[System Tweak] All Save DCs on One Formula

[Fax Celestis]

What would happen to the game if all save DCs (including spells) were switched to a 10 + 1/2 HD + stat modifier system?

[Flickerdart]

Arcane Archers would be pretty pleased, and lower level spells would be useful for a little longer. Heighten Spell would only be useful for abuse.

So, not much.

[Stegyre]

Lower level spells would become more powerful: it is essentially a free Heighten Spell. (It would also moot the Heighten Spell feat, except perhaps for fueling reserve feats.)

[Draz74]

Lower level spells would become more powerful: it is essentially a free Heighten Spell. (It would also moot the Heighten Spell feat, except perhaps for fueling reserve feats.)

Well, Heighten Spell would still be useful for overcoming Globes of Invulnerability and a few rare similar effects. Plus cheesy shenanigans that Flickerdart referred to (usually involving Sanctum Spell as well).

But it probably wouldn't be worth spending a feat on anymore.

[Doorhandle]

Arcane Archers would be pretty pleased, and lower level spells would be useful for a little longer. Heighten Spell would only be useful for abuse.

So, not much.

Enough that I'd still consider it though.

[TuggyNE]

But it probably wouldn't be worth spending a feat on anymore.

For most purposes it would be worse than Skill Focus: Climb, I'd warrant.

[Psyren]

As others have said this is basically free Heighten. This does make some lower-level effects much more powerful, like Sanctuary, Command or Glitterdust.

[AmberVael]

It's worth noting that psionics already kinda works this way due to the ability to augment low level powers to increase save DC. While it isn't a perfect comparison to boosting all powers to that sort of save for free, it seems comparable enough to be worth looking at.

With that as an example, you could expect some more efficacy and endurance with your low level spells, but I don't think anything would be broken. All in all, it seems like it'd be a positive change to me.

[Psyren]

There's key differences between this and psionics though. Psionics requires you to manually augment the powers, which lowers your ammunition for subsequent fights - this proposed change is basically free augmentation instead. Further, not all psionic powers can be augmented to improve the save DC, whereas this would apply to every spell.

[Fax Celestis]

Advantage, though, would be that you could have a "DCs:" slot on your character sheet and have it key for everything.

[Maginomicon]

I have to wonder what kind of synergy would happen if the OP's method was combined with my "Save Points" gradual-defense method (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=306961). Low tiers deserve nice things?

[Chronos]

Advantage, though, would be that you could have a "DCs:" slot on your character sheet and have it key for everything.
Not necessarily; you can still have multiple key ability scores for different abilities. Dragonfire Adepts, for instance, have a Con-based breath weapon and Cha-based invocations. And there are also some abilities that explicitly have a boost to their save DC. Besides, it's not like it's all that hard to just list a DC right ahead of each level of spells on your sheet.

[Ravens_cry]

Besides, it's not like it's all that hard to just list a DC right ahead of each level of spells on your sheet.
I've even seen sheets that do this.

[Fax Celestis]

I guess. I'm mostly looking to see if the simplicity of having the same formula for everything is gamebreaking.

From a designer's perspective, it's a good thing: short PrCs with ability DCs based on class level don't get the short end of the stick, and feats don't vary wildly from one to another. It also means that measuring expected DCs (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AuqvG3gSGuF7dFd0X1NQQmFNMWUxQUcwOExteUpPb Xc&usp=sharing&authkey=CNPl-7AB) is more predictable. The "Hero Value" line in the Save DCs section is a good approximation of this save DC formula.

[AmberVael]

There's key differences between this and psionics though. Psionics requires you to manually augment the powers, which lowers your ammunition for subsequent fights - this proposed change is basically free augmentation instead.
This is something I already noted in my post. :smallconfused:


Further, not all psionic powers can be augmented to improve the save DC, whereas this would apply to every spell.
This is true. That said, a good majority do have that option- I don't suppose there is an exact count somewhere? Might be interesting to look at.

[Maginomicon]

It might not be "overpowered", but it'd certainly be "broken". That is, it would "break" (make non-functional) a lot of things.

Most notably, not all spell effects that require a save DC necessarily have a specific caster associated with them, and thus don't have an HD associated with them. What happens to those effects?

Additionally, scaling it based on HD means a Fighter 19/Wizard 1 would get a +10 on his DCs from his 20 HD. That's odd to say the least. While fighters specifically (and low tiers in-general) deserve nice things, this doesn't make a lick of sense thematically.

Furthermore, scaling by HD means that spell save DCs would scale up faster compared to the base save bonuses provided by creature type/levels. That's not good.

[Fax Celestis]

Most notably, not all spell effects that require a save DC necessarily have a specific caster associated with them, and thus don't have an HD associated with them. What happens to those effects?That would have to be solved on a case-by-case basis. You're referring to items, to traps, or to something else specifically?


Additionally, scaling it based on HD means a Fighter 19/Wizard 1 would get a +10 on his DCs from his 20 HD. That's odd to say the least. While fighters specifically (and low tiers in-general) deserve nice things, this doesn't make a lick of sense thematically.Sure, but he'd only have 1st level spells, and his save DCs would be level-appropriate.


