|
Ok, so I've been going through the various threads (especially the spell and magic threads), and I have a question.
Should Pathfinder be made kid safe?
Swords are sharp. Maybe they should be made of foam so no one gets hurt.
Pits should all have big fluffy pillows at the bottom, 'cause, you know, it would be unfair if someone fell to their death.
Dragons should all breathe cotton candy. Fire and lightning interfere with the "story", as characters might break a fingernail or something.
Wizards should be limited to pulling rabbits out of their hats and ribbons out of their sleeves. All those "SoD" or "SoS" spells totally ruin everything!
And those pesky DR X/whatever stats need to go, I mean, how is a party expected to handle everything that might come up?
D&D has been deadly for 30+ years now. There are other systems for people who have to get their bad acting and writing fix satisfied, so why mess with this?
Ok, so I've been going through the various threads (especially the spell and magic threads), and I have a question.
Should Pathfinder be made kid safe?
Swords are sharp. Maybe they should be made of foam so no one gets hurt.
Pits should all have big fluffy pillows at the bottom, 'cause, you know, it would be unfair if someone fell to their death.
Dragons should all breathe cotton candy. Fire and lightning interfere with the "story", as characters might break a fingernail or something.
Wizards should be limited to pulling rabbits out of their hats and ribbons out of their sleeves. All those "SoD" or "SoS" spells totally ruin everything!
And those pesky DR X/whatever stats need to go, I mean, how is a party expected to handle everything that might come up?
D&D has been deadly for 30+ years now. There are other systems for people who have to get their bad acting and writing fix satisfied, so why mess with this?
Oh, you angry man! But I agree with you...
GRU
On a funny side note, "Carebear GMs" are also famous for being the worst railroaders and control freaks of the lot. I'd rather play with a magic-hater GM than with a carebear one any day of the week.
Ok, so I've been going through the various threads (especially the spell and magic threads), and I have a question.
Spoiler:Should Pathfinder be made kid safe?Swords are sharp. Maybe they should be made of foam so no one gets hurt.
Pits should all have big fluffy pillows at the bottom, 'cause, you know, it would be unfair if someone fell to their death.
Dragons should all breathe cotton candy. Fire and lightning interfere with the "story", as characters might break a fingernail or something.
Wizards should be limited to pulling rabbits out of their hats and ribbons out of their sleeves. All those "SoD" or "SoS" spells totally ruin everything!
And those pesky DR X/whatever stats need to go, I mean, how is a party expected to handle everything that might come up?
D&D has been deadly for 30+ years now. There are other systems for people who have to get their bad acting and writing fix satisfied, so why mess with this?
Oh, you angry man! But I agree with you...
GRUGRU, I can attest to that! I live with him!
Ok, so I've been going through the various threads (especially the spell and magic threads), and I have a question.
Should Pathfinder be made kid safe?
Swords are sharp. Maybe they should be made of foam so no one gets hurt.
Pits should all have big fluffy pillows at the bottom, 'cause, you know, it would be unfair if someone fell to their death.
Dragons should all breathe cotton candy. Fire and lightning interfere with the "story", as characters might break a fingernail or something.
Wizards should be limited to pulling rabbits out of their hats and ribbons out of their sleeves. All those "SoD" or "SoS" spells totally ruin everything!
And those pesky DR X/whatever stats need to go, I mean, how is a party expected to handle everything that might come up?
D&D has been deadly for 30+ years now. There are other systems for people who have to get their bad acting and writing fix satisfied, so why mess with this?
Yeah, I don't remember drinking any everlasting potion of eternal life. I don't remember life ever being very fair either!
|
|
Well seeing how ive already run my playing group through curse of the crimson throne and currently Second darkness as well as playing in a friends campaign that ended with pretty much a TPK I can safely say that characters can still be easily killed and that things are still very deadly.
I really wasn't commenting on the current state of the game, I was more commenting on the "x is too powerful" and "nerf this" threads. Our party suffered three casualties in Chimera's Cove, so, yeah, I know it's still deadly out there ;)
Well seeing how ive already run my playing group through curse of the crimson throne and currently Second darkness as well as playing in a friends campaign that ended with pretty much a TPK I can safely say that characters can still be easily killed and that things are still very deadly.I really wasn't commenting on the current state of the game, I was more commenting on the "x is too powerful" and "nerf this" threads. Our party suffered three casualties in Chimera's Cove, so, yeah, I know it's still deadly out there ;)
Heck our party lost our cleric THREE times! Once from an anti-climatic tidal wave in second darkness!
He got ate by a worg in D 1.5 and didnt even make it to the actual first encounter of the module!and I dont remember the other dang time he bit it.
The cleric chose overhand chop feat at 1st level (he's osirion with a scimitar, "hasan CHOP!") and thinks he's some kind of fighter, I think, which maybe his problem. But it doesn't help when the rogue is always chiding at him to DO something!
"hasan chop!" (misses)....worg gobbles him up.
|
Well seeing how ive already run my playing group through curse of the crimson throne and currently Second darkness as well as playing in a friends campaign that ended with pretty much a TPK I can safely say that characters can still be easily killed and that things are still very deadly.I really wasn't commenting on the current state of the game, I was more commenting on the "x is too powerful" and "nerf this" threads. Our party suffered three casualties in Chimera's Cove, so, yeah, I know it's still deadly out there ;)
i thought a playtest was all about finding broken or unbalanced parts of the mechanics and offering input. i apologize if i am supposed to just nod a whole lot. i think some abilities need to be toned down if they are too good, and other abilities need to be powered up. so gameplay stays pretty similar to 3.5
|
...i thought a playtest was all about finding broken or unbalanced parts of the mechanics and offering input...
And that is the idea.
My issue is with posters asking to nerf an entire class of spells using the reasoning that "what if my party doesn't have X to counter Y?"
Using that logic, one could advocate that monsters shouldn't be allowed to do damage because my group doesn't like to play divine spell casters or have access to healing by any other means. Ridiculous.
Hey there everyone,
Trust me when I say that I hear your concerns. Truth be told, the turn around time between the alpha and the beta was so short we did not have time to adjust all the things we would have liked, so we let some of it roll into the beta, with the full knowledge that some of it was still farther afield than we would have liked.
The playtest has been of an immense value to us, helping to solve some of the problems we had with the Beta rules as well as pointing out some areas of concern that we did not notice before. We are not changing rules for the sake of change, but out of a mountain of feedback, personal emails, and design meetings.
Its been a rough ride and I have not had the time to communicate all the changes that are going on right now, nor will I for some time. Its either that, or make sure that we get a solid game put together by press time.
I know which one I am going to choose.
That said, I want you fine folks to know that your concerns do not fall upon deaf ears. I cannot promise that everyone will be 100% pleased with the final rules, but we are doing the best we can to make this the game everyone wants to play.
I put this in to give everyone an idea of the powers-that-be are listening to what we write they just do not have time to answer each and every concern. As has been said elsewhere in these boards, the new rules set out in August is not going to satisfy all but will be a welcome extension of the OGL line of games. I will be happy to not have to buy a whole new set of books just to continue a game I have come to enjoy since 3.0 came out. I didn't play the earlier editions and sometimes feel left out in some of the discussions on here.
BTW, I am the DM that ran Chimera Cove for Houstonderek and Chinadoll. Yep, I managed to kill their PC's.
Just my 2 cp.
|
|
i thought a playtest was all about finding broken or unbalanced parts of the mechanics and offering input. i apologize if i am supposed to just nod a whole lot. i think some abilities need to be toned down if they are too good, and other abilities need to be powered up. so gameplay stays pretty similar to 3.5
Pointing out the broken is fine. "Imbalanced" is in the eyes of the beholder, however. Plus, I'm not trying to discourage anyone from providing feedback, but I am getting a tad frustrated with "but enchantment works and it isn't 'fun'" or "but we don't have a [insert class] in our party, so this is broken", or "but if a character dies 'anticlimatically' it isn't fair" threads.
