Spellcaster DCs...

[LivingTriskele]

This opinion actually applies to all spellcasters, but this seems to be the best place to post it. I mentioned it before the beta release. If no one else agrees I'll shut my mouth, but it seems like a glaring shortcoming.

One change that Makes sense to me in 4th edition was how spellcaster level effects DCs. I really hope Pathfinder does something similar.

It's always bothered me that 2 spellcasters of the same class, with the same Ability scores, casting the same spells-- but being of different levels-- have the same DC. 10 + Spell level + applicable Ability score modifier. Why doesn't class-level come into play? It seems to me that a wizard at 10th-level, casting a first-level spell, should have a better DC than a similar wizard of 1st-level casting the same spell.

[Etales]

LivingTriskele wrote:

This opinion actually applies to all spellcasters, but this seems to be the best place to post it. I mentioned it before the beta release. If no one else agrees I'll shut my mouth, but it seems like a glaring shortcoming.

One change that Makes sense to me in 4th edition was how spellcaster level effects DCs. I really hope Pathfinder does something similar.

It's always bothered me that 2 spellcasters of the same class, with the same Ability scores, casting the same spells-- but being of different levels-- have the same DC. 10 + Spell level + applicable Ability score modifier. Why doesn't class-level come into play? It seems to me that a wizard at 10th-level, casting a first-level spell, should have a better DC than a similar wizard of 1st-level casting the same spell.

I agree, Caster level should be far more important to the Difficulty class. The Expanded Psionics Handbook solved that by allowing the manifester to increase the DC & damage output of some powers with an increase in cost and caster level. Magic Missile should be more powerful when cast by an Archwizard then it is when cast by bobo the 9th level house mage.

I would like to see something similar done with Magic.

[kyrt-ryder]

Actually, there is a VERY simple fix to the DC's vs caster level issue. Eliminate the Heighten Spell feat, and subsume it into the standard casting system. An Archmage wants to cast a glitterdust that has a higher DC? Prepare/spontaneously cast it through a higher slot. Remember, spell levels are how an increased casterlevel represents increased power and skill.

Ever read fantasy stories where one wizard mocks an inadequate upstart for challenging him with "begginer" spells? Same concept here, caster level isn't an increased inner strength (which is represented by raised casting trait) but rather by increased skill in manipulating those forces.

Directly tying the save DC's to caster level is difficult for two reasons. One, unless it replaces something present, it will screw up the DC:Save ratio (which has already been hurt by Pathfinder's weakening of PrC save boosts) and cause problems accross the board.

Two, this is the way the system has always worked, its habbit and tradition. To change something this big now would be as bad as some of the crap that was done in 4.e To try to break that formula into something else is a can of worms that isn't worth smelling. (And, as earlier mentioned, it would demand a redesign of the fluff ontop of the mechanics. The straw that broke the camel's back mayhaps?)

[Dogbert]

Sadly, spell DCs suffer the same problem as magic equipment and weaponry: intended obsolensence.

The game at its core is designed so everything you own will be obsolete by the time you reach a specific level, thus forcing you to replace all your equipment every 3 or so levels... spells are no excepcion.

Game intends spellcasters to only have from 1 to 4 CR-relevant combat spells per day no matter what level you are. Sure, you may have plenty other spells of previous levels, but their DC is low enough compared to CR-relevant saving throws that they pretty much become irrelevant.

[Abraham spalding]

If you are relying on DC spells only then yes this is a problem but there are plenty of other good spells that can still be "combat effective" no matter what level you are going against.

A good list would include:
1st
Ray of Enfeeblement, Produce Flame, Divine Favor, Shield, Mage Armor
2nd
Acid Arrow, Mirror Image, Scorching Ray, Touch of idiocy, Spiritual Weapon, Silence
3rd
Blink, Vampiric Touch, Searing Light, Dispel Magic, Haste
4th
Enervation, Divine Power, Rusting Grasp, Wall of Fire
5th
Telekinesis, Summon Monster V, Wall of Force, Rightous Might, Waves of Fatigue, Greater Dispel Magic

[Brutesquad07]

Sadly though, the problem with that list is then every wiz/sorc you see has some if not all of those spells, limiting some of the other spells. The only truly efective arcanes are range touch. I am a bit sick of range touch.
The current weak DC's cause the AOE's to fail or halve much more often than not, and the poor enchanters get left with angry mobs who know they tried to do something to them.
I would love for it to be
a)10+Spell Level+stat+1/2 (or even 1/3 or 1/4) class level. or
b)11+Stat+1/2 level for all spell's of every level (Only one DC for all levels of spells)

[Abraham spalding]

Angry mobs? My unoptimized wizard had a base save throw DC of 15 + spell level at level 1. Add in a few level stat adjustments and an Intelligence enhancer and you should be looking at over a 20 for any mass spell an enchanter should care to cast easily. While this probably won't take out any BBEG's it should handle lesser monsters and diffenantly any townsfolk the enchanter wants to have (most townsfolk are level 1 commoners with a wisdom of 10-11 for crying out loud!) . I strongly suspect that all the problems people have with enhantment spells and the like are DM related, not probability related.

[Disenchanter]

Brutesquad07 wrote:

b)11+Stat+1/2 level for all spell's of every level (Only one DC for all levels of spells)

Making the Spell DC's the same for all levels of spells has a hidden monkeywrench in it. And that is that many spells would have to be reworked to rebalance them. (Some might say that is needed anyway... But same DC's would make it worse.)

