| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| Silmarien Aldalome07-06-05, 04:06 AM | 1. Numerous methods exist for modifying Savings Throws, both upwardly and downwardly in D&D. Several methods exist for doing so in both directions and on mass. 2. Accessibility to upward revisions to Savings Throws are many, varied and plentiful, and by comparison, access to upward changes to Spell DCs are both scarce and expensive. Similarly, numerous Wizard-Nerfing techniques exist (accessibility to SR, Anti Magic, Countermagic, Dispel) that further impact on spell power. 3. Conversely, Spell Focus is a very expensive modification of DC to but one school of magic, and PrCs that upwardly modify DCs are heavily balanced (overbalanced). Creating PCs that hack opponents Saves is a more economical method of creating vulnerability to spells, but the game-balance principles allow more joo joo to this kind of PrC, compared with the former. Given 1, 2 and 3 above, this thread explores the premise that modifications to Spell DCs should be less strict. The viability of Classes, Prc, Spells, Spell-like Abilities, Supernatural Powers, Racial Attributes and Templates is explored that access upward modifications to Spell DCs and a comment about 'what DC mods should cost' is sought. That is, and in easy words - why should Spell Focus be such an expesive purchase and why shouldn't more ways be around to make your DC of your Spells harder Regards stav |
| Tenzhi07-06-05, 04:16 AM | This discussion should keep in mind: 1. Not all spells even allow saving throws. Thus limiting the effectiveness of saving throw modifiers. 2. Of those that do have saving throws, often making the save doesn't allow the character to fully avoid the effect - thus further limiting the effectiveness of saving throw modifiers. On the other hand... Save DCs don't get an inherent bonus by level, either. It is my opinion that Caster Level rather than spell level should factor into the save DC (perhaps 10 + (1/2 Caster Level) + ability modifier) - this would make it more analagous to its saving throw counterpart. In such a case, however, the aforementioned limitations of saving throws would still make saving throw modifications overall weaker in relation to save DC modifiers. |
| Silmarien Aldalome07-06-05, 04:23 AM | ...and in the spirit of the prior post, to be fair (on the 'debate team' against my own view) - modification to a DC affects all recipients in one go. DC modifications are, thus, far reaching in their effects. Neither post two nor post three, however, fully negate the need for this discussion. To highlight, Spell Focus in Core Rules is a meagre +1 to one school of magic, for a feat that disbars you access to another (precious) Wizard Feat. Any number of methods exist in the Item Creation feats that let you upwardly modify *all* DCs with one fell swoop (e.g. a mere 2000 gp for a Headband of the Intellect - bang - +1 to all DCs). Why bother with taking Spell Focus at all? stav |
| Tenzhi07-06-05, 04:44 AM | Why bother with taking Spell Focus at all? Because it stacks with the Int bonus that you can easily increase via magic items. Though I must agree that the +1 to one school of magic is a bit small. I'd say it should be +2 myself. Or perhaps instead of being based on school of magic, it should be a bonus to DCs of a particular type of saving throw. Faster Caster - +2 to the DC of Reflex saves. Plagus Magus - +2 to the DC of Fortitude saves. Wizard of Id - +2 to the DC of Will saves. |
| Silmarien Aldalome07-06-05, 04:50 AM | Because, taking the Spell Focus feat disbars your access to other prised Wizard feats (that let you do much more than Spell Focus, anyhowz) :) That's why Spell Focus, the way it is, IMO, is junk: too much cost, not enough benefit. ;) I think your ideas are okay - but nett +2 to all DCs, blanket, IMO, is the tradeoff that pays for preclusion of access to other prised Wizard feats. |
| Tenzhi07-06-05, 04:53 AM | All feats being equal, a +2 to ALL DCs makes the Spell Focus more useful than the feats to counter it. And as your initial premise is that Spell DCs are Saving Throw modifications in reverse, you'd be destroying that premise as well. |
| Silmarien Aldalome07-06-05, 05:14 AM | Arguably - is my response to your position. You're right to the extent that Feats that increase saves, (e.g Great Will comes to mind, and fortitude equivalents) improve saves in one area, generally. However, that's the subject of another discussion, to determine the 'equivalence' of power of the feats you cite in your argument to other feats. On the other hand, *enter Necromancy* exposing your enemies to methods that give negative levels, zorch all three saves. Irrespective, however, the core premise of the position in opening post remains and the three prongs of the argument must be taken as a whole. Methods of increasing DC are disproportionately expensive in contrast to purchasing their Save, SR, and immunity analogues. You're better off exposing your enemies to methods that zorch their Ability scores (en mass, preferably) than you are for purchasing (existent) methods for purchasing DC increments. stav |
| Silmarien Aldalome07-06-05, 05:22 AM | And Zorching your enemy on his primary spellcasting ability score (e.g. Wisdom for Clerics) shaves off numbers from all that spellcaster's DCs. That is - there are discontinuities in power-balancing systems, and these distortions vary, depending on the focus of the analytical lens. Why should it be so easy to up or down a DC on the one hand (by hitting one ability score in the caster in question) and yet, so expensive and costly (Spell Focus) to purchase other kinds of modifications on the other? stav |
| Tenzhi07-06-05, 05:29 AM | If you can "zorch" the saving throws, that's just another argument for save bonuses to be cheaper than DC bonuses as the latter is more powerful than the former. Also, all things considered, Spell Focus is cheaper than a Headband of Intellect. Case-in-point: which can you afford to get at 1st level? |
| Silmarien Aldalome07-06-05, 05:34 AM | Sort of, Elf Bane. My argument's more the 'fluidity' of Saves, noting the interdependence of Saves on DCs and vice-versa. Given that interdependence, I argue that fluidity on save modifications should be extended to overlap with fluidity of DC modifications. And the distinction between the two (is artificially created) by products such as Spell Focus. regards stav |
| Silmarien Aldalome07-06-05, 05:37 AM | Also, all things considered, Spell Focus is cheaper than a Headband of Intellect. Case-in-point: which can you afford to get at 1st level? Not the former, if you're thinking delayed gratification. The Problem of Immediate Gratification (the PIG within ;) ), might lead us astray and cause us to select the short-term gain, for the cost of long-term pain. stav |
| Tenzhi07-06-05, 05:53 AM | The choice of Spell Focus in the beginning is no different than the choice of the Headband later on - your character has only so much wealth so do you get the Headband or a Rod of Metamagic? Do you get one feat or the other? Do you level up this class or that one? Why pick up a feat that gives you +2 to only one saving throw type when you can get a +2 Cloak of Resistance for a mere 2000GP that gives you a bonus to all saving throws? Why pick up Weapon Focus when you can get a +1 sword? Weapon Specialization when you can get a +2 sword that gives you +2 to attack AND damage? Mayhap the existence of magic items doesn't relate to the balance of feats at all, and thus they can only be judged against each other irrespective of magic items. Which brings us back to Saving Throw feats vs. Spell Focus. If saving throws and spell DCs are equal (as you say), then a Spell Focus feat that granted +2 to all schools of magic would necessitate a Saving Throw feat that granted a +2 to all saves. If - as the game mechanics seem to indicate - spell DC modifications are greater than saving throw modifications, then it's mostly fine as is though I can see advocating changing the Spell Focus bonus from +1 to +2 to one school of magic. And as we've apparently gone full circle, I think I may wait and see if anyone else wants to chime in on the subject before adding any further arguments. ;) |
| Silmarien Aldalome07-06-05, 06:36 AM | Yes, let's wait to see what everyone else says. @Tenzhi You need to be *Wizard-Focussed* for this one: What you do with your (limited) Feats matters, in reality. If the Feat system were truly equitably balanced, it shouldn't matter how you allocate the Feats. +1 to one school of magic for one go at a feat doesn't weigh the same on the teeter totter as any other of the Wizard feats on the other side of the teeter totter Indeed, (forgive my 'last-say-itis' ;) ) why choose a broken feat at first level when you can wait for dessert and do all those other lovely things you've described by chosing an Item Creation feat (insead of Spell Focus) and waiting a bit. Which brings us back to Saving Throw feats vs. Spell Focus. If saving throws and spell DCs are equal (as you say), then a Spell Focus feat that granted +2 to all schools of magic would necessitate a Saving Throw feat that granted a +2 to all saves. I cite the interdependence argument for this. Quite so may well be the appropriate response here. *looks at reader* Please post us your thoughts. Tenzhi and I have known each other for so long that we can almost anticipate each other's responses. :) What's your response? regards stav |