The basic assumption of 'balance' and CR, etc assumes a party of four including a melee, a sneak, an arcane caster and a divine caster (preferably cleric). If your group isn't built to that spec, sure things are going to be a tad more difficult, if not outright deadly. But that is a preference of the group, not a flaw in the system. If a group wishes to play unconventional combos, with certain elements missing, using prefab adventures probably is just going to be frustrating. I think such groups should consider having the GM write some adventures tailored to their group...
|
|
i thought a playtest was all about finding broken or unbalanced parts of the mechanics and offering input. i apologize if i am supposed to just nod a whole lot. i think some abilities need to be toned down if they are too good, and other abilities need to be powered up. so gameplay stays pretty similar to 3.5Pointing out the broken is fine. "Imbalanced" is in the eyes of the beholder, however. Plus, I'm not trying to discourage anyone from providing feedback, but I am getting a tad frustrated with "but enchantment works and it isn't 'fun'" or "but we don't have a [insert class] in our party, so this is broken", or "but if a character dies 'anticlimatically' it isn't fair" threads.
The basic assumption of 'balance' and CR, etc assumes a party of four including a melee, a sneak, an arcane caster and a divine caster (preferably cleric). If your group isn't built to that spec, sure things are going to be a tad more difficult, if not outright deadly. But that is a preference of the group, not a flaw in the system. If a group wishes to play unconventional combos, with certain elements missing, using prefab adventures probably is just going to be frustrating. I think such groups should consider having the GM write some adventures tailored to their group...
Well put.
We should co-ordinate our posts in the future. ;)
PS. You should cut and paste that into a few threads I'm thinking of. :)
I find the ability "Sneak attack" offinse, so that one better be removed too! :P
i thought a playtest was all about finding broken or unbalanced parts of the mechanics and offering input. i apologize if i am supposed to just nod a whole lot. i think some abilities need to be toned down if they are too good, and other abilities need to be powered up. so gameplay stays pretty similar to 3.5Pointing out the broken is fine. "Imbalanced" is in the eyes of the beholder, however. Plus, I'm not trying to discourage anyone from providing feedback, but I am getting a tad frustrated with "but enchantment works and it isn't 'fun'" or "but we don't have a [insert class] in our party, so this is broken", or "but if a character dies 'anticlimatically' it isn't fair" threads.
The basic assumption of 'balance' and CR, etc assumes a party of four including a melee, a sneak, an arcane caster and a divine caster (preferably cleric). If your group isn't built to that spec, sure things are going to be a tad more difficult, if not outright deadly. But that is a preference of the group, not a flaw in the system. If a group wishes to play unconventional combos, with certain elements missing, using prefab adventures probably is just going to be frustrating. I think such groups should consider having the GM write some adventures tailored to their group...
anti climatically? You mean getting killed by a tidal wave after defeating the villan at the end of the adventure IS NORMAL?? Hahahaha.
anyway, other wasted threads like "my favorite class should be more powerful" are getting quite boring as well.
Play testing is like test driving. You jump in and try it. Does every thing work? (not could this engine use more power) did it do what it was supposed to do (not gee id like this car to fly) did we leave something out like the on button to the radio (not I want leather seats with the economy edition for no extra charge)
Alot of posts have to do with the maturity of the audience and their understanding of how a playtest works.
a play test is not sitting on a "santas lap" session, its more of a "how do you like the things your got for christmas" and "does anything need to go back to the store for an exhange, or need batteries?" Review
anyway, other wasted threads like "my favorite class should be more powerful" are getting quite boring as well.Play testing is like test driving. You jump in and try it. Does every thing work? (not could this engine use more power) did it do what it was supposed to do (not gee id like this car to fly) did we leave something out like the on button to the radio (not I want leather seats with the economy edition for no extra charge)
Alot of posts have to do with the maturity of the audience and their understanding of how a playtest works.
Agreed. However, there's something to be said for the huge blind spots exhibited by selective playtesting such as the stuff WotC did for 3.0.
If the 13-year-old kids are having problems and aren't having fun, that could be something we'd like to see fixed. It could also be the kid's problem. Tough to say.
I say grin and bear it, let the designers sieve the forums. They'll keep what they like, and ditch the rest, and we'll get something more or less like we would have gotten anyway. It's not like they're beholden to us, really.
anyway, other wasted threads like "my favorite class should be more powerful" are getting quite boring as well.Play testing is like test driving. You jump in and try it. Does every thing work? (not could this engine use more power) did it do what it was supposed to do (not gee id like this car to fly) did we leave something out like the on button to the radio (not I want leather seats with the economy edition for no extra charge)
Alot of posts have to do with the maturity of the audience and their understanding of how a playtest works.
Agreed. However, there's something to be said for the huge blind spots exhibited by selective playtesting such as the stuff WotC did for 3.0.
If the 13-year-old kids are having problems and aren't having fun, that could be something we'd like to see fixed. It could also be the kid's problem. Tough to say.
I say grin and bear it, let the designers sieve the forums. They'll keep what they like, and ditch the rest, and we'll get something more or less like we would have gotten anyway. It's not like they're beholden to us, really.
Not having fun is relative to maturity, not age.
If a thirteen year old kid isnt having fun because he cant "win the game" and beat everything, he has maturity problem no game designer can address.
If someone wants character generation changed so much its convuluted to the point its fundamentally too hard to make a fighter, and 13 year old kids never even get to play because they dont even get past character generation. That could be a problem.
i thought a playtest was all about finding broken or unbalanced parts of the mechanics and offering input. i apologize if i am supposed to just nod a whole lot. i think some abilities need to be toned down if they are too good, and other abilities need to be powered up. so gameplay stays pretty similar to 3.5Pointing out the broken is fine. "Imbalanced" is in the eyes of the beholder, however. Plus, I'm not trying to discourage anyone from providing feedback, but I am getting a tad frustrated with "but enchantment works and it isn't 'fun'" or "but we don't have a [insert class] in our party, so this is broken", or "but if a character dies 'anticlimatically' it isn't fair" threads.
The basic assumption of 'balance' and CR, etc assumes a party of four including a melee, a sneak, an arcane caster and a divine caster (preferably cleric). If your group isn't built to that spec, sure things are going to be a tad more difficult, if not outright deadly. But that is a preference of the group, not a flaw in the system. If a group wishes to play unconventional combos, with certain elements missing, using prefab adventures probably is just going to be frustrating. I think such groups should consider having the GM write some adventures tailored to their group...
Just a nod of agreement with what's expressed here.
|
|
i thought a playtest was all about finding broken or unbalanced parts of the mechanics and offering input. i apologize if i am supposed to just nod a whole lot. i think some abilities need to be toned down if they are too good, and other abilities need to be powered up. so gameplay stays pretty similar to 3.5Pointing out the broken is fine. "Imbalanced" is in the eyes of the beholder, however. Plus, I'm not trying to discourage anyone from providing feedback, but I am getting a tad frustrated with "but enchantment works and it isn't 'fun'" or "but we don't have a [insert class] in our party, so this is broken", or "but if a character dies 'anticlimatically' it isn't fair" threads.
The basic assumption of 'balance' and CR, etc assumes a party of four including a melee, a sneak, an arcane caster and a divine caster (preferably cleric). If your group isn't built to that spec, sure things are going to be a tad more difficult, if not outright deadly. But that is a preference of the group, not a flaw in the system. If a group wishes to play unconventional combos, with certain elements missing, using prefab adventures probably is just going to be frustrating. I think such groups should consider having the GM write some adventures tailored to their group...
