Unorthodox 30th level game

[Larkas]

So, a weird line of thought came to me. What if the 9 spell levels were spread out over 30 levels instead of 20? I'm not thinking epic gameplay here: epic, in this case, would start at 31. It would be pretty much the same game for the casual onlooker, taking the same time to go 1-30 as a regular game goes 1-20. The main difference would be the increased HD, BAB (we're using non-epic rules here, so full BAB=+30/+25/+20/+15/+10/+5), saves, attributes and extra feats. Oh, and skills should be more powerful. It would also open room for some more multiclassing.

Overall, and superficially, I can see the game comparatively favoring non casters more (which is kind of the point), but I'm not so sure. What else would change in that game? What should I look out for?

PS: Oh, and expect PrCs to be likewise balanced. Ur-Priest would likely be stretched to 20 levels, for example.

[OldTrees1]

Assuming you are also excluding/nerfing the Tier 1 spells then this could work, otherwise a 12th? level wizard casting Polymorph or Lesser Planar Binding is likely to still be a problem.

I expect you will get several comments about how non casters don't get enough non-numeric improvements as they level. It sounds like you are going to fix some of that within the skill system (and some of it is already partially fixed in the feat system despite "common knowledge") but you might want to address that issue too.

[daremetoidareyo]

The Flat DCs for poisons and abilities would be even more worthless. you would need to fix it that.

[Ganorenas]

It sounds like a decent plan, but would take some work in areas outside of just redesigning the tables for leveling.

For spells, would a new spell level every 3 levels instead of every 2 levels work?

Spell level- original to adjusted
1st-1 to 1
2nd-3 to 4
3rd-5 to 7
4th- 7 to 10
5th- 9 to 13
6th- 11 to 16
7th- 13 to 19
8th- 15 to 22
9th- 17 to 25

Would make qualifying for some prestige a take longer. You would always get a feat just before a new spell level, so 2/3 level ups would make a "major" change in power, which I would enjoy if I was playing an adjusted character.

Ability Dcs based on 10+HD(or1/2HD)+StatMod would stay relative.
Spell Saves would be easier to meet for the players, which could be good.

[Melcar]

It sounds like a decent plan, but would take some work in areas outside of just redesigning the tables for leveling.

For spells, would a new spell level every 3 levels instead of every 2 levels work?

Spell level- original to adjusted
1st-1 to 1
2nd-3 to 4
3rd-5 to 7
4th- 7 to 10
5th- 9 to 13
6th- 11 to 16
7th- 13 to 19
8th- 15 to 22
9th- 17 to 25

Would make qualifying for some prestige a take longer. You would always get a feat just before a new spell level, so 2/3 level ups would make a "major" change in power, which I would enjoy if I was playing an adjusted character.

Ability Dcs based on 10+HD(or1/2HD)+StatMod would stay relative.
Spell Saves would be easier to meet for the players, which could be good.

I have a problem about the Spell DCs in general. A CR 30 monster is more or less autosaving every spell type. Unless you allow for the Archmage 3.0 version spells are going to be less and less effective. Sure you could expand spells to go to 1dX per spell level up to 30 instead of 20 or 25, but that would still be only a minor fix.

I think the idea is good, but its not a simple fix...

[Karl Aegis]

So my barbarian's rage ability now takes 30 levels to double in effectiveness instead of 20. Spells still double in effectiveness every other spell level. The jump from Rage to Mighty Rage is still horrible, while casters still get their jump from Cure Light Wounds to Cure Moderate Wounds. Throw in more dead levels and we will call it a party.

[OldTrees1]

So my barbarian's rage ability now takes 30 levels to double in effectiveness instead of 20. Spells still double in effectiveness every other spell level. The jump from Rage to Mighty Rage is still horrible, while casters still get their jump from Cure Light Wounds to Cure Moderate Wounds. Throw in more dead levels and we will call it a party.

Why are you assuming non spellcasting class features are being delayed as well?

