Thought experiment, how would this rule change the game?

[Aasimar]

Just thought I'd see what people would think about this.

How would it change the way the game gets played, if everything remained the same, only everyone added their base attack bonus to all their saves?

I'm thinking mostly in terms of Pathfinder, but the 3.5 perspective is interesting too.

[Dayaz]

doesn't do much for Spellcasters, but hey who cares about them, your fighter/barbarian/paladin/ranger are getting better will saves than the Wizard.

Honestly, it doesn't do much for Spellcasters but it basically breaks the game for full BAB classes, because now the level 20 fighter has what, a 32 will save with a 10 WIS score? It's a screw you to spellcasters, really.

[Aasimar]

It absolutely is.

I'm not sure that's a bad thing though. They already completely rule the game.

I figured, how do I even the score between casters and non casters?

1. Give non-casters spells (kinda defeats the point)
2. Make spells not work so well on dedicated non-casters.

If this happened, spellcasting would no longer be "the automatic best choice for everything."

I'm wondering if instead of evening the playing field, this completely ruins spellcasting as a viable choice.

[Ravens_cry]

What is the rational behind this beyond making any kind of offensive spell casting basically impossible?

[Dayaz]

because a lot of the better (or easily used) damage spells require saves to be truly effective. If every noncaster is rocking out a naturally huge save then they're safe from most/all debuffs, control, and will take low damage from evocation.

[Ashtagon]

Basically, no one will ever fail a save again.

[TroubleBrewing]

At first glance, this seems to make spellcasters useless.

With more thought, it looks more like it makes the game entirely about ranged touch attacks, Save and Suck, and No Save, Just Suck spells.

[Tulya]

Enemy saves already tend to scale faster than player spell save DCs, as enemies tend to gain hit dice at a better than 1:1 ratio with CR - applying a bonus based on BAB wouldn't really accomplish more than steepening the curve. Because of that curve, spellcaster optimization already leans towards focusing on no-save-just-suck/die and save-and-suck/die-anyway spells as you progress in levels.

EDIT: Ninja'd while I got up for a few minutes.

[molten_dragon]

Just thought I'd see what people would think about this.

How would it change the way the game gets played, if everything remained the same, only everyone added their base attack bonus to all their saves?

I'm thinking mostly in terms of Pathfinder, but the 3.5 perspective is interesting too.

It's going to make any spell that allows a save pretty much worthless, since save bonuses will grow MUCH faster than spell save DCs will.

[shadow_archmagi]

Of course, as has been mentioned, there are spells that don't allow saves, so this won't balance the game. Black Tentacles, for example, remains viable.

[limejuicepowder]

I think it would effectively make spell casters even better, IMO.

It's like this: the best spells are ones that don't offer saves anyway. With this change, they would become the only working spells, literally. Thus, if anyone wanted to play a caster, they MUST take the best-of-the-best if they want anything to do at all. Since this fix does nothing to close the versatility gap, spell casters would all be way better then mundanes, rather then just the power-gaming ones.

Overall, it would just make the lessor options for spell casters even weaker, and do nothing to address the high end of the power curve.

[Fitz10019]

I like the idea that making magic (being a spellcaster) would make someone more vulnerable to spells (having lower saves than non-casters). It's as though you get your hands dirty, and thereafter magic gets to you more easily -- like how 'psychics' are sometimes referred to as 'sensitive.'

I don't think BAB to saves is the answer. Having magic fail most of the time would change the feel of the game too much (for me).

Limejuicepowder makes a point that should always be considered: changing the rules will change the players' choices. Changing the saves system will result in different spell choices.

[Aasimar]

Well, the reasoning is.

The system seems to value getting a full base attack progression as equal to getting a full spellcasting progression. Giving multiple level 9 spells at level 20 roughly the same value as having base attack +20.

Or rather, the same value as having an extra +10 base attack over what the casters get.

This is clearly overvaluing base attack. (or undervaluing spells)

The two solutions people have proposed mostly giving non-casters other things to make up the difference, invariably either falling short or making them feel like something other than fighters/barbarians/etc.

For purposes of this discussion, the question of whether there should be 20th level fighters to rival 20th level casters is set aside, I feel the scale should include them, even if no actual fighters ever get there.

The other solution is to gimp spellcasters in various ways.

I thought I'd just thought experiment to see if simply increasing the value of base attack would solve the problem.

Some fudging would be required of course, probably only direct damage spells should be allowed to go against touch ac, anything save or die/suck should have to face a saving throw.

Personally, if I were going to reconstruct the whole thing, I'd want to introduce more incrementality to the system, so a level 20 fighter, the grittiest, toughest son of a gun possible, wouldn't either suffer maximum effect from a spell at least 5% of the time, or suffer none or half every other time.

But I'm asking as a baseline. If everyone agrees that this particular thing makes offensive casters as impossible at high levels as high level non-casters are today, then something in between should be considered. Base attack added to Spell Resistance? Half Base attack to all saves?

[JaronK]

As others have said, what this would do is make spellcasters chose spells that don't care about saves anyway. Expect to see Animate Dead, Holy Word, and similar being used instead of Wings of Flurry and Glitterdust. That lowers their versatility, but not by very much. However, many monsters would become extremely weak, because they can't just learn different spells if their primary attack is now pointless.

Note that this probably makes War Hulks very unhappy, while Warchanters get to laugh like crazy.

JaronK

[Aasimar]

That would have to be dealt with, either by adding the same modifier to touch AC against spells and spell like abilities, or by making ranged touch attacks into ranged attacks and having them go against full AC or something.

Basically, I'm not interested in 'you're forgetting this variant', assume that the system wouldn't be implemented without taking into account stuff like ranged touch attacks and gimping them by the same relative amount.

I am interested in how the balance changes with this change. Ideally, I'd want a system where high level spellcasters are viable and powerful, but are seriously threatened by a level 20 fighter in the same room with them, to the point where they would have to take care not to find themselves in that position.

[Gavinfoxx]

I am interested in how the balance changes with this change. Ideally, I'd want a system where high level spellcasters are viable and powerful, but are seriously threatened by a level 20 fighter in the same room with them, to the point where they would have to take care not to find themselves in that position.

Than you don't want D&D 3.5e. Try Legend from Ruleofcool instead?

[Blackhawk748]

Heres an idea, make a feat similar to Combat Expertise. something like for every -1 you take on you Attack Bonus you gain a +1 Dodge bonus to your AC and for every -2 you take you get a +1 bonus on Reflex saves. SO if i take a -4 i gain +4 Dodge to AC and a +2 on Reflex.

