6/9 casters with +3 to spell DCs - fixed, or broken the other way?

[Segev]

The PF2 thread has a side discussion that verges on derail regarding 6/9 caster progression in 3.5 and PF1, and whether those casters are overly weak because their save DCs suffer compared to those of casters who get all 9 spell levels. This is particularly true for those which get higher-level spells in lower-level "slots" to compensate for their delayed progression.

What if, at levels 3, 9, and 15 (one level before 2nd, 4th, and 6th level spells become available, respectively), 6/9 casters got a thematically-for-the-class-named DC-booster?

So Bards might get Musical Magic, increasing their DCs for Bard spells by 1 at level 3, 2 at level 9, and 3 at level 15. Summoners might get Conjuries of Power. Psychics might get Powerful Mind, or some such. Or they might all just be universally called "Spell Power," and still have text that limits them to only that class's spells being so enhanced.

This would mean a 16th level Bard would have base DC of (13+Charisma+Spell Level) for his Bard spells. His 6th level spells would match a Sorcerer's 9th level spells for DC. But his 1st level ones would match a Sorcerer's 4th level spells for DC, as well.

Would that be too much, or would that just fix an extant flaw?

[Kurald Galain]

Partial classes get (a) a BIG action economy advantage, (b) more class features, and (c) better defenses to compensate for the fact that they get lower-level spells and lower save DCs. This is known as a trade-off and it increases diversity between classes.

There is no problem with the 6/9 casters and nothing that requires fixing.

[MrSandman]

If the benchmark is wizards, clerics and druids, no, +3 to spell DCs isn't going to make them broken in any way. In fact, if we're talking about fixing spell DCs I might go all the way to just using a plain 10 + 1/2 CL + ability mod for all spells, regardless of class and level.

[Snowbluff]

I dunno, a feat would be nice but I feel like a feat is costing them for something that will just lower the number of options that are traps. I've done some experimenting on the matter, such as with my Beseecher and Chimera classes. Not to plug myself, as these classes are incomplete and probably need some editing, but Beeseecher (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?422391-Beeseecher-Discussion) got a bonus to Enchantment DCs just as they leveled much as suggested above (called Hive Mentality), and Chimera could take a class option to get Hypertheurgy, which improved spell DCs to match 9/9 casters.

It wouldn't be imbalanced in any way, to say the least. The T3 9/9 casters in 3.5 proved that you could go as far as offer a full range of casting in addition to class features as long as the spell lists were balanced enough. Given that 6/9 classes don't go that far, all you're doing is opening up some tactical alternatives to how you select your spells and look at a fight.


Partial classes get (a) a BIG action economy advantage, (b) more class features, and (c) better defenses to compensate for the fact that they get lower-level spells and lower save DCs. This is known as a trade-off and it increases diversity between classes.

*looks at OG 3.5 bard*

Well, A is untrue, as only specific examples of 6/9 like Magus and Warpriest get improved action economy AFAICT, and other casters have plenty of options for increasing it. Every spell is also effectively class feature in that it increases variety and strategies, so when you learn more spells you're getting more class features, so B is untrue, and C is untrue as well, given how powerful some spells are at protecting people, and that fact that Cleric, Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, and Warmage all have armor proficiencies, Sorcerers/WIzards/Archivists can craft/buy armor without ASF or ACP so spell failure and nonproficiency don't matter, Psions straight up take non ASF so they can wear plate pointlessly.



There is no problem with the 6/9 casters and nothing that requires fixing.
Oh, never mind then I guess they're perfect. Carry on. :smalltongue:


If the benchmark is wizards, clerics and druids, no, +3 to spell DCs isn't going to make them broken in any way. In fact, if we're talking about fixing spell DCs I might go all the way to just using a plain 10 + 1/2 CL + ability mod for all spells, regardless of class and level.