Well put.
We should co-ordinate our posts in the future. ;)
PS. You should cut and paste that into a few threads I'm thinking of. :)
Let me get this straight: you guys think that PC deaths are mostly due to "playing wrong" or in a "stupid" way or for "breaking the Sacred Party Line-Up"? I'm sorry if this comes off as aggressive or insulting, but the tone on this thread isn't exactly friendly.
Firstly, before anyone starts beating his chest and announcing how many PC deaths they've got under their belts, let me tell you something: that sort of thing went out of fashion back in 1990. If my DM brags about killing my character, or says anything like "Life's hard, suck it up and roll better next time!", I'd probably hit him. Really. Because if I invest my money and time on playing in his campaign, I expect him at least to respect my character. I *know* life's hard -- that's why I *PLAY*, to escape the stress and sorrows of my RW life. And, when I'm GMing, I try to keep in mind that I'm running the game *for* the guys -- it's not just me having fun there, or counting "anticlimatic" PC deaths.
Secondly, most of the guys posting here probably have gaming experience of 15+ years (at least), and calling them 'Carebear GMs' is condescending if not even outright insulting -- *especially* if they have legitimate concerns about the system that are based on actual gameplay and they also manage to present good arguments to back it up (and no, I'm not referring to myself).
Thirdly, I'd like to remind everyone that the classes *were* more balanced before 3E. Just dig out your old rulebooks and check how saving throws, AC and THAC0 were balanced in the way that the "Fighting Man" at higher levels usually needed 10+ (if not even less) to hit almost every critter (ancient dragons and deities aside). And the same low-WIS "Fighting Man" would save against Meteor Swarms and Domination with 12+, giving him a fighting chance against high-level wizards. There weren't ways to "optimize" your guy, or raise your spellcaster's saving throws and AC to ridiculous numbers -- at least not to my knowledge.
How about these days? That same high-level "Fighting Man" probably needs to roll 15+ just to succeed in a Fort save, and a natural 20 is the only one that'll prevent him from being Dominated. Against a high-level wizard he stands no chance on his own -- unlike back in AD&D. His friend, whom we shall call the "Arcane Spellcasting Guy", thrives better than ever -- he got lots and lots of spells, that his friend has very little chance to resist these days. What's even better, his new spells allow him to boost his AC so high, that without his help or that of their mutual friend, "Divine Spellcasting Guy", the poor "Fighting Man" no longer can even *hit* him -- or most of the high-level monsters.
So, shortly put: it's now the *wizard's playground* (especially if he uses those wily Enchantment spells), and the only ones allowed to play in it are the Cleric and the Druid -- by the high levels, the rest of the classes become just annoying little brothers, who need to be constantly saved from different unpleasant situations. He doesn't need them -- in fact, the high-level wizard doesn't need *anyone*. As some playtesters have proven, he's perfectly capable of tackling adventures on his own, without any risk to his life. So he might say to his friends: "Look, guys, why don't you go training some songs, picking pockets, hammering away your next Masterwork Armor, or whatever. You'd just be a burden to me, and I'd hate to pay for another Wish to raise you."
So where's the balance? Where's the fun of playing a fighter? Or a ranger? Or a barbarian? At high levels you're just a liability to the wiz... errr, your group. Cleric and Druid do just fine as "support" PCs, and they can actually benefit the wizard. In a combat, the Bard cannot match the cleric or even the rogue, but he can do some good, if he obediently "supports" the PCs to the best of his ability. He *might* be able to wreak "social havoc" outside combat, if his abilities are abused (note: the wizard is capable of the same -- only he's better at it than the bard). Again: where's the balance?
Something feels *definitely* flawed here, at least if compared to AD&D.
And, to throw the ball back to everyone who thinks there's nothing inherently wrong in the magic system, and D&D *must* punish players for the "wrong" choices or not optimizing your PC -- here's a hint: there are other High Fantasy RPGs that are far better at simulating "realism" or "harshness" of life (at least in the form of PC deaths), e.g. Rolemaster and HackMaster, to name two -- they might suit your taste even better than D&D.
|
|
A lot of very cool stuff stated in an awesomely argumentative and entertaining manner
I feel you, but, as a point of reference, look at my posts in the fighter threads. I WANT fighters (and other melees) to have a lot of what they lost in the translation. I WANT it to be harder for a Wiz to drop a mid-high to high level someone with a phantasmal killer. I just don't want to hamstring the wizard to do it. And I sure as heck don't want to play a nerf version of D&D.
And as a counterpoint to your last statement, perhaps Conan, True 20 or Runequest would better suit your tastes than D&D. Just sayin'...
If someone wants character generation changed so much its convuluted to the point its fundamentally too hard to make a fighter, and 13 year old kids never even get to play because they dont even get past character generation. That could be a problem.
Though I've never played it myself, I thought that was Traveller?
|
|
If someone wants character generation changed so much its convuluted to the point its fundamentally too hard to make a fighter, and 13 year old kids never even get to play because they dont even get past character generation. That could be a problem.Though I've never played it myself, I thought that was Traveller?
"Um, did I just DIE making my character? WTF???"
anti climatically? You mean getting killed by a tidal wave after defeating the villan at the end of the adventure IS NORMAL?? Hahahaha.
You know what that reminds me of?
Everyone has a "destiny", what it is, isn't always what you expect.
Thirdly, I'd like to remind everyone that the classes *were* more balanced before 3E. Just dig out your old rulebooks and check how saving throws, AC and THAC0 were balanced in the way that the "Fighting Man" at higher levels usually needed 10+ (if not even less) to hit almost every critter (ancient dragons and deities aside). And the same low-WIS "Fighting Man" would save against Meteor Swarms and Domination with 12+, giving him a fighting chance against high-level wizards. There weren't ways to "optimize" your guy, or raise your spellcaster's saving throws and AC to ridiculous numbers -- at least not to my knowledge.
How about these days? That same high-level "Fighting Man" probably needs to roll 15+ just to succeed in a Fort save, and a natural 20 is the only one that'll prevent him from being Dominated. Against a high-level wizard he stands no chance on his own -- unlike back in AD&D. His friend, whom we shall call the "Arcane Spellcasting Guy", thrives better than ever -- he got lots and lots of spells, that his friend has very little chance to resist these days. What's even better, his new spells allow him to boost his AC so high, that without his help or that of their mutual friend, "Divine Spellcasting Guy", the poor "Fighting Man" no longer can even *hit* him -- or most of the high-level monsters.
So, shortly put: it's now the *wizard's playground* (especially if he uses those wily Enchantment spells), and the only ones allowed to play in it are the Cleric and the Druid -- by the high levels, the rest of the classes become just annoying little brothers, who need to be constantly saved from different unpleasant situations. He doesn't need them -- in fact, the high-level wizard doesn't need *anyone*. As some playtesters have proven, he's perfectly capable of tackling adventures on his own, without any risk to his life. So he might say to his friends: "Look, guys, why don't you go training some songs, picking pockets, hammering away your next Masterwork Armor, or whatever. You'd just be a burden to me, and I'd hate to pay for another Wish to raise you."
So where's the balance? Where's the fun of playing a fighter? Or a ranger? Or a barbarian? At high levels you're just a liability to the wiz... errr, your group. Cleric and Druid do just fine as "support" PCs, and they can actually benefit the wizard. In a combat, the Bard cannot match the cleric or even the rogue, but he can do some good, if he obediently "supports" the PCs to the best of his ability. He *might* be able to wreak "social havoc" outside combat, if his abilities are abused (note: the wizard is capable of the same -- only he's better at it than the bard). Again: where's the balance?
