Support the GITP forums on Patreon
Help support GITP's forums (and ongoing server maintenance) via Patreon
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 66
  1. - Top - End - #31
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Zombie

    Join Date
    Nov 2012

    Default Re: Spells that get better as the caster does..

    Quote Originally Posted by Beheld View Post
    No, I mean that this rule has been in use across the internet and in at least the three cities I have played D&D in the last 10 years. To say nothing of the obvious parallel to other abilities that already work on that same save metric.
    Seriously? When I first started using this rule back in 2007 I didn't know anybody used it. Lol, did you play in my game in Columbus, OH?

  2. - Top - End - #32
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Djinn_in_Tonic's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Stuck in a bottle.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Spells that get better as the caster does..

    Quote Originally Posted by barna10 View Post
    Well, the encounter ended without killing someone, so what. So you'd prefer every encounter ended with death? Besides, how many save-or-suck spells are low level?
    Not at all. I'd prefer every encounter not be ended by the Wizard and the Wizard alone. Giving him more chances to do that at his highest success rate makes him MORE likely to end encounters by himself.

    When a Save-or-Lose works, all other efforts towards victory (save apply penalties to said save) are suddenly meaningless. The 1000 damage you dealt to the thing with 1001 hp doesn't matter if it fails a save against Dominate Monster with 1 hp remaining. It's gone.

    Also, I gave you a list of save-or-suck spells from the SRD alone. There are 14 spells that stun or worse in the first 4 levels of spells alone. That's enough for any Wizard to reliably lock down one or more targets every fight, and many of those effects are fight-long crippling or incapacitating effects rather than short-term penalties.

    also, Beheld, I think we are fighting the battle of perception versus reality. the perception is that this change will cause problems, the reality is that it just changes the game.
    Actually at this point we're arguing anecdotal evidence. My experience is that this destroyed the encounter balance of the game I tried it in. Yours is that it didn't. Yes, it changes the game: EVERY change changes the game. The determining factor is whether or not it's a GOOD change, and that seems to be up in the air.

    Please don't tell me that YOUR experience is "reality," and MINE is "perception." That being said, since that's what I'm noticing here, I'll be moving on. Enjoy the discussion.
    Last edited by Djinn_in_Tonic; 2013-03-11 at 01:36 AM.

    Ingredients

    2oz Djinn
    5oz Water
    1 Lime Wedge


    Instructions

    Pour Djinn and tonic water into a glass filled with ice cubes. Stir well. Garnish with lime wedge. Serve.

  3. - Top - End - #33
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Zombie

    Join Date
    Nov 2012

    Default Re: Spells that get better as the caster does..

    Quote Originally Posted by Djinn_in_Tonic View Post
    Actually at this point we're arguing anecdotal evidence. My experience is that this destroyed the encounter balance of the game I tried it in. Yours is that it didn't. Yes, it changes the game: EVERY change changes the game. The determining factor is whether or not it's a GOOD change, and that seems to be up in the air.

    Please don't tell me that YOUR experience is "reality," and MINE is "perception." That being said, since that's what I'm noticing here, I'll be moving on. Enjoy the discussion.
    I'm not saying yours is perception and mine is reality, sorry it appeared that way.

    What I am saying is that this rule does nothing to change the reality of the game. At higher levels, Wizards do exactly what you are saying, with or without this rule. Changing how they do that does nothing to the game itself.

    Every argument against this rules has revolved around the idea that it somehow makes magic-users more powerful, and I disagree with that premise. Realistically, it doesn't change their power level at all, it just tweaks how they will be played and simplifies their mechanics.

    I already admitted that my experience was just my experience, but it does not change the way mechanics work. A Charm Person spell is still just a Charm Person spell.

    Don't forget that this rule should be used for the NPCs as well. If anything, it should make the bad guys more deadly which should make the game more challenging, not easier. Think about it: all those goblin adepts are suddenly as powerful as the PCs, not capped at 5th level spells.

  4. - Top - End - #34
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Djinn_in_Tonic's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Stuck in a bottle.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Spells that get better as the caster does..

    Quote Originally Posted by barna10 View Post
    Every argument against this rules has revolved around the idea that it somehow makes magic-users more powerful, and I disagree with that premise. Realistically, it doesn't change their power level at all, it just tweaks how they will be played and simplifies their mechanics.
    To pull numbers out of the air to make a point:

    A character has 5 options with a 60% chance of success, 5 options with a 55% chance of success, 5 options with a 50% chance of success, and 5 options with a 45% chance of success.