I think the prereqs would be Combat Expertise, Dodge, and maybe Mobility, and a +4 BAB

[Darius Kane]

No. This is not the way. It's an arbitrary houserule which says "Screw you" to casters (but not really) and doesn't really make sense. As an ability, sure, martial adepts already have this as a maneuver, but as a Core mechanic? No.

[JaronK]

That would have to be dealt with, either by adding the same modifier to touch AC against spells and spell like abilities, or by making ranged touch attacks into ranged attacks and having them go against full AC or something.

Basically, I'm not interested in 'you're forgetting this variant', assume that the system wouldn't be implemented without taking into account stuff like ranged touch attacks and gimping them by the same relative amount.

Even if you made Fighters basically immune to direct magic, all you end up doing is pushing casters towards indirect stuff... Spell Stitching themselves with Animate Dread Warrior so they can have reanimated armies of previous Fighters (now with bonuses from things like the Necromancer UA variant buff), Gating in Solars, and so on.


I am interested in how the balance changes with this change. Ideally, I'd want a system where high level spellcasters are viable and powerful, but are seriously threatened by a level 20 fighter in the same room with them, to the point where they would have to take care not to find themselves in that position.

I totally understand this idea. In many ways, we all want that. D&D, however, is a REALLY long way away from that. It would take a heck of a lot of work to get there, and mostly it involves looking over every broken spell ever and fixing the issue there (in addition to other issues, like making Wizards far less flexible).

You're not going to get there with broad strokes, I'm afraid. Heck, I made a bunch of rebalance house rules, and I still had to buff the heck out of Fighters.

Now, there is one solution... instead of trying to match Wizards and Fighters, make a new core out of T3 and T4 classes. That actually does work. When I want a quick and easy balanced game sometimes I just make a new core set... Factotum, Crusader, Warblade, Swordsage, Ranger, Binder, Warlock, Bard, Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Warmage. Now instead of it being a Wizard in the same room as a Fighter, it's a Factotum or Warmage next to a Warblade. Totally works. And every character concept from the normal core works with this core (mostly).

JaronK

[Aasimar]

I'll check out Legend.

But it's not a 'screw you' to casters any more than any attempt to even the playing field a bit is.

I'm precisely not interested in this as a special class feature for 1-2 classes, but as a system feature, as something for a unique class, it's useless for it's intended effect.

To Blackhawk, that idea is basically completely unrelated to anything I'm after.

[Aasimar]

Now, there is one solution... instead of trying to match Wizards and Fighters, make a new core out of T3 and T4 classes. That actually does work. When I want a quick and easy balanced game sometimes I just make a new core set... Factotum, Crusader, Warblade, Swordsage, Ranger, Binder, Warlock, Bard, Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Warmage. Now instead of it being a Wizard in the same room as a Fighter, it's a Factotum or Warmage next to a Warblade. Totally works. And every character concept from the normal core works with this core (mostly).

JaronK

Good suggestions, really. I've heard this before and I think it's a pretty good idea.

I kinda hope that going pathfinder with core only spells (no 3.5 or third party at least), along with a gentlemen's agreement between the players and GM to not optimize too heavily or try to break the system, should suffice.

I'm merely interested in the possibilities.

The only problem I have with your suggestion is that Warblades, to me, don't feel like fighters, they feel like some kinda anime-super wizard-fighter and not something you'd become over time just by being really good at fighting and continuing to survive ever more difficult combats. Same problem in that I'd miss Wizards, Clerics, Sorcerers and Druids, even with their specific roles filled by other 'similar' classes.

I just want them not to be broken...

[limejuicepowder]

The only problem I have with your suggestion is that Warblades, to me, don't feel like fighters, they feel like some kinda anime-super wizard-fighter and not something you'd become over time just by being really good at fighting and continuing to survive ever more difficult combats. Same problem in that I'd miss Wizards, Clerics, Sorcerers and Druids, even with their specific roles filled by other 'similar' classes.

I just want them not to be broken...

I understand the last sentiment exactly. Unfortunately, we play the wrong game. The entire system is rigged towards spells, and it would take a massive overhaul to fully address it.

But that's just on paper. IMO, in actual game play, it's not as bad as all that. As long as every one plays at about the same level of OP and the high tier players are mindful (gentleman's agreement), every one has a good time.

Despite that, closing the gap is still something I like to work on - though I tend to focus on raising the mundanes. I've done this with a series of tweaks that make their life just a little easier, like

-Boosting armor and shield values
-Bonus to AC equal to 1/2 BaB
-Combat maneuver pool allowing standard action attacks and other special combat actions X times/day.
-Allowing attack rolls to key off dex or str
-Consolidating some of the weak prereq-type feats, like dodge and mobility

I've also limited casters to 6 spell levels rather then 9. Since my group never plays past level 10, this hasn't come in to play yet.

My recommendation for warblade is to forget that the maneuvers have names; I feel like this is the source of a lot of the problems that people have with ToB. When a character uses "Sapphire Nightmare Blade," the player can't help but feel like they are in an anime; but if the character uses his intense combat concentration and skill to spot a weak point and catch his opponent off-guard, it's all fantasy again. Roughly 90% of the warblade's available maneuvers are entirely mundane and they should probably be stuff a fighter can do with the base system. Unfortunately, the designers didn't realize this until way too late.

[Gavinfoxx]

Some possible Tier 3/4 'core' classes..


Bard (Player's Handbook)
Beguiler (Player's Handbook II)
Dread Necromancer (Heroes of Horror)
Binder (Tome of Magic, WITHOUT the Online Vestiges)
Shadowcaster (Tome of Magic)

Druid, with as many of these nerfs that fit:

Shapeshift Variant (Player's Handbook II)
Deadly Hunter Variant (Unearthed Arcana, SRD)
Druidic Avenger Variant (Unearthed Arcana, SRD)
Spontaneous Divine Caster Variant (Unearthed Arcana, SRD)
Spontaneous Affliction Variant (Exemplars of Evil)
Spontaneous Rejuvenation (Player's Handbook II)

-note that even with this, this class might need DM buy in for the appropriate spells you choose since several Druid spells are overpowered-

Shaman (Oriental Adventures, possible Tier 2 due to spell access, DM may need to only allow access to specific spells)
Shugenja (Complete Divine)
Crusader (Tome of Battle)
Swordsage (Tome of Battle)
Warblade (Tome of Battle)
Factotum (Dungeonscape)
Duskblade (Player's Handbook II)
Totemist (Magic of Incarnum)
Incarnate (Magic of Incarnum)
Psychic Warrior (Expanded Psionics Handbook, SRD)
Psychic Rogue (Online, see: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20040723b and http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20040723c )
Wilder (Expanded Psionics Handbook, SRD)
Ardent (Complete Psionic)
Ranger (Wildshape variant Ranger, Unearthed Arcana, SRD)

Now for WotC Affiliates and Pathfinder. Note that these are MUCH shakier in their statuses, and my info is dated

Nightstalker (Races of Ansalon, a Dragonlance book, possible Tier 4)
Summoner (Pathfinder)
Alchemist (Pathfinder)
Inquisitor (pathfinder)
Magus (Pathfinder)

Now for the homebrew stuff: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174628

Between all of those, for the most part, you should have a balanced tier 3 / 4 game.