This is probably one of the most insightful things to be posted on this Forum, and it gets right down to the main issue of D&D 3.5 - anyone but a Wizard, a Cleric, or a Druid is ultimately ineffective and irrelevant. And those that wish to maintain the illusion of relevancy must spend every single gold piece on magical gear (all crafted by spellcasters) just to get by, much less contribute in a meaningful way. Pathfinder has already made some steps in the right direction - and no one wants to swing the balance back in the opposite direction so that spellcasters end up getting the shaft - but some of the rules still need to be tweaked so non-spellcasters don't spend most of the time watching the spellcasters do all of the work or - even worse - getting facerolled by the evil spellcasters that they will invariably have to face over the course of their adventures.
This is probably one of the most insightful things to be posted on this Forum, and it gets right down to the main issue of D&D 3.5 - anyone but a Wizard, a Cleric, or a Druid is ultimately ineffective and irrelevant. And those that wish to maintain the illusion of relevancy must spend every single gold piece on magical gear (all crafted by spellcasters) just to get by, much less contribute in a meaningful way. Pathfinder has already made some steps in the right direction - and no one wants to swing the balance back in the opposite direction so that spellcasters end up getting the shaft - but some of the rules still need to be tweaked so non-spellcasters don't spend most of the time watching the spellcasters do all of the work or - even worse - getting facerolled by the evil spellcasters that they will invariably have to face over the course of their adventures.
Funny thing is, on another thread I saw people talking about how patheticly low the saving throws for casters were as people got higher level. That saves, even poor saves, began to outpace the DCs for spells (to the point where they wanted to add 1/2 the caster level or the whole caster level to the DC). That targetting people with spells was bound to be a losing proposition for spellcasters. It is funny how different people can have completely different ideas about the same things.
Well even with poor saves you end up with a + 6 on your will save. The DC's for the spells only go up to 19 before stat modifiers.
So just looking at the "bare" mechanics you only need a 13 to save versus a 9th level spell. Now the minimum DC due to stat modifiers for a 9th level spell actually comes out to a 23... which a fighter with a wisdom of 10 can do at twentith level on a roll of 17 or better.
Considering that Will saves are the fighters WEAK point that seems fair to me... A 20% chance of not succumbing.
Throwing in everything else that can be stacked actually just keeps things even.
The absolute best a wizard can hope for out of his DC for a 9th level spell would be as follows:
Starting Int 20
+ 5 from levels
+5 from books
+ 6 from stat boosters
Gives a total Int of 36. Which is a modifier of +13.
Base DC 10
Stat Mod + 13
Feats + 2
Spell level + 9
Highest DC possible by Core = 34
Now lets see what the fighter can do with a starting Wisdom of 10 at twentieth level...
Base Save Bonus + 6
Wisdom Booster (+4) + 2
Iron Will + 2
Cloak of Resistance + 5 (resistance)
Luckstone + 1 (luck)
Pale Green Ioun Stone + 1 (competence)
Gives a total save modifier of + 17...
Which means he still needs a 17 or better to save versus the wizard's 9th level spell.
However this is still before anyone applies any buffs to the fighter which can still raise his save throws higher... or a simple level one spell "Protection from evil" will completely block mind affecting spells...
Also lets consider "Death" spells with the same fighter as above...
The DC of the spell doesn't change: DC 34
The fighter's save bonuses however do.
Base Save Bonus + 12
Constitution Modifier (starting 16) +3
Stat Booster ( +4) +2
Cloak of Resistance + 5
Luckstone + 1
Ioun Stone + 1
Total Save Modifier + 24
The fighter only needs a 10 to save versus the death spell before Great Fortitude. If the fighter grabbed Great Fortitude he only needs an 8.
These are the best spell DC's the wizard can get in core pathfinder Beta. There isn't anything left to raise the DC for the wizard. However there are still buffs and options for rendering the fighter immune.
And at the same time this is just the "poor" fighter. We aren't talking about the monk (best saves) the paladin (more immunities and great saves) the cleric (good saves, spells for immunities) or any other class that will "outshine" the fighter.
Most monsters have good will and fortitude saves if they are even vulnerable to these spells in the first place. Add in the fact that these same monsters have more hit dice than the typical fighter or wizard their save modifiers are going to be even higher.
This is the best the wizard can do on save DC's. It's all down hill from here, and the wizard can only do this 6 times a day.
Final Note: The items above total up to 81k gold. At level twenty you have 880k gold. That's enough for +10 magic armor, a +10 magic shield, 2 +10 magic weapons the stuff I mentioned above AND 399k gold pieces of other stuff.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Slight flaw,
Forgot Spell Focus and or Greater spell focus for the save DC.
But that doesn't include party buffs, like you said. Oh, and I think Jason was looking at Iron Will/Great Fortitude/Lightening Reflexes to scale.
but if we're holding AD&D as the 'gold standard' in the one post. let's not forget teh 'whew, one spell and i'm useless for the day' wizard from those days too. Or the "I cast Haste! And you keel over from teh system shock roll" mechanic too.
every system has bugs of some kind.
Slight flaw,
Forgot Spell Focus and or Greater spell focus for the save DC.
I could be wrong, but is that what these are?
Feats + 2
Although the issues of the "Big Post" above are all very true,
The existance of "killer Dm" , "Carebare Dm" and "magic hater Dm" are very real, not 'insults'.
IF a Dm needs to get personally involved in either killing the characters on purpose, or saving the characters through devine intervention or wandering through the splatbooks of even the DMG with a marker and crossing out all the magic he doesnt allow, There is something either fundamentally broken with the campaign, the game system, or he's just a ontrol freak.
I would like to put forth, the main issue with 3.5 was this "idea" of CRs in general is broken.
Not only that it was the dumbest thing ever invented by WotC and it caused the artificialness to the gaming worlds we play in these days.
Dm's writing their own adventures used to have the abilities to decide what was there, and then the players, likely may just mow through it.
OR perhaps something was too hard, and the players would have to turn back.
Having "balanced" aventures and encounters based on an iconic four-group, and then having everyone judge weather their 20th Mystic theurge character can keep up based on that CR number is silly.
I would encourage anyone who wants to run/play in a sane campaign to ingore them, Completely.
One more thing, a 20th level uber sword swingng hero, that can get his mind controlled 80% of the time? Is NOT reasonable. See we keep these horse blinders on with the CR thing, as the characters advance in level, they meet harder challeneges, sure, but CR 1 doesnt disappear, they still exist.
If the Big Baddy can control the party fighter 80% of the time, then why is he not controlling every knight, lord and even the king within 2000 miles (the range of his teleport spell) whom he would easily have a 100% chance of controlling?
Afterall, in mythology, fantasy, anywhere in writing or movies, who kills the evil archmage? Some half naked sword swinging hero.
Fighter need better will saves, period.
IF a wizard alone, wants to defeat high level heros comming to storm his castle, he should pretty much assume his SOD and enchantment spells arent going to work very well on the uber heroes (they should be bale to save about 60% of the time) and he should be trying guaranteed damage spells like good old fire ball and lightening bolt, and have a bunch of meat shields in the way to slow the hereos down enough to get the spells off, followed by a greater invisibility and a teleport/dimension door to get away.
Saving throws SERIOUSLY need to be relooked at.
The major issue is, when Dnd switched over to everything D20, which in many ways was agood thing, due to making the game easier to play; they totally missed doing any meaningful play testing at higher levels of the game, and alot of what was passively part of characters like fighter an paladin (good saves,movement, etc) was lost in translation, because deep down in side, those game designers wanted things like enchantment spells to work more often (even though anything these spells/confrontations with hereos were based on in mythology and fantasy settings says otherwise)
Its my guess those in charge of the 3.x spell/saving throw part of the game were 9 years old when too many of their favorite "presto" characters got killed by their 12 year ld brothers fighter and this is their idea of revenge.