Some examples would be:

A battle against a high level Core Race BBEG: Do you cast Hold Monster? No... There is no need to cast Hold Monster, since Hold Person works and is a couple levels lower. Then again, you could just spam Daze and get the same effect as Hold Monster / Person, get to do "something" every round, and not spend any slots. [[EDIT:: I lied. Daze has a Hit Die restriction. But the point is still somewhat valid.]]

Is Charm Monster really worth 3 spell levels for increased target list and duration?

And I am certain there are more.

Nothing big, but at the moment I'd prefer it remain a houserule for those groups that don't mind that monkeywrench rather than need the spells reworked.

[Dogbert]

Ooooh the nostalgia.

I remember I first got into casters back in 2E because my dice rolls were chronically jinxed, I just said "I refuse to roll a single die for attack any longer, let them roll instead to defend". Then people started saving from my spells, and I adopted an even more extreme stand... indirect combat, my spells no longer even touched the enemy: they'd change the terrain or affect circumstances in a way that no saving throw was ever rolled and drove my DMs to tears. I've been living a romance with the Trasmutation school ever since. :)

[Montalve]

of course you people understand that if they increase DC for players... they should increase for monsters and enemies spells and spell-like abilities?

i am ok with it... but sometimes its a dangerous gamble

but i agree with Dogbert... and i think is part of what fun is lost in higher levels... you are 'forced' by the system to renovate equipment, spells, etc tothe point where what you learned or had useless.. then half of what you really can do is useless too :S

higher DCs might solve this
but then... playes would be complaining that DCs are too high

i prefer increasing duration, or reverting a few changes from 3.5 to 3.0 magic giving you longer effects that could be sustained without the need of magic items

[WarmasterSpike]

specific formula not withstanding, DC's should definitley scale by level of caster, NOT spell. I want a caster who can reach for his lower level spells because they are more likely to hit, while being a little less effective. Not the current caster who only goes to his lower level spells because he has run out of his higher level ones.

[Montalve]

WarmasterSpike wrote:

specific formula not withstanding, DC's should definitley scale by level of caster, NOT spell. I want a caster who can reach for his lower level spells because they are more likely to hit, while being a little less effective. Not the current caster who only goes to his lower level spells because he has run out of his higher level ones.

sounds good

but suddenly a 1st level spell would have DC 20 + int mod for a 10 level caster....

mmm ok i see the point... also it would be a lot easier todetermine, this will give the caster at least all his saving throws in one number so its easier to manage... mmm ok this sounds interesting indeed

[Freesword]

This is an interesting topic. There are in fact 2 parallel and equally logical ways to scale spell DCs.

As currently written, the higher level a spell is, the more difficult it is to resist. This in and of itself is logical as a more powerful spell should be more difficult to resist. The power level of the caster is seemingly ignored (I'll get back to that "seemingly" in a moment).

Being proposed is having caster level determine how difficult a spell is to resist. This is also logical as a higher level caster should be more powerful and therefore their spells should be harder to resist.

The only way to resolve this is to use both spell level and caster level to determine DCs. (Here's where that "seemingly" comes in) When DCs were tied to spell level, this was done in an implied and very abstract way. Spell level is a function of caster level. That is, to cast higher level spells, you need a higher caster level. The higher DC based on spell level made for a simple equation that took the Spell level into account and the implied caster level required to cast the higher level spell.

The problem with this approach as pointed out here is that spells with a low spell level do not scale according to caster level. To scale properly, a formula similar to( N + Spell Level + 1/3 Caster Level + Stat Modifier + additional modifiers ) where N = "a fixed base number (traditionally 10)" and Caster level is always rounded down would appear to be in order.

Saves Scale at either 1/3 class level for poor saves or 2 + 1/2 class level for good saves (not counting multi-classing oddities). The roll to save vs. a 1st level spell remains fairly constant for a poor save, but gets progressively better for a good save. Newer, level appropriate spells, require increasingly higher rolls to save.

If one holds the view that even a poor save progression should get better vs 1st level spells, then going with 1/4 Caster level would be then next logical step.

[Jack Townsend]

Well, a 1/4 bonus would do the trick statistically. But the goal of creating a difference between higher and lower level casters isn't completely accomplished with it, because the growth of might would be quite slow (on the metagame basis: 7 (!) levels higher, but only +1 to DC... worst case)
2nd point: increasing an ability and the DC's of your spells at same level (non-multiclassed full casters only, apparantly)seems quite overloaded for one level.

1/3 of level solves the problem of slowness but would, as the previous post showed, result in a too fast increase in power relating to saves. In return the variable N had to be decreased to 9 or even 8.

Edit: made my point clearer. I think...

[Bill Dunn]

I've been pondering the save DC based on caster level rather than spell level for a while too. It might help with the 15-minute day issue that some people have reported. If the DC is 10+1/2 caster level (or something like that), then all spells are equally hard to resist, so there's less need to focus just on the upper level spells.

The upper level spells should still have more powerful or far-reaching results, which would still encourage their use. But the lower level ones would not be quite as insignificant.

[Shem]

Montalve wrote:

of course you people understand that if they increase DC for players... they should increase for monsters and enemies spells and spell-like abilities?

i am ok with it... but sometimes its a dangerous gamble

but i agree with Dogbert... and i think is part of what fun is lost in higher levels... you are 'forced' by the system to renovate equipment, spells, etc tothe point where what you learned or had useless.. then half of what you really can do is useless too :S

higher DCs might solve this
but then... playes would be complaining that DCs are too high

i prefer increasing duration, or reverting a few changes from 3.5 to 3.0 magic giving you longer effects that could be sustained without the need of magic items

This is my argument too. Remember that the group has many more combats than any one NPC or monster. A good NPC or monster has two or three tops against the group unless they are really good at getting away and come back over and over. The group fights many groups, NPCs and monsters in a single gaming session and at higher DCs it effects them much more than their opponents. Same reason I do not use the critical hit deck against the party for every encounter they are in. I only usually use it for the BBEG.