    Is this character stronger or weaker than one with the same 20 options but a 60% chance of success on all of them?

    Anyway, I don't think I will find continued presence in this thread productive. Djinn out.

    Ingredients

    2oz Djinn
    5oz Water
    1 Lime Wedge


    Instructions

    Pour Djinn and tonic water into a glass filled with ice cubes. Stir well. Garnish with lime wedge. Serve.

  5. - Top - End - #35
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Zombie

    Join Date
    Nov 2012

    Default Re: Spells that get better as the caster does..

    Quote Originally Posted by Djinn_in_Tonic View Post
    To pull numbers out of the air to make a point:

    A character has 5 options with a 60% chance of success, 5 options with a 55% chance of success, 5 options with a 50% chance of success, and 5 options with a 45% chance of success.

    Is this character stronger or weaker than one with the same 20 options but a 60% chance of success on all of them?

    Anyway, I don't think I will find continued presence in this thread productive. Djinn out.
    What I was trying to say was that Wizards and the like are already considered the most powerful characters in the game so I fail to see how a minor change means that much. Also, Like I stated earlier, the enemy gets the same boost. This should indeed lead to quicker combats which usually leads to more time for other stuff, which equals more fun in my groups.

  6. - Top - End - #36
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Spells that get better as the caster does..

    Quote Originally Posted by barna10 View Post
    This assumption assumes the mage invests a ton in IQ. All things being equal (including the primary casting stat), the spell cast by a 20th level mage should be harder to resist than one cast by a 1st level whelp.
    Hmm. Perhaps. An archmage that neither a) becomes any smarter (you literally can't avoid the level-up points, and putting them into anything but Int as a wizard is a terrible idea) nor b) studies advanced ways to make spells harder to resist ([Greater] Spell Focus) nor c) gets any older nor d) puts any additional magical energy in to Heighten… the assumptions needed are somewhat odd to me. Vancian may or may not be wholly logical, but I'm not seeing the absolute necessity of this change, or any necessity at all.

    How about this example. Does a 40 year old drive a car better than a 16 year old? Statistics would say yes. Did the 40 year old have to invest feats into car use to become a better driver? Does he have to invest in a higher level car to be a better driver? Does he need to go to the gym to become a better driver?
    No, because driving is (arguably) a skill; the 40 year old has one or two more levels, and thus more skill points and a higher cap. (Also, age ability score modifiers.)

    Of course the answer to all these questions is no so why would a Wizard have to go to great lengths and invest resources into being able to cast the same spell he's been casting for years better than someone that just graduated from Hogwarts?
    You're looking at the wrong sorts of investment for the driving example, so the analogy already failed; in this case, automatically becoming better with literally no effort is a) a little illogical (worse than it already is, in fact) and b) a bad idea mechanically.

    Quote Originally Posted by barna10 View Post
    Why allow spells to do damage based on caster level (ie the spell gets better with experience) if non-damaging spells don't get more potent with a rise in caster level?
    Good question, but not one with an answer you'll like. I prefer psionics, since it requires you to invest more pp to get more bang; however, Vancian is largely balanced (such as it is) around the idea that damage and HP scale more rapidly than DCs and saves; as such, scaling DCs up for free messes with one of the fundamental assumptions.

    If the driving force behind this change is your perception of an inequality between damage spells and save spells, fix the damage spells. Save-or-X spells are already capable of too much.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beheld View Post
    If you let their lower level spells be useful save DCs, then they can last longer each day in exchange for being weaker during each fight, because they use lower level spells less for buffs and face more encounters.
    Wait, what? If you give them the ability to cast certain spells to greater effect than before, without taking anything away at all, they can't lessen in power, unless those spells are actually less efficient than the alternatives. Since most wizards, and many players of wizards, are reasonably capable of figuring this out, you have to assume that at least some will only cast the spells that are now most efficient; how often this will be the old buffs, and how often the new and improved save-or-X, is uncertain, but you can bet the latter will be effectively used some of the time.

    Therefore, a net increase in power level, not to mention likely a slight increase in versatility. (Because there are more total spell slots that can solve a given problem with equal effectiveness.)

