PDA

View Full Version : Spells that get better as the caster does..



barna10
2013-03-10, 07:30 PM
I've tried this house rule before (years ago) and I'm thinking of trying it with a new group. I'd thought I'd throw it out there to see what the community thinks of it.

Instead of figuring Spell Save DCs in the normal way, use the following rule:
Spell Save DCs: A spell's DC equals 10 + 1/2 the caster's level + the mage's casting stat's bonus

Plain and simple. This makes a Charm Person spell cast by a 20th level mage much more powerful than one cast by a 1st level mage, even if they have the same casting stat.

It's always bothered me that some ancient archmage casting a 1st level spell was just as good at it as some 1st level guy with the same INT or CHA. There should be some accounting for experience.

What do you think?

molten_dragon
2013-03-10, 07:52 PM
What do you think?

I think spellcasters don't need anything that makes them more powerful, especially not for free. Maybe if there were some added cost involved, like with psionics, but not for free.

barna10
2013-03-10, 08:05 PM
I think spellcasters don't need anything that makes them more powerful, especially not for free. Maybe if there were some added cost involved, like with psionics, but not for free.

I respect your opinion and see your point. For me the problem is an aesthetic one. The current rule just doesn't do justice to the fiction all of this is based on. Wizards should get better at using their toys as they get more experienced. As it is now, they just get new toys.

Eldan
2013-03-10, 08:12 PM
They... do? Its what caster level does, for many, many spells.

Do you really want to live them from a quadratic power curve to a cubic one? (Though, I suppose they already are, they also get better at beating spell resistance.)

barna10
2013-03-10, 08:18 PM
They... do? Its what caster level does, for many, many spells.

True, two mages of differing levels should not the cast the same spell with equal ability. I fail to see why the save DC for a 1st level spell should be the same whether it is cast by a 1st level caster or a 30th level one. IT shouldn't just last longer, it should also be harder to resist if cast by a higher level mage.

One could argue that you could always use Heighten Spell to cast it at a higher DC, but that is dodging the issue. All things being equal, the higher level caster should cast the same spell with more umph.

Eldan
2013-03-10, 08:25 PM
Why? It seems to me that wizards need *something* they can invest their resources in. Might as well be spell DCs.

Compare them to the poor fighter. They get some to hit and some measly few hit points more than teh wizard, and have to spend resources on everything else.

The caster gets more spells per day, more spells known, higher level spells and stronger effects and more duration for the spells he already knows.

Does the caster really also need to get higher DCs for free on top of that as well?

Think of it like this. The caster can specialize. Want higher DCs? Learn spell focus. Or choose to learn something else instead with your feats. YOu get a choice!

barna10
2013-03-10, 08:30 PM
Why? It seems to me that wizards need *something* they can invest their resources in. Might as well be spell DCs.

Compare them to the poor fighter. They get some to hit and some measly few hit points more than teh wizard, and have to spend resources on everything else.

The caster gets more spells per day, more spells known, higher level spells and stronger effects and more duration for the spells he already knows.

Does the caster really also need to get higher DCs for free on top of that as well?

Think of it like this. The caster can specialize. Want higher DCs? Learn spell focus. Or choose to learn something else instead with your feats. YOu get a choice!

Your argument makes sense, but only from the mechanics perspective. IT doesn't take into account the pseudo-reality of the game world.

Besides, a fighter does get better at what he does. He gets better at swinging his sword making it more likely to do damage, without any sort of investment. While he can get better at swinging the sword by investing in it's use (weapon focus, specialization, etc.). he AUTOMATICALLY gets better at swinging it.

On the flipside, UNLESS a Wizard somehow invests in the use of Charm Person, he'll never get any better than he was with it at first level.

Like I said, yes, the Wizard gets more powerful toys as he advances, but this doesn't mean he shouldn't get better at using the toys he already had.

Yitzi
2013-03-10, 08:35 PM
The problem with that is that caster spells/day are based on the assumption that the lower-level ones will be fairly weak for the caster's level (and thus even a higher-level wizard will have to watch his top spell usage). This is already not true, and your idea would make it worse.

Perhaps a better approach, if you're interested just in the aesthetics, would be a more psionics-like system*: Wizards get one pool for all their spells (hence they have to watch their spell use), and can (without any feat expenditure) spend more points on a spell to get bigger effects and a correspondingly higher save DC.

*Which is actually fairly horrible aesthetically for psionics IMO, but that's another discussion.

TuggyNE
2013-03-10, 08:36 PM
Also, in general, a higher-level caster will be able to have much higher Int/Cha/Wis than a lower-level, barring serious shenanigans. So saying "some ancient archmage casting a 1st level spell was just as good at it as some 1st level guy with the same INT or CHA" is missing the point; an apprentice will just not have the same Int or Cha! (If nothing else, venerable ensures at least some improvement.)

Detailed example: average apprentice has 16 Int, archmage is not only experienced, but likely was one of the few with extreme natural talent, so 18 base + 5 level-up + 5 inherent + 6 enhancement + 2 old = 36 Int, or a save DC of 24 before Spell Focus or Heighten, vs the apprentice's 14.

barna10
2013-03-10, 08:47 PM
The problem with that is that caster spells/day are based on the assumption that the lower-level ones will be fairly weak for the caster's level (and thus even a higher-level wizard will have to watch his top spell usage). This is already not true, and your idea would make it worse.

Perhaps a better approach, if you're interested just in the aesthetics, would be a more psionics-like system*: Wizards get one pool for all their spells (hence they have to watch their spell use), and can (without any feat expenditure) spend more points on a spell to get bigger effects and a correspondingly higher save DC.

*Which is actually fairly horrible aesthetically for psionics IMO, but that's another discussion.

This requires the Wizard to invest more in casting the spell so it's really no better than Heighten Spell.


Also, in general, a higher-level caster will be able to have much higher Int/Cha/Wis than a lower-level, barring serious shenanigans. So saying "some ancient archmage casting a 1st level spell was just as good at it as some 1st level guy with the same INT or CHA" is missing the point; an apprentice will just not have the same Int or Cha! (If nothing else, venerable ensures at least some improvement.)

Detailed example: average apprentice has 16 Int, archmage is not only experienced, but likely was one of the few with extreme natural talent, so 18 base + 5 level-up + 5 inherent + 6 enhancement + 2 old = 36 Int, or a save DC of 24 before Spell Focus or Heighten, vs the apprentice's 14.

This assumption assumes the mage invests a ton in IQ. All things being equal (including the primary casting stat), the spell cast by a 20th level mage should be harder to resist than one cast by a 1st level whelp.

How about this example. Does a 40 year old drive a car better than a 16 year old? Statistics would say yes. Did the 40 year old have to invest feats into car use to become a better driver? Does he have to invest in a higher level car to be a better driver? Does he need to go to the gym to become a better driver?

Of course the answer to all these questions is no so why would a Wizard have to go to great lengths and invest resources into being able to cast the same spell he's been casting for years better than someone that just graduated from Hogwarts?

barna10
2013-03-10, 08:51 PM
Fine, other questions.

Why allow spells to do damage based on caster level (ie the spell gets better with experience) if non-damaging spells don't get more potent with a rise in caster level?

Why not require feats to get more damage out of a fireball or tie the damage into the primary casting stat instead?

JoshuaZ
2013-03-10, 09:44 PM
They... do? Its what caster level does, for many, many spells.

Do you really want to live them from a quadratic power curve to a cubic one? (Though, I suppose they already are, they also get better at beating spell resistance.)

This would still be quadratic by most notions of that term. Spellcasters are quadratic in that the function of how many spell slots they have increases at a linear rate, as does the approximate strength of spells (actually there's an argument that by many measures 2 spells slots of level n are about worth 1 of level n+1, so the growth rate may actually be exponential). But the suggested change doesn't change the fundamental growth curve by most reasonable metrics (one way to see this is think about what a sorcerer with heighten spell does). /end{nitpick}

bobthe6th
2013-03-10, 09:49 PM
because Vancian magic is really bad at making sense. Have a conversion to psionics (https://notendur.hi.is/~eth31/ConversionProject/VancianToPsionicsBeta110c.pdf).

This fixes your problem, and makes magic a bit more balanced.

Beheld
2013-03-10, 10:22 PM
The fix is perfectly fine, and a good idea.

The bottom line is that Wizards aren't balanced with fighters, but are (relatively) balanced with Monsters. If you let their lower level spells be useful save DCs, then they can last longer each day in exchange for being weaker during each fight, because they use lower level spells less for buffs and face more encounters.

The balance concerns are not a problem. Wizards already aren't playing the same game as fighters, so anyone complaining that this makes them more out of line with fighters is arguing an irrelevant consideration.