[Mosaic]

Hi all. I'm late to the party but was thinking about this issue and luckily found this thread before starting a new one.

So my original idea was:

DC = 10 + spell level + caster level + ability modifier

At lower levels, it wouldn't make a big difference, but by high levels it would be HUGE, but I figured with magic resistance and increasing saves, that'd mostly be okay.

Then I read the discussion so far. The problem is that even the good save progression doesn't grow that fast, right? Which is where all the fractions came in. I can handle the mathematics of a formula with fractions, but I generally find them distasteful; they just look complicated.

So DC = 10 + spell level + 1/2 caster level + ability modifier

Keeps up with good saves, is faster than poor saves, but not too much.

Does this just end up being such a big change to the rules that it couldn't happen?

EDIT: What about DC = 10 + spell level + 1/2 ranks Spellcraft + ability modifier?

[Majuba]

Mosaic wrote:

Hi all. I'm late to the party but was thinking about this issue and luckily found this thread before starting a new one.

So my original idea was:

A) DC = 10 + spell level + caster level + ability modifier

At lower levels, it wouldn't make a big difference, but by high levels it would be HUGE, but I figured with magic resistance and increasing saves, that'd mostly be okay.

Then I read the discussion so far. The problem is that even the good save progression doesn't grow that fast, right? Which is where all the fractions came in. I can handle the mathematics of a formula with fractions, but I generally find them distasteful; they just look complicated.

B) So DC = 10 + spell level + 1/2 caster level + ability modifier

Keeps up with good saves, is faster than poor saves, but not too much.

Does this just end up being such a big change to the rules that it couldn't happen?

EDIT: What about C) DC = 10 + spell level + 1/2 ranks Spellcraft + ability modifier?

B progresses twice as fast as good saving throws as well. As does C.

Both are equivalent to DC = 10 + caster level + ability modifier for the highest level spells.

IMO, the absolute highest saves should go is DC = 10 + 1/2 caster level + ability modifier, which essentially makes all spells equal to the highest level currently.

[Doskious Steele]

Majuba wrote:

Mosaic wrote:

Hi all. I'm late to the party but was thinking about this issue and luckily found this thread before starting a new one.

So my original idea was:

A) DC = 10 + spell level + caster level + ability modifier

At lower levels, it wouldn't make a big difference, but by high levels it would be HUGE, but I figured with magic resistance and increasing saves, that'd mostly be okay.

Then I read the discussion so far. The problem is that even the good save progression doesn't grow that fast, right? Which is where all the fractions came in. I can handle the mathematics of a formula with fractions, but I generally find them distasteful; they just look complicated.

B) So DC = 10 + spell level + 1/2 caster level + ability modifier

Keeps up with good saves, is faster than poor saves, but not too much.

Does this just end up being such a big change to the rules that it couldn't happen?

EDIT: What about C) DC = 10 + spell level + 1/2 ranks Spellcraft + ability modifier?

B progresses twice as fast as good saving throws as well. As does C.

Both are equivalent to DC = 10 + caster level + ability modifier for the highest level spells.

IMO, the absolute highest saves should go is DC = 10 + 1/2 caster level + ability modifier, which essentially makes all spells equal to the highest level currently.

As a mathematician, I would prefer something that blended the scale based on (caster-independent) spell level, (caster-inherent) casting stat, and (caster-learned) Spellcraft ranks or caster level. As a GM and player, however, the thought of that much math at *each* level up is painful in the absence of a computer program to do it behind the scenes. I like using technology in support of my gaming; I emphatically don't want to encourage a system or rules-set that *relies* on it to avoid being obnoxious.

I will say that I like the concept that a character who multi-classes away from a casting class could still improve his ability to make his spells stick by increasing Spellcraft. It strikes me to wonder how a calculation that ran as DC 10 + 1/2 Spellcraft Modifier would work... Probably poorly, especially for magical items created by non-spellcasters (using the optional feat). Then again, for crafted magical items made by non-spellcasters, one could sub the designated Craft() or Profession() skill for Spellcraft, and allow that much more flavor in the potency of the magical items created in that fashion...

Just my 2.825 cents...

~Doskious Steele

[Temeryn]

Why not just make it DC is equal to spell level + caster level + stat modifier.

it would make low level spells much weaker but some classes have a near +0 anyway to saves anyway, and it would make color spray more fair.

[Abraham spalding]

Temeryn wrote:

Why not just make it DC is equal to spell level + caster level + stat modifier.

it would make low level spells much weaker but some classes have a near +0 anyway to saves anyway, and it would make color spray more fair.

How is a DC 7 spell fair to a level 1 wizard who only gets 2 a day especially at the range of color spray?

The BSF can swing a sword around all day dealing in excess of 15 points of damage each hit with ease at level 1, maybe his feats should be twice a day?

[Mon]

Disenchanter wrote:

Making the Spell DC's the same for all levels of spells has a hidden monkeywrench in it. And that is that many spells would have to be reworked to rebalance them. (Some might say that is needed anyway... But same DC's would make it worse.)

<snip>

I often read this line of argument on messageboards, but it just doesn't hold water for IME. Our group played ~11 years of BECMI/1E/2E where the spell level had no bearing whatsoever on save DC. Charm/hold monster were higher level than the "person" versions precisely and only because they affected (many many) more kinds of creatures. The spells were devised in this manner, and there was never any problem with it.

i.e. Higher levels spells were designated as being higher in level because their effect is more powerful and or versatile. Not because of saving throws. ~8 years of 3e hasn't changed this fact.