    The balance concerns are not a problem. Wizards already aren't playing the same game as fighters, so anyone complaining that this makes them more out of line with fighters is arguing an irrelevant consideration.
    I'm not sure I understand this. Any deliberate increase in power, for free, with no drawbacks, to the most powerful and versatile classes in the game, is very hard to justify logically!

    Quote Originally Posted by barna10 View Post
    The rule isn't about power, it's about skill. It's about being SO skilled that you don't need to use a 9th level spell; like real-world hitmen that use .22s to prove how good they are.
    OK, as far as that goes, a hypothetical caster who wished to show how amazing they were should reasonably just invest in the existing passive boosts to DCs, such as ability modifier, spell focus, etc. In practice this will nearly always be the case, since what else are you going to do with your WBL, your level-up boosts, and your feats?

    Quote Originally Posted by barna10 View Post
    Well, the encounter ended without killing someone, so what. So you'd prefer every encounter ended with death? Besides, how many save-or-suck spells are low level?
    Djinn already well and thoroughly answered this.

    Quote Originally Posted by barna10 View Post
    What I was trying to say was that Wizards and the like are already considered the most powerful characters in the game so I fail to see how a minor change means that much. Also, Like I stated earlier, the enemy gets the same boost. This should indeed lead to quicker combats which usually leads to more time for other stuff, which equals more fun in my groups.
    So, combat tends more toward caster duels than it was already?

    Any time you consider giving T1s a strict boost in power with no drawbacks or downsides, you should seriously consider why on earth you're bothering to do that. There is simply no reason to do so, from a mechanical perspective, and a number of reasons not to; from a fluff perspective, the perceived dissonance between spells that auto-scale with CL and those that don't can be resolved in two ways, one of which you have apparently not yet considered.


    TL/DR: This is a strict buff to classes that don't need it; it's strictly unnecessary from all perspectives, and strictly harmful to game balance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Water_Bear View Post
    That's RAW for you; 100% Rules-Legal, 110% silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    "Common sense" and "RAW" are not exactly on speaking terms
    Projects: Homebrew, Gentlemen's Agreement, DMPCs, Forbidden Knowledge safety, and Top Ten Worst. Also, Quotes and RACSD are good.

    Anyone knows blue is for sarcas'ing in · "Take 10 SAN damage from Dark Orchid" · Use of gray may indicate nitpicking · Green is sincerity

  7. - Top - End - #37
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Zombie

    Join Date
    Nov 2012

    Default Re: Spells that get better as the caster does..

    I disagree. I must just be the toughest DM on the planet. This never caused a problem in my games.

  8. - Top - End - #38
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Ashtagon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Spells that get better as the caster does..

    Personally, I favour a flat DC 15 + caster's spellcasting ability modifier. No modifier for spell level or class level. That way, save or suck gradually gets phased out as meaningless. At high levels, PCs no longer have "I win" buttons at their disposal, and likewise NPCs can;'t accidentally slay a cherished PC because of a lucky die roll.

  9. - Top - End - #39
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2009

    Default Re: Spells that get better as the caster does..

    Quote Originally Posted by barna10 View Post
    This requires the Wizard to invest more in casting the spell so it's really no better than Heighten Spell.
    What's the problem with using Heighten Spell for your purpose (other than that not everybody has it, which this would fix)? A high-level wizard using his most powerful spell slot can cast the spell more powerfully than a low-level wizard using his most powerful spell slot.

    Now, it doesn't achieve "a high-level wizard using a weak spell slot can cast more powerfully than a low-level wizard using his strongest spell slot", but why would you need that?

  10. - Top - End - #40
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA

    Default Re: Spells that get better as the caster does..

    I suspect that this rule has only worked in highly unoptimized groups and agree mainly with Djinn. One specific comment though:

    The rule isn't about power, it's about skill. It's about being SO skilled that you don't need to use a 9th level spell; like real-world hitmen that use .22s to prove how good they are.
    Does anyone have a citation that this is a real thing? Professional hitmen are etremely rare. I could see Richard Kuklinsi trying to do this, but aside from him it seems extremely unlikely.
    My homebrew:

    Spoiler
    Show


    Completed:
    ToB disciplines:

    The Narrow Bridge
    The Broken Blade

    Prestige classess:
    Disciple of Karsus -PrC for Karsites.
    The Seekers of Lost Swords and the Preserver of Future Blades Two interelated Tome of Battle Prcs,
    Master of the Hidden Seal - Binder/Divine hybrid
    Knight of the Grave- Necromancy using Gish



    Worthwhile links:

    Age of Warriors

  11. - Top - End - #41
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2010

    Default Re: Spells that get better as the caster does..