Furthermore, scaling by HD means that spell save DCs would scale up faster compared to the base save bonuses provided by creature type/levels. That's not good.Now that is an issue. Monsters don't necessarily have to follow the same rules as PCs, though I'd definitely like them to.

[Maginomicon]

That would have to be solved on a case-by-case basis. You're referring to items, to traps, or to something else specifically?All of the above really. It becomes problematic because it creates an exponential increase in workload in the long run.

Sure, but he'd only have 1st level spells, and his save DCs would be level-appropriate."Level-appropriate" by what standard? CR? Additionally, what about a Fighter 20 / Wizard 20 (such as Elminster, oddly, as I recall) getting +20 to his save DCs instead of it capping at Spell Level 9th?

[Fax Celestis]

"Level-appropriate" by what standard? CR? Additionally, what about a Fighter 20 / Wizard 20 (such as Elminster, oddly, as I recall) getting +20 to his save DCs instead of it capping at Spell Level 9th?

And at 40th level, a good save would be 22 + mod. 10 + 1/2HD + mod would be DC 30 + mod. Assuming equal stat mods, that means defender needs to roll an 8 to pass. A bad save would be 13 + mod, or defender needs to roll a 17.

In comparison, using your same example, a 1st level spell from a ftr 20/wiz 20 would be DC 11 + mod. Good save doesn't need to roll, bad save probably doesn't need to roll. A 9th level spell would be 19 + mod, so good save would still not need to roll, and bad save would need to roll an 8.

[AmberVael]

Furthermore, scaling by HD means that spell save DCs would scale up faster compared to the base save bonuses provided by creature type/levels. That's not good.
Faster than bad saves, not good saves. Given that saves do tend to have more bonuses to draw from than DCs, I don't think it would be quite as bad as you're making it sound.

That said, it could likely use some tweaking. One save keeping pace and the other lagging behind isn't exactly optimal.


"Level-appropriate" by what standard? CR? Additionally, what about a Fighter 20 / Wizard 20 (such as Elminster, oddly, as I recall) getting +20 to his save DCs instead of it capping at Spell Level 9th?

This actually sounds like an improvement to the current system, because as it stands save based powers become nigh useless in epic levels. Too many save bonuses and good save scaling for every save (due to the weird epic save progression) when you have no DC scaling means you always save.

[Zaq]

This is basically exactly what Legend does. 99% of the save DCs are 10 + 1/2 level + KOM, which is basically your primary stat. In the Legend paradigm, it works just fine.

The downside in the 3.5 paradigm is that it makes casters more powerful. If a 1st level slot is as hard to resist as a 5th level slot, then a sufficiently debilitating low-level spell will be just as effective as a high-level spell (and don't act like there aren't some great save-or-lose spells at low levels), so everything a caster does will be at full strength. They won't have to choose whether it's worth making your strongest effects the hardest to resist at the cost of limiting your unique options; for example, against humanoids, Charm Person will be just as good as Charm Monster, and it'll leave your 4th level slots open for other things. A mage sticking to lower level spells to conserve stamina won't necessarily be easier to resist than one burning everything he's got.

Of course, non-casters would get some benefit. PrCs would have save DCs that are much saner than they are right now, ToB maneuvers wouldn't necessarily obsolete themselves, and multiclassing becomes much, much easier. Also, Incarnum makes more sense. So those are good things.

Items would be hard to balance. Scrolls and wands get much stronger. Most items that have some kind of save DC are underpowered because that DC is too low, but I'm sure at least one or two would end up as too powerful for the cost, all other things being equal.

In short, there's nothing wrong with it in a vacuum, but unless you've got other tweaks in place to make casters less all-powerful, I'd be wary in 3.5.

[Psyren]

The downside in the 3.5 paradigm is that it makes casters more powerful. If a 1st level slot is as hard to resist as a 5th level slot, then a sufficiently debilitating low-level spell will be just as effective as a high-level spell (and don't act like there aren't some great save-or-lose spells at low levels), so everything a caster does will be at full strength. They won't have to choose whether it's worth making your strongest effects the hardest to resist at the cost of limiting your unique options; for example, against humanoids, Charm Person will be just as good as Charm Monster, and it'll leave your 4th level slots open for other things. A mage sticking to lower level spells to conserve stamina won't necessarily be easier to resist than one burning everything he's got.

This is what I was getting at, but better-written. The lower-level effects get powered up, and that becomes a problem if you make no other changes because there are so many more of them. A cleric for instance can fill all their first-level slots with Sanctuary and run around most battlefields with near-impunity.

I would wager it works better in Legend because the lower-level and higher-level effects are a bit more normalized/less quadratic. Which is something you'd have to do to make this kind of thing work. Similar to how Binder vestige abilities are more dependent on situation than vestige level.

[Just to Browse]

If casters are already nerfed, this is great. I'd recommend it to every game.

[Fax Celestis]

Let's just assume for the sake of argument that that's a thing I can (and am) fixing. Is the game impact worth that effort?

[Xerlith]

Personally, I think it would be better as a feat or a class (caster PrC?) feature instead of a system change.

[Zaq]

It has a lot of good effects. As long as the power bump it gives to casters is acknowledged and accounted for, I'm in favor of simplifying. (It also has the effect of smoothing out the power curve between low-level abilities and high-level abilities, which has the potential to ease up on some design concerns if handled skillfully.)