When the scaling-spell-level-based-DC of 3e came along, it didn't improve things in our experience - it created an artificial "power scale" that insinuated itself in the minds of players. In concept, this is not a bad thing, however it is a major (if not the primary) contributor to the "go nova/15-min workday" problem in 3.x because it means casters can only use their first ~2 spell levels before needing to rest. But I digress.

i.e. It seemed like a good idea at the time, and we all bought into it when the 3e designers told us what an awesome idea it is. ~8 years of 3e has shown that maybe it wasn't such an awesome idea afterall.

I just don't think the "monkey wrench" exists. If it does, it certainly isn't as profound as some people make it out to be (I've played (not DMed) in a game with the DC = 10 + half caster level + stat house rule, back in 2001 or 2, and it seriously wasn't a big deal at all - infact it played more like the D&D we were used to in those early days of 3e).

Having said that, it is hard to break out of the habit/tradition as you say.

[Abraham spalding]

Mon I will agree that it has create a False sense that any level beyond your top two isn't useful.

However I think this is a lack of thought on player's parts and the lack of creativity to ue spells in manners that help in combat beyond direct annihilation of the enemy.

For example Lantern archon's are summonable from the 4th level spell list on. They have a light ray that is (EX) meaning it'll work in antimagic without SR or a save, that they can use twice a round (as a full attack action) that does 1d6 bypassing all resistances. When you first get it this is great (14d6 damage while still being a "meat shield" for a hit, and free up the wizard for more actions next round). Also spells that don't require a save are still good choices... ray of enfeeblement, touch of idiocy, enervation, web, glitterdust, et al can have a direct effect without the fear of a save negating them.

It's not that there aren't good spells to be used each level, it's that players only want to use their "big guns" everytime.

+++++++++++++++++++++ on topic +++++++++++++++++++++++

I think allowing the spellchucker a way to influence the success of his spells by means of setting the spell DC by spell level + mod wasn't a bad idea... I just think it wasn't implimented well in comparision to the way save throws build up for monsters, and players. Looking at the DC's for monster abilities compared to the monsters own save throws really makes the point.

Example: Balor
Saves: + 22 Fort +19 Reflex + 19 Will

But the DC for his abilities are mostly at the range of 25~27.

He can't hardly fail against most spells, so if the players want to affect him they need other means to do so. Either "broken" spells that don't allow a save or still hurt if the save is passed, or means to raise their own DCs to "Insane" heights.

[Treantmonklvl20]

DC's do go up with level.

At first level - my 18 INT spell focus Conjuration wizard had a save DC of 16 on his grease spell.

At 14th level - my 26 INT spell focus/greater spell focus Conjuration wizard has a DC of 21 on his grease spell (which still often works as REF saves tend to not increase as much on higher CR creatures for some reason).

As was mentioned before as well - there are many spells that have no save - and thus never become obsolete. Ray of Enfeeblement was one of the examples given - and it's a good one.

Also keep in mind that spell effects also often increase with level - so a 1st level wizard and a 10th level wizard firing off the same spell often have very different effects (consider the standard magic missile).

Honestly - I am a HUGE fan of wizards - but a powerup is not required, nor is there room for a wizard powerup when comparing to other classes.

[Treantmonklvl20]

Treantmonklvl20 wrote:

DC's do go up with level.

At first level - my 18 INT spell focus Conjuration wizard had a save DC of 16 on his grease spell.

At 14th level - my 26 INT spell focus/greater spell focus Conjuration wizard has a DC of 21 on his grease spell (which still often works as REF saves tend to not increase as much on higher CR creatures for some reason).

As was mentioned before as well - there are many spells that have no save - and thus never become obsolete. Ray of Enfeeblement was one of the examples given - and it's a good one.

Silent Image is a spell I often get in a wand - since it's pretty much useful throughout the wizard's career, even if the DC is low.

Also keep in mind that spell effects also often increase with level - so a 1st level wizard and a 10th level wizard firing off the same spell often have very different effects (consider the standard magic missile).

Honestly - I am a HUGE fan of wizards - but a powerup is not required, nor is there room for a wizard powerup when comparing to other classes.

[Mon]

Abraham spalding wrote:

Mon I will agree that it has create a False sense that any level beyond your top two isn't useful.

However I think this is a lack of thought on player's parts and the lack of creativity to ue spells in manners that help in combat beyond direct annihilation of the enemy.

For example Lantern archon's are summonable from the 4th level spell list on. They have a light ray that is (EX) meaning it'll work in antimagic without SR or a save, that they can use twice a round (as a full attack action) that does 1d6 bypassing all resistances. When you first get it this is great (14d6 damage while still being a "meat shield" for a hit, and free up the wizard for more actions next round). Also spells that don't require a save are still good choices... ray of enfeeblement, touch of idiocy, enervation, web, glitterdust, et al can have a direct effect without the fear of a save negating them.

It's not that there aren't good spells to be used each level, it's that players only want to use their "big guns" everytime.

I see what you mean, but I wouldn't be so quick to accuse players in general of lacking creativity and/or thoughtfulness - even the ones prone to "nova".

-- Re: The Lantern Archon Example --

The "top two spell levels" problem hasn't even come in to play by 7th level - the caster level you use in the larntern archon example which, as you know, is the point where that 4th level slot is the best you've got not one of the worst...