    {{scrubbed}}
    Last edited by Mark Hall; 2013-03-13 at 10:24 PM.

  12. - Top - End - #42
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Spells that get better as the caster does..

    Quote Originally Posted by Beheld View Post
    Look, a Wizard in a party theoretically faces four encounters a day. In those four encounters that last approximately 2-3 rounds each, subject to a lot of things, he casts 8-10 attack spells.

    At level 11 he has 4 6th level spells and 5 5th level spells. He already has enough attack spells to cast one per round during each fight.

    Giving him more attack spells in exchange for less buffs spells means he will be less strong in those four encounters, and then he will have more attack spells that he has not cast yet.

    The correct response to that situation is to have a 5th fight. Therefore, the Wizard will engage in more fights per day. If the Wizard doesn't engage in a fifth fight, he is still exactly as strong or weaker than before, because he already had an attack spell at his highest DC for every single round of combat he engaged in that day.
    Or, in short: make enemies harder or more numerous to compensate for buffing the Wizard. That's (moderately) reasonable, but it does the exact opposite of disproving my assertion, which is that you're buffing the Wizard class.

    (Also, you are apparently ignoring the possibility of action economy abuse, spending high-level slots on buffs, and so forth.)

    Now, to be fair, I can agree that in practice this buff won't necessarily have too severe an impact, since most of the time you can count on the DM and players to readjust things and compensate for the imbalance introduced. However, I simply cannot fathom why anyone would introduce this in the first place, when it's moving in precisely the wrong direction.
    Quote Originally Posted by Water_Bear View Post
    That's RAW for you; 100% Rules-Legal, 110% silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    "Common sense" and "RAW" are not exactly on speaking terms
    Projects: Homebrew, Gentlemen's Agreement, DMPCs, Forbidden Knowledge safety, and Top Ten Worst. Also, Quotes and RACSD are good.

    Anyone knows blue is for sarcas'ing in · "Take 10 SAN damage from Dark Orchid" · Use of gray may indicate nitpicking · Green is sincerity

  13. - Top - End - #43
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Belial_the_Leveler's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location

    Default Re: Spells that get better as the caster does..

    Nobody mentioned the most important argument here;


    A 1st level wizard casting a 1st level spell uses up 1/4 of his entire magic supply. A 20th level wizard casting a 1st level spell uses up 1/100 of his entire magic supply.
    So a higher level spellcaster's raw skill IS improving his 1st level spells; he is using far, far less effort for the same effect. No need to add further improvements.


    If he wants to do "same effort, far greater effect" thingy, then he uses his higher-level spell slots. For example, a quickened Energy Drain, followed by a twinned Celerity to cast another Energy Drain and finally finish the combo with a Dominate Monster spell is the 20th level wizard expending the same kind of resources the 1st level wizard would when casting a single lowly charm person.


    If all you have is a hammer, don't be lazy; be a blacksmith and start making more stuff.

  14. - Top - End - #44
    Troll in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2007

    Default Re: Spells that get better as the caster does..

    I personally disagree with this change but I think that I can see the basic logic behind it:

    As far as I can tell, the main argument is that this change evens things out aesthetically (plus simplification for newcomers) without effectively changing much of anything.

    If we accept that wizards can eventually launch enough full-power (or nearly so) spells to instantly end all 3.33 encounters you are expected to find in a day, whether or not the wizard has a dozen more charms/dominates/phantasmal killers at full power doesn't really matter for most practical purposes.

    What it does do is allow the caster to have a few high-level utility spells like scrying, teleport, and fabricate. On the one hand, this may reasonably add to the fear of the party becoming a one-man-wizard-show. On the other hand, most spells that directly steal from other party members (like divine power, find traps, and knock) are relatively low in spell level while those high level spells are relatively irreplaceable. If you need to planeshift but the casters used all of its high-level spells on save-or-X spells, for example, the party is just going to sit there for a day until a caster can planeshift them so letting the caster use low-level spells for combat may actually be seen as moving things along faster.