Instead of just applying basic concepts of Wizard = Good, Fighter = Bad, therefore anything that makes the Wizard better must be bad, look at what it actually does to make the Wizard better, and compare it to the game actually being played.

A Psionic system makes the Wizard more powerful but reduces staying power. Fighters would be happier to have more fights per day at lower total power each fight, and letting lower level spells have any chance at all of the save being failed allows Wizards to go longer.

Charm Person will still not be as good as Dominate Person, and Cloudkill will still be better than Stinking Cloud, even when the saves are the same.

bobthe6th
2013-03-10, 10:30 PM
Charm Person will still not be as good as Dominate Person, and Cloudkill will still be better than Stinking Cloud, even when the saves are the same.

accept spells are intended to become obsolete... note every damage spell with a damage die cap. Burning hands is outdated after level 5, fireball level 11, and so on. The same is intended for spells. you aren't supposed to use a first level sleep spell in combat after level 5 at the latest.

Much like a 20th level caster can throw around burning hands, it is just as useless as a charm person spell.

Once again, this is a balance point of the system... psionics just has different balance points that work around the issue.

Beheld
2013-03-10, 10:49 PM
[Ex]cept spells are intended to become obsolete... note every damage spell with a damage die cap. Burning hands is outdated after level 5, fireball level 11, and so on. The same is intended for spells. you aren't supposed to use a first level sleep spell in combat after level 5 at the latest.

Much like a 20th level caster can throw around burning hands, it is just as useless as a charm person spell.

Yes, lower level attack spells are intended to become obsolete. And so instead of preparing Burning Hands or Color Spray, you prepare buffs, and you have an extra Reduce Person you cast beforehand, and you are slightly stronger in each of your 4 fights that day.

But just because something was intended does not mean it is automatically the way it should be, or for that matter, always the way it is. Because of the way the RNG works, Ray of Enfeeblement is pretty much just as powerful at level 10 as it was at level 1, which is still... not that much, but that is fine, because it is a level 1 spell.

What I am saying is that if you decide to change the rules by for example, removing damage level caps and making save DCs uniform, you should consider, not whether they were intended to work that way, because obviously they were not, but you are homebrewing because you think your intentions improve the game.

Instead, you should consider the actual effects. And if the actual effects are that Wizards do 5-6 encounters instead of 4, but are slightly weaker in each encounter, that doesn't look like a problem to me, it looks like a better game.

bobthe6th
2013-03-10, 11:15 PM
On a fluff note... with vancian spel casting, spells are rote that casters use and then forget right? So it would make sense that even at higher levels the spells are the same rote...




What I am saying is that if you decide to change the rules by for example, removing damage level caps and making save DCs uniform, you should consider, not whether they were intended to work that way, because obviously they were not, but you are homebrewing because you think your intentions improve the game.

But the first half of that isn't up for discussion. This is just the base idea of uniform spell DCs.

You brew to make the game better, but unlike the game developers you are supposed to be semi balanced.



Instead, you should consider the actual effects. And if the actual effects are that Wizards do 5-6 encounters instead of 4, but are slightly weaker in each encounter, that doesn't look like a problem to me, it looks like a better game.

No, it makes save or dies more prevalent... otherwise known as some of the lamer spells in the game. This boosts the rocket tag portion of the game, and makes static damage spells even less useful.

Also, it opens up the higher slots for buffs. When you don't have to fill your highest slots with BFC spells, you can fill them with polymorphs and other top level buff spells... which is another fall out.

The issue is this change has a lot of fallout, on a system that is at best barely balanced. Do you really claim the system mastery to say this would not have unintended consequences? Because you are suggesting ripping out one of the vancian castings balance points...

Beheld
2013-03-10, 11:32 PM
But the first half of that isn't up for discussion. This is just the base idea of uniform spell DCs.

1) Once we understand the purpose of the change, we can look at other things that have the same effect. Hell, the thread title is "spells that get better as the caster does" so removing a dice cap from fireball is exactly that.


You brew to make the game better, but unlike the game developers you are supposed to be semi balanced.

1) Balanced against what? Fighters aren't balanced with Wizards, they aren't even playing the same game. Does that mean no one can ever make up a new Wizard spell, because any new Wizard spell could only possibly make Wizards more powerful, and could not possibly make them less so? Of course not.

2) Yes, and this makes Wizards more balanced against rogues and other such classes. Because now Wizards are going to fight more encounters a day. And that is awesome.


No, it makes save or dies more prevalent... otherwise known as some of the lamer spells in the game. This boosts the rocket tag portion of the game, and makes static damage spells even less useful.

No, it makes lower level spells with saves more prevalent. It means that level 12 casters will fight five times a day instead of four, and the fifth time they will cast Stinking Cloud and Glitterdust, instead of high level spells. That is no save or dies.

Also, you should probably not project your personal spell preferences onto other people. Scorching Ray seems a hell of a lot more boring than Web to me. Fireball more boring than Stinking Cloud. But again, if you want to make lower level damage spells better, start by removing dice caps. This isn't damage versus saves, this is lower level attack spells vs higher level attack spells, you know, because spells that get better as the caster does.


Also, it opens up the higher slots for buffs. When you don't have to fill your highest slots with BFC spells, you can fill them with polymorphs and other top level buff spells... which is another fall out.

Yes, then Wizards can use high level buffs and lower level attack spells if they want. Why is that a problem? High level buffs have a lot less effect on fights than you think, if they were really that much better than high level attack spells, people would already be preparing them more.

And you name drop polymorph, a unique spell that is broken for reasons having nothing to do with its level or being a high level buff. You might as well have said they will cast Planar Binding with their high level slots instead.


The issue is this change has a lot of fallout, on a system that is at best barely balanced. Do you really claim the system mastery to say this would not have unintended consequences? Because you are suggesting ripping out one of the vancian castings balance points...

1) I would claim the system mastery to see the "unintended" consequences, and to know that they are negligible.

2) It probably doesn't hurt that this is a homebrew fix with a lot of traction that you can see the consequences of over the last 13 years that it has been in use.

3) I am also suggesting that people have more fights in a day under these rules. 4 encounters a day is also part of the "balance points."

Djinn_in_Tonic
2013-03-10, 11:58 PM
2) Yes, and this makes Wizards more balanced against rogues and other such classes. Because now Wizards are going to fight more encounters a day. And that is awesome.

Actually, Wizards are going to invalidate more encounters per day. The knowledge that they might need to save their higher levels spells is really what keeps non-optimized Wizards (i.e. Wizards who don't manipulate Planar Time traits to recover spells nearly instantly) under some semblance of control. If you take that away and suddenly let level 4+ Save-or-Suck/Save-or-Die spells function at 9th level DCs and up, you're going to have Wizards who are able to nova relatively freely and still have oodles of debilitating spells in reserve throughout an entire day.


No, it makes lower level spells with saves more prevalent. It means that level 12 casters will fight five times a day instead of four, and the fifth time they will cast Stinking Cloud and Glitterdust, instead of high level spells. That is no save or dies.

Save-or-Suck spells by level (SRD only), with Save-or-Die spells in bold. Note that stunning, paralysis, blinding, domination, and so forth are all almost as encounter-ending as outright death to any half-decent party. The point is that these spells all cripple the opposition to the point where they cannot realistically fight back against a party.

1: Grease, Charm Person, Color Spray
2: Glitterdust, Blindness/Deafness, Ghoul Touch
3: Stinking Cloud, Hold Person, Suggestion
4: Charm Monster, Confusion, Phantasmal Killer, Bestow Curse, Fear
5: Cloudkill, Dominate Person, Feeblemind, Hold Monster, Mind Fog, Symbol of Sleep, Baleful Polymorph
6: Mass Suggestion, Symbol of Persuasion, Circle of Death, Eyebite (not particularly effective), Symbol of Fear, Flesh to Stone
7: Mass Hold Person, Insanity, Power World Blind, Symbol of Stunning, Finger of Death
8: Maze, Mass Charm Monster, Demand, Irresistible Dance, Power Word Stun, Symbol of Insanity, Symbol of Death, Polymorph Any Object
9: Dominate Monster, Mass Hold Monster, Power Word Kill, Weird, Wail of the Banshee

Your average level 20 Wizard has, assuming his save DC is something in the reasonable range of 20 + spell level, has a DC of 29 against maybe a save of +12 +5 (item) +9 (ability) = +26 on a strong save. But he won't target the strong save: he'll hit the weak one, which is probably around 6 + 5(item) + 3/4(ability), or +14. So that's a 70% chance to get a failed save against his highest level of spells. Considering that's a 70% chance to take one or more people out of the fight, that's fine: his lower spells have a lesser chance, so the big guns actually mean something.

