Crusader of Logic, Squirrelloid, and other good wizard players have pointed out, that is generally in increasing order of utility. Because there is very little advantage to choosing a damaging spell over a disabling spell (note that I include killing something instantly as "disabling"), good wizard players choose their spells almost entirely in terms of disabling spells. Once you get to a certain level (about 7), you can cast almost entirely disabling spells. For other slots, they take Debuffing spells (Ray of Enfeeblement, etc). The system I create should have incentives that make each of these types the best at some point.
2.) Save-or-die spells are cool. It is cinematically neat to have the evil arch-wizard be able to vaporize a poor guard who stands between him and the princess. They should still be in the game.
3.) Wizards have more problem-solving options that fighters. Way, way more. Most suggestions to remedy this involve giving the fighter more mechanical problem-solving options, allowing him to do super-hero stuff. This is unappealing to me - I don't want people jumping 95 feet in the air and throwing greatswords. I would, however, like to recreate the cinematic warrior-hero of classic fantasy.
---------------
Those are my design goals. I then refined them, into this set of ideas.
1.) If you want higher reward, there should be higher risk. In d20, this is quantified by having a lower DC. A simple proposal would be that, at each level, Damage spells get +3 DC, Debuffs get +0, and Disables get -3 DC.
2.) The reason it's OK for that arch-wizard to vaporize the guard is because he's -way, way higher level-. Think about a 12th level fighter vs. a 4th level fighter. Their will saves, before equipment, are +1 and +4. That means that, when you're storming the evil wizard's tower, the relative neophyte and the battle-scarred veteran of demon-slaying have a 15% difference in their chance to not get their mind blown up. That's just silly.
The solution to this is pretty simple - the level difference between caster and defender should matter. And not in a linear way. Let's try a penalty of +1, +2, +3, +5, +8, +13 for whoever is lower level.
3.) Finally - a fighter can't solve problems with magic, and can't avoid them. Therefore, he should be the least affected by them, in the mean. Rogues and clerics have some ways to get around being targetted, and ultimately wizards have the best ways to get around being targeted. Apply a flat +3 bonus to any full-BAB class and a +1 bonus to any 3/4-BAB class to saves. Finally, all saves scale at the same rate - +1 per 2 levels after level 1...the same rate that spell DCs increase at.
...so, that's some math. Let's see how it works on the data points. We'll start with an 18-intelligence wizard, and assume our defenders have 14s in their defense stats. All saves scale linearly, so we can pretty much pick any level to do this at.
At any level, our wizard has an advantage of 2 (from stat) to his DC over a fighter...but the fighter has a +3 flat bonus, as well as basically a +2 to his favored save. Let's assume that our wizard, not being an idiot, will target weak saves. Therefore, the wizard has a 60% chance to land direct damage, 45% chance to land a debuff, and a 30% chance to land a disable...assuming he targets a weak save.
Try it, then, against a rogue of equal. 70%, 55%, 40%...but rogues can be tricky sorts, and tough to fight.
Against another wizard? 75%, 60%, 45%. But wizards have a number of ways of countering spells, or being untargettable by spells entirely.
So...1 looks pretty good. Let's see how these probabilities scale when you're fighting people of higher level.
Wizard vs. a higher level fighter (4 levels higher): Not only does the fighter have an additional +2 to all saves from being 4 levels higher, he gets the level differential bonus. The result is probabilities of 10%, 5%, 5% - owch. Probably best to be helping your friends at this point...or not fight people vastly higher.
However...wizard vs. a fighter 2 levels lower? 75%, 60%, 45%. Pretty good odds to disable him in 2 shots.
And if the fighter is genuinely lower level (5?): 95%, 95%, 80%. Easy to disable.
--------------
So, what are the cons of this? Here's how I see them:
CON: More math. I'd say that the wizard has to keep track of his base DCs, and that the DM should adjust monsters' saves for level differential, as he knows the PC and monster level. My group wouldn't find this a pain, but we're fine with math.