| Lofwyr407-06-05, 08:37 AM | Problem is that saves are inherantly far easier to make than to fail. Its the way the base numbers of the system are setup, when dealing with people that are familiar with that system. For example, its not unreasonable at all to assume that even a character with a poor save progression, who is familiar with the game, will take efforts to increase it. Which means that even in the worst of cases, someone with a base class and no prc will have a +8 or +10 save mod even on their +6 saves, after just feats or granted abilites or ability scores. Then when you consider you can increase the ability by 6 (the usual +ability score enchancement), and the save by 5 (the usual +resistance item), and then if you really want get a few more points from other smaller bonuses, even the worst of saves comes out to a +15 or higher. And thats the bottom. If you actually try, like using a dwarf paladin with a high cha, and multiclass a little or take some prc, your worse save winds up being +25 if not higher. Compare that to save DCs. Even assuming you went full bore, with a max casting stat of like 30ish (roll an 18, all 5 points, a 6 point enchance item, pickup another point with another bonus type) giving you a +10 to save dc, and cast a level 9 spell, its only dc 29. And thats pretty maxxed out. If you bothered taking the feats (which I agree are almost beyond marginal as per above discussion) you could maybe get that up to like 32ish? Now using the save examples, worst case of +15 is roughly 50/50 to pass the hardest caster save in the game. The best case is 75%+ to pass, and could certainly get to the 95% mark (failing on a 1) if they tried. In other words, a best case scenario is only 50/50 for a spell to go thru, and against anything that tried to be resistant to saves is likley going to be. Ok admittedly, just making the save doesnt preclude you from being affected by all portions of the spell. So its not neccessarily flat out immunity (of course if you start factoring in things like evasion which anyone can buy on a ring etc, it can easily become all but total immunity). But it does mean that as a caster, you cant really rely on spells being successful. Perhaps early on you can, but as you level and the disparity increases, you basically are better of assuming everyone/everything will pass its save than not. Of course, you can try to work around this by choosing spells and such that dont allow saves. But then you start running into game balance issues with availability of published material etc etc. Which is of course the same game balance issue with simply not having enough published material to make saves effective. Really the only thing you can do is take certain abilities like the fatespinner class and choose specific saves to create instances of almost surefire success; or focus on not ever allowing saves to begin with. |
| Tenzhi07-06-05, 09:28 AM | Which places the save DC in a similar place as its mundane combat counterpart - AC. By about 15th level, the average fighter (by the book) will get hit about 80% of the time by an appropriate challenge - the DC (AC) is easily beaten by the roll. (Mind you, this brings up another point about spells not being an active roll on the part of the wizard versus a defensive DC on the part of the target(s) as they probably should.) |
| Lofwyr407-06-05, 11:27 AM | Well, thats not exactly parallel. A normal base fighter is supposed to be hit about 75% of the time by an equal level encounter. And he should only hit the monster about 50% of the time. This is because there are 4 players in a single party, and only 1 equal level monster. In a single round the monster is subject to 4 creatures attacks, and the party is only subject to one creatures attacks. That difference in scale is quite intentional and is the primary reason a party should last through 4 equal level encounters before needing rest: each round the party does 100% damage but takes 75% damage, after 4 fights (4x75=300% delt of the party's 400% total, on average each player at 25% resources) everyone is low on resources and needs rest. Thats just the basic game balance mechanics at work. The problem is that save DCs arent anywhere near that scale. Not even remotely. A crazy maxxed out save dc caster should parallel a crazy maxxed out ac tank. And crazy ac tanks get hit something like 1 in 10, thats 8x more effective than normal. The caster version is at best 50/50 and often far worse even against normal opposition. So while you can increase tanking power something like 8 fold (say 75% to 10%), you can only increase casting power from 10% chance to fail a save to 50% chance to fail, or 5 fold. 8>5, hence spells are under powered relative to melee. Note, Im only talking Save DCs here, you start factoring in other things and it can change, but in a d20 system saves are kinda broke. Then on top of this fact, look at what it takes do this. To nullify saves, you buy 1 magic item of resistance for 25000gp. That, plus most 1-class-into-1-prc-builds with medium ability scores gets you to pretty near that +15 save mark, on average across your saves, for the 50/50 pass chance. Thats it. 25k gp. Now it takes a lot more to get that AC build, but it also isnt nullified by a single trivial commonplace item. A built around save dc character, sacking feats items levels etc into it, and as long as people have 1 single common item he gets reduced to 50/50 effectiveness. That or just a cleric around to buff them, which is far more likley for monsters and such. Point being, save dcs have it harsh. Which makes me wonder if perhaps most spells were written and balanced under the assumption they *wouldnt* be successful. Kind of like most attacks are misses for most characters due to the itiritive scaling at high end. But since you can attack forever and only cast a limited amount, it sure feels a lot worse when you get that no effect. It also makes sense to just wegh spells towards ones that have no resist check at all, such as heals or buffs that are beneficial and never resisted by your targets. |
| Tenzhi07-06-05, 01:11 PM | So while you can increase tanking power something like 8 fold (say 75% to 10%), you can only increase casting power from 10% chance to fail a save to 50% chance to fail, or 5 fold. 8>5, hence spells are under powered relative to melee. This is of course made up for by the facts that: a missed attack does nothing whilst a missed save usually still results in an effect; all melee attacks require a roll, but not so with all spells; spell effects are generally more devastating on an individual basis than melee attacks. |
| Lofwyr407-06-05, 06:10 PM | Eh, now you start getting into how min/max your group is. Rather than try to point out systemic flaws here Ill just say that within the rules its possible for melee and magic to be quite similar damage wise, but that spells can offer unique effects beyond damage. Whether or not those unique effects are worth the likley low chance to work becomes a judgement call based on your group and the situation and the effect in question, but Im inclined to say that IMO such things are scaled too low. |
| Silmarien Aldalome07-06-05, 06:36 PM | @ Lofwyr4 Thank you kindly for the posts, I will return to work with them at the end of my working day (it's time to go to work here in Australia, now, while you guyz are gearing into the evening). @ Tenzhi I've heard from Richard Baker, second time. I'll post the basic points from that discussion, this thread, tonight :) *grins* - there's certainly some room for rethinking this whole area, is my reading of that discussion. Also, I'll review the Metamagic Thread, this evening as well. @ Reader Please join in, or ask questions. Lateral thinking is important for this thread. |
| Tenzhi07-07-05, 01:51 AM | *grins* - there's certainly some room for rethinking this whole area, is my reading of that discussion. Indubitably. The interaction of magic and saving throws could be handled in any number of ways. I still say that, since the spellcaster is actively attacking with magic, he should make a magical attack roll versus the target's magical defenses. Handled this way, one wouldn't have to differentiate Spell resistance from magical saving throws (which seems redundant when you think about it). Everyone would have a Magic Attack Bonus (equal to level for Wizards/Sorcerors, probably 3/4 level for clerics/druids/bards, and 1/2 level for Paladins/Rangers/non-casters) and a Magic Defense Class (10 + Charisma modifier + other bonuses). Saving throws would be relegated to "mundane" dangers (though some spells may create "mundane" dangers in an attempt to bypass magical defenses - Fireball, for instance, might still require a reflex saving throw instead of a magical attack roll). But now I'm rambling on about hypothetical variants, as is my wont. |
| XrP-Leon The Second07-07-05, 03:30 AM | I haven't read through the whole thing, but another factor you may concider is that, even though a spell will hit less, it will do more than it's melee counterpart for that level. Kind of like the crits; do you want a 20x3 or a 19-20x 2? |
| Lofwyr407-07-05, 05:17 AM | Invalid comparison for two reasons. One, is that this is heavily dependant on your groups "normal". Our group, for example, has on several occasions had melee hits pass spells in damage and thats without trying in some cases. Total damage per turn can, in the majority of cases, be given to casters when you assume that ae spells can hit several targets. But with leap attack, full attack arcane strikes, monk flurrys with holy dmg, etc its not that hard for a melee character to deliver astounding total damage; certainly enough to be more favorable when compared with the limited use, chance to fail spells. Two is that spells are limited, melee is not. Thus while theres some weight to the view that a fighter may hit once a turn for 10 dmg, and the wizards spell will either do 30 on a failed save or 15 on a pass and thus is more; it really isnt because it depends entierly on the situational variations of the exact campaign. If all you do is fight big single guys, and you have your full spellset for each, you can probably keep up. But if its more of a fight lots of weaker fights, you can run out of magic. Especially true of higher level spells that keep closer to their melee counterparts. So even if you groups "normal" holds true to the spells are limited but more powerful comparison, the simple plot of the campaign, the encounter specifics, and even something like terrain can really put the hurt on spells. If you have to fight in a narrow corridor of passages in a catacomb for a few levels as part of a dungeon quest, its hard to use ae spells, and magic missile hardly compares to a 2hd power attack barb over a long crawl like that. |