[JaronK]

I kinda hope that going pathfinder with core only spells (no 3.5 or third party at least), along with a gentlemen's agreement between the players and GM to not optimize too heavily or try to break the system, should suffice.

Pathfinder won't help, and core only spells won't help either. Core spells are some of the most broken, and Pathfinder really never changed this.


The only problem I have with your suggestion is that Warblades, to me, don't feel like fighters, they feel like some kinda anime-super wizard-fighter and not something you'd become over time just by being really good at fighting and continuing to survive ever more difficult combats. Same problem in that I'd miss Wizards, Clerics, Sorcerers and Druids, even with their specific roles filled by other 'similar' classes.

I just want them not to be broken...

Just change the names for the maneuvers and they don't feel like that, really. But if you want the actual Wizard class and the actual Fighter class to be balanced, you'll have to seriously overhaul them like crazy.

One fix I had for Wizards was the force them to specialize and then give them ONLY the school they specialize in and one related school (Necromancers and Diviners are related, Enchanters and Illusionists, Abjurers and Evokers too. The last two only get their own school). I then gave them a bunch of variant abilities from various books for free... they got the PHBII abilities, all the UA variant abilities, and all the Master Specialist esoterica abilities (at 7, 11, and 14). Even then I still had to nerf a whole bunch of spells to get even into the ballpark, and I *still* had to give Fighters tons of stuff. The fact is, Fighters are little more than their magic items at the end of the day.

In case you're curious, here's an example of one of those Wizard classes:

Necromancer
Level
1 Familiar, Skeletal Minion, Scribe Scroll, Enhanced Undead, Cursed Glance (Int Mod/Day as immediate action spell like ability, enemy within 60 feet takes -2 to AC and saving throws start of your next turn. Will negates, save based on Wizard level + Int, spell level one half Wizard level. ), Spells (Wizard list: Necromancy, Universal, and Divination Only)
2
3
4
5 Undead Apotheosis (+2 Saves vs Sleep, Stun, Paralysis, Poison, Disease), Bonus Feat
6
7 Minor Esoterica (When you cast a Necromancy spell, undead allies within 60 feet get turn resistance and a bonus on saves equal to your Wizard level for a number of rounds equal to your Wizard level)
8
9
10 Undead Apotheosis (+4 Saves vs Ability Damage, Ability Drain, Energy Drain), Bonus Feat
11 Moderate Esoterica (When you cast a Necromancy spell, gain immunity to ability damage, ability drain, energy drain, and negative levels for spell level rounds)
12
13
14 Major Esoterica (3/day, when you cast a Necromancy spell, all allied undead within 60 feet gain fast healing 10 for 5 rounds)
15 Undead Apotheosis (+4 Saves vs Sleep, Stun, Paralysis, Poison, Disease), Bonus Feat
16
17
18
19
20 Undead Apotheosis (25% critical resistance like Light Fortification), Bonus Feat

JaronK

[IncoherentEssay]

I plan to use BAB-boosting rule somewhat like this in my games, though only at 1/2 BAB and as a Dodge bonus (yes, Dodge bonus to Will sounds nonsensical but it's the bonus type that is lost if caught off-guard). An equal bonus also applies to AC (Dodge), Initiative & weapon damage (not Dodge). Spellcasters have plenty of miscellaneous init. boosts that warriors lack so evening things up a bit is good, and a weapon damage boost may be minor to chargers but a boon to less system-savvy players (especially TFW/S&B).

Obviously this only applies to BAB derived from class levels as monster HD would break this pretty badly. Mons.HD BAB already gets treated differently by not being nerfbat'd to oblivion by "Epic BAB".
And since the defensive boosts are Dodge bonuses, casters are encouraged to be sneakier against warrior classes, which is imo genre-appropriate.

Of course, casters still have all their NO and WIN buttons, so some further house rules are necessary to even approach actual balance :smalltongue:.
Rearranging spell lists (moving problem spells to higher spell levels so non-casters have more time to get abilities that match) is on my to do list for a minimally intrusive fix. Though that's probably better done as a forum project, so that even the obscure problem spells are caught.

[Fitz10019]

How would it change the way the game gets played, if everything remained the same, only everyone added their base attack bonus to all their saves?
I want to clarify what your experiment is. I could read your original post 3 ways:
1. Standard PHB saves system, plus BAB
2. BAB plus attribute bonus
3. just BAB

[Aasimar]

I want to clarify what your experiment is. I could read your original post 3 ways:
1. Standard PHB saves system, plus BAB
2. BAB plus attribute bonus
3. just BAB

1. Standard saves, plus BAB

perhaps removing items or spells that boost saves, or this could get extremely out of hand.

[Fitz10019]

I think caster level as a penalty to saves v. magic would be a better way to get the differentiation you're looking for (caster v. non-caster). Then the current DCs would remain as useful as they are now.

[Flickerdart]

I think caster level as a penalty to saves v. magic would be a better way to get the differentiation you're looking for (caster v. non-caster). Then the current DCs would remain as useful as they are now.
I'd suggest "maximum level of spells you can cast" instead of CL, since the difference between bad and good BAB is 10, but the difference between max CL and min CL is 20. Plus, hosing Bards as much as Wizards is just mean.

[Ravens_cry]

I'd suggest "maximum level of spells you can cast" instead of CL, since the difference between bad and good BAB is 10, but the difference between max CL and min CL is 20. Plus, hosing Bards as much as Wizards is just mean.
And further hoses quarter casters, i.e. Paladin, Rangers, and Assassins.

[Flickerdart]

And further hoses quarter casters, i.e. Paladin, Rangers, and Assassins.
Not that much - they have a maximum CL of 10, far short of the Wizard's.

[Fitz10019]

I'd suggest "maximum level of spells you can cast" instead of CL, since the difference between bad and good BAB is 10, but the difference between max CL and min CL is 20. Plus, hosing Bards as much as Wizards is just mean.