[Spore]

Spell level- original to adjusted
1st-1 to 1
2nd-3 to 4
3rd-5 to 7
4th- 7 to 10
5th- 9 to 13
6th- 11 to 16
7th- 13 to 19
8th- 15 to 22
9th- 17 to 25


I would possibly even keep spell progression until 7th level/4th level spells the same. It benefits gishes. And I feel it would make sense for a wizard to access simple spells more quickly while the real arcane power takes time, real divine power takes devotion.

Also if you have ever played a Wizard 1-7, you wouldn't feel gamebreaking in any way.

[TrollCapAmerica]

The biggest problem would be that higher level mosters still fly teleport and have spell-like abilities that can wreak a party without the right tools to fight them. A Gablezu goes from a moderate challenge to a teleporting chaos hammer and reverse gravity spamming killing machine for instance

[Larkas]

The biggest problem would be that higher level mosters still fly teleport and have spell-like abilities that can wreak a party without the right tools to fight them. A Gablezu goes from a moderate challenge to a teleporting chaos hammer and reverse gravity spamming killing machine for instance

That's a fair point. I guess monsters would have to be rebalanced based on their special abilities.

[Jack_Simth]

That's a fair point. I guess monsters would have to be rebalanced based on their special abilities.
Yeppers. You're going to need to overhaul all the monsters with the new expectations. If you don't have a way to de-petrify, a Medusa or a Gorgon becomes a higher risk encounter, for instance. Essentially, you're going to end up having to rebuild most of the game.

[Sith_Happens]

I have a problem about the Spell DCs in general. A CR 30 monster is more or less autosaving every spell type. Unless you allow for the Archmage 3.0 version spells are going to be less and less effective.

Uh, I'm pretty sure that's the point.

[Melcar]

Uh, I'm pretty sure that's the point.

Ok... Hmmm. How much nerfing does the spell DCs need? I mean lets just take some examples.

Golden Dragon Great Wyrm (CR 27): Fort +33/ Ref +22/ Will +33

Hoary Hunter (CR 25): Fort +28, Ref +36, Will +31

Titan, Elder (CR 30): Fort +47, Ref +37, Will +50

Infernal (CR 26): Fort +31, Ref +29, Will +30

Three-Headed Sirrush (CR 28): Fort +45, Ref +43, Will +33

leShay (CR 28): Fort +29, Ref +44, Will +35

Genius Loci (CR 30): Fort +43, Ref +21, Will +30

Yes wizards has spells that does not allow for saves, and Gate and Shapechange can win almost every encounter. My point is, not everyone thinks its fun to play a PO wizard. I also know that there are CR 25-30 monsters and NPC who does not have as high saves as the ones I have shown here. But these also have immunities and SR. These are just some quick searches.

I play a level 31 human wizard. I have doen everything in my power to boost my base save as high a possible and its 35 (38 for evocation and transmutation). We use the 3.0 version of Archmage and Spellcasting Prodigy, I have 43 int, (by way of 3rd party) and have an item that gives an untyped +2 bonus. Without these it drops to 24. I personally think that a 50/50 change of save is balanced. And that going to be very difficult with base save 24 or 35 for that matter! So I dont like the idea of nerfing spell DCs.

[Larkas]

Yeppers. You're going to need to overhaul all the monsters with the new expectations. If you don't have a way to de-petrify, a Medusa or a Gorgon becomes a higher risk encounter, for instance. Essentially, you're going to end up having to rebuild most of the game.

Nah. Just locate problematic critters, move them to a CR where an encounter does not guarantee a TPK and buff their HD accordingly.

[Venger]

Nah. Just locate problematic critters, move them to a CR where an encounter does not guarantee a TPK and buff their HD accordingly.

that's going to be essentially every monster in the game.

what exactly is your overall goal? I'm sure there's a less disruptive way to do it. if you want to nerf casters, one might cap them at 6th lvl spells following standard progression or something, that way you don't need to rewrite 90% of the game.