Further, if you spent any of your actions doing that at 17th level (when that 4th level slot *is* one of your lower level ones) instead of 7th you'd find the archon is little more than a one-hit-kill flanker who bites like a gnat against level appropriate foes.

-- Re: Spells With No Saving Throw --

Having said that, I do agree with you 100% about the no-save spells - a staple in any edition of D&D... However, saying "use no-save spells instead" doesn't address the issue, it just skirts around it (The issue being the fact that a large proportion of the spells become obsolete after ~5 levels). This wasn't a problem with (most) spells in earlier editions, sleep and similar excluded. It is a factor of 3.x alone because and only because of the scales-by-spell-level DC rule.

-- Summary --

Spell DCs that are uniform across spells levels are not nearly as bad as many people make them out to be. Infact it has benefits - such as keeping more spells useful for more levels of play.

-- On Topic --

On that note, I am eager to read more suggestions. One thing I was once on the verge of trying out (but never got the chace to) was using a DC of:

10 + half spell level (rounded up) + stat mod.

And then giving a +1 DC bonus at the 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th caster levels.

This results in a 5-point spread between 1st and 9th level spells instead of a 9-point spread. A sort of middle-ground between caster-level and spell-level DC determination.

(Aside: Together with this was the idea to make all casters dual-stat like a favoured soul so that DC-pumping became a trade off against bonus spells from the other stat).

[Max Money]

Brutesquad07 wrote:

Sadly though, the problem with that list is then every wiz/sorc you see has some if not all of those spells, limiting some of the other spells. The only truly efective arcanes are range touch. I am a bit sick of range touch.

The current weak DC's cause the AOE's to fail or halve much more often than not, and the poor enchanters get left with angry mobs who know they tried to do something to them.
I would love for it to be
a)10+Spell Level+stat+1/2 (or even 1/3 or 1/4) class level. or
b)11+Stat+1/2 level for all spell's of every level (Only one DC for all levels of spells)

I have mentioned this in another thread, and I completely agree with version a) though I use 1/3 as 1/2 seemed to make some saves impossible even against good save bonuses. Although I would not be opposed to seeing an automatic/ static bonus as Mon suggests either.

But either way, I believe this should be a bonus for all casters, even the Paladin and Ranger, not just arcane.

Now my only question is how does a mage get an Int 26 by 14th level?

[Abraham spalding]

simple

Start with a twenty:

17 points out of point buy for an 18 Int to start

18 Int
+ 2 racial bonus (elf, human, or half-elf)
+ 3 from level adjustments
+ 4 headband of superior intellect.

gives us a 26 Int.

[Treantmonklvl20]

Also keep in mind the power curve.

At what level is a wizard really powerful? At what level are they behind the rest?

So - once you've considered that - consider this: This proposal does nothing for a first level wizard, but is a significant powerup for higher level wizards...

Is that really a good idea?

P.S.: As mentioned - the way to get an INT 26 (or higher) is magic items. Your magic items will get more powerful as you go.

By level 20 expect +6 headband of Intellect and +5 tome of greater intellect, and 5 stat increases for a total of +16 over your original stat.

(sorry for double post earlier...)

[Mon]

Treantmonklvl20 wrote:

Also keep in mind the power curve.

At what level is a wizard really powerful? At what level are they behind the rest?

So - once you've considered that - consider this: This proposal does nothing for a first level wizard, but is a significant powerup for higher level wizards...

Is that really a good idea?

P.S.: As mentioned - the way to get an INT 26 (or higher) is magic items. Your magic items will get more powerful as you go.

By level 20 expect +6 headband of Intellect and +5 tome of greater intellect, and 5 stat increases for a total of +16 over your original stat.

(sorry for double post earlier...)

Disclaimer before I start: I don't actually use spell-level-static DCs in games I run as DM - nowdays we prefer to use as few house rules as possible. However I do understand that they're not the end of the world and I am happy to see others trying such things out as we did 6 or 7 years ago.

That wizard power-up thing you mention may not be as bad as you think, depending on what you are looking for in the game.

You see, the wizard doesn't become (much) more powerful in any given encounter - he still has only a certain number of actions so it isn't like he can "spam" spells. He just gains the added flexibility of viable lower level (read: weaker) spells instead of just his "top tiers" (read: best) and "no-saves". i.e. he gains the flexibility to do more things that are less awesome than he'd otherwise do.

However the wizard does become more powerful (or rather, longer lasting) over a given day of adventuring. This is because more useful spell slots without more actions per encounter = more encounters per day before they run out of juice. As we know, this "run out of juice" thing as the main "balancing" factore for casters vs. non-casters is funamental to pre-4e D&D.

IME this extra adventuring time actually turns out to be a good thing. Before 3e came along nova was far less conspicuous and you could go for 4 or more encounters (sometimes many more) before needing to rest. I don't see forcing everyone to rest after 1-2 level-appropriate encounters as a good balacing factor because it penalises everyone, not just the casters.

So I guess while it is a boost for casters in terms of flexibility to choose viable but weaker action, I see the extra encounters per day as a boost for the whole party. YMMV.

I know this doesn't hold water in the minds of many (most?) groups, but I find that many doomsayers have never actually TRIED playing long-term (or at all) with static DCs and just cry ONOEZ!!11!! BALANCE IS DEAD!!11!! based on assumptions that don't work out as such in play. Again YMMV.

I guess what I am trying to say is, sure be careful when tweaking DCs... don't add to what is already there in terms of the highest DCs. Just nudge up the bottom a little without pushing up the top. Infact, nudging down the top DCs wouldn't hurt either (e.g. by making all casters dual-stat as I mentioned above).