I hear you on that. Max spell level is a good idea.

And having Detect Magic active zeroes your saves to just d20, because you're opening a door. Heh.

[Randomguy]

This would change a few things other than screwing spellcasters:

1. Traps are now basically useless unless you houserule a + X to the DC, and even then things will be really skewed.

2. Monks get one of their only good-ish features made useless/much less valuable, since having high base saves is counteracted by medium BAB.

3. Poison is now basically useless, annoying rogues and assassins.

4. Getting an ability score as a bonus to saves becomes a much less valuable ability.

5. Evasion is now as good as improved evasion 95% of the time, that last 5% being when you roll a 1 on a save.

The spellcasters most screwed by this are the ones that are already balanced, especially Beguiler and warmage, since they all rely heavily on save negates or save halves.

Wizards and sorcerers are still mostly fine: Buffing still works, blasting still works (but it relies much more on touch attacks and no save spells), battlefield control still has enough no save spells to work, minionmancy and summoning aren't affected.

Calling/binding doesn't work anymore and that takes away one of the most overpowered tactics, but you could have just banned planar binding.

Clerics and druids have enough spells that still work to be fine, but blasting is nerfed more for them since they've got less ray spells.

So overall, really the ones that are hit hardest are the ones that don't need the nerf.

[Ravens_cry]

Not that much - they have a maximum CL of 10, far short of the Wizard's.

-10 to all saves is still huge.

[Aasimar]

I think caster level as a penalty to saves v. magic would be a better way to get the differentiation you're looking for (caster v. non-caster). Then the current DCs would remain as useful as they are now.

Wait? you think making casters weaker only against casters will accomplish making melee classes more feasible? It doesn't address the issue at all.

[JaronK]

In all fairness, it's Players vs Monsters where it matters, and a lot of the most brutal monsters use spells or spell like abilities. So it would be a thing there.

But I feel like it would just result in casters getting more creative with their defenses. Casters need fewer super strong options, not fewer blast spells or less brute tanking ability.

JaronK

[Aasimar]

Well to be fair, I wouldn't even play in a game where there wasn't both a friendly gentlemen's agreement not to break the system, and a hefty, though sensible, GM oversight ready to go 'I don't care what RAW says, magic doesn't do THAT in my games.' when required.

[JaronK]

I actually like games with balanced rules so that I can always think "what would my character do to solve these problems?" as opposed to "what would my character do to solve these problems without looking too powerful doing it?". I mean, if the world were really on the line, nobody would worry about the savior of the world doing something "overpowered" to save the world. They'd just say "yay, good job!" A Wizard wouldn't sit there going "well, I could just cast this spell combo from my house that would instantly kill the evil Necromancer, but that wouldn't give the Fighter anything to do, so instead I'll just trudge along with him and let him hit stuff." He'd just end the threat.

So when the rules are more balanced, I feel like I have more fun.

JaronK

[Aasimar]

Absotively.

But the players going 'It shouldn't be like that, and if we tried to do it like that, the GM would just say it didn't work like that anyway...' is not the same as the character actually taking a less optimal path.

The wizard isn't thinking 'Well, I could summon a monster that could use an obscure spell-like ability to handle this, but instead I'll use fireball so I don't look like a turd.', even if the player might be making a conscious choice to not turn the game into 'that game'.

The wizard, from his point of view, lives in a world where fireball is an effective, albeit straightforward and simple choice of a spell.

[Coidzor]

Absotively.

But the players going 'It shouldn't be like that, and if we tried to do it like that, the GM would just say it didn't work like that anyway...' is not the same as the character actually taking a less optimal path.

It's the same as the player being forced into taking their character down a less optimal path due to a poor series of interpersonal relationships for dealing with the vagaries of 3.X. This is while not actively bad, not really good as an indication of the health of the group but also something that would be resolved by having a good setup of house-rules rather than relying on the whims of how someone is feeling that particular day and depending upon the players' ability to manipulate and sneak things past the DM and one another.

Healthy gaming practices and a stable, open framework to run the game are infinitely preferable to the alternatives.

[JaronK]

The wizard, from his point of view, lives in a world where fireball is an effective, albeit straightforward and simple choice of a spell.

Nah. The Wizard is a super genius who lives in a world of magic and who's studied magic for years. I mean, that's just at the basic level. I know how to break the heck out of the game and I really don't think I have an Int of 30. So why does the Wizard think fireball's going to be effective when legions before him have figured out that a Glitterdust usually does it better or that Animate Dead means he can fight without putting himself in danger?

JaronK

[Felandria]

No, sir, (or miss), I don't like it.

Most of the games I play in, it's the fighters that tend to be the stars, not the casters.

I never understood the argument, myself, is it really the worst thing in the world if everyone isn't equally powerful?

Someone's gotta be Aquaman.

Besides, it usually leads to excellent RP opportunities.

[Gnorman]

No, sir, (or miss), I don't like it.

Most of the games I play in, it's the fighters that tend to be the stars, not the casters.

I never understood the argument, myself, is it really the worst thing in the world if everyone isn't equally powerful?

Someone's gotta be Aquaman.

Besides, it usually leads to excellent RP opportunities.

Problem is, no one wants to PLAY Aquaman.

And you don't have to suck to have RP opportunities. That's a fallacy so common it has a name: Stormwind.

[Malroth]

Just ban mundanes easiest fix ever.

[Aasimar]

Just ban mundanes easiest fix ever.

It's a fix...but not for the problem at hand.

[Flumph]

Would this be for monsters, too?

[Aasimar]

Yeah, stands to reason.

[Coidzor]

It's a fix...but not for the problem at hand.

Well, really, I should think we've firmly sunk the main idea of your OP so it's back to the drawing board anyway.

Though, I must admit, you're not going to have a whole lot of luck with making fighters relevant without changing how they feel and running into what causes you to gripe about Tome of Battle and feeling different, after all you can't add something onto nothing without fundamentally changing the nature of that nothing.

[Aasimar]

Sunk?

I don't think so, I didn't intend it as a wholesale solution, only as a stepping stone towards one.

So far I have that in addition to strengthening non-casters against magic, strict limits on available spells are required.

Perhaps putting primary casters on bard spell progression, as well as removing some of the more obvious offending spells would make things easier.

[TroubleBrewing]

The usual "fix" that gets proposed is turning Clerics into Favored Souls, Druids into Wildshape Rangers/Spirit Shaman, and Wizards into one of 8 "limited list" casters. So Beguiler, Warmage, Dread Necromancer, and homebrew the remaining 5 schools.

Not that the most offensive spells shouldn't still be banned, or at least fixed.