[atemu1234]

I read somewhere where someone said to give them all bardic spell progressions. I never saw a reason why not.

But if someone's abusing spellcasting as-is, they're still going to abuse it no matter how you do it.

[Venger]

I read somewhere where someone said to give them all bardic spell progressions. I never saw a reason why not.

But if someone's abusing spellcasting as-is, they're still going to abuse it no matter how you do it.

again, you'll need to rejigger every monster ever so you're not playing by a different set of rule (and stuff like petrification and such) but this is, as mentioned, a workable solution if your aim is to nerf casters.

yeah if you don't know how to run for casters, there's nothing wrong with that, jut ask your players to play lower tier classes

[atemu1234]

again, you'll need to rejigger every monster ever so you're not playing by a different set of rule (and stuff like petrification and such) but this is, as mentioned, a workable solution if your aim is to nerf casters.

yeah if you don't know how to run for casters, there's nothing wrong with that, jut ask your players to play lower tier classes

Or to not abuse the casters. Or something.

[Venger]

Or to not abuse the casters. Or something.

sure.

my point is that this is an OOC problem, so needs an OOC solution. if a player runs into an IC obstacle, they're going to want to solve it. if it's framed OOC
>"hey, anon, I don't know how to meaningfully challenge you when you have ironhews up all the time, could you like, not cast it anymore and I'll do the same for npcs?"
>"sure dm"

rather than some kind of tortured reason in-character for why the spell doesn't exist/you suddenly can't cast it when you used to be able to/etc.

[Renen]

PS: Oh, and expect PrCs to be likewise balanced. Ur-Priest would likely be stretched to 20 levels, for example.

Dont you mean 15? Because that makes it go from "for 1/2 your non-epic levels you get full divine casting" to "for 2/3 your non-epic levels you get full divine casting".

[Psyren]

In addition to the "rewriting every monster" issue, the second problem I see here is that this doesn't just nerf the T1s and T2s, it nerfs every spellcaster. So the casters with bard (6th) or paladin (4th) progression also have to wait longer for their meaningful stuff, despite already being balanced or even underpowered. In fact, it even nerfs the martials, who have to wait even longer for key buffs like flight, haste or stoneskin.

Then there are modules and APs, which are written around the assumption that the game tops out at 20. Even the ones that don't get that high assume the players have certain tools available at certain levels, even to the point of handing the players scrolls of X at level Y. So you'd have to dig through all of those as well to make sure that this dilation of the spell progression isn't hurting anything there either.

So no, I'm not seeing this as a good thing.

[Venger]

In addition to the "rewriting every monster" issue, the second problem I see here is that this doesn't just nerf the T1s and T2s, it nerfs every spellcaster. So the casters with bard (6th) or paladin (4th) progression also have to wait longer for their meaningful stuff, despite already being balanced or even underpowered. In fact, it even nerfs the martials, who have to wait even longer for key buffs like flight, haste or stoneskin.

Then there are modules and APs, which are written around the assumption that the game tops out at 20. Even the ones that don't get that high assume the players have certain tools available at certain levels, even to the point of handing the players scrolls of X at level Y. So you'd have to dig through all of those as well to make sure that this dilation of the spell progression isn't hurting anything there either.

So no, I'm not seeing this as a good thing.

yeah agree with all of this, it seems very unnecessary.

again, what're your design goals?

[Larkas]

Eh, you guys take things too seriously. There is no design goal. This was a simple thought experiment.

[Psyren]

Eh, you guys take things too seriously. There is no design goal. This was a simple thought experiment.

You did ask for feedback :smalltongue:


yeah agree with all of this, it seems very unnecessary.

again, what're your design goals?

It seems to be this:



Overall, and superficially, I can see the game comparatively favoring non casters more (which is kind of the point), but I'm not so sure.

Like many other changes that seek to nerf spellcasters however, it fails to take into account spellcasters that are not in the top two tiers, as well as magical buffs that the game assumes the high-tier casters are providing to everyone else by the time they reach level X.