PRO/CON?: Some classes become clearly harder to play than others. Fighters are solid, good offense, good defense, limited ways to problem solve. As you progress along the class spectrum towards wizard, things become much, much, harder to play - your defenses aren't that good, and your attacks will frequently fail...but you have tons of options and interesting ways to affect the battlespace/world.
PRO/CON?: Wizards having people auto-fail their saves is a thing of the past. Smart wizards try to use spells that don't grant saves (walls, etc.).
Anyhow - that's about all I have. Keep in mind that this is a proposal in its infancy, and I'm interested in any commentary.
Thanks!
-Cross
I have a wizard.
And I love him.
And I want him to be able to do more in combat than small factional amounts of damage, or casting Wall spells.
They are already toning down most/many/all (i hope) of the truly terrible spells. We do not also need to go and make everyone immune or practically immune to magic as well.
Your "fighter example" is flawed in that now you have a character with decent AC, modest to good damage capability who can only be successfully targeted by spells that effect his strongest ability- his high HP.
The fighter does need a boost- becoming unstoppable is not that boost.
They need more options in combat, not to become practically immune to the *only things* the wizard has at his or her effective disposal.
I am Not advocating SoD or SoS mages. I have played one- and they suck. In practice, winning all the time is just as boring as losing all the time. You get bored, it gets old, and you look for something else to do.
A middle ground needs to be reached. Making PC's immune to magic is not that middle ground.
-S
Almost all of the truly terrible spells are still around. Go search the boards, find a wizard built by Squirrelloid or anybody else who is a good optimizer.
There are some fundamentally, terribly broken things about the way DCs and saves scale. If you want me to simplify them for you, they are:
1.) Off-saves scale at 1 every 3 levels, magic notwithstanding. DCs scale at 1 every 2 levels, magic notwithstanding. As levels go up, the likelihood of not instantly getting disabled goes down.
2.) There isn't a dramatic difference between your base weak save at level 1 and your base weak save at level 11.
3.) You can disable people with almost any save...so, ultimately, it's their weak save that counts the most.
The above proposal makes it dramatically difficult for a wizard to directly affect a fighter with anything other than damage. It does not, however, make it difficult for a wizard to work around the fighter. Flying, invisibility, teleportation, walls, gas clouds, summons...
As I pointed out. A down-side would be that mages would be the hardest class to play well.
-Cross
Selgard wrote: I have a wizard.
And I love him.
And I want him to be able to do more in combat than small factional amounts of damage, or casting Wall spells.
They are already toning down most/many/all (i hope) of the truly terrible spells. We do not also need to go and make everyone immune or practically immune to magic as well.
Your "fighter example" is flawed in that now you have a character with decent AC, modest to good damage capability who can only be successfully targeted by spells that effect his strongest ability- his high HP.
The fighter does need a boost- becoming unstoppable is not that boost.
They need more options in combat, not to become practically immune to the *only things* the wizard has at his or her effective disposal.
I am Not advocating SoD or SoS mages. I have played one- and they suck. In practice, winning all the time is just as boring as losing all the time. You get bored, it gets old, and you look for something else to do.
A middle ground needs to be reached. Making PC's immune to magic is not that middle ground.
-S
I really like your ideas though beeing hard to play as a mage on high levels could be a problem for masscompatibility. The most complaints i've seen about mages (besides them beeing to strong of course) is that they are hard to play because all of the spells,effects,stacking...etc.
Not that i really understand the complaints. I love the feeling of having hundreds of spells to choose from ;)
Another way could be just making the saves for SoD spells easier.
On the one hand that would need reworking many spells but on the other hand thats what the Beta is about, right?
Yeah. The other thing to consider is that the mechanic of "Save or Dies have easier saves" is already present in 3.5 for some spells. For instance, Phantasmal Killer gives 2 saves. Also, one of the earliest "Save or Disabled" spells, Hideous Laughter, gives a +4 bonus to saves for most creatures.