| Silmarien Aldalome07-07-05, 05:41 AM | good stuff guyz. Thanx for your comments, everyone. Hi there XrP.L.t.2nd, Tenzhi and Lofwynr4. I'll summarise from Lofwynr4 first, into concepts: Available methods favour stacking Saves outweigh DCs stacking methods where; DCs are already set quite low in any case. Your chances of a success with your spell, even for a high level spell aren't worth writing home about; factoring in spells that have some effect after saves, methods to completely nullify effects of spells and magic-nerfing methods are plentiful; Maxxed out AC tanks outperform maxxed out Spell-DC tanks, statistically speaking, when you do the maths (ozzie drawls) and consider Encounter game-balancing principles in the numbers; 25,000gp sunk into one Resistance item nerfs lots of magic, and even though AC stacking is very expensive, all your DC stacking can be nerfed with a single carefully chosen purchase; A well-stacked fighting tank doesn't run out of steam like a nerfable-difficult-to-stack-DC-tired-wizard; melee characters are easily constructable who do astounding damage (And, I've seen this done, many times myself. Does 140 HP in the first melee round done by a fighting-tank ring any de-ja-vu bells for you Wizards out there? What's the use of having an Archmage of 20th level, with under 100 HP if your AC-Melee Tanks go *chop-bye-bye-Wizard* on the first initiative round they're more likely to win) regards stav |
| Silmarien Aldalome07-07-05, 05:46 AM | I'm going to post this thread to Richar Baker, on his thread, where a few sister comments have been made. I'll fetch my post from that thread, and post it. stav |
| Silmarien Aldalome07-07-05, 05:49 AM | A three-pronged argument is offered, for your digestion. Prong One: DCs and Saves may be more equivalent than thought: penalties to Savings Throws can be imposed onto others and on-mass, relatively easily. While one may choose Saving Throw increments for one's self or comrades, - there are numerous spells for affecting savings throws in reverse as penalties. This has the same (nett) effect on a target as a modification to a DC. Some of these negative Savings Throw mods are Area of Effect spells, such as something like a Warlock's Blast-Shape Invocations, which can affect multiple targets (e.g. the Utterdark Dark Eldritch Essence Invocation as an Eldrich Cone - *deadly* - negatives through -2 penalty levels per go to all in the Cone [Fort Save negates]). Ditto for Song/hearing range effects, or area of effect spells. Numerous methods exist, in fact for imposing penalties on Savings Throws. Thus, I still see the save and DC systems as mirror-image systems, because Save mods can be "imposed" onto targets of the caster's choice, and the distinction (between a Save and a DC) is less clear than would seem to be the case at face value. I think D&D rules have an internal inconsistency, in this regard. Futher underscored by noting all the ways of upping your Spellcasting Ability score by up to +10 points (+5 to DCs). Why take Spell Focus, when I can make a Headband of the Intellect for about 80 XP and get +1 to all DCs in one fell swoop? Prong Two: Balancing Principles for Feats across class are discontinuous across class. Numerous Wizard-Nerfing powers are abundant and readily accessible. Further, non-Wizard feats (such as Two-Weapon fighting) - that reduce penalties by (a lot), effectively allow access to double your blows with one go of the feat (which is cool, BTW). You don't see equivalent benefits for Wizard feats (without a balancer, that is, typically Wizard Feats are more 'fiercly' balanced such as Item Creation feats that spend XP, Metamagic that is expensive because it costs Spell Slots, Spell Focus [especially] is a meagre benefit to one School of Magic). Elaborating, Metamagic (as well as costing spell slots), may not be applied freely, which means you usually end up casting your, say, Silenced Magic Missiles in melee anyway (even though you're not gagged). Further giving two fourth level fighters access to Anti Magic Field (AMF) will result in the end of that "perilous" Archwizard, without too much problem (noting the unmagicked Wizard [AMF] who has BAB, AC, HP penalties). When you factor in the numerous methods that exist for accessing SR, Save Bonuses, (magic items, spells, supernatural abilities, PC and PrC abilities that protect you from magic, and the numerous methods of getting spell immunities) we see a bounty harvest of Wizard-nerfing powers. Wizards need to work to make their spells work in V3.5 - and I can hear the "yes but Wizards are powerful" comments already buzzing in the aether. Prong Three: Powers don't migrate evenly across classes. We see lots of "one way roads" in D&D. cross-class importation of powers typically flows outwards from Wizard classes to other classes: Fighters may access Wizard-like powers in many ways, and the converse is less true (excepting Tenser's Transformation and Iron Body). The three-pronged ( :devil: ) argument tabled (with i) the possibility of greater equivalence of [Spell DC]--[Spell Savings Throw] systems than is thought; ii) the wizard power-nerfing methods and feat-relative-balancing methods for Wizard c.f. Non-Wizard classes and iii) the way cross-class importation of powers work) I say there's at least a debate to be had about DCs some time some place. regards stav |
| Lofwyr407-07-05, 04:58 PM | About save dc penalties. These are really the only way to make save dcs have a satisitcally good (66% or higher) chance of failing, ie being successful from the casters point of view. However, most of them require specific classes or abilites, some of which require their own save heh. For example, fatespinner is a class that can address this area in some capacity, but it locks the caster into taking levels in a single class to fix a game mechanic. You state warlock blast can too (book not handy cant check) but again, locked into a class. I suppose if you had party syngery around lowering save dcs you could swing this around to your favor, but really you shouldnt have to. Again Im not trying to say all of magic is broken or anything crazy. Just that in most cases, spell dcs are laughably easy to counter compared to almost any other 'attack' method that could befall a PC. Easy enough to the point that almost every PC has done it, all intelligent higher level npcs would do it, to the point that it can become a game of waiting for 1s to occur to hit people with spells *without* being far-fetched. I guess my real point is that it falls apart against anyone who can make an effort to defeat it, only in this one case that effort is so easy that no one wouldnt make it. Theres other areas of casting that favor the caster hugely, but thats for another topic. As far as why take a feat when an item does more, ie int bonus vs feat bonus, the answer is simple. They stack. And what *should* be the case is that while a few bonuses help, if a caster wants to max out he can make spells difficult to resist. Which means that a caster with only an int item should have spells land (for example) maybe 60% of the time, but someone whos invested in the items and the feats as well should be more like 80%. Of course the numbers are more like 5% and 50% respectivly, hence this entier thread. |
| Tenzhi07-08-05, 01:09 AM | Why take Spell Focus, when I can make a Headband of the Intellect for about 80 XP and get +1 to all DCs in one fell swoop? Again, this has little to do with any inconsistency between DCs and Saving Throws. Spend the same amount on a Cloak of Resistance and you can get +2 to all saves which is also better than its associated feat. And coincidentally this is equivalent to the spell DC increase in the same way as the Spell Foucs/Saving Throw feats are supposed to be equivalent. @Lofwyr4: Saving throws were even easier to make in 2nd Edition, yet Wizards remained the most powerful back then as well. |
| Lofwyr407-08-05, 04:41 AM | Different game editions were balanced differently. Its been a long time since Ive reviewed any second ed material, but if memory serves wizard power was highly dependant on the opposition faced. Also, if memory serves, it wasnt possible for melee to have such high damage hits (easily topping 100 per swing in 3.5, occasionally quite more). Thus whatever power scale existed in 2nd ed, for whatever reason, has little bearing on 3.5 except perhaps as a game precedent. If this is the case, and spell saves are meant to be passed 75%+ of the time, then I would go so far as to say melee is overpowered, or that making a saving throw reduces a spells effect too greatly. Again considering that facet only, as Ive stated before when you consider all spell mechanics there are some areas such as summoning that are quite worthwhile, spell DCs leave much to be desired. |
| Tenzhi07-08-05, 05:09 AM | then I would go so far as to say melee is overpowered I can't disagree with that. There are a number of things that I would change about melee combat as well, starting with ditching multiple attacks for all but monks and fighters (who still wouldn't get as many attacks as they currently do - probably two for fighters and three for monks). And probably soon followed up by having crit multipliers apply only to base weapon damage. I'd like to know how someone is "easily" getting over 100 damage "per swing" by core rules, though. Off the top of my head - a +5 flaming frost shock thundering vicious greatsword wielded by a character who has a +12 Strength bonus through various means does 2d6+1d6+1d6+1d6+1d8+2d6+18+5+4(GWS) which is "easily" 56 points of damage per swing. And that seems like an extreme circumstance to me (and an argument for toning down extra damage from magical enhancements, too). |