Change that to the formula above, and our Wizard suddenly has a DC of 30 for ALL his spells. Fighting one guy, but he's a boss? Why bother using a 9th level spell when Finger of Death will take him out just as easily? Or when you could use the level 2 spell Ghoul Touch and end the fight for basically no resources whatsoever, in a single action, using a fight-ender you can use over 6 times in a single day with that level slot alone? With an 75% chance of success if it's a weak save?

Gamebreaking. Everyone will now be a Wizard, since their ONLY weakness (resource management in non-Tippyverse settings) is now gone. 4+ fights a day is nothing. Assuming the Wizard only targets high saves (an estimated 10% chance of success) he can probably chew through at least 4 encounters before he's even close to dry. But he won't only target high saves, so...

bobthe6th
2013-03-11, 12:03 AM
1) Balanced against what? Fighters aren't balanced with Wizards, they aren't even playing the same game. Does that mean no one can ever make up a new Wizard spell, because any new Wizard spell could only possibly make Wizards more powerful, and could not possibly make them less so? Of course not.

Other spells. The system tries to balance spells against themselves, and this is one of the ways they do it. Also against other subsystem classes, like a psionics user or a martial initiator.

Because it isn't just wizards that use this, but Dread Necromancers and Bugilers... semi balanced full casters, that now got an unneeded power boost.



2) Yes, and this makes Wizards more balanced against rogues and other such classes. Because now Wizards are going to fight more encounters a day. And that is awesome.

No... he won't. He will just spend more resources on each combat, or outside of combat, and go take a nap in a rope trick.



No, it makes lower level spells with saves more prevalent. It means that level 12 casters will fight five times a day instead of four, and the fifth time they will cast Stinking Cloud and Glitterdust, instead of high level spells. That is no save or dies.

Glitterdust is the original save or lose,



Also, you should probably not project your personal spell preferences onto other people.

pot, kettle.



Yes, then Wizards can use high level buffs and lower level attack spells if they want. Why is that a problem? High level buffs have a lot less effect on fights than you think, if they were really that much better than high level attack spells, people would already be preparing them more.


screw wizards. Lets talk about a dread necromancer. He now has more slots for his silly



And you name drop polymorph, a unique spell that is broken for reasons having nothing to do with its level or being a high level buff. You might as well have said they will cast Planar Binding with their high level slots instead.

Or tensers transformation, or mass animals abilaty, or... you can think of your own. Still, this makes going the heavy buff route less of an issue.



1) I would claim the system mastery to see the "unintended" consequences, and to know that they are negligible.

I would disagree.


2) It probably doesn't hurt that this is a homebrew fix with a lot of traction that you can see the consequences of over the last 13 years that it has been in use.

a lot of traction? you mean two people arguing back and forth on a small brew' forum?



3) I am also suggesting that people have more fights in a day under these rules. 4 encounters a day is also part of the "balance points."

I'm saying that casters will probably just Nova more in the 4 encounters per day.

Jota
2013-03-11, 12:17 AM
From a fluff-mechanics mesh perspective, one could argue the less advanced magics can only channel so much of the wizard's ability because of how simple they are. As the magic gets more complex, more of the wizard's ability shows.

To give an analogy, say food preparation. Any idiot can throw a frozen pizza in an oven. It's the same if you're a master chef or any idiot. But a master chef could make homemade dough, mash his own tomatoes for preparing his own sauce, and so on and so forth with each aspect of the pizza. Not the most apt or strongest analogy, but I don't think it's awful.

As for the rule itself, I guess it depends on how you feel about the fifteen minute workday, for starters, but not every spell worth prepping involves a save, even the offensive ones. I know plenty of people who play with this rule, and in a game where a wizard is the baseline I think it's fine. If the wizard isn't the baseline, or even if it is, I can understand the arguments people make in favor of non-scaling DCs, if that's what floats their boats.

barna10
2013-03-11, 12:31 AM
Well, as the one that's actually played using this rule...it works quite well and never proved to be a balance issue, not once.

The real beauty is simplicity. ALL of your spells suddenly have the same DC; it's great for inexperienced players!

Whether a Charm Person spell has a DC of 15 or 20, it's still a Charm Person spell, just one that's harder to resist, and as others have mentioned, there are ways to make that happen anyway.

Look at the actual math using a Wizard with an 18 IQ:

At first level, all of a Wizard's spells have a DC of 14 (less than normal for 1st level spells)

At 8th level (after 2 points put into IQ) all of the Wizard's spells have a DC of 19 (more than normal for 1st level spells, but normal for 4th level spells)

At 16th level (now with a 22 IQ) ... DC of 24 (normal for 8th).

The real advantage to this is at epic levels where a caster's spell DCs continue to improve at a fairly normal rate instead of dropping of when compared to Monster saves.

BUT the greatest advantage to the rule (and the reason I originally implemented the rule) is simplicity. The only real downside is making Heightened Spell and irrelevant feat (which I have yet to actually play with or DM that awful feat).

It should also be noted that I am ruthless when DMing for spellcasters, so that might explain why it works in my games. I know my games aren't a-typical, but my newbies are.

Poppatomus
2013-03-11, 12:32 AM
Also on fluff, it seems to me that, even beyond the frozen pizza analogy (which is a good one), I always envisioned D&D magic (Sorc/Wiz/Cler/Dru/etc... style anyway) as something that existed separate from the caster. This is particularly true of arcane magic, where the story element has always been rooted in the idea of certain individuals so incredibly intelligent, dedicated, or talented that they could access this power that existed outside themselves.

For game balance reasons it makes sense for some effects to scale more or less with level. Some spells also fit with that for story reasons, especially mid-level damage spells where it makes sense that the spell itself would be complex enough that the caster could tweak it. but for earlier spells, especially those with definite, narrow effects, it would seem to break the theory of the class if they all scaled.

If you don't like the chef analogy, another might be a guitar player. As you get better with the instrument, you can do more impressive things, including, on occasion, revisiting older songs and adding complexity and depth, but no matter how hard you try, a scale will still be a scale, and will sound the same for whoever plays it.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2013-03-11, 12:34 AM
Well, as the one that's actually played using this rule...it works quite well and never proved to be a balance issue, not once.

Point of fact, I have also run with this rule before, although my group was at a higher level of optimization than your own. We had a DM who rather liked the idea.

The game was at 12th level, if I recall. Within 2 levels in either direction, anyway.

Our casters breezed through enough encounters in the first four sessions that we immediately retcon'd the rule and went back to the rules-as-written.

barna10
2013-03-11, 12:35 AM
From a fluff-mechanics mesh perspective, one could argue the less advanced magics can only channel so much of the wizard's ability because of how simple they are. As the magic gets more complex, more of the wizard's ability shows.

The rule isn't about power, it's about skill. It's about being SO skilled that you don't need to use a 9th level spell; like real-world hitmen that use .22s to prove how good they are.

barna10
2013-03-11, 12:42 AM
Point of fact, I have also run with this rule before, although my group was at a higher level of optimization than your own. We had a DM who rather liked the idea.

The game was at 12th level, if I recall. Within 2 levels in either direction, anyway.

Our casters breezed through enough encounters in the first four sessions that we immediately retcon'd the rule and went back to the rules-as-written.

How did this help you "breeze" through encounters? Your higher level spells had the same DCs and lower spells having higher DCs may make them get through more often, but they're still lower level spells with lesser effects.

Like someone pointed out, Charm Person isn't Dominate Person. While this gives you a better chance of making someone friendly, it doesn't give you another soldier to combat your enemies.

Do you remember specific spells that were broken? Was it enchantments? necromancy? evocation? Any info would be great.

My campaign from years ago (which-in I allowed all kinds of crazy optimization on the player's part and pretty much used monsters as written) didn't have any sort of "breeze" problem.

barna10
2013-03-11, 12:46 AM
Also on fluff, it seems to me that, even beyond the frozen pizza analogy (which is a good one), I always envisioned D&D magic (Sorc/Wiz/Cler/Dru/etc... style anyway) as something that existed separate from the caster. This is particularly true of arcane magic, where the story element has always been rooted in the idea of certain individuals so incredibly intelligent, dedicated, or talented that they could access this power that existed outside themselves.

For game balance reasons it makes sense for some effects to scale more or less with level. Some spells also fit with that for story reasons, especially mid-level damage spells where it makes sense that the spell itself would be complex enough that the caster could tweak it. but for earlier spells, especially those with definite, narrow effects, it would seem to break the theory of the class if they all scaled.

If you don't like the chef analogy, another might be a guitar player. As you get better with the instrument, you can do more impressive things, including, on occasion, revisiting older songs and adding complexity and depth, but no matter how hard you try, a scale will still be a scale, and will sound the same for whoever plays it.