    With that said, a few notes:
    -Most people seem to be overblowing the odds of monsters failing saves against instant-kills to some degree. Many monsters have more HD than the PCs they are intended to face and much higher ability scores than NPCs or PCs so their saving throws are naturally higher. Furthermore, virtually all of these instant-kills target either Fort or Will and vast swathes of opponents possess immunity against one or both.
    -While PCs possess lower saves on average, relatively basic rules of optimization seem to suggest getting immunity to these effects so having it work for enemies isn't that huge of a deal either unless you optimize your monsters to make frequent tactical use of dispelling items.
    -If it even needs to be said, a party with all casters or caster-ish beings (such as most tier 3+ parties) will not feel this pain.
    -Incomplete casters like bards or duskblades or even paladins/rangers/spelltheives/hexblades actually seem to get MORE in this system than the full casters do (even though they have fewer save-or-X's to abuse this bonus).
    -This system actually punishes things like the ur-priest.

    A few counterarguments:
    -Most people view the diminishing effectiveness of wizards in combat as the number of fights go on and on as the closest thing that the wizard (or any full caster other than the healer) has to a balancing mechanism against noncasters. If the staying power of non-casters doesn't exceed that of casters (which this fix seems to do), that "balance" is gone and purposefully removing the closest thing that the wizard had to a balancing mechanism is just kind of head scratching.
    -It was admitted early on the first page that it does make mechanical sense for the way things currently work so going against what makes sense within the rules of the game to preserve verismilitude is, again, kind of head scratching.
    -Save-or-dies, even if the entire party is throwing them out, is not fun unless the DM takes special steps to make them fun (EX: only ever throwing huge crowds of monsters and bosses with tons of immunities out so that any given save-or-die won't end the full battle). Save-or-dies are not cooperative as damage is. The fighter's attack and your save-or-die are just about incapable of helping one another so whichever of you (and I'd say things are in favor of the caster) ends the battle will end up invalidating the efforts of the other participant. This, to many, is not fun. To reiterate, however, a DM can work around them and it is the job of the DM (by most definitions) to make sure everyone has fun.
    I'm try not to be too vain but this was too perfect not to sig.
    Quote Originally Posted by Primal Fury View Post
    okay RoC, that is enough! the gitp boards can only take so much awsome, you might actually hurt somebody with this one!
    At long last, I have an extended signature

  15. - Top - End - #45
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Zombie

    Join Date
    Nov 2012

    Default Re: Spells that get better as the caster does..

    Again, this rule applies to Monsters/NPCs as well as the players. It actually makes the game tougher, not easier.

    In the game I ran years ago, the primary adversary was a Hellfire Wyrm/20th level Wizard (40th level caster). All of his spells had a DC of 42. Without this rule, his spells would've had DCs ranging from 23 - 31. He was a very tough opponent.

  16. - Top - End - #46
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2010

    Default Re: Spells that get better as the caster does..

    Quote Originally Posted by Realms of Chaos View Post
    -Most people view the diminishing effectiveness of wizards in combat as the number of fights go on and on as the closest thing that the wizard (or any full caster other than the healer) has to a balancing mechanism against noncasters. If the staying power of non-casters doesn't exceed that of casters (which this fix seems to do), that "balance" is gone and purposefully removing the closest thing that the wizard had to a balancing mechanism is just kind of head scratching.
    Anyone who thinks that is a balance on casters is mistaken.

    Quote Originally Posted by Realms of Chaos View Post
    -It was admitted early on the first page that it does make mechanical sense for the way things currently work so going against what makes sense within the rules of the game to preserve verismilitude is, again, kind of head scratching.
    Because many things can all make sense within the rules. Just because one thing makes mechanical sense doesn't mean that any change can't also makes mechanical sense. If you made all DCs equal to 11+other modifiers instead of +10, and you added +1 to all attacks, that would make literally just as much sense. The question is whether this change makes sense too.

    To say nothing of minor things like differing priorities, ect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Realms of Chaos View Post
    -Save-or-dies, even if the entire party is throwing them out, is not fun unless the DM takes special steps to make them fun (EX: only ever throwing huge crowds of monsters and bosses with tons of immunities out so that any given save-or-die won't end the full battle). Save-or-dies are not cooperative as damage is. The fighter's attack and your save-or-die are just about incapable of helping one another so whichever of you (and I'd say things are in favor of the caster) ends the battle will end up invalidating the efforts of the other participant. This, to many, is not fun. To reiterate, however, a DM can work around them and it is the job of the DM (by most definitions) to make sure everyone has fun.
    That makes no sense. The only definition of fun is not "accumulation with the rest of the party." By that logic, the PCs running into a Mirror of Opposition and fighting their dopplegangers would be not fun. But even though that is a less effective way of fighting them, people still love to do that, because they find it fun. Obviously other factors than adding with the party make things fun.