I'd just like to say, however, that it has always been, if you nursed a mage from 1st level to say about 18th, that the roles are reversed, the mage is way powerful and more effective than the fighter.
It has been that way since 1e, however MOST mages died before they got to 10th level, abd characters that had 18th level wizards were usually fudged or "built"
Im totally OK with mages being more powerful, but save or die being as sucessful as it is on high level hereos (or the enchantments) Im not.
If the weasly wizard actually gets to 12th level plus he should get his come uppance, but if he can "control" his team mates, th evil wizard in the tower can aswell, and he should not be able to.
This is clearly fixable with better saving throw progression, where those types of spells are more likely to fail at higher levels on PC's. Not everything with a big CR mind you, PLAYER CHARACTERS should have high saving throws, arch devils, demons, baddies with player character classes, but not every mammoth or dinosaur or giant just beause they have alot of HD (or some intangleble bling bling hanging around their neck invisibly that says they have a high CR)
*Has a prolonged and painful giggle fit at the idea that D&D is a 'deadly'.*
I can't prove it of course, but I usually suspect DM intervention when either I can't make my save throws or all my opponents are making theirs. It's just not in the numbers otherwise.
80% is perfectly reasonable! It's the fighter's Weak point, he shouldn't be succeeding at something he's supposed to be bad at.
Also that's against a level 9 will save spell...
for the fighter's will save against lower level spells:
level 8 = 75% chance of failure to save
level 7 = 70% chance of failure to save
level 6 = 65% chance of failure to save
level 5 = 60% chance of failure to save
level 4 = 55% chance of failure to save
level 3 = 50% chance of failure to save
level 2 = 45% chance of failure to save
level 1 = 40% chance of failure to save
The fighter should not be immune to spells just becuase "it's unfair that his mind is controlled" by that logic a wizard should be immune to damage because "its not fair most monsters can drop him in one or two hits", especially at lower levels where people actually play.
DC for spells actually scales slower than bonuses to save throws incur.
That's not even mentioning the fact that most of the time the fighter can be made immune to these spells with much lower level magic.
Protection from Evil defeats most spells no matter the level, and deathward is a fourth level spell that defeats all death magic spells, enervation, energy drain, et al. Spell Immunity, Anti-magic, the spell resistance spell... most all defensive magic is recieve well before very thing it defends against.
By the time the wizard can use these spells everyone can easily be immune to them.
And we aren't talking about a fighter and wizard in an infinite vaccuum with the wizard never running out of spells and the fighter completely unprepared and with no equipment. With an INT of 36 the wizard will only have 6 ninth level spells a day at a top DC of 34.
I really wasn't commenting on the current state of the game, I was more commenting on the "x is too powerful" and "nerf this" threads. Our party suffered three casualties in Chimera's Cove, so, yeah, I know it's still deadly out there ;)
Meh. Its not that things are "too powerful," its that some things are too powerful compared to others. My problem is that some of those too powerful things are in comparison to stuff that Pathfinder is supposed to be reverse compatible with. Because of that imbalance, I don't see the point in "upgrading" yet. I've made my observations about this based on playtesting in my group, and further testing is pointless until I see significant changes. I'm still hoping that things regress a bit before Pathfinder leaves the beta stage.
|
|
This is probably one of the most insightful things to be posted on this Forum, and it gets right down to the main issue of D&D 3.5 - anyone but a Wizard, a Cleric, or a Druid is ultimately ineffective and irrelevant. And those that wish to maintain the illusion of relevancy must spend every single gold piece on magical gear (all crafted by spellcasters) just to get by, much less contribute in a meaningful way. Pathfinder has already made some steps in the right direction - and no one wants to swing the balance back in the opposite direction so that spellcasters end up getting the shaft - but some of the rules still need to be tweaked so non-spellcasters don't spend most of the time watching the spellcasters do all of the work or - even worse - getting facerolled by the evil spellcasters that they will invariably have to face over the course of their adventures.Funny thing is, on another thread I saw people talking about how patheticly low the saving throws for casters were as people got higher level. That saves, even poor saves, began to outpace the DCs for spells (to the point where they wanted to add 1/2 the caster level or the whole caster level to the DC). That targetting people with spells was bound to be a losing proposition for spellcasters. It is funny how different people can have completely different ideas about the same things.
I may be wrong, but I think you're referring to the thread which discussed the flaws and merits of adding 1/2*Caster Level to Save DCs *instead* of Spell Level. The point of the thread was to discuss, for example, whether a Fireball cast by an 18th level wizard with INT 18 and a 5th level wizard with INT 18 should have some sort of mechanical difference (leaving Feats aside, at the moment both casters would have save DC 17 -- regardless of the level difference).
If this was the thread you refer to, this "tweak" would raise the DCs at the lower end of spell levels, but *not* at the upper end. For example:
* As per PF Beta, an 18th level wizard with INT 26 casting a 9th level spell would have DC 27 (10 + 8 from INT + 9 from spell level)
* As per PF Beta, an 18th level wizard with INT 26 casting a 3rd level spell would have DC 21 (10 + 8 from INT + 3 from spell level)
* As per PF Beta, a 13th level wizard with INT 22 casting a 6th level spell would have DC 22 (10 + 6 from INT + 6 from spell level)
* As per PF Beta, a 16th level wizard with INT 22 casting a 1st level spell would have DC 17 (10 + 6 from INT + 1 from spell level)
* As per the suggestions on that thread, an 18th level wizard with INT 28 casting a 9th level spell would have DC 28 (10 + 9 from half his caster level + 9 from spell level)
* As per the suggestions on that thread, an 18th level wizard with INT 28 casting a 3rd level spell would have DC 22 (10 + 9 from half his caster level + 3 from spell level)
* As per the suggestions on that thread, a 13th level wizard with INT 22 casting a 6th level spell would have DC 22 (10 + 6 from half his caster level + 6 from spell level)
* As per the suggestions on that thread, a 16th level wizard with INT 22 casting a 1st level spell would have DC 19 (10 + 8 from half his caster level + 1 from spell level)
The purpose of the OP was, I think, that this change would be more "realistic" (i.e. DCs are relative to your "power") and it would make *not* maxing-out your INT at 1st level feel like a viable option. I'm not sure if this "tweak" would be a good idea, since it would make wizards in general a bit more powerful (not much, but it *would* raise the spell DCs for low-level spells at higher caster levels). Of course, if you commonly boost your wizard's INT beyond 30+, it actually *lowers* your Spell DCs.
This is probably one of the most insightful things to be posted on this Forum, and it gets right down to the main issue of D&D 3.5 - anyone but a Wizard, a Cleric, or a Druid is ultimately ineffective and irrelevant. And those that wish to maintain the illusion of relevancy must spend every single gold piece on magical gear (all crafted by spellcasters) just to get by, much less contribute in a meaningful way. Pathfinder has already made some steps in the right direction - and no one wants to swing the balance back in the opposite direction so that spellcasters end up getting the shaft - but some of the rules still need to be tweaked so non-spellcasters don't spend most of the time watching the spellcasters do all of the work or - even worse - getting facerolled by the evil spellcasters that they will invariably have to face over the course of their adventures.Funny thing is, on another thread I saw people talking about how patheticly low the saving throws for casters were as people got higher level. That saves, even poor saves, began to outpace the DCs for spells (to the point where they wanted to add 1/2 the caster level or the whole caster level to the DC). That targetting people with spells was bound to be a losing proposition for spellcasters. It is funny how different people can have completely different ideas about the same things.I may be wrong, but I think you're referring to the thread which discussed the flaws and merits of adding 1/2*Caster Level to Save DCs *instead* of Spell Level. The point of the thread was to discuss, for example, whether a Fireball cast by an 18th level wizard with INT 18 and a 5th level wizard with INT 18 should have some sort of mechanical difference (leaving Feats aside, at the moment both casters would have save DC 17 -- regardless of the level difference).