It is certainly an option. I would appreciate it, for one. Normally my first level slots are relegated to me gleefully spamming Ray of Enfeeblement at high levels in 3.5. I do wanted if number of spells slots might need to be tone down a tad, since the lower level ones are suddenly no longer so much less useful, but 'tis but a thought.

[Asmotherion]

i believe a simpler "fix" would be to change the bard to full caster and allow them to use the illusion and enchantment schools for their spell list.

similarly the paladin could gradually get access to the Good Law and one more (from Deity portofolio) Domains as if they were Clerics of the same level.

Thematically similar solutions could apply for other half casters.

[exelsisxax]

In PF, every hybrid caster is better balanced than every fullcaster. No hybrid casters have any significant mechanical faults.

Your main issue is simply not a problem in actual play: hybrids are not designed for throwing save-or-dies, they are much more concerned with buffs or enablers. The mesmerist is the only hybrid caster that is particularly concerned with spell DCs, and because the designers at paizo sometimes hit things just right, the mesmerist includes a scaling will penalty that scales faster than the spell level deficit.

The only problem with hybrid casters is that nobody ever made a hybrid blaster.

[Psychoalpha]

The bonus to DCs in the OP is more or less what should have been done, yeah.


In fact, if we're talking about fixing spell DCs I might go all the way to just using a plain 10 + 1/2 CL + ability mod for all spells, regardless of class and level.

While I like this one one hand, I sort of balk on the other. Should a level 1 spell be just as difficult to resist as a level 9 spell? Is it as easy (or hard) to shrug off Charm Preson as it is Dominate Person? I don't really have a strong argument for either way, but it feels a bit wobbly to me.


better defenses to compensate for the fact that they get lower-level spells and lower save DCs

Only if one actually believes that the one is compensation for the other instead of just misguided class design by somebody who didn't think it through, which I don't.

There are already substantial spellcasting trade offs going on with 6/9 casters, +3 to DC spread across the full spread of their development so that the spells with saves on their list aren't essentially useless does not create any unbalance. Warpriests are still generally going to use buffs and utility spells, just like Bards and most others.

It would only mean that people wanting to play less typical versions of those characters, like Bards that focus on crowd control or Warpriests who want to lay down debuffs instead of self buffs because they fit their divine inspiration better, can actually try to do so without just wasting their actions.

I'm utterly baffled at why this is such a problem for some people.

[Snowbluff]

Your main issue is simply not a problem in actual play: hybrids are not designed for throwing save-or-dies, they are much more concerned with buffs or enablers. The mesmerist is the only hybrid caster that is particularly concerned with spell DCs, and because the designers at paizo sometimes hit things just right, the mesmerist includes a scaling will penalty that scales faster than the spell level deficit.


Weird, for some reason there are a pile of spells on every casters list that, in fact has a save. It's almost as if there were designed with these abilities and were merely never properly implemented, rather than them being entirely unintended to be on their spell list at all.

Also, forgive me if I am wrong, but Mesmerist's stare ONLY gives +3 to the DC effectively, right? So its actually a non-feature compensating for an inherent deficiency. It's almost like they all have an inherent fault.

Finally, every turn to page... 112 of your Spell Compendium. Observe the Assassin ripping out the hearts of his enemies. Now understand he will never get to use this exclusive spell with a DC to rip out someone's heart, because as a partial caster he only gives a base save of 14, and he spent most of his resources on his dex for his combat style.

[Rhedyn]

Weird, for some reason there are a pile of spells on every casters list that, in fact has a save."Your main issue is simply not a problem in actual play: hybrids are not designed for throwing save-or-dies, they are much more concerned with buffs or enablers."

People can only tell you the facts. Only you can choose whether or not to believe them.

[Blackhawk748]

Finally, every turn to page... 112 of your Spell Compendium. Observe the Assassin ripping out the hearts of his enemies. Now understand he will never get to use this exclusive spell with a DC to rip out someone's heart, because as a partial caster he only gives a base save of 14, and he spent most of his resources on his dex for his combat style.