If we can acknowledge that Hideous Laughter is way the hell better than, say, Daze Monster and thus needs to give people a saving bonus, why can't we acknowledge that Flesh to Stone is much, much better than Disintegrate or Forceful Hand, and probably needs to have a lower DC?
-Cross
I like this, but at the same time, I'm very suspicious. Magic failure sucks. It's just not fun. Certainly, you don't want the game to be easy, but nobody likes casting their Hold Person spell and watch your efforts be a total waste. (Granted, no one likes watching their attack miss, but you can always just attack again, often in the same round, and ACs tend to be pretty low most of the time anyway.)
Also, it's terrible conceptually. If the big bad wizard slams a kill spell into you, well, you might not die, but even a very good warrior is going to feel it a little. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't have a problem with saves ramping up as you go up in level, particularly for kill spells, but if so, all (or nearly all) spells with saves need to have a partial effect if the save succeeds. It doesn't need to be spectacular, but the wizard should at least get that "Well, at least he's a bit rattled." And if he doesn't, it should be a big deal, cause to be afraid of this guy who's apparently immune to magic.
You're missing two things that are very, very important.
-Multiclass save-stacking. Your typical fighter is not a Fighter10, he's a Barbarian1/Fighter2/Ranger2/PiousTemplar3/ExoticWeaponMaster2, for instance.
-Monster advancement. As I went into great detail in the Save or Die thread, if your DM even touches the monster advancement rules, a monster's save bonuses will vastly outpace its CR progression.
The real issue here is: the effectiveness of save-based spells is entirely dependent on the particular PCs and monsters making them. Their effectiveness is FAR from absolute.
In the D&D I play, save-based spells really stink past level 12 or so, because the monsters are going to save all the time. Similarly, save-based spells rarely work on my PC or my party, because our saves are so high. (My Arcane15 typically has over +20 to Fort... with 10 Con...)
And thus... messing with save-or-dies does not address the issues of 3.5. Addressing, for starters, multiclass save-stacking and monster advancement needs to come first.
-Matt
BlaineTog wrote: spells with saves need to have a partial effect if the save succeeds Good idea. Something like: "If you succeed the save for the sleep spell you get a -2 on Attack rolls because of beeing tired.", would be really great.
Mattastrophic wrote: Multiclass save-stacking Good point. But as you said: this isn't a problem of the SoD spells per se. It is a problem of the Multiclassing rules which indeed need an overhaul.
Blaine, I'm totally with you. Most spells need some "will partial" or "fortitude partial". Something. Anything.
it can be something so little as to be for school, like, don't know, dazed if failed from enchantment, sick if from necromancy. Hell, it can be anything.
This is because of what you said about the almighty wizard doing nothing, and this would SURELY make the Mettle ability of some classes (basically the "evasion" of fortitude and will saves. You pass and you receive no effect IF the spell even had a "fortitude / will partial").
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Every time I see this argument (fighters need bonuses vs. magic), I want to say "Why aren't you using the options already available?" Stat boosters (continuous magic items, temporary/charged/single use magic items, spells from other party members, etc.), save boosting feats (Great Fortitude, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes), and protective spells (bless, protection from evil 10 ft radius, etc.) from items or other party members have around since the 3.0 release.
Also, the difference between the warrior protagonists and the "typical" warrior in heroic fiction is normally extremely stark. The warrior protagonist overcomes the threat not because they are a warrior, but because they are a protagonist.
Diego Bastet wrote: Blaine, I'm totally with you. Most spells need some "will partial" or "fortitude partial". Something. Anything.
it can be something so little as to be for school, like, don't know, dazed if failed from enchantment, sick if from necromancy. Hell, it can be anything.
This is because of what you said about the almighty wizard doing nothing, and this would SURELY make the Mettle ability of some classes (basically the "evasion" of fortitude and will saves. You pass and you receive no effect IF the spell even had a "fortitude / will partial").
