Cast at lower DC

[Loren Pechtel]

Another approach some GM's like is to have all the players make a number of d20 rolls which they then jot down. Whenever a secret roll is made, the GM takes the next advance roll and applies that result.

This deals with those players who get whiny about not being allowed to roll all the dice for their character.

Once when faced with a situation like that (lots of secret saves needed) I just had everyone roll a group of d20s (they all had enough) and leave them in a group. I periodically had them reroll the pile. They were all clearly enough marked that I could read them.

 

[jefgorbach]

[MENTION=1095]Salthorae[/MENTION] - agree, I dont recall RAW specifically covering this aspect, however since metamagic(heighten) allows a caster to raise a spell's effective level, it seems reasonable at first-glance to allow metamagic(reduction) to lower a spell's effective level (and all of its corresponding effects).

The other question is RAI/RAW presumes the caster always tries their best and thus defaults to including their casting modifier as a positive ... another potential house-rule might be to allow either ignoring it all together, or perhaps SUBTRACTING it at the caster's option to reflect a concise effort at minimizing a spell's effectiveness. IE I want to cast spell-x without revealing just how adept I am so purposely bungle it just enough to be successfully albeit at lesser strength/effectiveness than I'm normally capable of.

Used together, its potentially possible to cast something with a DC = 10 + zero level spell - Caster's modifier; potentially not only providing your target with an easier DC to overcome, but possibly even a bonus to their saving throw vs your effect!!

 

[Salthorae]

I like the idea conceptually, but then you have higher level mages using their low level slots for things like meteor swarm... Guy you aim to hit gets no save IIRC.

Tht's why I was thinking something similar but opposite to spell focus as a feat. Minuses to the effect, but I do like the idea of allowing a Mage/Sorc to subtract their stat mod instead of add it as they choose.

 

[prosfilaes]

I dont recall RAW specifically covering this aspect, however since metamagic(heighten) allows a caster to raise a spell's effective level, it seems reasonable at first-glance to allow metamagic(reduction) to lower a spell's effective level (and all of its corresponding effects).

If you want to mess around with this, you might want to take a look at the Genius Guide to Feats of Metamagic, available on DriveThruRPG. It's got a couple feats to lower effective level.

 

[Pumpkin]

The reason I say "higher" spell slot is I wouldn't want people using the feat to memorize a meteor swarm in a first level slot at only a -8 to the save DC... etc. too abuseable that way.

Just to make sure we are on the same level:

Let's take two wizards, MAX and MIN. MAX is an optimized gnome illusionist with spellfocus, greater spell focus and +6 Int. His DC for a level 3 spell is 10+3+6+2+1=22. MIN is an half-orc with unrelated feats and 13 int, the bare minimum to cast a level 3 spell, so his DC would be 10+3=13. While MIN can't cast a spell like MAX would because he is not skilled enough, it seems logical MAX can cast a 3rd level spell at 13 DC, like MIN would. Maybe it takes extra time, preparation or feats, but he should be able to do it. From my point of view.


So, I don't understand the meteor swarm abuse you are talking about, a meteor swarm with 19 DC is still a level 9 spell and you can't cast it with lower spell slots.

 

[gdmcbride]

I think you should be able to lower the DC of a spell. In that way, you can seem to cast harmful spells against enemies who are actually your allies and in effect, be pulling your punches, no doubt to misdirect some dupe.

I would require the caster to roll a Spellcraft check to pull off such bamboozlement and if they fail, oops. You actually attacked your friend. Friendly fire ... isn't.

I would almost certainly allow those trained in Spellcraft to have a chance to notice this chicanery. And I would probably grant spellcasters trained in buff or clerics of trickery a bonus to such tests both to deceive and see through deceptions.

However, in the case of the OP's hypothetical, I don't see any of that as being relevant. The caster is still trying to deceive his enemies. He is just hiding the trap and not the door. Therefore he wants to use his full DC so the trap is as hard to notice as possible.

Gary McBride
Fire Mountain Games

 

[Salthorae]

We were talking about a custom feat that allowed a caster to prepare a spell in a lower slot (in order to decrease the DC) which while useful for Illusion purposes and trickery could get easily abused for other spells. basically a custom feat that is the reverse of heighten spell.

It's a bad idea which is why I said it wouldn't work because of abuses and offered the idea of custom feats that are the reverse of Spell Focus but allow you to take penalties on DC instead of bonuses or something.

 

[Systole]

I don't see any reason why an illusionist couldn't make a bad illusion. However, I think it would be better to use a Know:Arcana or possibly a Spellcraft check (or maybe even Sense Motive?) as a saving throw, ratehr than a Will save. Will lets you shrug off mental effects, bear pain, etc. In this case, you're looking to see if something is off about either the magic ("Wait, any novice knows how to craft a better illusion than this!") or the situation ("Wait, maybe this guy is devious enough to use reverse psychology on us!").

 

[Pielorinho]

I don't see any reason why an illusionist couldn't make a bad illusion. However, I think it would be better to use a Know:Arcana or possibly a Spellcraft check (or maybe even Sense Motive?) as a saving throw, ratehr than a Will save. Will lets you shrug off mental effects, bear pain, etc. In this case, you're looking to see if something is off about either the magic ("Wait, any novice knows how to craft a better illusion than this!") or the situation ("Wait, maybe this guy is devious enough to use reverse psychology on us!").

I dunno...I think there's a good reason to keep saves the same whenever possible, namely so that you don't get bogged down in interminable rules discussions during games ("Should this really be sense motive? Because I should be able to notice the parts of the spell that are off using Spellcraft").

The Will-Save-to-detect-something's-off rule is already there for illusions. All you need to do is to put the illusionist's purpose at the forefront: now the illusionist is trying to make a deliberately bad illusion, and the will save is to detect that it's deliberately bad.

I still think this is the smoothest approach.

 

[jefgorbach]

Actually, both Pielorinho and Systole are correct - Your applicable skills (knowledge, spellcraft, etc) determines your intuition regarding the depicted illusion, which might provide a circumstantial bonus to your Will save indicating whether you're deceived by that illusion.

For instance, someone casts an illusion of an attacking bear. Knowledge(nature) might notice something about its coloration, posturing, sound, etc just doesn't seem "right" - thereby causing them to be more questionable regarding its legitimacy and deserving of a cumulative +1 on their Will save to disbelieve it. Likewise Animal Handling might notice the lack of typical animal body-language cues for an additional +1 (perhaps +2 if previously trained bear(s)).