I don't look at it this way which would explain why I don't see eye-to-eye with some of you. I see magic as a force that the magic-user shapes into useful forms (ie spells). The written spells are mainly a mechanism to aid in game-play instead of players sitting around and arguing about the mechanics every time a spell is to be cast (which I experienced once in a GURPS game years ago when we used improvised spellcasting...nightmare)

Djinn_in_Tonic
2013-03-11, 12:51 AM
How did this help you "breeze" through encounters? Your higher level spells had the same DCs and lower spells having higher DCs may make them get through more often, but they're still lower level spells with lesser effects.

My post above showed a large number of spells from every spell level that have the potential to outright end encounters. Those are the spells that are abused when systems like this are on the table.


Like someone pointed out, Charm Person isn't Dominate Person. While this gives you a better chance of making someone friendly, it doesn't give you another soldier to combat your enemies.

It can end fights if used on the last guy, prevent them from occurring if used properly, remove targets from combat by persuading them to leave the battlefield, and so forth. It's not as reliable, but it can entirely remove a foe from the fight.


Do you remember specific spells that were broken? Was it enchantments? necromancy? evocation? Any info would be great.

As mentioned, I already listed them: save-or-suck spells were the issue across the board.

And the issue of breezing was this: Encounters weren't, in general, any faster than they could be before. The issue was, since ALL Save-or-Failure spells had DCs equal to or higher than the DC the highest level of spells would typically be at, ALL encounters went at the speed of the fastest encounter. Every encounter went almost as quickly as an encounter where a high-level Wizard goes nova with his best spells, with the only change in time being a 1-2 round increase depending on how many of the spells in question destroyed MULTIPLE foes, and how many only destroyed a SINGLE foe.

So instead of being able to simply waltz through one encounter a day by expending his most valuable resources, the Wizard could now waltz through ALL encounters in a day.

Beheld
2013-03-11, 12:57 AM
Actually, Wizards are going to invalidate more encounters per day. The knowledge that they might need to save their higher levels spells is really what keeps non-optimized Wizards (i.e. Wizards who don't manipulate Planar Time traits to recover spells nearly instantly) under some semblance of control. If you take that away and suddenly let level 4+ Save-or-Suck/Save-or-Die spells function at 9th level DCs and up, you're going to have Wizards who are able to nova relatively freely and still have oodles of debilitating spells in reserve throughout an entire day.

Wizards using save-or-X spells do not invalidate encounters. They cast spells which bring them closer to winning the encounter. And Monster saves are generally high enough that these spells have an extremely significant failure chance. Monsters use those same spells on the party, and yet that never seems to involve monsters invalidating the party.

Also, your contention that spell limits confine novas is silly, Wizards cast a spell every round. They do that regardless of whether their lower level spell DCs have a chance of success or not.


Save-or-Suck spells by level (SRD only), with Save-or-Die spells in bold. Note that stunning, paralysis, blinding, domination, and so forth are all almost as encounter-ending as outright death to any half-decent party.

The points are that: 1) Those spells are not the boring part of the game, blinding some enemies is not making the game less interesting, while killing them with a fireball would somehow be more interesting. 2) Stunning/paralysis/real encounter enders (for a long enough duration), are actually quite rare. IE, Hold Person, which requires them to fail two saves before you can kill coup de grace them unless you cast it when the fighter is literally adjacent to them. Not to mention the tremendous limit on targets, which is why Glitterdust is an amazing second level spell, and Hold Person is a mediocre one that Clerics don't even bother to prepare.

Also: Mind Fog, I have no idea who accidentally put this on a list of save-or-X spells that led to everyone copying it, but seriously.

If they fail a will save, they will almost certainly... fail their next will save. I'd rather cast Dominate Person twice and have a X% chance of getting an ally on the first round and a Y% chance on the second round than cast Mind Fog then target whichever enemy failed their will save for X+Y+5% chance of getting an enemy I didn't choose as an ally on the second round.


Your average level 20 Wizard has, assuming his save DC is something in the reasonable range of 20 + spell level, has a DC of 29 against maybe a save of +12 +5 (item) +9 (ability) = +26 on a strong save. But he won't target the strong save: he'll hit the weak one, which is probably around 6 + 5(item) + 3/4(ability), or +14. So that's a 70% chance to get a failed save against his highest level of spells.

Your math is fundamentally off. Not a single CR 20 monster has any save below 16. And that is the Reflex save on dragons before treasure. So after treasure which could very easily contain a cloak of resistance, and the casting of multiple 6th level spells, you still have to target not it's weak save to save-or-X it, numbers which are much higher. A Balor on the other hand has its lowest save at 23, so if your 9th level spell has a DC of 29, means that it has a 25% chance of failed save.


Gamebreaking. Everyone will now be a Wizard, since their ONLY weakness (resource management in non-Tippyverse settings) is now gone. 4+ fights a day is nothing. Assuming the Wizard only targets high saves (an estimated 10% chance of success) he can probably chew through at least 4 encounters before he's even close to dry. But he won't only target high saves, so...

Resource management was a solved problem 10 years ago for the Wizard. People don't play Wizards now because they don't want to play a Wizard, not because it already isn't far more powerful than Fighters. Frankly, if you want to pretend that people only play classes that have something other classes don't, people only play Clerics, Wizards, and Druids now, because literally everything a fighter brings, a Druid brings better.

As to your contentions about high/low saves and chewing through encounters, so what? Even ignoring that on most monsters the "weakest" save is 3-4 points lower than the high, and it is usually reflex, which is hard to save-or-X, the Wizard getting to cast enough spells to win the fight is basically absurd. I mean, Wizard's probably have enough Phantasmal Killers to grind that out, but good luck when competent opposition like a Death Slaad is summoning other Slaads who use Finger of Death at will and using Finger of Death at will itself.


Other spells. The system tries to balance spells against themselves, and this is one of the ways they do it. Also against other subsystem classes, like a psionics user or a martial initiator.

1) Spells. Spells that don't allow a save are already too strong relative to other spells. Aiding spells that require a save isn't creating a balance problem.

2) Other systems... are not balanced, so why are you using that. Yes, Druids are supposed to be balanced against Fighters. But they aren't, so if we reject every homebrew that doesn't all by itself balance Fighters and Druids, you are rejecting all homebrew.


No... he won't. He will just spend more resources on each combat, or outside of combat, and go take a nap in a rope trick.

He can't possibly spend more resources on each combat. He is already spending all his resources on all his combats. This does not give more spells per day, therefore it cannot result in him casting more spells than "all of them." In fact, if he prepares even a single attack spell in a lower slot where he would have prepared a buff, he would need more combat rounds to cast the same number of spells.


Glitterdust is the original save or lose

So? The Wizard still fights five fights, and is less strong during the 5th one.


pot, kettle

No, see, that is what you say to someone who is doing the same thing you are doing. You said this change is bad because it makes the game boring by having people cast Web instead of Scorching Ray. I said that I personally find Scorching Ray more boring than Web, and therefore your argument fails. I did not say that we should therefore institute this change because it will make people cast Web more than Scorching Ray, because unlike you, I am aware that my personal preferences for interesting spells may not be universal.


screw wizards. Lets talk about a dread necromancer. He now has more slots for his silly

You forgot the

But more seriously: Yes, the Dread Necromancer has more slots to cast fear, and this is a bad thing why? The Dread Necromancer is already an army of like 7 fighters with infinite healing between fights who also casts spells, why are you pretending he manages resources aside from "the number of corpses."


Or tensers transformation, or mass animals abilaty, or... you can think of your own. Still, this makes going the heavy buff route less of an issue.

No it doesn't, because a) Those are terrible buffs, good buffs are defensive buffs like Greater Blink. b) Spending high level slots on buffs and low level spells on attacks is a perfectly valid trade off from the current standard of casting lots of lower level buffs because they suck as attack spells and then casting high level attack spells.


a lot of traction? you mean two people arguing back and forth on a small brew' forum?

No, I mean that this rule has been in use across the internet and in at least the three cities I have played D&D in the last 10 years. To say nothing of the obvious parallel to other abilities that already work on that same save metric.


I'm saying that casters will probably just Nova more in the 4 encounters per day.

They can't nova more. They are confined to the same number of standard actions they were going to have anyway and the same number of spells they were going to have anyway, there is literally no way this results in more novaing. Instead, the only argument you could make is that their secondary attack spells will be stronger, and they will win the fight faster. Which is fine, and if true would result in them having more spells left over at the end of the fight, increasing the chance that they will fight again.

barna10
2013-03-11, 01:21 AM
It can end fights if used on the last guy, prevent them from occurring if used properly, remove targets from combat by persuading them to leave the battlefield, and so forth. It's not as reliable, but it can entirely remove a foe from the fight.

As mentioned, I already listed them: save-or-suck spells were the issue across the board.