[SowZ]

Ok... Hmmm. How much nerfing does the spell DCs need? I mean lets just take some examples.

Golden Dragon Great Wyrm (CR 27): Fort +33/ Ref +22/ Will +33

Hoary Hunter (CR 25): Fort +28, Ref +36, Will +31

Titan, Elder (CR 30): Fort +47, Ref +37, Will +50

Infernal (CR 26): Fort +31, Ref +29, Will +30

Three-Headed Sirrush (CR 28): Fort +45, Ref +43, Will +33

leShay (CR 28): Fort +29, Ref +44, Will +35

Genius Loci (CR 30): Fort +43, Ref +21, Will +30

Yes wizards has spells that does not allow for saves, and Gate and Shapechange can win almost every encounter. My point is, not everyone thinks its fun to play a PO wizard. I also know that there are CR 25-30 monsters and NPC who does not have as high saves as the ones I have shown here. But these also have immunities and SR. These are just some quick searches.

I play a level 31 human wizard. I have doen everything in my power to boost my base save as high a possible and its 35 (38 for evocation and transmutation). We use the 3.0 version of Archmage and Spellcasting Prodigy, I have 43 int, (by way of 3rd party) and have an item that gives an untyped +2 bonus. Without these it drops to 24. I personally think that a 50/50 change of save is balanced. And that going to be very difficult with base save 24 or 35 for that matter! So I dont like the idea of nerfing spell DCs.

Thing is, there are so many save or die spells that if you can just throw Dominate Monster willy-nilly on dragons with a bit of optimization, you can trivialize the majority of encounters.

[HolyCouncilMagi]

Thing is, there are so many save or die spells that if you can just throw Dominate Monster willy-nilly on dragons with a bit of optimization, you can trivialize the majority of encounters.

Yeah, it's somewhat annoying, actually. You can't straight raise DCs or the broken spells have even more of a field day than they already did, but keeping them where they are makes the other fun spells go from merely not broken to literally useless... And not the slightly okay "they passed the save on Finger of Death but hey, they still took a little damage" useless, but full-stop useless, in most cases.

[Melcar]

Thing is, there are so many save or die spells that if you can just throw Dominate Monster willy-nilly on dragons with a bit of optimization, you can trivialize the majority of encounters.

My point is, that they will auto save... not sure what willy nilly means but unless you cheese your way to high DCs all the save or die spell are so unlikely to work. At CR 30, monsters are so powerful, that you need a better chance of success that 5% In my oppinion. Again, in my view there should be around 50/50 chance of saving.

[SowZ]

My point is, that they will auto save... not sure what willy nilly means but unless you cheese your way to high DCs all the save or die spell are so unlikely to work. At CR 30, monsters are so powerful, that you need a better chance of success that 5% In my oppinion. Again, in my view there should be around 50/50 chance of saving.

Should the average Fighter also have a 50/50 chance of straight up killing the dragon in one hit? If Dominate Monster works 50/50 vs a high level dragon, the wizard can solo the dragon and win 75% of the time unless the dragon is capable of one shotting him.

[ericgrau]

I would possibly even keep spell progression until 7th level/4th level spells the same. It benefits gishes. And I feel it would make sense for a wizard to access simple spells more quickly while the real arcane power takes time, real divine power takes devotion.

Also if you have ever played a Wizard 1-7, you wouldn't feel gamebreaking in any way.
Also it's easy to calculate half progression from there. You get your 9th level spells at level 27 rather than 17, and you finish up at level 30 with the spells of an 18.5 level wizard.

A wizard gains 2 spells per day every level. For each half progression step advance the lower level spell per day, then next level advance the higher level spell per day. Easy peezy.


Should the average Fighter also have a 50/50 chance of straight up killing the dragon in one hit? If Dominate Monster works 50/50 vs a high level dragon, the wizard can solo the dragon and win 75% of the time unless the dragon is capable of one shotting him.
SR says it doesn't work this way. Most single target save-yes SR-yes spells are actually pretty poor and worse than damage, unless you cheese the save DC up to high heaven and likewise make the SR irrelevant.