If this was the thread you refer to, this "tweak" would raise the DCs at the lower end of spell levels, but *not* at the upper end. For example:
*...
The fighter is *Not* supposed to be bad at will saves, first Edition and 2nd edition fighters were better at saves than almost anyone (clerics and paladins had better, but the fighter was the base class for paladins anyway, and some saves fighters were better than clerics)
In that system, it was the general thought that the less magic you had, the more resiliance you had to it (dwarf fighters were save machines)
When everything got changed to d20 they revamped an admittedly bad and convuluted saving throw system. However, they totally wiped out what was essentially a class feature of the fighter, good saving throws.
That had more of an impact if you took away a rangers track or a paladins lay on hands. Good saving throws was a halmark of the fighter class, an the basis by which TSR launched the barbarian ( a sub class of fighter at the time) as the "anti magic" class (which thankfully was dropped along the way.
so the fighter has had good saving throws for many more years than he has had bad ones. Any we are here discussing how to rectify all the goof ups of 3.5, otherwise pathfinder wouldnt have a niche.
as for should an 18th level wizard who casts fireball have a spell thats harder to save against than a 5th level wizard casting the same spell? Of course, the master wizards spell has more magical force and intensity behind it than the guy who just learned to cast it. If damage scales with the spell so should the DC.
But a 20th level fighter saving against that spell should have a BETTER chance of halving the damage against a 20th level wizard, than the 5th level fighter saving against a 5th level wizard.
|
|
Well even with poor saves you end up with a + 6 on your will save. The DC's for the spells only go up to 19 before stat modifiers.
So just looking at the "bare" mechanics you only need a 13 to save versus a 9th level spell. Now the minimum DC due to stat modifiers for a 9th level spell actually comes out to a 23... which a fighter with a wisdom of 10 can do at twentith level on a roll of 17 or better.
Considering that Will saves are the fighters WEAK point that seems fair to me... A 20% chance of not succumbing.Throwing in everything else that can be stacked actually just keeps things even.
The absolute best a wizard can hope for out of his DC for a 9th level spell would be as follows:
Starting Int 20
+ 5 from levels
+5 from books
+ 6 from stat boosters
Gives a total Int of 36. Which is a modifier of +13.Base DC 10
Stat Mod + 13
Feats + 2
Spell level + 9
Highest DC possible by Core = 34Now lets see what the fighter can do with a starting Wisdom of 10 at twentieth level...
Base Save Bonus + 6
Wisdom Booster (+4) + 2
Iron Will + 2
Cloak of Resistance + 5 (resistance)
Luckstone + 1 (luck)
Pale Green Ioun Stone + 1 (competence)
Gives a total save modifier of + 17...Which means he still needs a 17 or better to save versus the wizard's 9th level spell.
However this is still before anyone applies any buffs to the fighter which can still raise his save throws higher... or a simple level one spell "Protection from evil" will completely block mind affecting spells...
Also lets consider "Death" spells with the same fighter as above...
The DC of the spell doesn't change: DC 34
The fighter's save bonuses however do.
Base Save Bonus + 12
Constitution Modifier (starting 16) +3
Stat Booster ( +4) +2
Cloak of Resistance + 5
Luckstone + 1
Ioun Stone + 1
Total Save Modifier + 24The fighter only needs a 10 to save versus the death spell before Great Fortitude. If the fighter grabbed Great Fortitude he only needs an 8.
These are the best spell DC's the wizard can get in core pathfinder Beta. There isn't anything left to raise the DC for the wizard. However there are still buffs and options for rendering the fighter immune.
And at the same time this is just the "poor" fighter. We aren't talking about the monk (best saves) the paladin (more immunities and great saves) the cleric (good saves, spells for immunities) or any other class that will "outshine" the fighter.Most monsters have good will and fortitude saves if they are even vulnerable to these spells in the first place. Add in the fact that these same monsters have more hit dice than the typical fighter or wizard their save modifiers are going to be even higher.
This is the best the wizard can do on save DC's. It's all down hill from here, and the wizard can only do this 6 times a day.
Final Note: The items above total up to 81k gold. At level twenty you have 880k gold. That's enough for +10 magic armor, a +10 magic shield, 2 +10 magic weapons the stuff I mentioned above AND 399k gold pieces of other stuff.
You’re indeed correct about the Paladin, because actually he *may* be useful to the Wizard, if they can get along due to potential moral/alignment issues. It’s true that usually it’s the Paladin who has the best saves in the group, and when he Smites Evil (and he’s also really useful in “spotting” any hostile NPCs, to boot), he can actually *surpass* the Fighter’s melee abilities (albeit only briefly). Still, in any case he’s probably well on par with any NPC fighters, due to his higher stats and magical items. Also, he’s very good at drawing “heat” due to his zealous nature and LG alignment, and – due to his high Saves and HPs – he also has a lot of “staying power”. Then, should something nasty happen to the Cleric or the Wizard, the Paladin also has access to Heal and a handful of other useful spells. So, he makes for a good meat… uh, bodyguard for the Wizard, but he’s not in the same league. And let’s not even talk about monk…
You’ve listed a number of magic items there, but here’s the thing: in the numerous campaigns I’ve DMed and played in (under five different DMs with different gaming styles) I’ve never, *EVER* seen a character who’s worn a Cloak of Resistance +3 or better (in one campaign we had a Luckstone and Cloak of Resistance +2, for a short time). Or had an Ioun Stone. Ditto for any items giving Inherent Bonuses (Librams or Tomes). My 18th level 3E fighter held a Belt of Giant Strength for a, but he lost it to a “magic-eating” trap.
Five different DMs, some of who gave plenty of +3 Long Sword of This and +3 Full Plate of That in high level campaigns, but no items granting Inherent, Resistance, Luck or Competence Bonus (except for a single Luckstone and Cloak of Resistance +2, both of which the PCs have lost since). *None* of those DMs let any character go shopping for items, unless a singular magic item was *ABSOLUTELY* necessary or served as a “plot device” in the campaign. I guess most DMs/GMs fear that players having “free” access (or, actually, ANY access) to such items would break the game balance . Or maybe it feels too “easy”, i.e. “cheating”? I know that I wouldn’t let my players do it either, but on the other hand, I don’t they *should* be necessary for the game to function. Also, let’s bear in mind that most “rural” campaigns probably don’t have magic item shops/merchants anyway, unless the DM is very lenient with his players.
Crafting items is, indeed, a possibility. Only, as Sueki already noted above, you need a *spellcaster* to create such items -- assuming your group has one with the necessary spells and feats. Also, it takes time… in fact, to create all that items for every PC would take… uh, some years in game time? Actually, even a single “set” would take a year or two, by my estimation (and no, I didn’t check that – it may actually take more). Even if you paid an NPC spellcaster to do that, it’s a long time. Now, *very* few high-level campaigns allow you to take so much time off, because in my experience virtually every mid-to-high level campaign has a “deadline”, and deviating from it will have catastrophic consequences (i.e. the villain gets to destroy the world). How many items could you create, for example, in the course of ‘Curse of the Crimson Throne’ or ‘Second Darkness’? Both seem to be very plot-driven campaigns with very little “spare time” for the PCs.