Well, the encounter ended without killing someone, so what. So you'd prefer every encounter ended with death? Besides, how many save-or-suck spells are low level?

also, Beheld, I think we are fighting the battle of perception versus reality. the perception is that this change will cause problems, the [i[reality[/i] is that it just changes the game.

I'm just glad to stir a lively debate.

barna10
2013-03-11, 01:23 AM
No, I mean that this rule has been in use across the internet and in at least the three cities I have played D&D in the last 10 years. To say nothing of the obvious parallel to other abilities that already work on that same save metric.

Seriously? When I first started using this rule back in 2007 I didn't know anybody used it. Lol, did you play in my game in Columbus, OH?

Djinn_in_Tonic
2013-03-11, 01:31 AM
Well, the encounter ended without killing someone, so what. So you'd prefer every encounter ended with death? Besides, how many save-or-suck spells are low level?

Not at all. I'd prefer every encounter not be ended by the Wizard and the Wizard alone. Giving him more chances to do that at his highest success rate makes him MORE likely to end encounters by himself.

When a Save-or-Lose works, all other efforts towards victory (save apply penalties to said save) are suddenly meaningless. The 1000 damage you dealt to the thing with 1001 hp doesn't matter if it fails a save against Dominate Monster with 1 hp remaining. It's gone.

Also, I gave you a list of save-or-suck spells from the SRD alone. There are 14 spells that stun or worse in the first 4 levels of spells alone. That's enough for any Wizard to reliably lock down one or more targets every fight, and many of those effects are fight-long crippling or incapacitating effects rather than short-term penalties.


also, Beheld, I think we are fighting the battle of perception versus reality. the perception is that this change will cause problems, the reality is that it just changes the game.

Actually at this point we're arguing anecdotal evidence. My experience is that this destroyed the encounter balance of the game I tried it in. Yours is that it didn't. Yes, it changes the game: EVERY change changes the game. The determining factor is whether or not it's a GOOD change, and that seems to be up in the air.

Please don't tell me that YOUR experience is "reality," and MINE is "perception." That being said, since that's what I'm noticing here, I'll be moving on. Enjoy the discussion.

barna10
2013-03-11, 01:45 AM
Actually at this point we're arguing anecdotal evidence. My experience is that this destroyed the encounter balance of the game I tried it in. Yours is that it didn't. Yes, it changes the game: EVERY change changes the game. The determining factor is whether or not it's a GOOD change, and that seems to be up in the air.

Please don't tell me that YOUR experience is "reality," and MINE is "perception." That being said, since that's what I'm noticing here, I'll be moving on. Enjoy the discussion.

I'm not saying yours is perception and mine is reality, sorry it appeared that way.

What I am saying is that this rule does nothing to change the reality of the game. At higher levels, Wizards do exactly what you are saying, with or without this rule. Changing how they do that does nothing to the game itself.

Every argument against this rules has revolved around the idea that it somehow makes magic-users more powerful, and I disagree with that premise. Realistically, it doesn't change their power level at all, it just tweaks how they will be played and simplifies their mechanics.

I already admitted that my experience was just my experience, but it does not change the way mechanics work. A Charm Person spell is still just a Charm Person spell.

Don't forget that this rule should be used for the NPCs as well. If anything, it should make the bad guys more deadly which should make the game more challenging, not easier. Think about it: all those goblin adepts are suddenly as powerful as the PCs, not capped at 5th level spells.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2013-03-11, 01:52 AM
Every argument against this rules has revolved around the idea that it somehow makes magic-users more powerful, and I disagree with that premise. Realistically, it doesn't change their power level at all, it just tweaks how they will be played and simplifies their mechanics.

To pull numbers out of the air to make a point:

A character has 5 options with a 60% chance of success, 5 options with a 55% chance of success, 5 options with a 50% chance of success, and 5 options with a 45% chance of success.

Is this character stronger or weaker than one with the same 20 options but a 60% chance of success on all of them?

Anyway, I don't think I will find continued presence in this thread productive. Djinn out.

barna10
2013-03-11, 01:59 AM
To pull numbers out of the air to make a point:

A character has 5 options with a 60% chance of success, 5 options with a 55% chance of success, 5 options with a 50% chance of success, and 5 options with a 45% chance of success.

Is this character stronger or weaker than one with the same 20 options but a 60% chance of success on all of them?

Anyway, I don't think I will find continued presence in this thread productive. Djinn out.

What I was trying to say was that Wizards and the like are already considered the most powerful characters in the game so I fail to see how a minor change means that much. Also, Like I stated earlier, the enemy gets the same boost. This should indeed lead to quicker combats which usually leads to more time for other stuff, which equals more fun in my groups.

TuggyNE
2013-03-11, 05:38 AM
This assumption assumes the mage invests a ton in IQ. All things being equal (including the primary casting stat), the spell cast by a 20th level mage should be harder to resist than one cast by a 1st level whelp.

Hmm. Perhaps. An archmage that neither a) becomes any smarter (you literally can't avoid the level-up points, and putting them into anything but Int as a wizard is a terrible idea) nor b) studies advanced ways to make spells harder to resist ([Greater] Spell Focus) nor c) gets any older nor d) puts any additional magical energy in to Heighten… the assumptions needed are somewhat odd to me. Vancian may or may not be wholly logical, but I'm not seeing the absolute necessity of this change, or any necessity at all.


How about this example. Does a 40 year old drive a car better than a 16 year old? Statistics would say yes. Did the 40 year old have to invest feats into car use to become a better driver? Does he have to invest in a higher level car to be a better driver? Does he need to go to the gym to become a better driver?

No, because driving is (arguably) a skill; the 40 year old has one or two more levels, and thus more skill points and a higher cap. (Also, age ability score modifiers.)


Of course the answer to all these questions is no so why would a Wizard have to go to great lengths and invest resources into being able to cast the same spell he's been casting for years better than someone that just graduated from Hogwarts?

You're looking at the wrong sorts of investment for the driving example, so the analogy already failed; in this case, automatically becoming better with literally no effort is a) a little illogical (worse than it already is, in fact) and b) a bad idea mechanically.


Why allow spells to do damage based on caster level (ie the spell gets better with experience) if non-damaging spells don't get more potent with a rise in caster level?

Good question, but not one with an answer you'll like. I prefer psionics, since it requires you to invest more pp to get more bang; however, Vancian is largely balanced (such as it is) around the idea that damage and HP scale more rapidly than DCs and saves; as such, scaling DCs up for free messes with one of the fundamental assumptions.

If the driving force behind this change is your perception of an inequality between damage spells and save spells, fix the damage spells. Save-or-X spells are already capable of too much.


If you let their lower level spells be useful save DCs, then they can last longer each day in exchange for being weaker during each fight, because they use lower level spells less for buffs and face more encounters.

Wait, what? If you give them the ability to cast certain spells to greater effect than before, without taking anything away at all, they can't lessen in power, unless those spells are actually less efficient than the alternatives. Since most wizards, and many players of wizards, are reasonably capable of figuring this out, you have to assume that at least some will only cast the spells that are now most efficient; how often this will be the old buffs, and how often the new and improved save-or-X, is uncertain, but you can bet the latter will be effectively used some of the time.

Therefore, a net increase in power level, not to mention likely a slight increase in versatility. (Because there are more total spell slots that can solve a given problem with equal effectiveness.)


The balance concerns are not a problem. Wizards already aren't playing the same game as fighters, so anyone complaining that this makes them more out of line with fighters is arguing an irrelevant consideration.

I'm not sure I understand this. Any deliberate increase in power, for free, with no drawbacks, to the most powerful and versatile classes in the game, is very hard to justify logically!


The rule isn't about power, it's about skill. It's about being SO skilled that you don't need to use a 9th level spell; like real-world hitmen that use .22s to prove how good they are.

OK, as far as that goes, a hypothetical caster who wished to show how amazing they were should reasonably just invest in the existing passive boosts to DCs, such as ability modifier, spell focus, etc. In practice this will nearly always be the case, since what else are you going to do with your WBL, your level-up boosts, and your feats?


Well, the encounter ended without killing someone, so what. So you'd prefer every encounter ended with death? Besides, how many save-or-suck spells are low level?

Djinn already well and thoroughly answered this.


What I was trying to say was that Wizards and the like are already considered the most powerful characters in the game so I fail to see how a minor change means that much. Also, Like I stated earlier, the enemy gets the same boost. This should indeed lead to quicker combats which usually leads to more time for other stuff, which equals more fun in my groups.

So, combat tends more toward caster duels than it was already?

Any time you consider giving T1s a strict boost in power with no drawbacks or downsides, you should seriously consider why on earth you're bothering to do that. There is simply no reason to do so, from a mechanical perspective, and a number of reasons not to; from a fluff perspective, the perceived dissonance between spells that auto-scale with CL and those that don't can be resolved in two ways, one of which you have apparently not yet considered.