99% of Assassin's, yes, but I have a build that uses Swashbuckler and that one has pumped Int. I still didn't use it because even then the save felt low, particularly when hitting Fort (typically one of the highest saves). Yes it was like a 20, but at that level of play, they had like a 20% failure chance. I was better off shanking


"Your main issue is simply not a problem in actual play: hybrids are not designed for throwing save-or-dies, they are much more concerned with buffs or enablers."

People can only tell you the facts. Only you can choose whether or not to believe them.

If those classes aren't designed for using them, then why make them an option at all? All you are doing is handing people a trap.

[exelsisxax]

If those classes aren't designed for using them, then why make them an option at all? All you are doing is handing people a trap.

Because devs have filled every spell list since 3.0 with traps. It's tradition. It doesn't break the classes, they still work. True strike is also on the wizard list: that doesn't make the class broken even though using it is really dumb and wasteful. It just means the spell lists are kind of awful.

[Blackhawk748]

Because devs have filled every spell list since 3.0 with traps. It's tradition. It doesn't break the classes, they still work. True strike is also on the wizard list: that doesn't make the class broken even though using it is really dumb and wasteful. It just means the spell lists are kind of awful.

"Others did it in the past, therefore they will keep doing it" Is a terrible excuse. They've had decades to figure out what makes a decent spell (even if its Niche, True Strike does get used for certain builds at specific times) and to not stick spells that are actively bad on your list.

[Psychoalpha]

Plus, again, the argument of 'well if they got the same basic save DCs as full casters there wouldn't be enough of a trade off when playing them!' is just suuuuper bizarre in how off base it is.

A Warpriest who can semi-reliably cast debuffs instead of unreliably is not suddenly broken, nor does he suddenly change his play style to only save-or-X spells. It just means they aren't complete traps anymore (just maybe somewhat, depending).

[exelsisxax]

"Others did it in the past, therefore they will keep doing it" Is a terrible excuse. They've had decades to figure out what makes a decent spell (even if its Niche, True Strike does get used for certain builds at specific times) and to not stick spells that are actively bad on your list.

Did you not actually read my post? I point out multiple times that it is stupid, but you didn't ask if it was a good idea. You asked why they're on the lists, I gave you the answer. It's not an excuse, it is the reality.

[Blackhawk748]

Did you not actually read my post? I point out multiple times that it is stupid, but you didn't ask if it was a good idea. You asked why they're on the lists, I gave you the answer. It's not an excuse, it is the reality.

The excuse is coming from the Devs, who should know this after 2 decades of the game. And I don't care if its the reality, it's still stupid

[Kurald Galain]

I'm utterly baffled at why this is such a problem for some people.
Oh, it's not a problem if people want to throw around save DC increases; it's just silly that people take a complicated class with numerous interacting class features, and only look at one number (the DC) to see if it's worth playing.


If those classes aren't designed for using them, then why make them an option at all? All you are doing is handing people a trap.
Being 10% less accurate is not going to make or break a class in 3E/PF. You might as well argue that martial characters shouldn't be proficient with, say, a cat-o-nine-tails because it's such a crappy weapon.

[Kitsuneymg]

If the benchmark is wizards, clerics and druids, no, +3 to spell DCs isn't going to make them broken in any way. In fact, if we're talking about fixing spell DCs I might go all the way to just using a plain 10 + 1/2 CL + ability mod for all spells, regardless of class and level.

Sphere of power works this way, but then CL is more like bab in that system and you have the same issue (albeit with feats to help fix.) The big issue with this is CL boosts are easy in 3.X and this would make prayer bead of karma required for the +2 DC.

10+1/2 levels with casting +stat mod is bit more balanced (10+1/2 MSB+CAM in spheres parlance.) Or even just a flat 10+1/2 level+stat mod. Everyone already knows wizard 20 is stronger than any gish because spell levels. Why not let multiclassed characters in on the fu. As well?

