Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wulf Ratbane" data-source="post: 4757730" data-attributes="member: 94">Thanks for posting. It's useful, and well thought out enough that I'm happy to revisit the issue with you.The &quot;core&quot; progression for DCs is 10 + 1/2 HD + ability modifier. As it turns out, spell progression actually advances one level faster. A 3HD caster can cast a 2nd level spell at DC 12+ability modifier; the same caster with a special ability would round his HD down, getting only DC11+ability modifier.This hold true only up through 18th level or HD.It scales at exactly the same rate as &quot;Good&quot; saves. The slope of the line is the same-- Good saves advance at 1/2 HD.Back out the d20 roll (10.5) and the ability modifier to compare baselines. (We'll even back out opposed feats, like Spell Focus vs. Iron Will, etc.)At 1st level/HD, the Good save baseline starts at +2.At 1st level/HD, the spell DC starts at +1.This puts these two opposed factors smack in the middle of the d20. So far so good.Agreed-- but that is a problem best addressed in PC Wealth, Big Six, etc. There is no easy analog on the caster side for increasing spell DCs that compares with Resistance items.Can you please clarify this point?If the caster is on his game! I consider this a feature, not a bug.The &quot;Poor&quot; save lags the &quot;Good&quot; save by 2 points at 1st level and drops behind by another +1 every 3 levels.However, the &quot;every 3 levels&quot; rate is the same rate at which Resistance bonuses advance. Assuming the DM allows the PCs to advance their Resistance item at a consistent rate, you'll end up with the following table:Level = attacker or defender level/HDDC = baseline DC of spell or special abilityGood &amp; Poor = saves with no resistance itemG (res) &amp; P (res) = same saves, with Resistance item +1 per 3 levels (+5 max)[code]Level&nbsp; &nbsp; DC&nbsp; &nbsp; Good&nbsp; &nbsp; Poor&nbsp; &nbsp; G (res)&nbsp; &nbsp; P (res)1&nbsp; &nbsp; 11&nbsp; &nbsp; 13&nbsp; &nbsp; 11&nbsp; &nbsp; 13&nbsp; &nbsp; 112&nbsp; &nbsp; 11&nbsp; &nbsp; 14&nbsp; &nbsp; 11&nbsp; &nbsp; 14&nbsp; &nbsp; 113&nbsp; &nbsp; 12&nbsp; &nbsp; 14&nbsp; &nbsp; 12&nbsp; &nbsp; 15&nbsp; &nbsp; 134&nbsp; &nbsp; 12&nbsp; &nbsp; 15&nbsp; &nbsp; 12&nbsp; &nbsp; 16&nbsp; &nbsp; 135&nbsp; &nbsp; 13&nbsp; &nbsp; 15&nbsp; &nbsp; 12&nbsp; &nbsp; 16&nbsp; &nbsp; 136&nbsp; &nbsp; 13&nbsp; &nbsp; 16&nbsp; &nbsp; 13&nbsp; &nbsp; 18&nbsp; &nbsp; 157&nbsp; &nbsp; 14&nbsp; &nbsp; 16&nbsp; &nbsp; 13&nbsp; &nbsp; 18&nbsp; &nbsp; 158&nbsp; &nbsp; 14&nbsp; &nbsp; 17&nbsp; &nbsp; 13&nbsp; &nbsp; 19&nbsp; &nbsp; 159&nbsp; &nbsp; 15&nbsp; &nbsp; 17&nbsp; &nbsp; 14&nbsp; &nbsp; 20&nbsp; &nbsp; 1710&nbsp; &nbsp; 15&nbsp; &nbsp; 18&nbsp; &nbsp; 14&nbsp; &nbsp; 21&nbsp; &nbsp; 1711&nbsp; &nbsp; 16&nbsp; &nbsp; 18&nbsp; &nbsp; 14&nbsp; &nbsp; 21&nbsp; &nbsp; 1712&nbsp; &nbsp; 16&nbsp; &nbsp; 19&nbsp; &nbsp; 15&nbsp; &nbsp; 23&nbsp; &nbsp; 1913&nbsp; &nbsp; 17&nbsp; &nbsp; 19&nbsp; &nbsp; 15&nbsp; &nbsp; 23&nbsp; &nbsp; 1914&nbsp; &nbsp; 17&nbsp; &nbsp; 20&nbsp; &nbsp; 15&nbsp; &nbsp; 24&nbsp; &nbsp; 1915&nbsp; &nbsp; 18&nbsp; &nbsp; 20&nbsp; &nbsp; 16&nbsp; &nbsp; 25&nbsp; &nbsp; 2116&nbsp; &nbsp; 18&nbsp; &nbsp; 21&nbsp; &nbsp; 16&nbsp; &nbsp; 26&nbsp; &nbsp; 2117&nbsp; &nbsp; 19&nbsp; &nbsp; 21&nbsp; &nbsp; 16&nbsp; &nbsp; 26&nbsp; &nbsp; 2118&nbsp; &nbsp; 19&nbsp; &nbsp; 22&nbsp; &nbsp; 17&nbsp; &nbsp; 27&nbsp; &nbsp; 2219&nbsp; &nbsp; 19&nbsp; &nbsp; 22&nbsp; &nbsp; 17&nbsp; &nbsp; 27&nbsp; &nbsp; 2220&nbsp; &nbsp; 19&nbsp; &nbsp; 23&nbsp; &nbsp; 17&nbsp; &nbsp; 28&nbsp; &nbsp; 22[/code]Agreed, it's a problem.I'm not particularly concerned with spells that require some kind of roll, even if it's an &quot;easy&quot; roll like a touch attack. We've added more ways to defend actions such attacks (combat reactions and Action Points).Because of the many changes we've made to the core system in other places (again, action points being a very key component here), I limit my concern to &quot;absolutes with no opposed d20 check of some kind.&quot; .... AND:&quot;Lockdown spells that are just a no-fun drag for everybody.