[Coidzor]

Sunk?

I don't think so, I didn't intend it as a wholesale solution, only as a stepping stone towards one.

So far I have that in addition to strengthening non-casters against magic, strict limits on available spells are required.

Perhaps putting primary casters on bard spell progression, as well as removing some of the more obvious offending spells would make things easier.

Well then, why do you still think it's a good idea in the face of the arguments explaining its lack of efficacy towards your stated goal?

edit: Or should I have specified the proposed rules fix in the OP rather than the main idea of the OP? :smallconfused:

[navar100]

Or just admit you loathe spellcasters and ban-hammer them or play some other game that's not D&D/Pathfinder already.

You don't need to make spellcasters suck donkey so that warriors can feel better about themselves.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Offensive caster options are severely reduced, but they still have plenty of buffs and environment shapers in core alone, and Spell Compendium adds the Orb line for blasters. Defensive and utility options remain just as viable, barring charms, compulsions, and illusions.

So basically, Mailman has to spread into control spells to deal with multiple opponents, GOD wizard focuses more on buffs and control than debuff (although some are still certainly there), and standard blaster cries in a corner (even more).

[Mephit]

My biggest objection - aside from perhaps the fact that you might as well remove any higher-level spell that has a save from the game - is that you're imbalancing a lot of other things, too.

Traps become useless, as do various non-caster abilities that were already not very good to begin with. (Stunning Fist, Hexblade's curse, etc)
Feats or class features that pertain to saves become widely imbalanced - Evasion becomes massive, flat boosts to your save become far less attractive if you have an ok BAB - or a bad BAB at mid level, really.

You end up with something mechanically completely different and with entirely new balance issues that need tweaking. As a simple fix for Vancian casting it isn't very good, I'm afraid.

[roguemetal]

My biggest objection - aside from perhaps the fact that you might as well remove any higher-level spell that has a save from the game - is that you're imbalancing a lot of other things, too.

Traps become useless, as do various non-caster abilities that were already not very good to begin with. (Stunning Fist, Hexblade's curse, etc)
Feats or class features that pertain to saves become widely imbalanced - Evasion becomes massive, flat boosts to your save become far less attractive if you have an ok BAB - or a bad BAB at mid level, really.

You end up with something mechanically completely different and with entirely new balance issues that need tweaking. As a simple fix for Vancian casting it isn't very good, I'm afraid.

Don't forget about any alchemical items, magical items or class features with set-in-stone DCs which now have no purpose even at lower levels.

[Gandariel]

Since doing exactly that imbalances the game in other ways, just do this:

Everyone gets +1 on their saves for each point in BAB they are higher than a Wizard of same level.

OR

Each point of BAB after 10th gives also a +1 to saves.


Probably the second.
Doesn't really unbalance the game, since it only gives a power boost to noncaster classes in the late levels (which is exactly the problem in D&D, more or less)

[TuggyNE]

Each point of BAB after 10th gives also a +1 to saves.
[...]
Doesn't really unbalance the game, since it only gives a power boost to noncaster classes in the late levels (which is exactly the problem in D&D, more or less)

Interesting, although still a bit flawed; Psychic Warriors, Rogues, Monks, Druids, and Clerics are all lumped in the "half-extra-save" boat, while a good Sorcerer/Wizard gish build will have at least slightly better saves, even leaving out the multiclassing boosts.

Also, tends to some extent to promote a Monk-style "I can't be killed as easily, so I'm helping!" approach, which is not ideal.

[Gandariel]

Well, clerics and druids get boosted again, yeah. They can't help but break the game, can they?

Apart from that halfboost is still ok IMO.

and the monk thing i don't agree, you're just boosting saves, classes still have all their options to contribute!

although i agree gishes get really better. maybe give the bonus to only noncasting classes? would solve cleric and druid issues too.

[Aasimar]

Well then, why do you still think it's a good idea in the face of the arguments explaining its lack of efficacy towards your stated goal?

edit: Or should I have specified the proposed rules fix in the OP rather than the main idea of the OP? :smallconfused:

I don't think it's a good idea, my point is that it was never supposed to be the final solution. (..man, 'final solution' sounds so...genocide-y)

I asked to see the counter arguments, to see how people would feel this placed the balance. It has been useful, but not as much as I'd hoped. The responses have ranged from 'nobody would play a caster' to 'casters still retain all their core superiority so it doesn't really matter' to 'casters become even MORE powerful'

I feel like I should have explained that this boost to saves would only be against spells and spell like abilities (and as such, only the traps that utilized spells, not pit traps or stuff like that)

As such, what I wanted to know was mostly 'is this going to far?' So I could ascertain what WOULD be a good solution.

My findings from this thread at least, indicate that my OP suggestion is a combination of going too far and missing a huge part of the problem.

As it stands, I'm considering reducing the bonus to half-base attack as a bonus to saves against spells and spell like abilities.

Or maybe just saying that Spell Save DC should equal 10+ability mod, and not include the level of the spell being cast.

In addition to removing or changing a large number of spells. A straightforward approach would be to limit to Pathfinder core only, after going through that list (mostly because it's easier than going through every spell ever) then only allowing extra spells on a case by case basis.

I still like the option of putting every caster on a bard progression, but in addition to everything else, THAT might go too far.


Or just admit you loathe spellcasters and ban-hammer them or play some other game that's not D&D/Pathfinder already.

You don't need to make spellcasters suck donkey so that warriors can feel better about themselves.

Why in the world would you think that?

I LOVE casters, I want to play casters and have people play casters...only I want it to be in a way that is fun...I guess you could say that I hate what they have become, particularly in online optimization forums...but to say that I hate casters is just plain wrong.

[Gandariel]

I propose again my rule idea:

For noncasting classes, every point of BAB after 10th also gives +1 to all saves.

Simple and quick.
Only gives boost to noncasting classes.
Only gives said boost in the late levels.

[Togo]

The problem with the solution is that it doesn't address the core problem. The core problem is not that spellcaster's save DCs are too high, but rather that Tier 1 characters have a great variety of powers, each of which is more powerful than mundane actions, supposedly balanced by the limited availability per day and specialist situations in which they can be used.

So nerfing spells with saves doesn't really help. It helps in the sense that non-casters become more powerful, but it doesn't do much the limit the problems that Tier 1 characters can cause in the first place.

The situations in which they get really out of control is when the game favours casters over other classes. A game where PCs set the pace and timing of the encounters, where they always have a safe base to work from, and unlimited time, where they know what they're facing well in advance, and where spells are interpreted in a flexible and generous manner, all of these help spellcasters at the expense of everyone else.