[Abraham spalding]

I've not really had a problem with the Spell DC's in 3.5

Of course I tend to keep a few points in mind:

1. Don't try to SoD the BBEG -- It's not going to happen.
2. Use Lower Level spells with save against creatures with a weak save (don't hit that aberration with dominate monster... get it with disentigrate)
3. Don't rely on Save only spells.
4. Never memorize all your spells at the start of the day. My wizard sits down to memorize about 3 times a day. Long buffs and general useful spells at the start (1/3~1/2 available spells) and whatever looks useful later on (note: This isn't so great for the low levels 1~6ish after that it is alright). With the way pathfinder is set up currently grab spells that you will cast every day anyways with your bonus spells.
5. Have none spell options. My first big ticket purchases on my mage? Either a Ring of Blink or Telekinesis. "All day long all day strong"
6. Start Low work your way up. Facing a meleer? Don't waste your high level spells -- Ray of enfeeblement him and let your BSF do his job. Web is always useful for slowing things down and giving your team more time to gank a single target (heck flame the web for some fire damage when you're done with it). No reason to just waste your big guns at the start of the day.

[Treantmonklvl20]

Abraham spalding wrote:

I've not really had a problem with the Spell DC's in 3.5

Of course I tend to keep a few points in mind:

1. Don't try to SoD the BBEG -- It's not going to happen.
2. Use Lower Level spells with save against creatures with a weak save (don't hit that aberration with dominate monster... get it with disentigrate)
3. Don't rely on Save only spells.
4. Never memorize all your spells at the start of the day. My wizard sits down to memorize about 3 times a day. Long buffs and general useful spells at the start (1/3~1/2 available spells) and whatever looks useful later on (note: This isn't so great for the low levels 1~6ish after that it is alright). With the way pathfinder is set up currently grab spells that you will cast every day anyways with your bonus spells.
5. Have none spell options. My first big ticket purchases on my mage? Either a Ring of Blink or Telekinesis. "All day long all day strong"
6. Start Low work your way up. Facing a meleer? Don't waste your high level spells -- Ray of enfeeblement him and let your BSF do his job. Web is always useful for slowing things down and giving your team more time to gank a single target (heck flame the web for some fire damage when you're done with it). No reason to just waste your big guns at the start of the day.

What he said.

And - also, it makes me very happy to see "BSF" used as common D&D terminology now...

[Mon]

Abraham spalding wrote:

I've not really had a problem with the Spell DC's in 3.5

Of course I tend to keep a few points in mind:

1. Don't try to SoD the BBEG -- It's not going to happen.
2. Use Lower Level spells with save against creatures with a weak save (don't hit that aberration with dominate monster... get it with disentigrate)
3. Don't rely on Save only spells.
4. Never memorize all your spells at the start of the day. My wizard sits down to memorize about 3 times a day. Long buffs and general useful spells at the start (1/3~1/2 available spells) and whatever looks useful later on (note: This isn't so great for the low levels 1~6ish after that it is alright). With the way pathfinder is set up currently grab spells that you will cast every day anyways with your bonus spells.
5. Have none spell options. My first big ticket purchases on my mage? Either a Ring of Blink or Telekinesis. "All day long all day strong"
6. Start Low work your way up. Facing a meleer? Don't waste your high level spells -- Ray of enfeeblement him and let your BSF do his job. Web is always useful for slowing things down and giving your team more time to gank a single target (heck flame the web for some fire damage when you're done with it). No reason to just waste your big guns at the start of the day.

Yeah yeah that's all good and well, and is fairly standard stuff for mid-high level 3.x playing. But it isn't the point.

The point was that spell-level-static DCs aren't as bad as some people make out, so the ideas/suggestions in this thread shouldn't dismissed so handily by folks who (incorrectly IMO) assume they know better. That's all.

I suppose your list is sort of related to my tangental points that the 3.x DC system tends to encourage "Nova" play more than previous editions, and that a large % of spells becoming obsolete isn't a good thing. Even in this arena, though, that list is nothing more than a "work around" that gets past the points without addressing them.

Of course, you mightn't care to address those points because you don't care about them one way or the other (also, is a bit off topic). That's all good. To tell the truth, I don't really address them when I DM either... I was just demonstrating that spell-level-static DCs may help to reverse the trend towards these issues which might be an unforseen positive.

[Abraham spalding]

Mon wrote:

Yeah yeah that's all good and well, and is fairly standard stuff for mid-high level 3.x playing. But it isn't the point.

The point was that spell-level-static DCs aren't as bad as some people make out, so the ideas/suggestions in this thread shouldn't dismissed so handily by folks who (incorrectly IMO) assume they know better. That's all.

I suppose your list is sort of related to my tangental points that the 3.x DC system tends to encourage "Nova" play more than previous editions, and that a large % of spells becoming obsolete isn't a good thing. Even in this arena, though, that list is nothing more than a "work around" that gets past the points without addressing them.

Of course, you mightn't care to address those points because you don't care about them one way or the other (also, is a bit off topic). That's all good. To tell the truth, I don't really address them when I DM either... I was just demonstrating that spell-level-static DCs may help to reverse the trend towards these issues which might be an unforseen positive

I'm sorry a work around? What are you expecting here people to cast spells like final fantasy? A work around is exactly what is needed!

Let's see I have a limited supply of something... need to make it last... got a bunch of this little stuff I could use instead... nayh I'll just "Nova" anyways and just complain.

A static bonus on saves isn't needed. They work sometimes... not always and that's good.

[Mon]

Abraham spalding wrote:

I'm sorry a work around? What are you expecting here people to cast spells like final fantasy? A work around is exactly what is needed!