| Lofwyr407-08-05, 08:18 AM | Power Attack, Leap Attack, 2hd weapon. Then just add a way to either increase your attack bonus such that you can sacrifice lots of attack without any appricable to hit loss, or take one of the multiple things in game that lets you ignore or reroute the attack loss from power attack. Charge, power attack all/most of your bab, it converts at a 1:6 ratio, bam hundreds of dmg. If you actually try, and put this on a barb with rage and that sort of thing, heaven forbid frezny, or take wildshape and gain pounce or equivalent, it goes beyond ludicrous. Theres other ways too such as a pyschic warrior powering up several powers on a charge and adding 10d6 dmg of various damages to his swing, which isnt all melee as some of its elemental and sujebct to various resistances, but it can be done without much fuss. Then theres always the holy, bane, flaming etc effects on something like a monk or a dual wielder that just land 5+ swings a turn and add up to 100+ in total; and really that comparison is still a valid one towards total spell damage. Consider that even a (random) 20d6 ae spell with a sv for half, hitting 4 targets which is very difficult to arrange, only does an average of 140 damage. The first set of things flat out bypasses this realm of spells all together, the second one about ties it assuming the caster can use his biggest/best/most optimal tools each time. Since thats hardly the case, melee tends to be better. Even if you bar the offical extra books, simply adding power attack for 5 with that greatsword you listed (offset by bardsong or bless or whatever to avoid any comparative to hit loss, or penalties/debuffs to the opponents ac, keeping relative hit chance the same) brings it up to 66 a hit, with 2-3 hits a round hes trying the casters top end. Not all that hard considering he likley has a haste item and is taking 5 swings in the least. Point being, as it stands, casting is outclassed, or the effects of making a save are too harsh, compared to relative other avenues a character could persue. And again, theres the caveat that this doesnt render casting useless (hi, heal, teleport, summons, raise, etc) as theres obviously other things, but considering direct attack spells with saves, they fall short. |
| Paul Hopebringer07-08-05, 03:10 PM | :OMG! WOW!!! .... 400+ per round for a fighter...(20d6...+200 or so... 340ish for a spell) Yeah... I'd have to say combat, taken to the limits of power, favors melee over spellcasting. I am shocked and appaled at this, actaully. I *though* they where balanced... :bigeyes: before... Yeah, I say spell focus should grant +2 to the specified spell, and a new feat... Powerful Caster... should add+1 spells. And goodness... but does anybody who sees how easy it is to pump out that kind of damage not tremble in fear at the thought of it. One round with reasonable luck will kill just about any god... assuming the damage gets through. What level would you have to be to get that kind of power anyway? 20, sure, but could you get there sooner? 20 is *far* too early, but I have a feeling that it could be done sooner... if played right, wizards and sorcerers can say goodby to their copral forms, because fighters are king of damage. SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!! :hoppingma |
| Silmarien Aldalome07-08-05, 08:54 PM | Originally Posted by Silmarien Aldalome Why take Spell Focus, when I can make a Headband of the Intellect for about 80 XP and get +1 to all DCs in one fell swoop? Again, this has little to do with any inconsistency between DCs and Saving Throws. Hi Tenzh, good to see you. It demonstrates the point, Tenzh. The Save--DC interdependency argument recognises that we have only two numbers (The DC and the Save) that create a nett effect. Lower or raise either number, and you have an adjusted outcome. The point is that mechanically speaking, changing a DC (on the caster) has the same effect on your PC as does modifying the Save (on the target) in the other direction. That you can so easily upwardly modify your DC or Save with a [cheap] Wondrous Item highlights: i) an internal inconsistency in a game-balancing principle; ii) that Spell Focus is a bogus, hyper-nerfed feat. It shouldn't get used by clear-thinking gamers, who would (appropriately) recognise a 'schizm' in the rules. IMO, DC modifications should have: a Feat or Feat series of +2 a piece, stackable, that increment your DC, in the same way other precedent feats stack Saves (note! The Save-Modifying Feats need a good twice-over as well); A series of spells, that are 'DC-targeted' just like we have with Tenser's Transformation (that, by analogy modifies BaB, HP, Dex, Str and Con), but that which specifically focuses on your spell-casting power. Tenser's Transformation is a 6th level spell, and gives you, on average 15 temporary points of Ability Score. +10 to Intelligence should be do-able with a spell two slots lower, for 1 round/level. And that method gets around the rules. In addition to getting around the rules; New Spells, Spell-Like Abilities, Supernatural Powers, Wondrous Items, Rods, Wands, (Weapons), Staffs, Feats - and possibly Skills, that add spell power to your spells. stav stav |
| Silmarien Aldalome07-08-05, 09:47 PM | @Lofwyn4r That's an interesting analysis, dude. :) You're right: methods of enhancing Melee potency are plentiful - @all ....and even though a portion of those methods come from magic, this only strengthens the DC arguments this thread. @Tenzhi Your suggestion to nerf magical melee methods don't nullify the 'DC position' I've taken. @Paul Hopebringer, Hi there Paul, good to meet you. :) It's a fair request, I'd say you're spot on there. That's a good suggestion for a new feat: Powerful Caster. @All Any other suggestions for DC enhancement are welcome as are any comments you have about either side of the debate. I wonder whether a Metamagic Feat is called for: Good to see you all stav |
| Silmarien Aldalome07-08-05, 10:00 PM | Fortify Spell This Feat allows the caster to upwardly modify the DC of her spell. The extent of upward modification depends on the spell slot spent for the exercise, and between +1 to +8, however, for every additional unit added to the DC, you must sacrifice one higher level spell slot. You may not Fortify a spell beyond your highest level spell slot. Thus, Fortifying a Charm Person with +3 units to the DC requires that the spell be cast as a 4th level spell and the caster would need to be at least 7th level. Notes This Feat simply uses the existent rules in its recalibration of the DC. Second level spells have one higher DC than first level spells, and third level spells, two higher DC units than a first level spell (which generalises in the DC formula as DC=10+spell level+Int modifier Thus, the feat preserves existent game balancing principles and is a very conservative approach to the whole "DC debate". It's also a pet bugbear of mine that a 20th level wizard casting Charm Person can't do anything to the DC and it's hard to swallow that 20th level version of such a spell should be as underwhelming as the same spell cast by a first level caster. The more radical method, would be to make DCs look like this in the spell general formula (i.e. at the behest of every caster, even without a feat): DC=10+Level Spell is Cast at (not spell level)+Modifier. Think about Scrolls here, and the Caster's choice to prepare a spell at lower level. This method lets all spells become harder to beat as the Wizard rises in power. Which, if you think about it, should make sense. Such a position is the basis for Counter-Magic and Dispel Magic checks and is also the basis of SR checks. Why shouldn't such graces be extended to the Caster in regard to defeating Savings Throws? there are some mechanical problems with the proposed formula. There are several ways to fix them. :) regards stav |
| cryptictravler07-08-05, 11:59 PM | You make several points above save DCs which are not really fair comparisons. Bonus to save DCs are worth way less than than Spell Focus for a good deal of reasons. The first is focus: many if not most wizards are focused on a type of magic, while very few characters focus on saves (perhaps the paladin). The second is net effect. Spells tend to target many people or creatures quite often, thus the taking of Spell Focus works against many creatures while Iron will only involves 1. This is the main balancing factor. A mage casts fireball on 4 people (a standard party) if one person (the caster) has spell focus and one person (targetted) has iron will, there is still a net -2 on the rolls for saves against an encounter where nobody has either feat. The third is survivability. The rules for monsters and NPCs are very similar to PC spell mechanics...relatively speaking more one round deaths happen when saves are low than high. That means that given that characters fight more in any given campaign than NPCs they both die more often as the result of one spell. Dying PCs is avoided by the game mechanics because it makes the game more fun. The fourth is flexibility. Mages are smart and have many spells avaliable as well as the ability to choose those spells to adaquately hit them where it hurts. Mages tailor their spells to inflict maximum damage/effect and get the flexibility to do such. Save feats are much more passive and do a lot to protect NPCs/PCs weak spots rather than improve strengths if they are chosen wisely. As a fighter it can be assumed that wizards who cast spells at you will target weaker point like reflex saves and will saves more often than your fort save. Thus it is more effective to boost lower saves. The fifth is balance. At levels 1-4 wizards suck and suck bad. To make up for it they dominate at levels 16-20. But between 5-15 the good spells and value of saves change. At 5th level spells like fireball are effective at stopping enemies and winning battles, at those levels save boosting feats are relatively less costly because you have what your build needs to get its job done and because saves matter a lot here they are more worth it. The same goes for items which grant save bonuses you can afford them and they matter. At high level saves matter less. Most mages either avoid spells with saves (because they are relatively less powerful) or target low saves. In either case you are pretty much screwed either way feat or not. So really all the time that either feat matters is levels 5-12 maybe. In that range wizards becom very powerful and very able to knock multiple oponents out of battle at once with careful spell selection. Feats like Iron will are "better" than Spell Focus because they are more relatively costly. They are used less, in less advantageous roles. If you really ant to see how effective either is...look at the in game effects. How many casters have Spell Focus and how many have a save feat not requred for a PrC. |