TL/DR: This is a strict buff to classes that don't need it; it's strictly unnecessary from all perspectives, and strictly harmful to game balance.

barna10
2013-03-11, 07:15 AM
I disagree. I must just be the toughest DM on the planet. This never caused a problem in my games.

Ashtagon
2013-03-11, 07:21 AM
Personally, I favour a flat DC 15 + caster's spellcasting ability modifier. No modifier for spell level or class level. That way, save or suck gradually gets phased out as meaningless. At high levels, PCs no longer have "I win" buttons at their disposal, and likewise NPCs can;'t accidentally slay a cherished PC because of a lucky die roll.

Yitzi
2013-03-11, 08:51 AM
This requires the Wizard to invest more in casting the spell so it's really no better than Heighten Spell.

What's the problem with using Heighten Spell for your purpose (other than that not everybody has it, which this would fix)? A high-level wizard using his most powerful spell slot can cast the spell more powerfully than a low-level wizard using his most powerful spell slot.

Now, it doesn't achieve "a high-level wizard using a weak spell slot can cast more powerfully than a low-level wizard using his strongest spell slot", but why would you need that?

JoshuaZ
2013-03-11, 10:12 AM
I suspect that this rule has only worked in highly unoptimized groups and agree mainly with Djinn. One specific comment though:


The rule isn't about power, it's about skill. It's about being SO skilled that you don't need to use a 9th level spell; like real-world hitmen that use .22s to prove how good they are.

Does anyone have a citation that this is a real thing? Professional hitmen are etremely rare. I could see Richard Kuklinsi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Kuklinski) trying to do this, but aside from him it seems extremely unlikely.

Beheld
2013-03-11, 10:18 AM
{{scrubbed}}

TuggyNE
2013-03-12, 06:23 AM
Look, a Wizard in a party theoretically faces four encounters a day. In those four encounters that last approximately 2-3 rounds each, subject to a lot of things, he casts 8-10 attack spells.

At level 11 he has 4 6th level spells and 5 5th level spells. He already has enough attack spells to cast one per round during each fight.

Giving him more attack spells in exchange for less buffs spells means he will be less strong in those four encounters, and then he will have more attack spells that he has not cast yet.

The correct response to that situation is to have a 5th fight. Therefore, the Wizard will engage in more fights per day. If the Wizard doesn't engage in a fifth fight, he is still exactly as strong or weaker than before, because he already had an attack spell at his highest DC for every single round of combat he engaged in that day.

Or, in short: make enemies harder or more numerous to compensate for buffing the Wizard. That's (moderately) reasonable, but it does the exact opposite of disproving my assertion, which is that you're buffing the Wizard class.

(Also, you are apparently ignoring the possibility of action economy abuse, spending high-level slots on buffs, and so forth.)

Now, to be fair, I can agree that in practice this buff won't necessarily have too severe an impact, since most of the time you can count on the DM and players to readjust things and compensate for the imbalance introduced. However, I simply cannot fathom why anyone would introduce this in the first place, when it's moving in precisely the wrong direction.

Belial_the_Leveler
2013-03-12, 07:01 AM
Nobody mentioned the most important argument here;


A 1st level wizard casting a 1st level spell uses up 1/4 of his entire magic supply. A 20th level wizard casting a 1st level spell uses up 1/100 of his entire magic supply.
So a higher level spellcaster's raw skill IS improving his 1st level spells; he is using far, far less effort for the same effect. No need to add further improvements.


If he wants to do "same effort, far greater effect" thingy, then he uses his higher-level spell slots. For example, a quickened Energy Drain, followed by a twinned Celerity to cast another Energy Drain and finally finish the combo with a Dominate Monster spell is the 20th level wizard expending the same kind of resources the 1st level wizard would when casting a single lowly charm person.

Realms of Chaos
2013-03-12, 10:54 AM
I personally disagree with this change but I think that I can see the basic logic behind it:

As far as I can tell, the main argument is that this change evens things out aesthetically (plus simplification for newcomers) without effectively changing much of anything.

If we accept that wizards can eventually launch enough full-power (or nearly so) spells to instantly end all 3.33 encounters you are expected to find in a day, whether or not the wizard has a dozen more charms/dominates/phantasmal killers at full power doesn't really matter for most practical purposes.

What it does do is allow the caster to have a few high-level utility spells like scrying, teleport, and fabricate. On the one hand, this may reasonably add to the fear of the party becoming a one-man-wizard-show. On the other hand, most spells that directly steal from other party members (like divine power, find traps, and knock) are relatively low in spell level while those high level spells are relatively irreplaceable. If you need to planeshift but the casters used all of its high-level spells on save-or-X spells, for example, the party is just going to sit there for a day until a caster can planeshift them so letting the caster use low-level spells for combat may actually be seen as moving things along faster.

With that said, a few notes:
-Most people seem to be overblowing the odds of monsters failing saves against instant-kills to some degree. Many monsters have more HD than the PCs they are intended to face and much higher ability scores than NPCs or PCs so their saving throws are naturally higher. Furthermore, virtually all of these instant-kills target either Fort or Will and vast swathes of opponents possess immunity against one or both.
-While PCs possess lower saves on average, relatively basic rules of optimization seem to suggest getting immunity to these effects so having it work for enemies isn't that huge of a deal either unless you optimize your monsters to make frequent tactical use of dispelling items.
-If it even needs to be said, a party with all casters or caster-ish beings (such as most tier 3+ parties) will not feel this pain.
-Incomplete casters like bards or duskblades or even paladins/rangers/spelltheives/hexblades actually seem to get MORE in this system than the full casters do (even though they have fewer save-or-X's to abuse this bonus).
-This system actually punishes things like the ur-priest.

A few counterarguments:
-Most people view the diminishing effectiveness of wizards in combat as the number of fights go on and on as the closest thing that the wizard (or any full caster other than the healer) has to a balancing mechanism against noncasters. If the staying power of non-casters doesn't exceed that of casters (which this fix seems to do), that "balance" is gone and purposefully removing the closest thing that the wizard had to a balancing mechanism is just kind of head scratching.
-It was admitted early on the first page that it does make mechanical sense for the way things currently work so going against what makes sense within the rules of the game to preserve verismilitude is, again, kind of head scratching.
-Save-or-dies, even if the entire party is throwing them out, is not fun unless the DM takes special steps to make them fun (EX: only ever throwing huge crowds of monsters and bosses with tons of immunities out so that any given save-or-die won't end the full battle). Save-or-dies are not cooperative as damage is. The fighter's attack and your save-or-die are just about incapable of helping one another so whichever of you (and I'd say things are in favor of the caster) ends the battle will end up invalidating the efforts of the other participant. This, to many, is not fun. To reiterate, however, a DM can work around them and it is the job of the DM (by most definitions) to make sure everyone has fun.

barna10
2013-03-12, 05:49 PM
Again, this rule applies to Monsters/NPCs as well as the players. It actually makes the game tougher, not easier.

In the game I ran years ago, the primary adversary was a Hellfire Wyrm/20th level Wizard (40th level caster). All of his spells had a DC of 42. Without this rule, his spells would've had DCs ranging from 23 - 31. He was a very tough opponent.

Beheld
2013-03-12, 06:03 PM
-Most people view the diminishing effectiveness of wizards in combat as the number of fights go on and on as the closest thing that the wizard (or any full caster other than the healer) has to a balancing mechanism against noncasters. If the staying power of non-casters doesn't exceed that of casters (which this fix seems to do), that "balance" is gone and purposefully removing the closest thing that the wizard had to a balancing mechanism is just kind of head scratching.

Anyone who thinks that is a balance on casters is mistaken.


-It was admitted early on the first page that it does make mechanical sense for the way things currently work so going against what makes sense within the rules of the game to preserve verismilitude is, again, kind of head scratching.

Because many things can all make sense within the rules. Just because one thing makes mechanical sense doesn't mean that any change can't also makes mechanical sense. If you made all DCs equal to 11+other modifiers instead of +10, and you added +1 to all attacks, that would make literally just as much sense. The question is whether this change makes sense too.

To say nothing of minor things like differing priorities, ect.


-Save-or-dies, even if the entire party is throwing them out, is not fun unless the DM takes special steps to make them fun (EX: only ever throwing huge crowds of monsters and bosses with tons of immunities out so that any given save-or-die won't end the full battle). Save-or-dies are not cooperative as damage is. The fighter's attack and your save-or-die are just about incapable of helping one another so whichever of you (and I'd say things are in favor of the caster) ends the battle will end up invalidating the efforts of the other participant. This, to many, is not fun. To reiterate, however, a DM can work around them and it is the job of the DM (by most definitions) to make sure everyone has fun.