In the end, probably the highest total I’ve seen a PC have as bonuses on saves from magical items has been +3 (for a sorcerer, not a fighter, mind you). And that’s during my whole “career” of 20+ years as a DM and a player. So let’s give that +3 to a 20th level fighter who has, say, CON 20 (+5) and Base Fort Save +12 and Great Fortitude (+2) = +22 Fort Total (a more realistic total than in your example). Better, but still he’d need to roll, what, 12-14 to succeed against the DCs in your example – still too much, if this is his *best* save. You really think fighters carry +6 WIS headband and Cloak of Resistance +5 in every campaign? I’d say it’s a rare fighter who has Will or Ref save +10 or better (i.e. he would need, a natural 20 to succeed).
And, let’s forget about the fighter for a moment -- what about the rest of the “boys”? Do *all* PCs have access to such items in the campaigns you play in, i.e. everyone gets +10 or even more on every save from magic items? Now, I may be wrong about crafting items and magic item shops – maybe people usually let their players create or buy anything, anywhere, in any campaign? If so, please raise your hand and prove me wrong, because I *really* doubt that’s the case.
Finally, even assuming the it would be an official rule that all GMs *must* let everyone find or craft or buy those items by 15th level or so, do you really think that if *every* PC (except maybe for the paladin) needs to invest 80 000+ GPs in magical items just to get their Saving Throws into *balance* with the DCs there’s *nothing* wrong in how save bonuses scale?
(Oh, and like you’ve noted, “buffs” may help with saves, but as I posted above, if most of them last 1 round or 1 minute per level, how many of them do you usually have “on” when the combat starts? Or how many rounds will the party’s spellcasters typically “waste” on doing nothing but “buffing” the melee types so that can even *survive*?)
I remember something in 1e where cloaks of protection, rings of portection and I think even magic armor and shields not only added to ac, but used their bonuses for bettering saving throws as well.
Was that some weird house rule? Or did that actually exist?
If so +3 plate and a +3 shield and ring or protection +4 would giv you +10 to all saves unilaterally.
If it doesnt do that (and i cant find rules to support it)
It may be a good house rules if weak saves are a huge issue.
|
|
I remember something in 1e where cloaks of protection, rings of portection and I think even magic armor and shields not only added to ac, but used their bonuses for bettering saving throws as well.
Was that some weird house rule? Or did that actually exist?
If so +3 plate and a +3 shield and ring or protection +4 would giv you +10 to all saves unilaterally.If it doesnt do that (and i cant find rules to support it)
It may be a good house rules if weak saves are a huge issue.
Ring of Protection +6 added either +1 or +2 to your saves -- maybe it was +1? No other items (to my knowledge) added any bonuses to your saves, because they were already pretty good (60-75% chance to succeed against anything) at higher levels.
Well again if the fighter doesn't have it the wizard won't either... meaning that DC drops by 3 to 31. Beyond that the DM that you where dealing with House Ruled out the magic item shop, not a game designer. If your fighter isn't getting decent equipment it's not the fault of the game designer who put it in and at low enough cost that it could be bought and used for more than half the character levels.
As to "balancing" via equipment, I would point out I took the most extreme of both cases and compared them. The top of the top came out the same as the bottom of the bottom. If the DM is sending you in against maxed out wizards with all the goodies they need to stomp you, but not letting you prepare your character likewise...
Most wizards I see are not set up to make use of the MAXIMUM possible DC of 34. Anything higher than a DC 34 requires 1 of three things:
1. DM intervention
2. Not following the rules
3. Homebrew
That fighter could easily have a Wisdom of 14 to start with, which would adjust the save throws in his favor so more.
Finally I draw exception to you taking the "Poor stupid fighter with nothing" and throwing him at the top of the top for a wizard and then complaining when he gets his butt stomped. Of course he got his butt stomped you didn't do anything for him!
If the party is anything nearing intelligent and they know they are going against a very high level wizard they will walk in with buffs on. If not it's like going to a gun fight with your clip in your back pocket.
********
The old ring of protection (advanced d&D) offered up to a + 3 on save throws, or a + 2 on save throws for those within 10 feet of you.
80% is perfectly reasonable! It's the fighter's Weak point, he shouldn't be succeeding at something he's supposed to be bad at.
Fun stuff, having an 80% chance of being taken out in the first round of combat because "it's your weak point" and having zero chance of being able to shake free of the effect throughout the remainder of the combat. May as well be playing nothing but Sudden Death Matches in Super Mario Brothers Brawl.
The fighter should not be immune to spells just becuase "it's unfair that his mind is controlled" by that logic a wizard should be immune to damage because "its not fair most monsters can drop him in one or two hits", especially at lower levels where people actually play.
No one's asking for characters to be immune to anything. What we are asking for is balanced mechanics regarding spells that as of right now can take players out of entire battles.
That's not even mentioning the fact that most of the time the fighter can be made immune to these spells with much lower level magic.
Protection from Evil defeats most spells no matter the level, and deathward is a fourth level spell that defeats all death magic spells, enervation, energy drain, et al. Spell Immunity, Anti-magic, the spell resistance spell... most all defensive magic is recieve well before very thing it defends against.
Defensive magic != balanced spell mechanics. Just because we have a spell called Wind Wall in the game doesn't mean that you should be able to do 5D10 damage every time you hit someone with a bow, or that players should instantly die every time they fall further then 10 ft. because they didn't have Feather Fall. Expecting spells to be the end-all-be-all balancing factor in regards to status effects is one of the main reasons why Wizards are the top Tier character in the game and everyone else besides Clerics and (maybe) Druids get facerolled.
The fighter is *Not* supposed to be bad at will saves, first Edition and 2nd edition fighters were better at saves than almost anyone (clerics and paladins had better, but the fighter was the base class for paladins anyway, and some saves fighters were better than clerics)
In that system, it was the general thought that the less magic you had, the more resiliance you had to it (dwarf fighters were save machines)
When everything got changed to d20 they revamped an admittedly bad and convuluted saving throw system. However, they totally wiped out what was essentially a class feature of the fighter, good saving throws.
I have to wonder: why DID Fighters get the shaft on Saving Throws in 3.0, I wonder? I'm guessing the lack of playtesting past level 10?
I imagine part of it was intentional, and part of it was people bad at math. After all why should the fighter be good at saving versus everything like first and second edition did? He has no "experience" with magic to guide him, no "god powers" to protect him, no "perfecting self" to be above it all, just his own feeble little mind.
Overall the current save system isn't bad... it just favors monsters alot... there is a reason that most monsters spell like ability DC's are not in the same range as their Save Throws. However I feel that a wizard's spell slots should be effective. If they are going to spend all that time being the nerdy little weakling (tm) then when they have spells that do "X" they should do "X".
Just as a curiousity... IF the spells got nerfed so there was a save every round, would you still want the fighter to have better save throws too? Or are you arguing for a one or the other? Just so I know what we are actually discussing (don't want to end up thinking you mean one thing when you actually mean something else).
Becuase where I'm sitting casting that spell is a gamble for the wizard. It's an all or nothing for him too, if you save he gets nothing out of his action and he's burned a spell to no effect, 18% (minimum) of his highest powers are gone for the day (not the encounter, the DAY).
Also most the time the Fighter isn't going to be seeing the high end DC 34 thrown at him, and the wizard can't afford everything he needs until the very last couple of levels.
Spell DC's increase at the maximum as follows (this explains what changed from before):
Level 1 DC = 18 Max (20 Int burning 2 feats for spell focus and greater, level 1 spell)
Level 3 DC = 19 max (level 2 spell)
Level 5 DC = 21 max (level 3 spell)
Level 7 DC = 23 max (level 4 spell, + 4 Stat Booster)
Level 9 DC = 26 max (level 5 spell, INT increase due to levels, +6 stat booster)
Level 11 DC = 28 max (level 6 spell, Book +1 to Int*)
Level 13 DC = 30 max (level 7 spell, Book + 3 to Int*)
Level 15 DC = 31 max (level 8 spell)
Level 17 DC = 34 max (level 9 spells, Book + 5 to Int*)
The star beside the books means that it is feasible to buy that book at that level... however doing so would be a losing strategy becuase you'll still have to buy the more expensive book at higher levels.