| Silmarien Aldalome07-09-05, 12:15 AM | Hello there Cryptictraveller, thanx for your post, and good to meet you :) Just on your first point. Save-focussed PCs Paladin; Slippery-Mind of the thief; Monks and mega-save progressions; PrCs that boost SR, that have Spell Immunities, DR (versus elemental damage), or that yield anti-magic benefits etc. There's a truck load of events, abilities that create the same kinds of effects as Save-Bonuses, in distinct clusters of powers. - Evocation spells and spells, in general that do damage aren't special. Everything does lots of damage in D&D, so Area of Effect DC-related damage spells aren't really the concerns of game-balancers of DCs. They're more concerned with the 'save or die' effects. - But as noted, you can impose a downward effect, on mass, to enemies saves, in any case. regards stav Dimensions of analysis noted: Generalisability (of Save-focussed PCs/PrCs); nett Effect; Survivability; Flexibility; Balance. |
| Silmarien Aldalome07-09-05, 12:24 AM | I've responded to Dimension one (Generalisability) and partially to Dimension three (Survivability). I'll wait for others to post their thoughts, before adding any more. :) stav |
| Silmarien Aldalome07-09-05, 01:23 AM | I just realised something. An upward mod on your own Save doesn't just affect you - it's an effect that (effectively) downwardly affects DCs of all Casters in the lands. This makes it the *mirror-image* opposite to an upward Mod to a DC. Same nett number of people affected - the whole magical d&d universe. stav |
| Silmarien Aldalome07-09-05, 01:54 AM | Wait, I've had another flash. Improved Evasion Not just +2 to all Reflex Saves - much more. Successful save for Nil damage. |
| Tenzhi07-09-05, 01:57 AM | @Tenzhi Your suggestion to nerf magical melee methods don't nullify the 'DC position' I've taken. I wasn't really trying to. I was meandering. But such a change WOULD affect the balance of magic vs. melee, the relative power of spells, and the overall need for balancers of magic. The more radical method, would be to make DCs look like this in the spell general formula (i.e. at the behest of every caster, even without a feat): DC=10+Level Spell is Cast at (not spell level)+Modifier. Think about Scrolls here, and the Caster's choice to prepare a spell at lower level. This method lets all spells become harder to beat as the Wizard rises in power. Which, if you think about it, should make sense. Such a position is the basis for Counter-Magic and Dispel Magic checks and is also the basis of SR checks. Why shouldn't such graces be extended to the Caster in regard to defeating Savings Throws? Using caster level rather than spell level in save DCs is what I would (and as I recall DID) suggest (it makes more sense flavour-wise to me anyway). But in such a case, methods to raise such a gratuitous number higher should be extremely rare if they existed at all. After all, at 20th level we're talking about a base save DC of 30 before ability modifier is factored in. Probably 36-38+ after that if you allowed the ability modifier to factor in (which I wouldn't). But again, that's really just taking a step towards making Saving throws and Spell Resistance the same (and there's no reason they should be seperate really). Just take 10 on your saving throw and make the caster roll instead of taking 10 on his caster level check and you're there. - Evocation spells and spells, in general that do damage aren't special. Everything does lots of damage in D&D, so Area of Effect DC-related damage spells aren't really the concerns of game-balancers of DCs. They're more concerned with the 'save or die' effects. - But as noted, you can impose a downward effect, on mass, to enemies saves, in any case. And here's the kicker. Save or Die effects are scary bad. You can impose en masse save penalties. Ergo, making the save penalties worse by adding more increases to spell DCs should be a Really Bad Idea. But as you've pointed out repeatedly there are easy ways to increase your Spell DC already (or impose a save penalty which, according to the thrust of your argument, is the same thing). So there doesn't appear to be a system-wide inconsistency there. Which brings us to the Spell Focus/Saving Throw feats - the only place I see an argument for inconsistency between the two being somewhat valid. |
| Silmarien Aldalome07-09-05, 02:09 AM | Hi Tenzhi, Good to see you. But such a change WOULD affect the balance of magic vs. melee, the relative power of spells, and the overall need for balancers of magic and so it SHOULD, when a discontinuity and inconsistency in rules is discovered. regards stav |
| Silmarien Aldalome07-09-05, 02:11 AM | And here's the kicker. Save or Die effects are scary bad. You can impose en masse save penalties. Ergo, making the save penalties worse by adding more increases to spell DCs should be a Really Bad Idea. *smiles* the answer is it depends on your point of view. What did you think of the new Metamagic Feat I posted? |
| Tenzhi07-09-05, 02:24 AM | What did you think of the new Metamagic Feat I posted? If I'm not mistaken, it would be better to just use Heighten Spell - which does the same thing and a tiny bit more for the same spell slot usage if I'm reading right. I was more enamoured of the changes to the overall Save DC system. |
| Silmarien Aldalome07-09-05, 02:29 AM | If I'm not mistaken, it would be better to just use Heighten Spell - which does the same thing and a tiny bit more for the same spell slot usage if I'm reading right. I was more enamoured of the changes to the overall Save DC system. To the bold face :bow: Hmmm, interesting - there's more versatility with this feat, perhaps. You can choose how much you improve the spell's DC. A Charm Person with a DC of 19, base, plus say, five (Int 20 = 24) rocks and to use Richard Baker's words - it's getting closer to being more like a beating to recipients. As it should be, when Saruman used his Voice - and much like we see with the DR system with Deities. The greater DR deity suppresses the Aura of the lesser Deity. stav |
| Tenzhi07-09-05, 02:30 AM | *smiles* the answer is it depends on your point of view. From my POV as either a player or a DM, save or die effects are scary bad. I don't like to see players dropped by them from either side of the DM screen, and I don't like to see BBEGs taken out by them from either side of the screen either. Except for elves. I like seeing those things die in any way possible - again from either side of the screen, even (especially?) if I'm playing it at the time. |
| Tenzhi07-09-05, 02:33 AM | Hmmm, interesting - there's more versatility with this feat, perhaps. You can choose how much you improve the spell's DC. A Charm Person with a DC of 19, base, plus say, five (Int 20 = 24) rocks and to use Richard Baker's words - it's getting closer to being more like a beating to recipients. You can do the same with Heighten Spell. You merely choose to heighten it to 9th level. Heighten Spell also has the benefit of allowing the spell to get through Spell Immunity and Globes of Invulnerability. |
| Silmarien Aldalome07-09-05, 04:07 AM | I've never liked Save-or-Die effects either. They are scary. I hate being the recipient of them. However, it just means one must enter into Melee with some forward planning of them. They are things to factor into your melee strategy, much like anything. And, we do have (thank god) numerous nerfing effects for such save-or-die effects. Enough nerfability that you can feel comfortable providing DC-privileges to Wizards :devil: You can do the same with Heighten Spell. You merely choose to heighten it to 9th level. Heighten Spell also has the benefit of allowing the spell to get through Spell Immunity and Globes of Invulnerability. The truth: I've never read Heighten with fully open eyes. Even though I'm a metamagic head and have created metamagic PrCs and concepts and researched metamagic equivalents in other PrCs (and there are numerous instances of 'invisible' metamagic like concepts in a number of PrCs from Complete Arcane) Heighten is a blind spot. Thanks for the thumbs up. stav |