I didn't mean to offend... on re-reading it does sound quite harsh. Please accept my apologies and let me clarify further.

It is a work around in the sense that it doesn't help keep more spells viable for longer or buck the trend towards nova - things that 3e tends towards more than previous editions (note I say tend, not cause/effect). It's using what you have to get the job done.

I didn't mean that it's a work around in terms of actually playing the game according to the model of 3e's design principles. In fact it is exactly what is intended/needed for that purpose as you say.

Abraham spalding wrote:

Let's see I have a limited supply of something... need to make it last... got a bunch of this little stuff I could use instead... nayh I'll just "Nova" anyways and just complain.

If you read my posts carefully you'll see that I/we don't "go nova and whine"... and in fact I explicitly stated on two occasions that I don't actually change the RAW DCs in game nowdays... I just understand that static DCs aren't so bad as some folks say, and that spell-level-based DCs may not have been so great an improvement afterall. That's it. Nothing else.

Abraham spalding wrote:

A static bonus on saves isn't needed. They work sometimes... not always and that's good.

I agree 100%.

Again, if you read my posts carefully you'll see that at no point did I say that it is *needed*... from the start I have maintained only that caster-level-based DCs aren't as bad as some folks say, and gave some reasoning including a few positive side effects that they bring to the table.

In summary:
If folks like to use caster-level based DCs instead of spell-level ones, let 'em do so - because it works just fine in practice despite what some naysayers predict. Further, it has some positive side effects like diminishing the trend towards nova (for more encounters per day, in some cases) and keeping more spells useful for longer (for more variety at the table, in many cases).

On the other hand, if you want to stick with spell-level based DCs that's cool too - and is what the vast majority do. There are plenty of tried-and-true ways to squeeze some juice out of those low level slots.

I hope this clears it up a bit.

[Abraham spalding]

Yes it does completely, I was under the impression you were advocating a change to a static bonus.

On a side note we tried the "rolling DC" for a little bit on a lark. The concept was you rolled a d20 then added spell level and Ability Modifiers. It was interesting but the net effect was as expected: averaged out on a 10~11.

[Treantmonklvl20]

My main concern with making more lower level spells viable at higher levels would be an increase in versitility.

It is high versatility that makes wizard the most powerful class in the game as is. Versatility = power.

If a class needed an increase in different things it could do - I would look more closely at Paladins and Barbarians. (Fighters to a lesser degree).

At lower levels a Wizard could use more options - but this doesn't address that at all. It only gives more options to wizards at higher levels - exactly when it is needed the least.

I'm not worried about Charm becoming "uber" at upper levels (for example) - but increasing the size of the Wizard's utility belt at higher levels seems to be an increase in options/and therefore versatility/and therefore power to the most powerful class in the game - at the point in the game where they have become the most powerful.

[Mon]

Treantmonklvl20 wrote:

My main concern with making more lower level spells viable at higher levels would be an increase in versitility.

It is high versatility that makes wizard the most powerful class in the game as is. Versatility = power.

If a class needed an increase in different things it could do - I would look more closely at Paladins and Barbarians. (Fighters to a lesser degree).

At lower levels a Wizard could use more options - but this doesn't address that at all. It only gives more options to wizards at higher levels - exactly when it is needed the least.

I'm not worried about Charm becoming "uber" at upper levels (for example) - but increasing the size of the Wizard's utility belt at higher levels seems to be an increase in options/and therefore versatility/and therefore power to the most powerful class in the game - at the point in the game where they have become the most powerful.

Disclaimer: I am NOT advocating a change in DC formula for Pathfinder. Such an alternative might be worth considering for some game that changes the fundamental assumptions of play (like 4e, some mythical 3.75, or 5e+) but NOT for Pathfinder ... because Pathfinder preserve the underlying assumptions of 3e (which work ok anyway) and shoots for backwards compatibility (which such a change would break).

With that out of the way...

Yeah that is a very valid concern, I agree versatility = power, and intution/conventional wisdom point directly to it as a "gotcha". However surpisingly, IME at least, it doesn't always work out exactly that way and here is why...

(1) Utility and Non-Combat spells don't usually have saving throws anyway, so a DC change has no effect on them at all...

Things like buffs, (most) divinations, flys, teleports etc.

(2) "Nova" players actually end up taking weaker actions...

Than they otherwise would if they only used their actions on 7th-9th level spells (for example). Because lower level effects are weaker than higher level ones, so when they do use a lower level slot in combat it has a weaker effect irrespective of DC. There are exceptions - Blindness/Deafness and Hideous Laughter are dagnasty regardless of level, for example. But they are the exceptions rather than the rule - high level spells having greater/more versatile effects than lower level spells is the way of things. Also, a if throwing blindness is not game breaking at 5th level, how on earth is it game breaking at 15th level when many opponents have other senses/workarounds? (It certainly wasn't when I played the static DC campaign in 2001/2).

I.e. They gain the versatility to take weaker actions in combat, and no increase in versatility out-of-combat.

(3) Non-Nova players get alot of utility anyway

With the non-save combat spells Abraham mentioned above, for example, they are already squeezing the most combat utility from the low-level slots that they don't pass over to utility/non-combat effects.

i.e. Burning hands isn't more powerful than Ray of Enfeeblement, just different.

(4) It worked fine for many many years before 3e...

This is a pretty weak point, I concede, because 1e/2e and BECMI are different games, but they are closely related.

So sure, it does increase the range of things usable in combat - but for the most part only opens up the option of instigating weaker effects than would otherwise see play in high level 3e. Further, it has absolutely no effect on out-of-combat and utility spells at all.

