If you look around, you'll find that there are some pretty powerful casters out there; look in any thread that mentions Spell Perfection or Preferred Spell and you'll see saves up in the 40s. Now me, I'd love to see a few more ways to up spell DCs, because monsters have been vexing me by not blowing enough saves and dying in our current campaign. But you'll have to consider things carefully, as there are already magic items that boost saves: they're the stat-boosters.
So in my group we have had the same issue and we usenthis rule for calculattig spell dc: 10 + spell lvl + ability mod + 1/2 caster lvl.
Does anything ever make a saving throw in your games?
We tried a simple system that tosses Heighten Spell out.
Spell DC = 10 + 1/2 caster level + ability modifier and feats. Worked pretty well, scaled nicely, wasn't overpowering.
I really don't see why people are needing to make saves harder. I'n our. game that just ended at lvl 10 the party witch had saves of dc 26 on enchantment spells. she ended the final BBEG encounter I'n round 2 with feeblemind. the noc didn't have a chance.
the half level thing some suggested would just make this silly.
I really don't see why people are needing to make saves harder. I'n our. game that just ended at lvl 10 the party witch had saves of dc 26 on enchantment spells. she ended the final BBEG encounter I'n round 2 with feeblemind. the noc didn't have a chance.
the half level thing some suggested would just make this silly.
Depends on one's experiences GMing/playing. :)
Also, given your own example, there is NO mathematical difference between 10 +SL +bonuses and 10 +1/2 CL +bonuses.
I don't know where the which got a DC 26 from though, unless she somehow acquired a +6 headband...
We tried a simple system that tosses Heighten Spell out.
Spell DC = 10 + 1/2 caster level + ability modifier and feats. Worked pretty well, scaled nicely, wasn't overpowering.
That's sensible enough. Makes sense that a more powerful caster would be able to do more with their low-level spells.
I use a spell point system. Caster level and save DCs are based on how many points the caster puts into the spell.
Also, given your own example, there is NO mathematical difference between 10 +SL +bonuses and 10 +1/2 CL +bonuses.
Actually, there is a difference. I actually prefer "10 +1/2 CL +bonuses", because it makes weaker spells cast by higher level casters stronger than if cast by a lower level caster, which I believe makes sense.
A lot of people on the boards have been talking about how Spell Save DC's don't scale well enough, and I know I've experienced that a lot myself. Looking through the bestiary, if you're facing something straight out of the book, and you target their bad save, you should have something like a 63% chance of success.
The main problem comes from NPC and that darned cloak of resistance, which ups all their saves. This is the equivalent of a magic armor bonus to AC. The problem? There is no equivalent magic bonus to the spell "attack".
So, why not make a magic item that allows spellcasters to increase their Spell DC the same way Fighters increase their to-hit?
Obviously this would take a lot of balancing. Cost. Item slot. Would affect all DCs or just one school. But for now, all I'm looking for is a yes or no from people to see how viable it is.
How high do you want the DC to go to. A 9th level spell can have a DC between 32 to 35 if the caster really works on it.
It should also be remembered that the NPC's can also force high saves if you make it easier to do so. That might leave a lot of dead PC's.
We tried a simple system that tosses Heighten Spell out.
Spell DC = 10 + 1/2 caster level + ability modifier and feats. Worked pretty well, scaled nicely, wasn't overpowering.
That's sensible enough. Makes sense that a more powerful caster would be able to do more with their low-level spells.
I use a spell point system. Caster level and save DCs are based on how many points the caster puts into the spell.
let's see this may not be 100% 20 base + 2 from level +4 from headband so 26 int. spell focus greater spell focus so dc is 10 + 7 + 5 +2 so 24. had the charming trait. after that not sure may have had the number wrong slightly though this is still 25 with some of them.
|
let's see this may not be 100% 20 base + 2 from level +4 from headband so 26 int. spell focus greater spell focus so dc is 10 + 7 + 5 +2 so 24. had the charming trait. after that not sure may have had the number wrong slightly though this is still 25 with some of them.
I think you had it right the first time:
10 +8 (Stat) +5 (Spell Level) +2 (Greater Spell Focus) +1 (Charming) =26. On some spells anyway. Enchantment school, I'm guessing?
Actually, there is a difference. I actually prefer "10 +1/2 CL +bonuses", because it makes weaker spells cast by higher level casters stronger than if cast by a lower level caster, which I believe makes sense.