I tend to agree with all of this. Spells need to have miss effects. A lot of them.
As to the "How do you address save stacking from multiclassing" - 4E got this right. Your saves are: Your saves at 1st level, +1 per 2 levels.
Saves scale just as fast as spell DCs, you can't do a ton of multiclassing to get uber saves, etc.
-Cross
Dragonchess Player wrote: Every time I see this argument (fighters need bonuses vs. magic), I want to say "Why aren't you using the options already available?" Stat boosters (continuous magic items, temporary/charged/single use magic items, spells from other party members, etc.), save boosting feats (Great Fortitude, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes), and protective spells (bless, protection from evil 10 ft radius, etc.) from items or other party members have around since the 3.0 release.
Also, the difference between the warrior protagonists and the "typical" warrior in heroic fiction is normally extremely stark. The warrior protagonist overcomes the threat not because they are a warrior, but because they are a protagonist.
Every time I see the first argument, I wonder why you haven't done the math. The defender has to boost 3 stats, for 3 saves. The offender only has to boost one stat. Protective spells don't stack particularly well, and "Get my friends to use spells to protect me from spells" doesn't really address the balance.
Your second paragraph is correct, I suppose, but doesn't change much: Why can't I represent a warrior protagonist in my PCs?
-Cross
Crosswind wrote: Every time I see the first argument, I wonder why you haven't done the math. Tools available to increase DCs:
-Gaining levels (+1 DC/2 lvls, only for highest level spells, must take spellcasting class each level)
-Spell Focus (+1 DC, one school)
-Greater Spell Focus (+1 DC, one school)
-Stat boost item +2/+4/+6 (+1-+3 DC)
-Inherent book +1-+5 (+0-+3 DC, +3 requires odd stat)
-Fox's Cunning/Owl's Wisdom/Eagle's Splendor (+2 DC, does not stack with stat boost item)
Tools available to increase saves:
-Gaining levels (+1 good save/2 lvls, +1 other saves/3 lvls)
-Multiclassing (varies)
-Cloak/Vest of Resistance +1-+5 (+1-+5 all saves)
-Stat boost item +2/+4/+6 (+1-+3, one save)
-Inherent book +1-+5 (+0-+3 one save, +3 requires odd stat)
-Great Fortitude/Lightning Reflexes/Iron Will (+2 each, one save)
-Heroism (+2 all saves)
-Good Hope (+2 all saves, whole party)
-Bear's Endurance/Cat's Grace/Owl's Wisdom (+2, one save, does not stack with stat boost item)
-Luckstone (+1 all saves)
-Green Ioun Stone (+1 all saves)
-And more!
There are plenty more tools available to increase one's saves than there are to increase one's save DCs. Between putting up the long-term buff Heroism and buying the very cheap Cloak of Resistance +5 (25K), that's +7 to all saves right there. A caster would have to spend two feats on Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus as well as 173,500 on a stat boost item +6 and an inherent book +5 in order to catch up. And that's before the saver invests in his own stat boost items.
The point we're really trying to make here is that there's no absolute way to show that there's a problem with the current system. In fact, I could argue very effectively that save-or-dies are incredibly poor and that saving throws scale way too quickly, and thus save-based spells need to be strengthened, so we arcanists have a chance of actually affecting those dang warriors with their crazy saves!
-Matt
Crosswind wrote: As to the "How do you address save stacking from multiclassing" - 4E got this right. Your saves are: Your saves at 1st level, +1 per 2 levels. Actually, 4E totally blew this aspect of the game. In 4E, the only difference in Fortitude between a FighterX and a WizardX is two.
The way to do it well was expressed in another thread. It involves counting all your classes with a Good rating in a save and adding them up to determine your base save. Same for Poor saves.
But anyways, we'll have to see if Pathfinder addresses the issue. Until then, issues like save DCs are moot, because as it stands, saves scale much faster than DCs do.
-Matt
Recent threads in General Discussion (Prerelease)
|