Of course, YMMV.

[Treantmonklvl20]

I see what you are saying. A first level spell with a higher DC is still inferior to a 9th level spell. I agree.

As for "Nova" players - I didn't realize anyone actually played nova wizards - I thought that was just theoretical optimization stuff. Generally I find that blasting is a tertiary function of a wizard (decent backup - but less important than battlefield controls).

I guess my main concern would be the availability of save-only debuffs.

Yes - a high level wizard has better debuffs available at hand - but the ability to blast away with effective spells round after round in combat and walk away with all your highest slots still available...

It may not be game-breaking (any more than Wizards already break the game that is), but it's a powerup for the most powerful class, exactly where powerups are needed the least.

There's alot more spells than Blindness/Deafness that would be dangerous.

Basically - any low level spell that institutes a mass save-or-lose maintaining dangerous DC's at upper levels I think constitutes risk.

In the games you played - did the high level wizard take advantage of an upped-DC glitterdust? Stinking Cloud? If the DC's get upped by level - they could be nearly on par with those higher level spells - while only using a 2nd or 3rd level spell slot.

These spells can still be effective at higher level now - however, you need to "prepare" your enemy with a mild debuff (a dazzle, shaken, or similar effect for a minus to save) in order for them to have a decent chance of working. A variable DC removes that requirement - even at higher levels.

Also I would be worried about balance of items like Metamagic Rods (lesser) which are normally cheap - but could be monstrously effective if the spells they enhance are working with DC's comparable to higher level spells. The Quicken (lesser) Rod being the monster of the bunch - normally, by the time you can afford this item, the list of spells that can be used through it have limited effect (thankfully) - however, with upped DC's that wouldn't be the case.

[Mon]

Treantmonklvl20 wrote:

I see what you are saying. A first level spell with a higher DC is still inferior to a 9th level spell. I agree.

As for "Nova" players - I didn't realize anyone actually played nova wizards - I thought that was just theoretical optimization stuff. Generally I find that blasting is a tertiary function of a wizard (decent backup - but less important than battlefield controls).

I guess my main concern would be the availability of save-only debuffs.

I thought "nova" covered all direct combat spells, including debuffs, and not just damage dealing blow-em-up stuff...

But yeah I agree that nova, like perfect competition in economics, is a sort of theoretical point at one end of a continuum that nobody is actually at. As I have said multiple times, it is just a tendency or trend in that direction that 3e encourages. Still, I think players and groups could be described as being closer to or further away from that point hence the distinction I made in the previous post.

Treantmonklvl20 wrote:

Yes - a high level wizard has better debuffs available at hand - but the ability to blast away with effective spells round after round in combat and walk away with all your highest slots still available...

...leads to more encounters in the day.

Treantmonklvl20 wrote:

It may not be game-breaking (any more than Wizards already break the game that is), but it's a powerup for the most powerful class, exactly where powerups are needed the least.

There's alot more spells than Blindness/Deafness that would be dangerous.

Basically - any low level spell that institutes a mass save-or-lose maintaining dangerous DC's at upper levels I think constitutes risk.

Yeah that was just an example of one.

Treantmonklvl20 wrote:

In the games you played - did the high level wizard take advantage of an upped-DC glitterdust? Stinking Cloud? If the DC's get upped by level - they could be nearly on par with those higher level spells - while only using a 2nd or 3rd level spell slot.

Stinking Cloud yes, Glitterdust no. Also Web, Hideous Laughter, Blindness/Deafness (as mentioned before). Yeah they were good spells. At high levels alot of creatures have ways around them (non-visual senses are alsmot ubiquitous, for example, as is flying to get out of AOEs) but they're still good. But too good? Nah. FWIW these were the 3.0 versions of the spells and someone else was the DM at the time. We talked about House rules alot as a group though.

Treantmonklvl20 wrote:

These spells can still be effective at higher level now - however, you need to "prepare" your enemy with a mild debuff (a dazzle, shaken, or similar effect for a minus to save) in order for them to have a decent chance of working. A variable DC removes that requirement - even at higher levels.

Agreed. I don't see how it is as a problem though...

Treantmonklvl20 wrote:

Also I would be worried about balance of items like Metamagic Rods (lesser) which are normally cheap - but could be monstrously effective if the spells they enhance are working with DC's comparable to higher level spells. The Quicken (lesser) Rod being the monster of the bunch - normally, by the time you can afford this item, the list of spells that can be used through it have limited effect (thankfully) - however,...

Quicken rods... *shudder* Admittedly there were no metamagic rods in the game back then so that's something I have not considered or encountered.

However metamagic feats *were* used, quicken included, and so was 3.0 haste, so it wasn't too hard to get two or even three spells off in a round. Still, they were-level appropriate effects for the most part and still worked within the limited actions thing so it wasn't a big deal. Certainly the DM had no probs handling and the non-casters didn't complain.

--

As for the wizard power up - well there is not denying it exists and I haven't tried to. I've only tried to put it into persepctive.

Versatility = power. The power to do less awesome stuff than you otherwise would in this case, but still power.

Walking away from encounters with more useful spell slots intact = power. The power to face another encounter or two before resting.

The first one (versatility) is potentially troublesome with metamagic rods I suppose, but without them it just brings more variety to the game.

The second (more encounters) is actually a benefit for the whole party, not just the wizard.

Remember, I am not saying the spell-level-DC system doesn't work, just that it isn't as awesome as I first thought back in the day for the various reasons outlined in previous posts. Also, a caster-level-DC system isn't so bad and has many benefits too.