That makes no sense. The only definition of fun is not "accumulation with the rest of the party." By that logic, the PCs running into a Mirror of Opposition and fighting their dopplegangers would be not fun. But even though that is a less effective way of fighting them, people still love to do that, because they find it fun. Obviously other factors than adding with the party make things fun.

To say nothing of someone casting Glitterdust, and then that helping the Rogue to get SA, or other such save-or-Xs that don't directly kill making the Fighters/Rogues job easier.

I have played in games with 4 Wizards. I did not find it unfun when someone else used Finger of Death on an enemy.

DracoDei
2013-03-12, 06:43 PM
I haven't read every comment here(maybe about halfway through the first page?), but those I read made me think that there is another POV that may functionally nerf wizards(or it may buff them, but in a way that fights the 5 minute work day). In either case it matches with the OP's stated intent, and is something that has been knocking around in my brain for a very long time.

Spell DC = 10 + Casting stat modifier+ 1/2 caster level(rounded up) - spell level.
(Note the bolded, enlarged minus sign, it is the key to the whole thing)
Hey presto, you are better at the spells that you have been casting through years/entire wars than you are the ones that you just learned last week/level. You also have to pick between strength of effect, and probability of effect... except for no-save spells, which are a different ball of wax.

On that last note, can also apply the spell level as a negative to all checks to overcome SR... perhaps while also reducing the base DCs by 3 to 5 to compensate, but maybe not. Hey presto even more spells nerfed.


EDIT: Heighten Spell should still increase the save DC by 1 point net per spell level the slot you use is, rather than reducing it.

Nanoblack
2013-03-12, 06:52 PM
I haven't read every comment here(maybe about halfway through the first page?), but those I read made me think that there is another POV that may functionally nerf wizards(or it may buff them, but in a way that fights the 5 minute work day). In either case it matches with the OP's stated intent, and is something that has been knocking around in my brain for a very long time.

Spell DC = 10 + Casting stat + 1/2 caster level(rounded up) - spell level.
(Note the bolded, enlarged minus sign, it is the key to the whole thing)
Hey presto, you are better at the spells that you have been casting through years/entire wars than you are the ones that you just learned last week/level. You also have to pick between strength of effect, and probability of effect... except for no-save spells, which are a different ball of wax.

On that last note, can also apply the spell level as a negative to all checks to overcome SR... perhaps while also reducing the base DCs by 3 to 5 to compensate, but maybe not. Hey presto even more spells nerfed.

I was about to say stuff about how this was a unnecessary and narrow-minded change when I saw this post. Good job:
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQa186PndPUkTmo1hOe9NS3M_r28bN36 PkeEbD8kIdIx00-Ug9nUw

Re-read this post and noticed that it came off as kind of scathing. I just meant that it doesn't really take 90% of the game into consideration when all of it's focus is on "why isn't everything my wizard does as awesome as everything else my wizard does".

Beheld
2013-03-12, 08:32 PM
{{scrubbed}}

Nanoblack
2013-03-13, 06:06 PM
Then why just pile on an increase to DC's if you're not just saying "wizards aren't powerful enough"? If you're after scaling, remove the base 10 to the DC and increase it by 1 every other level. Also, why does every spell have to be as powerful as every other spell? Have you taken into consideration that the spells themselves have limits? This is speaking within the fluff of course. Only so much magic power can be eked out of a spell slot which is why there are different level slots in the first place. Casters get more powerful by learning more powerful spells and other variables scale alongside their experience levels.

Beheld
2013-03-13, 09:11 PM
{{scrubbed}}

DracoDei
2013-03-13, 09:20 PM
I was about to say stuff about how this was a unnecessary and narrow-minded change when I saw this post. Good job:
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQa186PndPUkTmo1hOe9NS3M_r28bN36 PkeEbD8kIdIx00-Ug9nUw
Thank you very much!

It is actually my very first one, despite all the years I have been on this board.

Beheld
2013-03-13, 10:53 PM
Then why just pile on an increase to DC's if you're not just saying "wizards aren't powerful enough"?

Because... it isn't an increase to DCs. It is an increase of the DCs of lower level spells that don't have a decent chance of success up to the same DC that is already balanced for 8 attack spells a day. Of course, it actually decreases the DC of your highest level spells too.


If you're after scaling, remove the base 10 to the DC and increase it by 1 every other level.

Well probably because that would make all spells with saves useless, because DC 3-5 spells at level 1 are never going to be failed.

There is already a save DC which monsters saves are balanced against, and it is 10+1/2 character level+ability mod, not that -10.


Also, why does every spell have to be as powerful as every other spell?

Because there is one save DC which monster's save bonuses are balanced against, not 9.


Have you taken into consideration that the spells themselves have limits? This is speaking within the fluff of course. Only so much magic power can be eked out of a spell slot which is why there are different level slots in the first place.

That is certainly a fluff explanation you can make up, but I can just as easily make up a different fluff explanation, that how hard a spell is to resist is dependent on the caster, and not on the spell level.

The limits of spell level determine the type of effect. With a fourth level spell, you can force a fort and will save, and if the both fail, someone dies, as long as they are subject to illusion, fear, and death effects. On the other hand, you can kill them with just a failed fort save if they are subject to death effects, as long as you use a 5th level spell. That is the limits of the spell that make higher level spells better even if you do have all save DCs the same.

DracoDei
2013-03-13, 11:18 PM
If I am understanding the math right, it only decreases the DC by one point, and then only at odd numbered levels.

The increases it grants to lower level spells are a lot more.

Beheld
2013-03-14, 12:12 AM
If I am understanding the math right, it only decreases the DC by one point, and then only at odd numbered levels.

The increases it grants to lower level spells are a lot more.

Yes. But the point is merely that it is not an increase to the DC of the primary attack spells that Wizards already use, it is just an increase to spells they currently do not use in order to bring them up to the point where they are appropriately on the RNG of monster saves to make the use of lower level attack spells practicable.

barna10
2013-03-14, 06:22 PM
I haven't read every comment here(maybe about halfway through the first page?), but those I read made me think that there is another POV that may functionally nerf wizards(or it may buff them, but in a way that fights the 5 minute work day). In either case it matches with the OP's stated intent, and is something that has been knocking around in my brain for a very long time.

Spell DC = 10 + Casting stat modifier+ 1/2 caster level(rounded up) - spell level.
(Note the bolded, enlarged minus sign, it is the key to the whole thing)
Hey presto, you are better at the spells that you have been casting through years/entire wars than you are the ones that you just learned last week/level. You also have to pick between strength of effect, and probability of effect... except for no-save spells, which are a different ball of wax.

On that last note, can also apply the spell level as a negative to all checks to overcome SR... perhaps while also reducing the base DCs by 3 to 5 to compensate, but maybe not. Hey presto even more spells nerfed.

I think this is an awesome idea.

1)You reward the Wizard for using less power

2) It simulates better skill with a spell

3) It makes the Wizard's skill a more important factor than some undescribed outside force

4) It improves on my original intent

Bravo! Awesome!

Gorfnod
2013-03-14, 06:47 PM
Stuff...

Everything Djinn has said is spot on and it amazes me how time after time he is able to put in to words exactly what I am thinking. Balance-wise I couldn't agree more with what he said.


What I was trying to say was that Wizards and the like are already considered the most powerful characters in the game so I fail to see how a minor change means that much. Also, Like I stated earlier, the enemy gets the same boost. This should indeed lead to quicker combats which usually leads to more time for other stuff, which equals more fun in my groups.

I fail to follow that argument that "Wizards are OP so making them more OP shouldn't matter". Yes combat would be quicker but wouldn't that also make the rest of the players feel even less useful? If you want combat to play a smaller role in the game than just have less encounters. I also disagree that it is a "minor boost". This adds a plus +1 to +9 to spell DCs at level 20 depending on spell level. I can't think of anything else that does this.

My 2 coppers on this one.

Beheld
2013-03-14, 06:58 PM
I also disagree that it is a "minor boost". This adds a plus +1 to +9 to spell DCs at level 20 depending on spell level. I can't think of anything else that does this.

It does that to spells that already had DCs low enough that Wizards weren't casting them.

If you made Burning Hands do literally twice as much damage at CL 10 as it does under the current rules, still no one will cast it.

A Powerup to burning hands is not a balance problem. Likewise, a lot of fixes either directly or indirectly increase evocation damage. Those fixes are not balance problems, because even though they make "The Wizard Class" better, they only make specific Wizard characters who were already less powerful than other Wizards closer.

If you have a class that can produce 5 builds, and one of those builds is overpowered, buffing a different build that is underpowered is not a problem.

As an example, imagine the MonkWizard class. Basically, at level 1, you choose to either take the Monk side, and get the Monk features, or you choose to take the Wizard side, and get the Wizard features. Obviously, the MonkWizard is one of the most powerful classes in the game. But if you buff the Monk side, that is not a balance problem, because it boosts something that the powerful Wizards were already not using.