&quot; (Put solid fog or black tentacles in this category.)Hmm... As I mentioned to you when we were discussing this back and forth in private messages, what I don't want Trailblazer to do is to start modifying individual spells on a case by case basis. So it's absolutely necessary to identify broad categories of problems and then find systemic solutions.So-- and mind you, I'm speaking off the top of my head here-- I could live with a change like this:Making systemic changes like that allows you to build a &quot;trap&quot; for common problems, without having to rewrite spells on a case by case basis-- which in any case could never possibly cover all of the third party spells out there.Does this spur any further thoughts?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wulf Ratbane, post: 4757730, member: 94"] Thanks for posting. It's useful, and well thought out enough that I'm happy to revisit the issue with you. The "core" progression for DCs is 10 + 1/2 HD + ability modifier. As it turns out, spell progression actually advances one level faster. A 3HD caster can cast a 2nd level spell at DC 12+ability modifier; the same caster with a special ability would round his HD down, getting only DC11+ability modifier. This hold true only up through 18th level or HD. It [I]scales [/I]at exactly the same rate as "Good" saves. The slope of the line is the same-- Good saves advance at 1/2 HD. Back out the d20 roll (10.5) and the ability modifier to compare baselines. (We'll even back out opposed feats, like Spell Focus vs. Iron Will, etc.) At 1st level/HD, the Good save baseline starts at +2. At 1st level/HD, the spell DC starts at +1. This puts these two opposed factors smack in the middle of the d20. So far so good. Agreed-- but that is a problem best addressed in PC Wealth, Big Six, etc. There is no easy analog on the caster side for increasing spell DCs that compares with Resistance items. Can you please clarify this point? If the caster is on his game! I consider this a feature, not a bug. The "Poor" save lags the "Good" save by 2 points at 1st level and drops behind by another +1 every 3 levels. However, the "every 3 levels" rate is the same rate at which Resistance bonuses advance. Assuming the DM allows the PCs to advance their Resistance item at a consistent rate, you'll end up with the following table: Level = attacker or defender level/HD DC = baseline DC of spell or special ability Good & Poor = saves with no resistance item G (res) & P (res) = same saves, with Resistance item +1 per 3 levels (+5 max) [code] Level DC Good Poor G (res) P (res) 1 11 13 11 13 11 2 11 14 11 14 11 3 12 14 12 15 13 4 12 15 12 16 13 5 13 15 12 16 13 6 13 16 13 18 15 7 14 16 13 18 15 8 14 17 13 19 15 9 15 17 14 20 17 10 15 18 14 21 17 11 16 18 14 21 17 12 16 19 15 23 19 13 17 19 15 23 19 14 17 20 15 24 19 15 18 20 16 25 21 16 18 21 16 26 21 17 19 21 16 26 21 18 19 22 17 27 22 19 19 22 17 27 22 20 19 23 17 28 22[/code] Agreed, it's a problem. I'm not particularly concerned with spells that require some kind of roll, even if it's an "easy" roll like a touch attack. We've added more ways to defend actions such attacks (combat reactions and Action Points). Because of the many changes we've made to the core system in other places (again, action points being a very key component here), I limit my concern to "absolutes with no opposed d20 check of some kind." .... AND: "Lockdown spells that are just a no-fun drag for everybody." (Put [I]solid fog[/I] or [I]black tentacles[/I] in this category.) Hmm... As I mentioned to you when we were discussing this back and forth in private messages, what I don't want Trailblazer to do is to start modifying individual spells on a case by case basis. So it's absolutely necessary to identify broad categories of problems and then find systemic solutions. So-- and mind you, I'm speaking off the top of my head here-- I could live with a change like this: Making systemic changes like that allows you to build a "trap" for common problems, without having to rewrite spells on a case by case basis-- which in any case could never possibly cover all of the third party spells out there. Does this spur any further thoughts? [/QUOTE]

Verification