    To say nothing of someone casting Glitterdust, and then that helping the Rogue to get SA, or other such save-or-Xs that don't directly kill making the Fighters/Rogues job easier.

    I have played in games with 4 Wizards. I did not find it unfun when someone else used Finger of Death on an enemy.

  17. - Top - End - #47
    Titan in the Playground
     
    DracoDei's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Near Atlanta,GA USA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Spells that get better as the caster does..

    I haven't read every comment here(maybe about halfway through the first page?), but those I read made me think that there is another POV that may functionally nerf wizards(or it may buff them, but in a way that fights the 5 minute work day). In either case it matches with the OP's stated intent, and is something that has been knocking around in my brain for a very long time.

    Spell DC = 10 + Casting stat modifier+ 1/2 caster level(rounded up) - spell level.
    (Note the bolded, enlarged minus sign, it is the key to the whole thing)
    Hey presto, you are better at the spells that you have been casting through years/entire wars than you are the ones that you just learned last week/level. You also have to pick between strength of effect, and probability of effect... except for no-save spells, which are a different ball of wax.

    On that last note, can also apply the spell level as a negative to all checks to overcome SR... perhaps while also reducing the base DCs by 3 to 5 to compensate, but maybe not. Hey presto even more spells nerfed.


    EDIT: Heighten Spell should still increase the save DC by 1 point net per spell level the slot you use is, rather than reducing it.
    Last edited by DracoDei; 2013-10-05 at 01:30 PM.
    [Public Service Announcement]P.E.A.C.H stands for Please Examine And Critique Honestly[/Public Service Announcement]
    Extended Signature
    My Homebrew is meant to be used, but, if you do, PLEASE tell me how it goes.

  18. - Top - End - #48
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Nanoblack's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Squaresville
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Spells that get better as the caster does..

    Quote Originally Posted by DracoDei View Post
    I haven't read every comment here(maybe about halfway through the first page?), but those I read made me think that there is another POV that may functionally nerf wizards(or it may buff them, but in a way that fights the 5 minute work day). In either case it matches with the OP's stated intent, and is something that has been knocking around in my brain for a very long time.

    Spell DC = 10 + Casting stat + 1/2 caster level(rounded up) - spell level.
    (Note the bolded, enlarged minus sign, it is the key to the whole thing)
    Hey presto, you are better at the spells that you have been casting through years/entire wars than you are the ones that you just learned last week/level. You also have to pick between strength of effect, and probability of effect... except for no-save spells, which are a different ball of wax.

    On that last note, can also apply the spell level as a negative to all checks to overcome SR... perhaps while also reducing the base DCs by 3 to 5 to compensate, but maybe not. Hey presto even more spells nerfed.
    I was about to say stuff about how this was a unnecessary and narrow-minded change when I saw this post. Good job:
    Spoiler
    Show


    Re-read this post and noticed that it came off as kind of scathing. I just meant that it doesn't really take 90% of the game into consideration when all of it's focus is on "why isn't everything my wizard does as awesome as everything else my wizard does".
    Last edited by Nanoblack; 2013-03-12 at 06:54 PM.

  19. - Top - End - #49
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2010

    Default Re: Spells that get better as the caster does..

    {{scrubbed}}
    Last edited by Mark Hall; 2013-03-13 at 10:20 PM.

  20. - Top - End - #50
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Nanoblack's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Squaresville
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Spells that get better as the caster does..

    Then why just pile on an increase to DC's if you're not just saying "wizards aren't powerful enough"? If you're after scaling, remove the base 10 to the DC and increase it by 1 every other level. Also, why does every spell have to be as powerful as every other spell? Have you taken into consideration that the spells themselves have limits? This is speaking within the fluff of course. Only so much magic power can be eked out of a spell slot which is why there are different level slots in the first place. Casters get more powerful by learning more powerful spells and other variables scale alongside their experience levels.

  21. - Top - End - #51
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2010

    Default Re: Spells that get better as the caster does..