The method I've found works well is simply to ban the most powerful outcomes of combinations and powers, and interpret spells on a RAI basis. Game-breaking effects simply don't work. Don't allow metamagic reducers to stack. Don't allow caster level boosts beyond a certain point. Have an agreement with players not to over-optimise, and make sure that agreement is adhered to, even when strict RAW would suggest otherwise.

This is much easier than trying to change the core rules, because it's spell-caster friendly situations and rules interpretations that make the difference, not stat X versus value Y. The highest power of spellcasting is to circumvent the mechanics by not making any fight a straight fight. Tipping the mechanics against spellcasters doesn't help much.

[roguemetal]

I propose again my rule idea:

For noncasting classes, every point of BAB after 10th also gives +1 to all saves.

Simple and quick.
Only gives boost to noncasting classes.
Only gives said boost in the late levels.
This might actually work...

I'd suggest including it as a class feature though. Give it to a number of late entry prestige classes and mid level in basic progressions.

Although this doesn't fix spellcasting if this is the attempt. I do think it COULD work as an interesting mechanic though. Resilience is lacking among BAB characters late level, and this does solve that problem a bit. For real fixes to spellcasting, I'd suggest looking elsewhere.

[Aasimar]

Why the resistance to systematic solutions? Why try to foist it onto PrCs or new classes?

[Alejandro]

Why the resistance to systematic solutions? Why try to foist it onto PrCs or new classes?

Because a systematic solution, in this case, is simply shifting the original problem to a different area and set of problems. That has already been clearly explained. You're not solving anything, just moving the pieces around.

There is no way to address what you are asking for in 3.5 D&D without directly rewriting or houseruling everything about spellcasters and their feats. Which is why my group no longer plays 3.5 D&D, but I won't bring that up in this forum.

[Deepbluediver]

I only skimmed most of the second page so sorry if I missed something, but isn't this solution very similar to the "give EVERTHING spell resistance" idea? Which helps out in a few situations but overall doesn't address the problem that some of the most broken spells don't even check for spell resistance? Or even target an enemy?


My personal philosophy is that magic in D&D 3.5/PF is too complex to balance simply. If you really want the wizard and the fighter to stand on equal ground, you need an overhaul of the entire system.

[navar100]

. . .

There is no way to address what you are asking for in 3.5 D&D without directly rewriting or houseruling everything about spellcasters and their feats. Which is why my group no longer plays 3.5 D&D, but I won't bring that up in this forum.

But it is kind of relevant here. If colloquial you are so enraged about 3E magic, stop playing 3E already. It is what it is. It's not going to change. Pathfinder made its choices on how to address it. Like it? Great! Don't like it? That's great too. Play something else.

Irony for myself. I remember way back when 4E first came out I was annoyed by people who said "just play 4E" whenever someone asked for a solution to a problem they were having in their 3E game. My annoyance still stands there. Having a minor problem is not enough cause to dump the game. However, if the problem is big enough, if you just want to scream, jump up and down, and pull your hair out with your rage against what 3E has wrought to your game, then stop playing it and find some other game more suitable to your taste. If it's 4E, so be it. Have fun. House rules for aestheticism or a rules patch for something you see as an error is fine. If you need to fundamentally change how the game works, just play some other game.

[Story]

If you really want the wizard and the fighter to stand on equal ground, you need an overhaul of the entire system.

Or you could just play a Beguiler and Crusader instead.

[Randomguy]

My personal philosophy is that magic in D&D 3.5/PF is too complex to balance simply. If you really want the wizard and the fighter to stand on equal ground, you need an overhaul of the entire system.

They already did that. It's called 4th edition. :P

[Powerdork]

They already did that. It's called Legend. :P

Fixed that for you.

[Gnorman]

They already did that. It's called E6. :P

Ooooh, so did I!

[SowZ]

I propose again my rule idea:

For noncasting classes, every point of BAB after 10th also gives +1 to all saves.

Simple and quick.
Only gives boost to noncasting classes.
Only gives said boost in the late levels.

But what about Druid and Cleric?

Anyway, the Monk issue is easily solved by giving Monks full BAB.

[Deepbluediver]

Or you could just play a Beguiler and Crusader instead.

I feel that the "one thing is exactly equilvalent to another" argument is, at best, a poor tact to take.
If I go to the Deli because I want to get a tuna-fish sandwich, and when I get there they tell me they can't sell tuna today because the FDA issued a recall or something, I'm not going to be happy no matter how many ham sandwiches they offer me.
Maybe I'm Jewish
Maybe I just don't like ham

If every class that filled the same role was the same, we never would have moved on from the fighter, thief, wizard, and cleric.
I like the fighter and wizard classes because both have very little attached fluff, so you can play them just about any way you want, and both are relatively simple for a new player to pick up and run with.

Not every group is full of crazed min-maxers, but I would rather put in a little more effort to address some of the glaring issues with the classes I like, than pick something else entirely which may bring new and complicated issues.


They already did that. It's called 4th edition. :P


They already did that. It's called Legend.


They already did that. It's called E6

I've only played a little 4th edition, and none of Legend or E6.
4th edition was nice, but it didn't feel the same as 3.5. IMO, it felt kind of like a table-top MMORPG. And while it's porbably true that the balance is objectively better, I'm not going to try to derail the thread with a debate over whether or not it's better overall. Game systems are often a matter of personal taste.
I want, if I can, to get a game with more of 4th edition's balance but 3.5's....something. I can't define exactly what I like atm, but I'll know it when I see it, and I would care less about the tier-1 potential in some classes if we could eliminate the uselessness of the tier 4s and below.


Because I'm apparently a sadist who gets his kicks from torturing metaphors (rather than small animals) I would like you to imagine D&D 3.5 as a car. A classic American muscle car in fact.
But this car, unfortunately, has not aged well. Maybe it was left sitting in some one's yard for a decade or it's owner just never took care of it, but over the years it has developed rust spots, holes in the floor, gets bad gas mileage, the springs are poking through the seats, it doesn't start on cold mornings, one window is replaced with cardboard and the engine half-exploded and got fixed with lawnmower parts.

When some one says "why don't you just play game/edition X", what I hear is "junk that car and buy a new one". It might certainly save me some time and money and frustration, but there is a lot of history in this car and somewhere under all the rust and duct-tape is a great vehicle that, with some TLC, can some day run well again (I hope).


In this extended metaphor, Legend is represented by a foreign import and E6 is a Harley motorcycle. :smalltongue:


I propose again my rule idea:

For noncasting classes, every point of BAB after 10th also gives +1 to all saves.