Until level 17 having these DC's requires using almost every gp you earn only on increasing DC.
Finally please note this would be a wizard that does nothing else but try and boost his save throws... no money for wands, staves, protective items, etc.
Contrast this with the scaling of a fighter with a wisdom 10's Will saves:
Level 1 + 2 (Iron Will) Needs a 16 to save
Level 3 + 3 (+1 will save) Needs a 16 to save
Level 5 + 4 (cloak of resistance +1) Needs a 16 to save
Level 7 + 5 (+2 will save) Needs a 18 to save
Level 9 + 8 (+3 will save, Cloak of Resistance + 3 armor, shield +3, weapon +2) Needs a 18 to save
Level 11 + 8 (same as 9th level but armor, shield are +5, weapon + 3) Needs a 20 to save
Level 13 + 11 (+4 will save, pale green Ioun Stone, +2 wisdom booster) Needs a 19 to save
Level 15 + 15 (+5 will save, cloak of resistance + 5, luck stone) Needs a 16 to save
Level 17 + 16 (+4 wisdom booster) Needs a 18 to save
Level 19 +17 (+6 will save) Needs a 17 to save
With the fighter I assumed most of his wealth would be going to better weapons, armor and shields first. At no point did I spend more than 1/3 of his WBL on stuff to raise his save throws. We are also assuming the player didn't raise the fighter's Wisdom at the start. Any increase to wisdom will of course increase the fighters save bonus.
Spells negate spells. That's the name of the game. Unless we are going to have "Wire fu" Tome of Nine Swords fighters, I don't see why or how the fighter should negate magic with his "skill at arms" alone. Part of what makes up for this is the fact that the fighter is only going to see so many spells come his way in any given day.
Finally again I state these characters do not exist in a vaccum. Other stuff is going on around them.
Last Note: When dominated it is still the player that controls the character. The command given can be misintrepeted too. If the wizard only tells the fighter to "Fight" it is perfectly logical to assume he will swing on the nearest creature... which could be the wizard's minion, after all the wizard never said who to fight. Literal interpretation is perfectly valid.
I imagine part of it was intentional, and part of it was people bad at math. After all why should the fighter be good at saving versus everything like first and second edition did? He has no "experience" with magic to guide him, no "god powers" to protect him, no "perfecting self" to be above it all, just his own feeble little mind.
Because if he doesn't stand a decent chance against saving versus certain spells, he's going to get facerolled by enemy spellcasters?
Gary Gygax set up a very nice magic/anti-magic dichotomy in 1st and 2nd Editions that served to balance out the role of magic in the game while simultaneously upholding a standard fantasy trope. If you weren't brimming with magical power, you were either 1) naturally resistant to it or 2) if you managed to survive this long with out it, you were a pretty hard-core bastard, and that was reflected in very good saving throws.
I know that many people still want the Wizard to hold that coveted Tier 1+ spot in the class system, but it really isn't very fun for anyone else.
Just as a curiosity... IF the spells got nerfed so there was a save every round, would you still want the fighter to have better save throws too? Or are you arguing for a one or the other? Just so I know what we are actually discussing (don't want to end up thinking you mean one thing when you actually mean something else).
I think that at this point, round-by-round saving throws in combat are the best way to go. I believe that the saving throw system needs some tweaking, but this mechanic is probably the best way to keep characters from being shut out of entire fights at the gaming table.
Because where I'm sitting casting that spell is a gamble for the wizard. It's an all or nothing for him too, if you save he gets nothing out of his action and he's burned a spell to no effect, 18% (minimum) of his highest powers are gone for the day (not the encounter, the DAY).
Given the fact that the Fighter in your example can only has a 20% chance to save against the spell, I'd say that's a pretty good investment - especially since you can then turn him against the rest of the party and have him hack them to pieces. And you're only going to use this strategy in situations where you know that there isn't someone that has Protection from Evil because it's a hard counter to your Dominate spell. So when you DO use it, there will be no other spellcasters about, and you'll have an 80% chance of seizing control of him as soon as you cast the spell and use him to murder all of his friends. Otherwise, you're just going to cast another, more useful spell.
In other words, your main complaint is that if you encounter a Fighter without a spellcaster or item that can he can use to cast Protection From Evil on himself, you won't be able to turn him into your hapless slave for the next few days.
Not much fun for the Fighter and his friends, eh? But if you were to implement the rule that I suggested - which is designed to provide the Fighter some degree of protection from status effect spells in situations where there are no spellcasters - the Fighter would get an escalating round-by-round save against the Domination effect. It would take him an average between 3 to 5 rounds to break free of the spell. That's three to five solid rounds of him hacking up his friends. And as you said, this isn't happening in a vacuum. The Wizard's allies will no doubt be working very hard to help the Fighter burn everyone down as quickly as possible before the spell ends.
Spells negate spells. That's the name of the game. Unless we are going to have "Wire fu" Tome of Nine Swords fighters, I don't see why or how the fighter should negate magic with his "skill at arms" alone. Part of what makes up for this is the fact that the fighter is only going to see so many spells come his way in any given day.
I'll repeat - the existence of a counterspell != balanced spell mechanics. And a failure to produce balanced spell mechanics is why the Class Tiers are in the sorry state that they are in right now.
Last Note: When dominated it is still the player that controls the character. The command given can be misinterpreted too. If the wizard only tells the fighter to "Fight" it is perfectly logical to assume he will swing on the nearest creature... which could be the wizard's minion, after all the wizard never said who to fight. Literal interpretation is perfectly valid.
Are you serious? What kind of genius-level Wizard is just gonna tell a Fighter to "Fight"? He's going to point to one of the Fighter's friends and tell him to bring back his head on a silver platter. I suspect there's no way to misinterpret that command...
Sure is, my response, "I start looking for a silver platter... when I find it I put (whoever) on it and walk up to the wizard."
The wizard is smart... the fighter isn't. ;D
But that's not the point, for either of us and will break down into sematics quickly... dominate is a direct command spell, as it is said so will you do as long as it is not "obviously" deadly (attacking a trigger happy wizard that calls you a friend normally qualifies as deadly)...
However you do get another save throw every day* (*prices and participation may vary see spell discription for details)... more than what you got back in the old editions when it could be weeks or months before you got another save, and the spell "domination (the closest to the dominate person and so forth that we have now) didn't even have a duration, once on it on it was pretty much set.
In 2nd ed saves versus spells where still the fighter's worse save throw, and spells themselves often gave penalties to the save throw, and you didn't start accuring bonuses from Wisdom until wisdom 15, even then it was only a +1.
IF these spells involved start giving a save throw every round I would like there to be a penalty to the save. After all it got you the first time when you did have a free will, you are enslaved afterwards and even less able to break free than at the start.
Finally we are still talking only about the fighter and the wizard. The rogue gets the slippery mind ability plus whatever other goodies he decides to bring with him, the barbarian gets bonuses while raging, and just about everyone else has good will saves (the ranger doesn't, however his spells are wisdom based so he'll probably have a higher stat based bonus to save throws too). Assuming none of the other classes have a bonus to will saves due to wisdom they'll still have +6 more than the fighter... meaning they only need an 11 to save... less once you factor in Wisdom.
I guess my overall point isn't that the fighter should fall over everytime the wizard says "boo" but that almost no one does anyways.
You burn a spell try and get a nice big hurt on someone and they make their save with under a ten, even if you max out your DC.