Likewise, if powerful Wizard characters don't use lower level spells with saves for attacking, then a buff to those spells will only increase the power of weaker Wizards who are not the most powerful.

As long as your improvement to options not used doesn't make them better than the options already used, it doesn't increase the maximum power of the class, which is the classes real power. Instead it increases the power of specific characters who are weaker than that up to point that is still less than the most powerful Wizard.

DracoDei
2013-03-14, 09:34 PM
I think this is an awesome idea.

1)You reward the Wizard for using less power

2) It simulates better skill with a spell

3) It makes the Wizard's skill a more important factor than some undescribed outside force

4) It improves on my original intent

Bravo! Awesome!

Thank you! Wish I had posted it months/years ago...

Beheld
2013-03-14, 09:54 PM
Thank you! Wish I had posted it months/years ago...

I do like it in many respects, but I am personally wary of basing it on Caster level, because of the many ways that it can fluctuate based on build.

I do like how it gradually decreases the DC of your highest level spell, instead of just starting with an arbitrary -10 penalty that completely destroys low level play. I don't think that it is a good idea to have different DCs for different spells in general, but if I did, I like the way you introduce the decrease.

Yitzi
2013-03-14, 10:37 PM
Actually, Wizards are going to invalidate more encounters per day. The knowledge that they might need to save their higher levels spells is really what keeps non-optimized Wizards (i.e. Wizards who don't manipulate Planar Time traits to recover spells nearly instantly) under some semblance of control. If you take that away and suddenly let level 4+ Save-or-Suck/Save-or-Die spells function at 9th level DCs and up, you're going to have Wizards who are able to nova relatively freely and still have oodles of debilitating spells in reserve throughout an entire day.



Save-or-Suck spells by level (SRD only), with Save-or-Die spells in bold. Note that stunning, paralysis, blinding, domination, and so forth are all almost as encounter-ending as outright death to any half-decent party. The point is that these spells all cripple the opposition to the point where they cannot realistically fight back against a party.

1: Grease, Charm Person, Color Spray
2: Glitterdust, Blindness/Deafness, Ghoul Touch
3: Stinking Cloud, Hold Person, Suggestion
4: Charm Monster, Confusion, Phantasmal Killer, Bestow Curse, Fear
5: Cloudkill, Dominate Person, Feeblemind, Hold Monster, Mind Fog, Symbol of Sleep, Baleful Polymorph
6: Mass Suggestion, Symbol of Persuasion, Circle of Death, Eyebite (not particularly effective), Symbol of Fear, Flesh to Stone
7: Mass Hold Person, Insanity, Power World Blind, Symbol of Stunning, Finger of Death
8: Maze, Mass Charm Monster, Demand, Irresistible Dance, Power Word Stun, Symbol of Insanity, Symbol of Death, Polymorph Any Object
9: Dominate Monster, Mass Hold Monster, Power Word Kill, Weird, Wail of the Banshee

Your average level 20 Wizard has, assuming his save DC is something in the reasonable range of 20 + spell level, has a DC of 29 against maybe a save of +12 +5 (item) +9 (ability) = +26 on a strong save. But he won't target the strong save: he'll hit the weak one, which is probably around 6 + 5(item) + 3/4(ability), or +14. So that's a 70% chance to get a failed save against his highest level of spells. Considering that's a 70% chance to take one or more people out of the fight, that's fine: his lower spells have a lesser chance, so the big guns actually mean something.

Change that to the formula above, and our Wizard suddenly has a DC of 30 for ALL his spells. Fighting one guy, but he's a boss? Why bother using a 9th level spell when Finger of Death will take him out just as easily? Or when you could use the level 2 spell Ghoul Touch and end the fight for basically no resources whatsoever, in a single action, using a fight-ender you can use over 6 times in a single day with that level slot alone? With an 75% chance of success if it's a weak save?

Gamebreaking. Everyone will now be a Wizard, since their ONLY weakness (resource management in non-Tippyverse settings) is now gone. 4+ fights a day is nothing. Assuming the Wizard only targets high saves (an estimated 10% chance of success) he can probably chew through at least 4 encounters before he's even close to dry. But he won't only target high saves, so...

This does suggest an approach to counterbalance things, though (or maybe even be a piece of the puzzle to balance wizards if used without this as well): Improve saves so that weak saves are as strong as strong saves are now, and strong saves correspondingly stronger.

Realms of Chaos
2013-03-14, 10:51 PM
Nevermind. Ignore this post.

tarkisflux
2013-03-15, 01:31 PM
A minor aside (that I probably should have gotten in sooner): several of the spells that Djinn pointed to as "Save or Suck" spells are really "No Save, Just Suck" spells that wouldn't be affected by this one way or the other. The entire power word line is built with hp limits and SR, but no saves. I don't think there are any others in there, but I could be wrong.

Beheld
2013-03-15, 01:45 PM
A minor aside (that I probably should have gotten in sooner): several of the spells that Djinn pointed to as "Save or Suck" spells are really "No Save, Just Suck" spells that wouldn't be affected by this one way or the other. The entire power word line is built with hp limits and SR, but no saves. I don't think there are any others in there, but I could be wrong.

Well, technically, his contention is that those spells are a problem for the game because they negate the cumulative actions of the fighter. Save or suck spells don't even fit that quality at all, only save or lose/save or dies spells.

So if I were going to address his list, I would start by limiting the spells that definately don't pose a problem for the game even if you think that the Wizard winning without adding his attack to the fighter is a problem.

So the first thing to do is remove all the "save or suck" spells from the "save or lose" spells. And then remove the "save-or-lose" spells that only cause a loss if you have a fighter, like glitterdust or Hold Person, and then remove all the spells that don't have a save, like the power words, irresistible dance, and maze, then I would remove the spells that actually suck, like Mind Fog and Eyebite.

And then there would be like 10 spells left, mostly at high level. But it didn't seem worth it at the time to go into a detailed analysis of why like 70% of the spells on his list don't actually end encounters, even if you are only facing one enemy.

PEACH
2013-03-15, 04:22 PM
This does suggest an approach to counterbalance things, though (or maybe even be a piece of the puzzle to balance wizards if used without this as well): Improve saves so that weak saves are as strong as strong saves are now, and strong saves correspondingly stronger.

In any situation where you are implementing two distinct changes, one for some purpose and the other only to balance out the first change, you've got to consider whether it's worth making changes at all.

EDIT: Whether or not save or suck spells negate the actions of the fighter is a whole different can of worms, and depends a lot on personal opinion. I've seen the argument before, and essentially it boils down to "does the fighter providing HP damage against a mostly immobile, mostly incapable of retaliation enemy count as contributing?" Some people may say yeah, beating up the dude that's greased and stuck in place is contributing, while other people may say hat they could literally walk off with instructions to hit/CDG whoever the Wizard disables.

Beheld
2013-03-15, 06:07 PM
In any situation where you are implementing two distinct changes, one for some purpose and the other only to balance out the first change, you've got to consider whether it's worth making changes at all.

That change is absurd beyond reason, as I showed with the level 20 example, and could also show with any other level, monster saves are much higher than people who exalt at the alter of save or X say they are. Djinn gave an example of +14 when literally not a single CR 20 enemy has a weak save of that low, and the lowest non-Reflex save bonus is 20. People who think monster saves need to be increased are just wrong, you quickly push into the realms where no Wizard ever prepares a spell with a save, because they have a better chance hitting with 16 scorching rays than they do of getting the enemy to fail a save at all.


EDIT: Whether or not save or suck spells negate the actions of the fighter is a whole different can of worms, and depends a lot on personal opinion. I've seen the argument before, and essentially it boils down to "does the fighter providing HP damage against a mostly immobile, mostly incapable of retaliation enemy count as contributing?" Some people may say yeah, beating up the dude that's greased and stuck in place is contributing, while other people may say hat they could literally walk off with instructions to hit/CDG whoever the Wizard disables.

Yes and no. Obviously it is a matter of personal preference, but some spells are different from others. Leaving the table and saying "have me attack whomever the Wizard disables" is no more effective, and possibly less effective than leaving the table with the instruction "have me attack people" when the spell is Glitterdust or Solid Fog, however, something like irresistible dance against a single foe, the fighter really doesn't have any agency. But really, that is a problem with the fighter class, because truthfully, if a fighter is fighting a single foe, he never has any agency, because he can literally do only one thing, depending on his build, and so he does that one thing against that one foe, or if he can't, he does something largely meaningless, like shoot the 300HP dragon that is flying for 1d8+5 damage, because he isn't a bow fighter.

But that is why I said the first thing I would do is separate save or sucks like Glitterdust, from save or loses, like Fear.