It actually takes around 2-1/2 rounds for the fighter to kill a typical challenging foe at all levels, both low and high, without any serious optimization. With optimization he can of course ubercharge and 1 shot the dragon while with optimization the wizard shatters the universe. Damage actually isn't bad, it's just not that versatile. Non casters need to heavily rely on magic items for their special tricks which is part of why I hate low wealth/gear campaigns with a passion. They also need them for their damage, stats, etc. whereas many spells can function just fine with poor stats. Not usually dominate, but a lot of no-save no-SR spells work great regardless of stats.

So I suggest leaving WBL unchanged for a 30 level game. So many spells may be available via item nearly as quick as the wizard learns them, if not faster. I mean around level 21 a staff with 9ths on it isn't horribly expensive. Not to mention other items that spells can't duplicate. The wizard still stays plenty relevant for versatility though even if power might be lacking.

[Melcar]

Should the average Fighter also have a 50/50 chance of straight up killing the dragon in one hit? If Dominate Monster works 50/50 vs a high level dragon, the wizard can solo the dragon and win 75% of the time unless the dragon is capable of one shotting him.

Yes... if the fighter has a limited amount of time he could do it.

I dont know how many save or die spells you usually have ready, but I usually have 1/3 offencive 1/3 utility and 1/3 defencive. Thats about 20 offencive spells. Of that, I usually go with a nice 50/50 damage and save or suck spells. So that around 10 save or suck spells. With immunities and SR that might be 5 spells that can affect my target. Since I have some for a different variety of monsters and if we use my 50/50 2-3 spell would affect it depending on situation in general.

What save chance, do you think is reasonable for a level 30 wiz against a CR 30?


Without cheese I see a maximum save DC for a level 30 wizard to be around DC 40 for a level 9 spell. With added focus on DCs one could get it higher by havin circle magic and or implementing 3rd party sources. If we again look at some of the monsters I have cited in a earlier post, we find that its not that hard to get to 40 for them. And most was not even CR 30.

[SowZ]

Yes... if the fighter has a limited amount of time he could do it.

I dont know how many save or die spells you usually have ready, but I usually have 1/3 offencive 1/3 utility and 1/3 defencive. Thats about 20 offencive spells. Of that, I usually go with a nice 50/50 damage and save or suck spells. So that around 10 save or suck spells. With immunities and SR that might be 5 spells that can affect my target. Since I have some for a different variety of monsters and if we use my 50/50 2-3 spell would affect it depending on situation in general.

What save chance, do you think is reasonable for a level 30 wiz against a CR 30?


Without cheese I see a maximum save DC for a level 30 wizard to be around DC 40 for a level 9 spell. With added focus on DCs one could get it higher by havin circle magic and or implementing 3rd party sources. If we again look at some of the monsters I have cited in a earlier post, we find that its not that hard to get to 40 for them. And most was not even CR 30.

It's not really a matter of what is reasonable. I don't like the save or die spells period. There is no way to balance them properly. Either they are so good they are broken, or they work so rarely they are useless. They are poorly designed abilities that optimizers can break the game with and casual players waste their turn doing.

Things like domination should be rituals that require incapacitated foes, or maybe something powerful enough to consistently take care of an encounter but it takes several rounds to perform and is obvious, meaning the enemy has a chance to respond and the party must protect the caster. It is a bit boring for the caster, but he gets his spotlight time at the end. Save or lose spells should not be single action abilities as it isn't just a matter of 'appropriate DC.' It is just poor design.

Abilities that straight up double the damage of martial characters are also poor designed, as one shotting a boss dragon with a sword is equally dumb. It forces the DM to either A. let you end the encounter in one swing or B. play the dragon in such a way that the Fighter can never hit him. Once again, it is either too good or useless. If the Fighter did, say, 20% of it's health in a turn, a DM is more likely to let the Fighter close range and do his shtick.