[Psychoalpha]

Oh, it's not a problem if people want to throw around save DC increases; it's just silly that people take a complicated class with numerous interacting class features, and only look at one number (the DC) to see if it's worth playing.

It's possible I missed where anybody said it makes them not worth playing. That's certainly not my position, as I've both played and enjoyed flavors of Warpriests, Bards, and others. There's plenty of room to enjoy playing a class while still being critical of aspects of its construction.


Being 10% less accurate is not going to make or break a class in 3E/PF. You might as well argue that martial characters shouldn't be proficient with, say, a cat-o-nine-tails because it's such a crappy weapon.

This is not even remotely the same thing in either case. It's comparing apples and pineapples when talking about whether to eat them with the skin on or not. :p

[Rhedyn]

If those classes aren't designed for using them, then why make them an option at all? All you are doing is handing people a trap. Hello welcome to D&D 3.5 / Pathfinder where every class has access to trap options. Some of those traps (like the vast majority of rogue talents) are exclusively available to a class not designed to use them.

[Silvercrys]

If I have misunderstood the argument of those against, I apologize, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth.

But no one seems to be saying that it is impossible to build a 6/9 caster that is fun and/or "powerful" (for a given definition of powerful). They are expressing a wish for alternate viable builds for these 6/9 casters that utilize spells that have saving throws that are already on those classes' spell lists.

Most of you seem to have conceded that these spells are bad because of their low DCs and are arguing that they should remain bad because "they don't need to be effective at spells with saving throws to be fun in play" or because "3e and Pathfinder have always had trap options so we don't need to buff them to be not-trap options".

But neither of those claims refute the position "the classes' save DCs should be buffed so that spells with saving throws aren't trap options", or that adding +3 to their save DCs over 20 levels isn't overpowered and opens up a wider range of build choices.

Again, apologies if I misunderstood your position, it just doesn't seem that you're actually refuting the opposite position to me. Even if you're right that they don't "need" buffs... if the buff doesn't make them overpowered and opens up a wider variety of builds and playstyles, I don't see why it's a bad thing.

[Pex]

Partial classes get (a) a BIG action economy advantage, (b) more class features, and (c) better defenses to compensate for the fact that they get lower-level spells and lower save DCs. This is known as a trade-off and it increases diversity between classes.

There is no problem with the 6/9 casters and nothing that requires fixing.

Exactly. In addition, while they might have attack spells that is not their focus. Their class features define what they're supposed to be doing. War Priest wants to be a warrior. Summoner wants to bring warriors to the battlefield. P1 Alchemist wants to throw bombs or be a melee warrior and possibly both. Bard wants to buff others. A War Priest will never cast Miracle. A Summoner will never cast Wish. The players of such classes Don't Care.



The only problem with hybrid casters is that nobody ever made a hybrid blaster.

The Arcanist can be, but it may depend on what qualifies as a blaster to you. Nevertheless they can choose class abilities to provide lots of blasting opportunities. However Arcanist is a full 9 caster, so while it is a hyrbid it's not a 6/9 for the thread.

[Quertus]

While I like this one one hand, I sort of balk on the other. Should a level 1 spell be just as difficult to resist as a level 9 spell? Is it as easy (or hard) to shrug off Charm Preson as it is Dominate Person? I don't really have a strong argument for either way, but it feels a bit wobbly to me.

Not only was this the case (that DCs were the same, regardless of spell level) for many editions of D&D, but other systems actually have stronger spells by the same caster be *easier* to resist.

[Segev]

Not only was this the case (that DCs were the same, regardless of spell level) for many editions of D&D, but other systems actually have stronger spells by the same caster be *easier* to resist.

I can certainly see the argument for this. Something like DCs being (10+[CL/2]+[statmod]-spell level) would achieve the highest level spells having the lowest DCs. The idea being that it's a lot easier for a caster to cast low level spells than high level ones, and thus he puts more oomph behind them.