| Lofwyr407-09-05, 04:30 AM | Few tid bits. First, one of my whole points was that as far as DCs are concerned, no character has to focus on them to effectivly resist them. Thats the problem. If you go over the list of bonus types which can be applied to saves, and then the list that can be applied to save dcs, youll see one is numerous and easily aquired and the other is skimpy and pricey. Thus every player or important npc can, well within reason, have a high defense against any effect of this sort. Second, casters dont dominate 16-20. Nothing does. A well balanced, well played party can bring all its abilites to bear and crush an encounter. But no single pc (other than broken builds which do occur but are obviously not intended) dominates anything. They certainly have unique abilites but that hardly makes them dominate. A frenzy berzerker making a heedless charge leap attack at level 20 using a 2hd does +240 points of powerattack alone per hit while keeping his full attack bonus, not counting the weapons base or strenght or elemental damage or anything else; spells dont even come close. But he also cannot teleport, or summon creatures, or heal the party. Relative class balance cannot be determined by one facet alone, but save dcs do share an unequal standing in that they are so easily countered as to be more of a formality than some sort of game mechanic relative to other variables of characters. Theres no trade off of being worse off at one level for better play later, each level should be balanced relative to others at that level. Third, the source of dc modification is largely irrelevent, Im not sure why thats a resurfacing theme. I frankly dont care that one bonus is easier to get than another, thats going to exist in any game just because some things will always be easier to get; if everything were equally attainable choices would become immaterial and everyone would wind up similar. I like that theres easy to get bonuses for characters that dabble in an area, and harder to get ones for those that want to specialize. But the amounts of said bonuses should reflect those availabilites, and they clearly do not. Thats the part I find relevent. A +6 int item adds 3 to a save, a feat adds 1, and the feat is hands down more costly. Not only is it less effective in its modifier category (as in, the feat is worse than the item at boosting the same thing) but its also worse relative to other feats which provide a greater increase. Basically, if you want to boost a save take the item, if you want to boost soemthing with a feat take another; its never a good choice. At some point it should be, or its useless. Thats what I feel needs adjusting. Fourth, the existance of Heightend Spell is not a solution. Nor a justification. *At best* this allows a caster to elevate any spell to his best save dc. Which is still utterly lacking as most of the time its 75%+ to fail. On top of that it cuts into his number of casts per day by limting all his magics, not just his best, to compete with his highest level spell slots, further reducing his number of effective spells per day. And, on top of that, he just lost a feat relative to other characters to do it. This feat is very good, and it has a place in the game. But it is not a solution to the save dc issue by any means, in fact it does little but further hurt the caster trying to employ it in this manner by tightening his resources further for little if any gain. |
| Tenzhi07-09-05, 04:51 AM | First, one of my whole points was that as far as DCs are concerned, no character has to focus on them to effectivly resist them. And no character SHOULD have to focus on them to effectively resist them. If anything, spellcasters should have to focus on save DCs to the exclusion of other things in order to more effectively overcome resistance to his spells. A +6 int item adds 3 to a save, a feat adds 1, and the feat is hands down more costly. Not only is it less effective in its modifier category (as in, the feat is worse than the item at boosting the same thing) but its also worse relative to other feats which provide a greater increase. This isn't relevant to the issue of Spell DCs versus Saving throws, however, as it is a "problem" with any given feat bonus as compared to magic items. The fact that the feat bonuses typically stack with the magic item bonuses further makes the comparison (between feats/items) pointless. Fourth, the existance of Heightend Spell is not a solution. Nor a justification. For my part, I never indicated that it was. I was just pointing out that the "new" feat above wasn't in fact new. I will point out, however, that heightened spell does become a viable/partial solution when used with my Metamagic variant (shich should still be posted nearby). |
| Silmarien Aldalome07-09-05, 08:28 AM | Third, the source of dc modification is largely irrelevent, Im not sure why thats a resurfacing theme. You're right - not all available methods should be exactly the same. That would be boring. Still as you point out - some 'tests of equivalence' are important for bench-marking game-balancing, especially when talking about modification to the DC system. :) The way the DC Source is developed, accessed and applied, may assist us to understand what to do with game-balancing in the area. :) For example, five game-balancing principles to think about, when deciding "what", "how much benefit", "how easy to access" for a modification to the DC system. 1. Versatility (of available methods of access to DC modifications) 2. Specialisation (of available methods of access to DC modifications) 3. Generalisability (of available methods of access to DC modification) and 4. Quantity (of availability methods of access to DC modification) 5. And - the numbers - how much benefit is the last dimension. regards stav |
| Silmarien Aldalome07-09-05, 08:34 AM | Fourth, the existance of Heightend Spell is not a solution. True. It merely uses the existent spell system to reiterate existent DC features. And thereby, reiterate existing flaws in the current system. You're right, you never cross the upper threshold of DC limits when you use Heightened Spell. It does come down to percentage thresholds. The 70% figure you cite being one such bottom-line. @all In a world where PrCs are certainly moving away from the CORE Rules boundaries, as laid out by the DMG (hava look at the ka-gillions of ways one can Optimise and Specialise - it's massive), the Save-Enhancement magic-nerfability systems have outgrown/outperformed the DC-Enhancement systems. You don't much moving of the boundaries in DC-specialist PrCs even though Nerfability of Magic continues to thrive. (well - I'm exaggerating a bit :) we do see the proliferation of magic as well - but - new spells that use old DCs isn't really 'pushing the boundary' as it were). *winks* stav |
| Silmarien Aldalome07-09-05, 08:43 AM | Some Options for Enhancing DC Thresholds Burn multiple spell slots with one casting and add the DC of the extra spell(s) burned to the DC of the spell-effect you desire to turn into a Rocket Drive to Mars; Burn XP to make your DC higher (a bit like the Epic Level Magic system); Create Spells, Spell-Like Effects, Supernatural Powers, Feats and Skills just for the purpose, and adapt them to PrCs and Core Classes; Add (extra) casting time options to spell casting in exchange for more joo joo on your DC (it's balanced - it exposes you to other Melee risks). and.... Nag your DM until she or he can't stand your voice anymore and gives you what you want for the sake of peace and quiet ;) One example for a Spell Series Necromancy Spell Series Syphon lifeforce from opponents (or self) and channel into Spell Power. Transformation Spell Series Do something like Simbul's Spell Matrix and Rods of Absorbtion - capture and collect Spell power, and channel it into your own Spells. Not that different to Metamagic Rods, really. regards stav |
| Lofwyr407-09-05, 02:06 PM | Honestly I think that either adding new feats (or making the old ones not useless), or something akin to psyonics where if youre on a spell point system you can spend more to up the dc, are the two best options. Not that either is super user friendly, but as it stands I think something should be done. I really dont see why the feats were changed from +2 to +1, really that along with 1-2 other similar things alone would put them almost back to where they should (imo) be. |
| premier66607-10-05, 11:20 PM | Power Attack, Leap Attack, 2hd weapon. Then just add a way to either increase your attack bonus such that you can sacrifice lots of attack without any.... really? So, anyways, let me see. You get a giant, ot something bigger, but stupidier. put him with 200, 300 hp. Then use aumented hold person and kill him with a dagger. Ok, technically we just did 200 damage with a single spell. Or, we could make like this: Use empowered, quickened scorching ray: 18d6. the put empowered chain lighting, or another 20d6 damaging spell: 18d6+30d6 is... 48d6, wich adds to an average of: 144 damage, 90 of wich afect potentially 10 targets. So adding all: melee damage is good for one-on-one combat only, but magic kills a lot of enemys at once, thus reducing he damage you receive, are usefull to other things, (tell me, what is our great fighter gonna do if he faces a sea of lava? swim?) and can potentially kill with one spell. Take the Wail of the banshee, potentially, It can kill 20 creatures. Yeah, there is always save, but what if you roll low and fails? instant death! now, back to the DC thingy: So, realy. If the DCs of spells were higher, can you imagine the horror, of our the other classes? Mage to the frickeng Gold dragon great wirm: I dont like you, die. Wail of the banshee. Dragon: blergh, I'm dead. the end. see what I mean? there should be more damaging spells that require touch attacks, instead of saves, thats all. Area spells are suposed to allow someone to get out of the way. Also: magic items are a DMs option. Not all wall-marts sell a headband of intelect. and, if you waste a feat with magic item creation, the why not waste it with spell foucs? I think thats all for now. more to be added later |