Also, given your own example, there is NO mathematical difference between 10 +SL +bonuses and 10 +1/2 CL +bonuses.
I also think +1/2 CL is more equitable than +SL for all casters. The example used a 5th level spell from a 10th level caster, so there was no difference in the save DC.
I also think +1/2 CL is more equitable than +SL for all casters. The example used a 5th level spell from a 10th level caster, so there was no difference in the save DC.Actually, there is a difference. I actually prefer "10 +1/2 CL +bonuses", because it makes weaker spells cast by higher level casters stronger than if cast by a lower level caster, which I believe makes sense.
Also, given your own example, there is NO mathematical difference between 10 +SL +bonuses and 10 +1/2 CL +bonuses.
The only thing that bothers me with the 1/2 CL is that a 20th level ranger is just as good with all his spells as the 17th level wizard in terms of save DCs, which just doesn't sit quite right with me.
The only thing that bothers me with the 1/2 CL is that a 20th level ranger is just as good with all his spells as the 17th level wizard in terms of save DCs, which just doesn't sit quite right with me.I also think +1/2 CL is more equitable than +SL for all casters. The example used a 5th level spell from a 10th level caster, so there was no difference in the save DC.Actually, there is a difference. I actually prefer "10 +1/2 CL +bonuses", because it makes weaker spells cast by higher level casters stronger than if cast by a lower level caster, which I believe makes sense.
Also, given your own example, there is NO mathematical difference between 10 +SL +bonuses and 10 +1/2 CL +bonuses.
Don't rangers, paladins and other partial casters generally have a lower CL ? If not, that's an easy fix - set CL at (class level - 3) or whatever tinkering suits your taste. I personally disagree with the notion that, for example, a 1st level ranger with no spell casting ability can somehow use a wand of (stuff) when the character doesn't have any access to a spell list.
Don't rangers, paladins and other partial casters generally have a lower CL ? If not, that's an easy fix - set CL at (class level - 3) or whatever tinkering suits your taste. I personally disagree with the notion that, for example, a 1st level ranger with no spell casting ability can somehow use a wand of (stuff) when the character doesn't have any access to a spell list.
Right, they do. For levels 1-3, they don't even HAVE a CL. But under the 10 + 1/2 CL model, a spell cast by a 20th level ranger or paladin (CL 17) is just as hard to resist (until ability score modifiers are applied, to be fair) as that of a 17th level wizard (who can manipulate reality itself, I might add, on a greater level than anyone really wants to think about).
I think that a formula reflecting both caster level (as a measure of magical skill and knowledge) and spell level (to reflect spells that are increasingly powerful) is needed. But if it's to fit into the current mathematical scheme, it'd be something like the sum of caster level and spell level, divided by 2 or maybe more. Otherwise saves would need retooled as well, another pain in the tush to deal with.
Don't rangers, paladins and other partial casters generally have a lower CL ? If not, that's an easy fix - set CL at (class level - 3) or whatever tinkering suits your taste. I personally disagree with the notion that, for example, a 1st level ranger with no spell casting ability can somehow use a wand of (stuff) when the character doesn't have any access to a spell list.
Right, they do. For levels 1-3, they don't even HAVE a CL. But under the 10 + 1/2 CL model, a spell cast by a 20th level ranger or paladin (CL 17) is just as hard to resist (until ability score modifiers are applied, to be fair) as that of a 17th level wizard (who can manipulate reality itself, I might add, on a greater level than anyone really wants to think about).
I think that a formula reflecting both caster level (as a measure of magical skill and knowledge) and spell level (to reflect spells that are increasingly powerful) is needed. But if it's to fit into the current mathematical scheme, it'd be something like the sum of caster level and spell level, divided by 2 or maybe more. Otherwise saves would need retooled as well, another pain in the tush to deal with.
Hrm ...
20+9/2 = 14 +10 +ability score for a 20th level caster of a 9th level spell ... 24 plus ability score/feats sounds really 'spot on' for a 20th level wizard.
17+4/2 = 10 +10 +ability score for a 20th level ranger @ CL 17 for 4th level spell - 20 + ability score (no feats are likely to have been spent by a ranger for increasing spell DCs I suspect) ... makes a nice difference.
I like that solution.