Simple and quick.
Only gives boost to noncasting classes.
Only gives said boost in the late levels.

It doesn't address the issues of spells that don't check for SR, such as shapeshifting, which can give the equivalent of several spells-as-extraordinary abilities for the price of one.


My biggest issue with magic is the unlike nearly everything else in the game, casting spells is a passive action, while defending against them is the active actions.

To elaborate further: my fighter, veteran of 100 battles and slayer of the goblin king of the Murky mountain, has to make an attack roll to smack a common housecat and is pretty likely to miss. Quelaline Quick-fingers, greatest thief and lockpick on the continent, has to make a roll every time she want's to use one of her many skills.
Mickey the magician's apprentice can warp the very fabric of reality simply by thinking hard enough and has absolutely NO CHANCE TO FAIL, ever.

Anyone whos is target by a malicious spell needs to make a roll in order to avoid some or all of the effects, i.e. a Save; placing all the burden upon the defender.
This might be acceptable in a system where all the players where melee classes, and all the bad guys (DM controlled characters) where casters, because it gives the players less to do. But in a version of the game where you have players running around as magic-users, it creates a huge division between certain types of actions.

This is why, if you want a "simple fix", I prefer giving spell resistance to every creature. Everyone has a base-level of AC to shrug off or avoid attacks, why not a base-level of magic resistance? That would be a passive defense that requires casters to make a roll whenever they want to use one of their Save-or-suck or other nasty abilities.


Anyway, the Monk issue is easily solved by giving Monks full BAB.

The monk has multiple issues, and giving them full BAB addresses only a few. It makes the monk more equivalent to other melee classes, but doesn't deal with the fact that most of those classes are still tier 4 at best, and the monk is still probably the most MAD core class ever, with weak class features that don't compensate.

[TuggyNE]

The monk has multiple issues, and giving them full BAB addresses only a few. It makes the monk more equivalent to other melee classes, but doesn't deal with the fact that most of those classes are still tier 4 at best, and the monk is still probably the most MAD core class ever, with weak class features that don't compensate.

This is true, but I believe the quoted post was referring only to the problem of Monks gaining partial save boosts under the proposed system.

[tiercel]

I can't help but think that a slightly more effective version of this thought experiment might be "give everyone SR, somehow proportional to their nonspellcasting BAB, and then change all spells to SR: Yes," and that doesn't even completely do it. (I suppose you could make even buffs and summons vulnerable to the SR of anyone they came in contact with as well.)

"Nonspellcasting BAB" might be defined as something like, "+1 SR/level that grants no spellcasting, +0.5 SR/level that grants full-caster-level casting on less-than-9th-level spell progression, +0.75 SR/level that grants half-caster-level casting, +0 SR for any level that grants 9th-level-spell progression." You'd have to eyeball monster-based BAB depending on how many (Sp) or (Su) they were packing.

Even then, there's doubtlessly a pile of unintended consequences -- I don't think there's probably a simple fix for "linear fighter, exponential wizard" problem in 3.x D&D beyond the "limited tiers" scenario people have talked about.

[TuggyNE]

I can't help but think that a slightly more effective version of this thought experiment might be "give everyone SR, somehow proportional to their nonspellcasting BAB, and then change all spells to SR: Yes," and that doesn't even completely do it. (I suppose you could make even buffs and summons vulnerable to the SR of anyone they came in contact with as well.)

Making all spells SR:Yes runs into the wacky problems that 3.0 Magic Immunity had, and is entirely impractical. (How do you make invisibility check SR against enemies, and why? It's not cloud mind, mass!) However, there are a few spells at least that are currently SR:No that should arguably be SR:Yes; the Orb line leaps to mind.

[Deepbluediver]

This is true, but I believe the quoted post was referring only to the problem of Monks gaining partial save boosts under the proposed system.

Ah ok, my mistake then. I apologize.


*snip*

Getting everything to be COMPLETELY balanced might require such an overall that it starts to tread pretty close to a game that doesn't feel like D&D version 3.5 anymore, which is kind of what 4th edition did. I think that we can make things MORE balanced though. I would be happy if we managed to have every class fit into the tiers 2-3 (maybe high 4), which most people will tell you can make for a very enjoyable game.

So I'm going to do a little shameless self promotion and give the cliff-notes version of my magic-fix, in case anyone wants to read it or trawl it for inspiration.
Some of the stuff sounds a lot like what is being discussed in this thread anyway.

Every time a player or creature want to cast a spell, they need to make a Spellcraft (d20) roll. Spellcraft is no longer a skill, it is it's own statistic, like Attack rolls.

A characters Base Spellcraft Bonus (BSB) follows a progression that is the opposite of their BAB. For example, a wizard gets BSB equal to his level, and a fighter has a BSB equal to one-half his level.
BSB is modified by Wisdom, just as BAB is modified by Strength.

The DC to cast a spell is calculated one of two ways:
If the spell targets a creature, the DC is the spell's level, plus the targets Spell Resistance (SR).
If the spell does not target a creature, the DC is 10+twice the spell's level.
AOE spells use the second method, but check against every creature's SR in the affected location individually.
If you fail the roll, you do not cast the spell, but you also do not lose the spell slot.
On a roll of 1 the spell fails automatically, and you lose the spell slot. Other negative effects may also occur.

Every creature gets a base level or SR, which is 5. It increases by 1 for every 2 HD the creature has.
You also add one of your save bonuses to your SR depending on which school a spell is from- Fortitude for Necromancy and Transmutation, Reflex for Abjuration, Conjuration, and Evocation, and Will for Divination, Enchantment, Illusion.
Yes, I realize this means you effectively have 3 seperate SR's to keep track of and is probably too complicated. I am currently playtesting other options.

In order to lessen the casting-classes SAD, bonus spells are always determined from Intellect. This makes Int/Wis the preferred caster-stat combo, just as Con/Str is the main pair for melee.
There is a feat that lets you add your charisma to your BSB, in case you want to build you character that way. Some classes get a class feature that does much the same thing.
My fix is not the only one that does something like this, I know there are several others on the forum that base bonus spells off one stat and save DC's off another. There's even one that lets paladins base some of their casting off of Constitution to reduce the MAD.


I think those are all the major points; I'll update this if I realize I left something major out. If you have any questions feel free to PM me or go read the full-length version, linked in my sig.

[Gavinfoxx]

I want, if I can, to get a game with more of 4th edition's balance but 3.5's....something.