| Silmarien Aldalome07-11-05, 12:00 AM | Hi Premier, We've addressed these arguments above. :) I'll briefly restate Nerfability methods are many and varied; they range from Spell Resistance, anti-magic, dispel magic, counter-magic options, specialist anti-magic PrCs and Classes (Thief, Monk, anti-magic specialists, paladins, and many more) and that's before you factor in: Anti-magic methodologies and the armada of Abjuration techniques. Basically magic be used against itself, and numerous spells exist to this effect; DC thresholds are interdependent with Savings Throws thresholds, and numberous methods exist for affecting savings throws anyway; The game-mechanics mathematics demonstrate entitlements are stacked away from DC-Augmentation, when you use averages and aggregates to look at the overall picture; In Rules Addenda (e.g. Unearthed Arcana, Complete Arcane), Save-Enhancement magic-nerfability systems have outgrown/outperformed the DC-Enhancement systems. Wizards have to work hard to make their spells work in V3. That is, in the balance of probabilities and in the balance of evidence - a strong argument exists for justifying access to DC privileges. If you don't do this, then, you can 'get around the rules' anyway, by using the internal inconsistency in the rules to structure a PrC that downwardly modifies savings throws of targets. As Richard Baker says, everyone does lots of damage in D&D - it's not Evocation spells or damage-only spells that are important. That's aside from being easily able to prepare nerfability strategies for these magics. It's the Save-or-Die effects that game balancers are concerned with. stav |
| Silmarien Aldalome07-11-05, 12:25 AM | Honestly I think that either adding new feats (or making the old ones not useless), or something akin to psyonics where if youre on a spell point system you can spend more to up the dc, are the two best options. Not that either is super user friendly, but as it stands I think something should be done. I really dont see why the feats were changed from +2 to +1, really that along with 1-2 other similar things alone would put them almost back to where they should (imo) be. I think both strategies are really good ideas. Feats, or feat-like processes on the one hand and Psionics and the power-point system on the other. Metaconcerting Spell You may combine with other casters to fortify the DC of the spell you are casting. Doing so sacrifices the spell slots of yourself and the other casters enjoined in the shared casting. mechanics pending, but options are: add individual DC effects together; add a flat-modifier (e.g. +2) to the DC for every spell slot expended; add a part of the second spell slot expended into the DC; extend range, duration, etc by a multiple of the number of casters enjoined, and fortify DC by a bit (e.g. +2). options for balancing; put a cap on the number of casters you can combine; burn XP, or create risk for the casters; extend times taken to cast; burn constitution. Fortify Spell (VII) Benefit You may expend two spells in one go, and redirect the Spellpower of one spell into the DC of the second spell. Effects on the DC are additive. You may not burn any two spells if the combined level of both spells exceeds your highest-level spell slot. For example, Mialee is 9th level and she chooses to cast a Fortified Fireball. She chooses to upwardly modify the DC by as much as she can at 9th level and because she cast a 3rd level spell (Fireball) she may only sacrifice the spell slot of a 1st or second level spell. The new DC of the modified Fireball is [(10+3+Ability Adjustment) + (10+2+Ability Adjustment)]. *mua ha ha* ;) If you think that's over the top, then perhaps, the formula should read: [(10+3+Ability Adjustment)+(2+Ability Adjustment)]. In this second model, you only get the benefit of the spell itself, rather than two goes at +10. The Formula Generalises [(10+Spell Level+Ability Adjustment)+(Spell Level of Second Spell+Ability Adjustment)] I've left the Ability Modifier in there twice on purpose. Removing it reduces the Feat to Heighten Spell. *smiles* |
| Lofwyr407-11-05, 09:38 AM | Premier I dont think you fully thought out that math. If youre taking max end examples, the frenzy berz does 240/hit minimum, without str or weapon dmg, and combined with pounce etc thats 4x240/rd. Which is about the same as your total spell damage. Except that if 9/10 of those targets pass saves, a percent which has been stated and not yet proved wrong, he does about x2 as much damage. So, its about even in your example except saves screw the caster. Omgz, entier thread was right! But you do bring up one point. That AE spells, which are actually able to affect a high number of targets (very, very difficult to do in my games past the low end when swarms of goblins or something are the baseline encounter, as you get higher the number of enemies drops to maybe 10 in a big fight and theyre more spread out due to casting ability etc etc) you can brute force check a 1 on a save roll. Thats one statistical strategy for dealing with saves, always 5% chance to succeed. But it can be difficult to have both an encounter, and a party, condusive to making this happen. You need a lot of enemies in a small space with a fairly harsh spell effect without hitting any players, and may need to do it 2-3 times in a row depending on what exactly youre trying to do. Certainly not effecient, but if you try heightend slow a few times a fight and eventually land it on half the mobs it can be quite effective, as the rest of the party may have the other half dead by the time you pull it off, thus making finishing the fight easy. But it takes a lot of resources and luck and time (in actions spent) to do, not an option all the time. Fortiy spell sounds really interesting. If Im reading that right it would basically be like: for example a guy who can cast a max of 5th level spells, can fortify any cast using a 2nd spell up to 4th, which would then add the 2nd spells level to the dc. So like, a save 19 level 5 spell could go to save 22 if he burns a 3rd level slot when he casts it? Thats got potential. |
| Silmarien Aldalome07-11-05, 06:37 PM | Hi there Lofwyn thanx for the post, and also thanx to Premier as well. :) Hi everyone, I've been re-reading some of the sections in DMG on the area. There's a really good section headed "Difficulty" which is relevant to the discussion (p. 49-50). Some of the Difficulty Factors the Tome talks about: Tight Quarters make it more difficult for rogues; A spread out force makes things more difficult for spellcasters; Many lesser foes are harder for a character to engane in melee in than one more powerful foe; Undead are much more difficult to fight without a Cleric; Encounters involving animals orplants are much more difficult wihtou a druid or a ranger in the party; Encounters involving evil outsiders are much more difficult without a paladin or clierc and perhaps a wizard or sorcerer; Locked doors and traps are much more difficult to overcome without a rogue in the party; Multiple combat encounters are more difficult to win without a fighter, a barbarian, a ranger or a paladin in the party; Multiple combat encounters are more difficult to survive without a cleric in the party; The bard and the cleric make good group support characters. Their presence makes practically every encounter easier. None of the above factors should necessarily be taken into account when assisgning or modifying Challenge Ratings, but you should keep them in mind when designing encounters. (p. 50) |
| Silmarien Aldalome07-11-05, 06:42 PM | By analogy, "Difficulty" is not conceptualised as a function of Spell-DC. In contrast, we see Difficulty organised by context (see last post). There is a Spellcraft DC check when casting spells, and there's a table for it in the Players Handbook (e.g. casting whilst riding a horse, versus standing still). Casting DC, though, is different to Save DC and Save DCs. Save DCs have a ka-gillion methods of being modified by Save modifiers (on the savings throw end) and an armada of tools to boot. Spell DCs, though, is a bland, 'one-size-fits-all' concept. There's much more to it than just: 10+Spell Level+Ability Modifier regards stav |
| Silmarien Aldalome02-13-06, 08:31 AM | :bump: <--snip--> That AE spells, which are actually able to affect a high number of targets (very, very difficult to do in my games past the low end when swarms of goblins or something are the baseline encounter, as you get higher the number of enemies drops to maybe 10 in a big fight and theyre more spread out due to casting ability etc etc) you can brute force check a 1 on a save roll. Thats one statistical strategy for dealing with saves, always 5% chance to succeed. But it can be difficult to have both an encounter, and a party, condusive to making this happen. You need a lot of enemies in a small space with a fairly harsh spell effect without hitting any players, and may need to do it 2-3 times in a row depending on what exactly youre trying to do. Certainly not effecient, but if you try heightend slow a few times a fight and eventually land it on half the mobs it can be quite effective, as the rest of the party may have the other half dead by the time you pull it off, thus making finishing the fight easy. But it takes a lot of resources and luck and time (in actions spent) to do, not an option all the time. Good point. Strategy and metamagic are areas to define that get us to think about whether or not metamagic is overpowered. The 'area of effect spells are hard to get the mass casualties in' is on target, I think. Most NPCs have in-built strategies for melee, in the hands of a shrewd DM, where casualties of area effect spells are limited. This has trickle-down effects into our thinking about power-balance and metamagic that extends area of effect spells. Fortiy spell sounds really interesting. If Im reading that right it would basically be like: for example a guy who can cast a max of 5th level spells, can fortify any cast using a 2nd spell up to 4th, which would then add the 2nd spells level to the dc. So like, a save 19 level 5 spell could go to save 22 if he burns a 3rd level slot when he casts it? Thats got potential. I'm with you on this. Ways to fortify DCs should be an okay thing to do, especially when we can see all the ways we have at our disposal to negatively affect a DC or downwardly modify a save. cheers stav |