    {{scrubbed}}
    Last edited by Mark Hall; 2013-03-13 at 10:19 PM.

  22. - Top - End - #52
    Titan in the Playground
     
    DracoDei's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Near Atlanta,GA USA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Spells that get better as the caster does..

    Quote Originally Posted by Nanoblack View Post
    I was about to say stuff about how this was a unnecessary and narrow-minded change when I saw this post. Good job:
    Spoiler
    Show
    Thank you very much!

    It is actually my very first one, despite all the years I have been on this board.
    [Public Service Announcement]P.E.A.C.H stands for Please Examine And Critique Honestly[/Public Service Announcement]
    Extended Signature
    My Homebrew is meant to be used, but, if you do, PLEASE tell me how it goes.

  23. - Top - End - #53
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2010

    Default Re: Spells that get better as the caster does..

    Quote Originally Posted by Nanoblack View Post
    Then why just pile on an increase to DC's if you're not just saying "wizards aren't powerful enough"?
    Because... it isn't an increase to DCs. It is an increase of the DCs of lower level spells that don't have a decent chance of success up to the same DC that is already balanced for 8 attack spells a day. Of course, it actually decreases the DC of your highest level spells too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nanoblack View Post
    If you're after scaling, remove the base 10 to the DC and increase it by 1 every other level.
    Well probably because that would make all spells with saves useless, because DC 3-5 spells at level 1 are never going to be failed.

    There is already a save DC which monsters saves are balanced against, and it is 10+1/2 character level+ability mod, not that -10.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nanoblack View Post
    Also, why does every spell have to be as powerful as every other spell?
    Because there is one save DC which monster's save bonuses are balanced against, not 9.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nanoblack View Post
    Have you taken into consideration that the spells themselves have limits? This is speaking within the fluff of course. Only so much magic power can be eked out of a spell slot which is why there are different level slots in the first place.
    That is certainly a fluff explanation you can make up, but I can just as easily make up a different fluff explanation, that how hard a spell is to resist is dependent on the caster, and not on the spell level.

    The limits of spell level determine the type of effect. With a fourth level spell, you can force a fort and will save, and if the both fail, someone dies, as long as they are subject to illusion, fear, and death effects. On the other hand, you can kill them with just a failed fort save if they are subject to death effects, as long as you use a 5th level spell. That is the limits of the spell that make higher level spells better even if you do have all save DCs the same.

  24. - Top - End - #54
    Titan in the Playground
     
    DracoDei's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Near Atlanta,GA USA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Spells that get better as the caster does..

    If I am understanding the math right, it only decreases the DC by one point, and then only at odd numbered levels.

    The increases it grants to lower level spells are a lot more.
    [Public Service Announcement]P.E.A.C.H stands for Please Examine And Critique Honestly[/Public Service Announcement]
    Extended Signature
    My Homebrew is meant to be used, but, if you do, PLEASE tell me how it goes.

  25. - Top - End - #55
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2010

    Default Re: Spells that get better as the caster does..

    Quote Originally Posted by DracoDei View Post
    If I am understanding the math right, it only decreases the DC by one point, and then only at odd numbered levels.

    The increases it grants to lower level spells are a lot more.
    Yes. But the point is merely that it is not an increase to the DC of the primary attack spells that Wizards already use, it is just an increase to spells they currently do not use in order to bring them up to the point where they are appropriately on the RNG of monster saves to make the use of lower level attack spells practicable.
    Last edited by Beheld; 2013-03-14 at 12:13 AM.

  26. - Top - End - #56
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Zombie

    Join Date
    Nov 2012

    Default Re: Spells that get better as the caster does..

    Quote Originally Posted by DracoDei View Post
    I haven't read every comment here(maybe about halfway through the first page?), but those I read made me think that there is another POV that may functionally nerf wizards(or it may buff them, but in a way that fights the 5 minute work day). In either case it matches with the OP's stated intent, and is something that has been knocking around in my brain for a very long time.

    Spell DC = 10 + Casting stat modifier+ 1/2 caster level(rounded up) - spell level.
    (Note the bolded, enlarged minus sign, it is the key to the whole thing)
    Hey presto, you are better at the spells that you have been casting through years/entire wars than you are the ones that you just learned last week/level. You also have to pick between strength of effect, and probability of effect... except for no-save spells, which are a different ball of wax.