It's Legend. Trust me, it's Legend.

http://www.ruleofcool.com/get-the-game/
https://s3.amazonaws.com/det_1/Legend.pdf

[tiercel]

Making all spells SR:Yes runs into the wacky problems that 3.0 Magic Immunity had, and is entirely impractical. (How do you make invisibility check SR against enemies, and why? It's not cloud mind, mass!) However, there are a few spells at least that are currently SR:No that should arguably be SR:Yes; the Orb line leaps to mind.
To be honest, I find 3.0 Magic Immunity *less* problematic than the idea that a "magic immune" golem inside a Antimagic Sphere can be blasted to death by nonmagical magic energy given initial but not continuous propulsion through the air by magic without needing to be held together in a "pure energy" form by magic.

Sure, all-SR-yes has problems, but I'd say that self-affecting spells (e.g. bull's strength, invisibility etc) or summons would only check SR when they actually came into direct contact with / directly interacted with someone with SR. Maybe that is still problematically vague, sure, but not really that much more so than the existing rules for "interacting with" illusions.

IMO, across-the-board SR: Yes solves more problems than it creates. I'm not saying that and everybody-has-some-kind-of-SR actually fixes everything, I'm just saying it sounds a little closer to a fix, and along the lines that the OP seems to have been thinking of.

[toapat]

Perhaps this could work:

Strength Modifier is added as a bonus to spell resistance (the Original version which doesnt positively blow)

All spells which lack a save or Spell Resistance which are not Magic Missile, a more powerful version of Magic Missile, or a Personal only buff gain SR: yes

[TuggyNE]

To be honest, I find 3.0 Magic Immunity *less* problematic than the idea that a "magic immune" golem inside a Antimagic Sphere can be blasted to death by nonmagical magic energy given initial but not continuous propulsion through the air by magic without needing to be held together in a "pure energy" form by magic.

Since I already specifically mentioned the Orb line as being a set of spells that should not be SR:No, I'm not sure why you're using this example. A better example would be hail of stone, I think, which is actually at least plausible: creating, or transporting, a lot of ordinary stone and then letting gravity propel it onto a target seems like the sort of thing that should work. And how does that differ from picking things up with telekinesis and dropping them? (Or would you also run an SR check on that when the stones touched the golem?)


Sure, all-SR-yes has problems, but I'd say that self-affecting spells (e.g. bull's strength, invisibility etc) or summons would only check SR when they actually came into direct contact with / directly interacted with someone with SR. Maybe that is still problematically vague, sure, but not really that much more so than the existing rules for "interacting with" illusions.

Illusion interaction is limited to Will disbelief spells in a particular school, so it has a lot fewer weird holes.

Holes in all-SR-yes:
So summons are unable to touch something that has sufficient SR; that's weird but has some vaguely-similar precedent in magic circle against X, despite using an entirely separate mechanic (a passive resistance to spells, instead of an active abjuration targeted at certain creatures). How about called creatures, or teleported, or flying?
Suppose a Str-based Fighter with bull's strength active swings at a creature and rolls exactly the enemy's AC, but fails the SR roll. Do they then fail to hit at all?
Similarly, a Str-based Fighter with wraithstrike and bull's strength active attacks a dragon with scintillating scales and barely hits touch AC but fails the SR roll for bull's strength. How does that work?
The same as above, but an archer with cat's grace, or a thrower with bull's strength.
Bear's endurance, full stop.
Heal, when used to heal. This is really the crux: it's an instantaneous Conjuration that has no direct effect on a foe, but will undeniably have a strong indirect influence on the number of attacks a foe will sustain.


Essentially, all-SR-yes muddies the waters with indirect magic action: it denies that a spell can affect a creature indirectly, but still inevitably leaves holes where it's possible to do so. It's logically unsound.

[Togo]

There is no way to address what you are asking for in 3.5 D&D without directly rewriting or houseruling everything about spellcasters and their feats. Which is why my group no longer plays 3.5 D&D, but I won't bring that up in this forum.

The reason my group(s) still play 3.5 is because we have addressed the problem. Different strokes for different folks.

The problem is that our solution(s) are to do with playstyle and how different playstyles are treated in the game. If you want a purely mechanical solution that leaves everyone free to blindly pursue mechanical advantage, then you're setting yourself up for a problem, because your proposed changes need to counter everything the players could come up with. If you could reliably do that, you wouldn't have a problem in the first place. It's not impossible (one of my groups managed it by heavily modifying the old Living Greyhawk list of bans and mods) but it's a fairly involved process.

The alternative, in which both players and DM work together to avoid breaking game balance in the design of their characters, is perfectly workable, but may not be the style you're after.

Both of these solutions have been used for almost a decade without any fatal difficulties. But they may not work for you, and may not be workable for what you want to do.

[Deepbluediver]

Essentially, all-SR-yes muddies the waters with indirect magic action: it denies that a spell can affect a creature indirectly, but still inevitably leaves holes where it's possible to do so. It's logically unsound.

This is why I promote a system that has SR roles for the appropriate spells, and a different set of roles for spells that don't easily check against SR (so that they are more like skill-checks).

Think about it: if the rogue needs to make a skill check to pick a lock on a door or chest, why shouldn't the wizard need to make a roll of some sort to use a spell that does the same thing? It's not because the door has spell resistance (it doesn't), it's because manipulating arcane or divine energies to achieve some specific effect is at least as difficult as any other action you take in the game.

If you already have some check in place for when the wizard casts Bull's Strength or Summon Monter, you don't need ANOTHER check for when the fighter attacks a dragon or your dire badger starts slugging it out with some zombies.

[Dimers]

I still like the option of putting every caster on a bard progression, but in addition to everything else, THAT might go too far.

Works for me. It takes away quite a few "standard action utterly changes the world" options (level 7-9 spells), and puts a more significant limit on both spell selection and spells per day. Casters DEFINITELY still have an important place and some great tricks, at all levels of play, but they have to be more conservative.

[TuggyNE]

This is why I promote a system that has SR roles for the appropriate spells, and a different set of roles for spells that don't easily check against SR (so that they are more like skill-checks).

Think about it: if the rogue needs to make a skill check to pick a lock on a door or chest, why shouldn't the wizard need to make a roll of some sort to use a spell that does the same thing? It's not because the door has spell resistance (it doesn't), it's because manipulating arcane or divine energies to achieve some specific effect is at least as difficult as any other action you take in the game.

If you already have some check in place for when the wizard casts Bull's Strength or Summon Monter, you don't need ANOTHER check for when the fighter attacks a dragon or your dire badger starts slugging it out with some zombies.

Hmm, yeah, that could work considerably better depending on exact implementation. Main problem I can see off-hand is it increases number of rolls a bit, but that's probably manageable.