| elven warriorXX02-16-06, 02:17 PM | I agree with this (Did not read all of thread, to long and to many big words). Save Bonuses overpower the DCs at higher levels, all monsters will be making their Saving throws. I think that Spell focus should also give +2 or maybe +1 to DC, +1 to caster level. Also it should go like this, DC=10+spell level+int mod+Level mod (see below). Another more powerful way is to make DCs like this, DC=10+1/2 spell level (rounded down)+1/2 caster level+int mod. And another way is to do it like this, DC=Int score+spell level. LEVEL MOD At starting at 5th level the Spellcasters gain a +1 to DCs, this increases to +2 at 10th level, +3 at 15th level and +4 at 20th level. VARIANT LEVEL MOD As above but +1 at 4th, +2 at 8th, +3 at 12th, +4 at 16th, and +5 at 20th. This should fix the balance between Save bonuses and Spell DCs. |
| Silmarien Aldalome02-18-06, 09:29 PM | I agree with this (Did not read all of thread, to long and to many big words). Save Bonuses overpower the DCs at higher levels, all monsters will be making their Saving throws. I think that Spell focus should also give +2 or maybe +1 to DC, +1 to caster level. Also it should go like this, DC=10+spell level+int mod+Level mod (see below). Another more powerful way is to make DCs like this, DC=10+1/2 spell level (rounded down)+1/2 caster level+int mod. And another way is to do it like this, DC=Int score+spell level. LEVEL MOD At starting at 5th level the Spellcasters gain a +1 to DCs, this increases to +2 at 10th level, +3 at 15th level and +4 at 20th level. VARIANT LEVEL MOD As above but +1 at 4th, +2 at 8th, +3 at 12th, +4 at 16th, and +5 at 20th. This should fix the balance between Save bonuses and Spell DCs. Hi there Elven WarriorXX!! I like this stuff in your post. +5 by 20th level, I think, is a very sensible way to go. It's 25% extra, which, if you were looking at ways of modifying savings throws, you could easily do in many other ways. So - I don't see overpowering problems with what you're suggesting. On another point, I've had a look at Complete Arcane since cutting this thread, and the models of Metamagic developed in some of their feats, are really improved on PHB ideas. There are whole feat series that let you get better control over metamagic without spending as many spell slots. The Incantatrix was probably one of the most controversial PrCs discussed at the Boards, at least as far as I saw. But, I reckon I can create an Optimised PC, and specialist in metamagic using just PHB materials, that by 17th level, could do most of the things an Incantatrix could do. regards stav |
| elven warriorXX02-18-06, 11:04 PM | Hi there Elven WarriorXX!! I like this stuff in your post. +5 by 20th level, I think, is a very sensible way to go. It's 25% extra, which, if you were looking at ways of modifying savings throws, you could easily do in many other ways. So - I don't see overpowering problems with what you're suggesting. On another point, I've had a look at Complete Arcane since cutting this thread, and the models of Metamagic developed in some of their feats, are really improved on PHB ideas. There are whole feat series that let you get better control over metamagic without spending as many spell slots. The Incantatrix was probably one of the most controversial PrCs discussed at the Boards, at least as far as I saw. But, I reckon I can create an Optimised PC, and specialist in metamagic using just PHB materials, that by 17th level, could do most of the things an Incantatrix could do. regards stav Thanks for liking my idea :) |
| mayhembynight03-08-06, 04:21 PM | I Believe that the DC's for spell's can be to high for low lvl characters and to low for high lvl characters so I use this house rule. House Rule Alert: The DC's for spell's is 10 or caster level (whichever is higher) + level of spell.+ ability modifier( Chr for Bard etc....). This doesn't effect the DC's at the dangerous low levels but low level spells are still useful at high levels. |
| elven warriorXX03-09-06, 02:57 PM | Thats a good rule so a 20th level rogue will have a +22 or so on there Reflex (+5 for dex, +5 for some magical items and +12 for base bonus) and a Spell DC of a 20th level wizard casting a 9th level spell would be about 35 (9 for spell, 20 for caster level, and +6 for int). This seems good, but maybe just 1/2 of the Spell level so that the DC is 30 instead of 35 or so. Has this rule been balanced in game play? |
| jrg211803-11-06, 06:37 PM | First off, I was trying to read this whole thread but it becomes a bit much after a while, so my apologizes for repeating concepts and arguments. I am houseruling for my game that Spell Focus adds +2 to all DC's and stacks if taken mulitple times. This might seem like a lot, but it makes it more attractive in comparison to other feats (like metamagics). If you think this is unbalanced compared to the feats that augment one Save (such as Fort +2), remember that Fort is also used for poison and diseases, etc., not just spells. So, the bonus applies to just one area but is used against EVERYTHING that area encompasses. --- Now for some other things: Using (DC=10+Spell Caster Level+Modifier) is an option, but severly unbalanced in many situations, especially at Epic levels where bonus spell power raises effective caster level. However, consider a 10th level caster with a +5 modifier casting a 5th level spell. The DC is 25 compared to 20 normally. At that same level, consider the "good" save (+7) plus 5 modifier (reasonable) + 4 magic = +16 save bonus. This gives your opponent about a 40% chance of failing compared to the 25% normally. Is it balanced that my character has a 40% chance of failing something he's supposed to be good at saving against? Not really IMHO. Consider the same scenario against a "poor" save with a bonus of +10 roughly. Against the new system I would have to roll a 15 or higher! I mere 30% chance of success. With the normal system I would still need a 12 or higher or a 45% chance of success. The problem I also see with this system is the save is the same regardless of spell level. More powerful spells should be more difficult to resist IMO. --- Finally, spell DC as is is fairly reasonable. Spells are more versitile, often have some effect even if the save is made, can affect multiple targets, and so on. I don't think the base spell DC system really needs to be altered. As is, with buffs and such, the "good" save will be made roughly 60% of the time at lower levels up to 90% at 20th. The "poor" save, in contrast, is only made about 35% at low levels to maybe 50% of the time at 20th. What this tells spellcasters is to exploit the weakness of your enemy (thus increasing your chances of them failing their saves) and/or find alternative ways of using magic to your advantage. Spell Focus, however, was another matter and it needed to be improved or it would so very rarely get taken. :( That's it and this is a good thread, it really made me think about spell DC (which at one time I too thought needed changing...). Cheers, -Jim |
| Xeviat-DM03-12-06, 03:40 AM | Alright people; all things created equal, a 20th level character has ability score + 12 for their high save and ability score + 6 for their low save. A caster with a 9th level spell has ability score +9 for their DCs. Thus, the target is 30% more likely to make a save with their high save than with their low save. Both characters can augment their abilities with ability enhancers and feats, though saving throws can be altered with Resistance items. I've never fallen into a problem with saves such as the ones suggested here. This is probably because I tend to use more classed NPCs. I believe a large portion of the problem is the fact that monsters are not balanced as PCs; they often have twice the HD of their CR and they do not use epic progressions as they probably should post 20 HD. BABs and Saves become rediculous when monsters have so many HD. |
| jrg211803-12-06, 10:49 AM | Alright people; all things created equal, a 20th level character has ability score + 12 for their high save and ability score + 6 for their low save. A caster with a 9th level spell has ability score +9 for their DCs. Thus, the target is 30% more likely to make a save with their high save than with their low save. Both characters can augment their abilities with ability enhancers and feats, though saving throws can be altered with Resistance items. It's a minor point, but all things are rarely, if ever, equal. A fighter at 20th level for instance, will have probably a +5 or higher bonus to Fort for his Con, while his Reflex and Will are likely to be lower, if not significantly so (maybe only +2 for Wisdom to Will for example). This widens the gap between good saves and poor ones, making it closer to 45-50% difference between the likelihood of making a save. Also, the purpose of this thread was to explore, if I am correct, the reasons why it is so much easier to increase the save bonus against magic than it is to increase spell DC. I've never fallen into a problem with saves such as the ones suggested here. This is probably because I tend to use more classed NPCs. I believe a large portion of the problem is the fact that monsters are not balanced as PCs; they often have twice the HD of their CR and they do not use epic progressions as they probably should post 20 HD. BABs and Saves become rediculous when monsters have so many HD. I see your point here but for me it depends on the monster in question. Dragons are virtual killing machines and I have no problem letting there BAB increase on a 1-1 basis after 20 HD. As for other monsters, if they seem to high then just decrease them or argue the case to your DM. Remember though, that Epic characters can have enormous ACs! One of my players created a 30th level character with an AC of around 80, and quite legitimately I might add (just FYI, we use the class defense bonus variant, so AC would be about 60-65 without it). As for the saves, the Epic saves bonus is a "good" save progression for all saves. So, at best you would be keeping them the same and at worst you would be making the monster's saves better. I would look into that more carefully first; I haven't noticed a problem myself with it, but I haven't examined it that closely. -Jim |