    On that last note, can also apply the spell level as a negative to all checks to overcome SR... perhaps while also reducing the base DCs by 3 to 5 to compensate, but maybe not. Hey presto even more spells nerfed.
    I think this is an awesome idea.

    1)You reward the Wizard for using less power

    2) It simulates better skill with a spell

    3) It makes the Wizard's skill a more important factor than some undescribed outside force

    4) It improves on my original intent

    Bravo! Awesome!

  27. - Top - End - #57
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Gorfnod's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Spells that get better as the caster does..

    Quote Originally Posted by Djinn_in_Tonic View Post
    Stuff...
    Everything Djinn has said is spot on and it amazes me how time after time he is able to put in to words exactly what I am thinking. Balance-wise I couldn't agree more with what he said.

    Quote Originally Posted by barna10 View Post
    What I was trying to say was that Wizards and the like are already considered the most powerful characters in the game so I fail to see how a minor change means that much. Also, Like I stated earlier, the enemy gets the same boost. This should indeed lead to quicker combats which usually leads to more time for other stuff, which equals more fun in my groups.
    I fail to follow that argument that "Wizards are OP so making them more OP shouldn't matter". Yes combat would be quicker but wouldn't that also make the rest of the players feel even less useful? If you want combat to play a smaller role in the game than just have less encounters. I also disagree that it is a "minor boost". This adds a plus +1 to +9 to spell DCs at level 20 depending on spell level. I can't think of anything else that does this.

    My 2 coppers on this one.

  28. - Top - End - #58
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2010

    Default Re: Spells that get better as the caster does..

    Quote Originally Posted by Gorfnod View Post
    I also disagree that it is a "minor boost". This adds a plus +1 to +9 to spell DCs at level 20 depending on spell level. I can't think of anything else that does this.
    It does that to spells that already had DCs low enough that Wizards weren't casting them.

    If you made Burning Hands do literally twice as much damage at CL 10 as it does under the current rules, still no one will cast it.

    A Powerup to burning hands is not a balance problem. Likewise, a lot of fixes either directly or indirectly increase evocation damage. Those fixes are not balance problems, because even though they make "The Wizard Class" better, they only make specific Wizard characters who were already less powerful than other Wizards closer.

    If you have a class that can produce 5 builds, and one of those builds is overpowered, buffing a different build that is underpowered is not a problem.

    As an example, imagine the MonkWizard class. Basically, at level 1, you choose to either take the Monk side, and get the Monk features, or you choose to take the Wizard side, and get the Wizard features. Obviously, the MonkWizard is one of the most powerful classes in the game. But if you buff the Monk side, that is not a balance problem, because it boosts something that the powerful Wizards were already not using.

    Likewise, if powerful Wizard characters don't use lower level spells with saves for attacking, then a buff to those spells will only increase the power of weaker Wizards who are not the most powerful.

    As long as your improvement to options not used doesn't make them better than the options already used, it doesn't increase the maximum power of the class, which is the classes real power. Instead it increases the power of specific characters who are weaker than that up to point that is still less than the most powerful Wizard.

  29. - Top - End - #59
    Titan in the Playground
     
    DracoDei's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Near Atlanta,GA USA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Spells that get better as the caster does..

    Quote Originally Posted by barna10 View Post
    I think this is an awesome idea.

    1)You reward the Wizard for using less power

    2) It simulates better skill with a spell

    3) It makes the Wizard's skill a more important factor than some undescribed outside force

    4) It improves on my original intent

    Bravo! Awesome!
    Thank you! Wish I had posted it months/years ago...
    [Public Service Announcement]P.E.A.C.H stands for Please Examine And Critique Honestly[/Public Service Announcement]
    Extended Signature
    My Homebrew is meant to be used, but, if you do, PLEASE tell me how it goes.

  30. - Top - End - #60
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2010

    Default Re: Spells that get better as the caster does..

    Quote Originally Posted by DracoDei View Post
    Thank you! Wish I had posted it months/years ago...
    I do like it in many respects, but I am personally wary of basing it on Caster level, because of the many ways that it can fluctuate based on build.

    I do like how it gradually decreases the DC of your highest level spell, instead of just starting with an arbitrary -10 penalty that completely destroys low level play. I don't think that it is a good idea to have different DCs for different spells in general, but if I did, I like the way you introduce the decrease.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •