Maybe my text isn't clear, so here's how I see Save-or-Loses working: An 11th level party faces off against the Boss (a 15th level caster) and his goons (CR 7 whatevers). The PCs can't SoL the bad guys, because they all meet the immunity threshold for any SoL spell the PCs could cast. But the bad guys can't SoL the PCs either, because the PCs are 11th level which meets the immunity threshold for any SoL spell that the Boss could cast.
Yeah, that's the idea -- SoLs should be for show, not for serious challenges. Something to make peasants scream in terror; something that PCs hear stories of and say "We've got to take down that s.o.b.!"
Ew. not my cup of tea. To me that's like: We'll give you this 2nd level spell, but label it a 6th level spell. You'll never take it.
Honestly, going this route, you may as well just remove them from the game, as theyre then nerfed to the point of being
.
If you nerf too many things in this manner, the Wizard becomes so bad as to not be a player class. Then a 10th Level wizard ceases to be a 10th level character, and becomes like, a 6th level character.
Then we have fundamentally different ideas about what SoLs should do. I don't want any single spell having such a drastic effect on the fate of anyone; your ideas simply make it a bit less likely for SoLs to take effect.*
I like your damage per round idea, though I'd prefer HP damage. I'll work on it.
Personally, here are my thoughts, this concept depends on use limits:
If casters can cast the spells as often as fighters can swing their sword, than the spells effectiveness should be based on the effectiveness of a similarly powered fighter attack.
If the fighter is about 10% likely to 1-hit kill someone in this scenario, the Wizard should have similar odds (assuming using a single-target spell). The wizards attacks being ranged is mitigated by the fact that wizards are impossibly frail.
Hopefully we can agree on that point.
Now, in reality, Wizards attacks are more limited than a fighter's. A wizard gets his x/day, then he's OUT! I hear tell of people resting or going back to town when the wizard runs out of spells. That just seems ridiculous to me, because of the following:
Aside to show why you can't just leave and come back refueled said:
I run alot of sandbox games (The plot is based on the player's actions, it changes as they change).
2. I don't run many dungeon crawls, the option to retreat is not always available or a good Idea. So if the PCs retreat back to base in mid combat, they won't have big amounts of safety for long periods of time. The NPC Bad guys will find a way to come after them.
3. Even in a dungeon, sure the PCs may go back and refuel. but then, so will the monsters. The PCs will come back to find rejuvenated monsters, who have likely brought in reinforcements from allies outside the general area, and the monsters will be awaiting the for the PCs return (The casters will have better spell preparations, more enemies will be armed, etc).
Maybe the PCs will come back and not see that anything has changed, but the remaining guards told the BBEG, then the BBEG is gone, took his treasure with him, and now theyre
out of luck until they find him again. They could come back to an empty dungeon with a note saying "too bad you missed me".
If they were trying to stop the BBEG from raising a demon, or stopping fire from raining from the sky, maybe he has now raised the demon/made fire rain from the sky. They players were too slow. Their inaction had consequences. maybe they caused the destruction of a few towns, resulting in the deaths of thousands. They come back to town the second time to find it in ruin. Or maybe the demons he was raising have now formed an army, and the PCs come back to an empty dungeon. Later on, the PCs now are going to have to face off against said demon horde.
Inaction has its own consequences.
So for argument's sake let's assume that a wizard has a limited number of spells per day and he needs to manage them, and that the DM isn't allowing unlimited refueling the wizard in every situation.
Now. A wizard has a limited number of magic attacks. Therefore the attacks should be more effective than the fighter's attacks, and theoretically, just a about as effective as sneak attack, then the wizard's attacks should be just as likely to one-shot an opponent as a rogue's sneak attack.
Therefore, Damage spells damage should be comparable to the rogue's damage output for the same amount of time. If its a full-round spell it should be as effective as a full-round for the rogue. (More range, more targets, etc should adjust damage downward).
For things like SoS spells, it should work similarly. It should have the same odds of killing them as the sneak attack. But a sneak attack is still useful if it doesn't kill/polymorph into a goat/whatever. Either the SoS needs to still have gadient amounts of usefulness, or be more likely to kill in one shot than the rogue's sneak attack.
As a work/not work it needs to be a smaller chance of success than the rogue's partial damage, but a considerably higher chance of success than the rogue's chance to one-shot.
If you make it do damage, or ability damage, it needs to be easier to hit people, but not always goign to cause a loss. If it doesnt cause a loss, it should make future win attempts easier.
It's a balance issue. Wall of Force creates something that lasts 1 round/level (or 5 minutes in your case). Wall of Stone makes something that is permenant (and has hardness).
Why have 'Wall of Force' at all?
The answer is that Wall of Force does two things that Wall of Stone doesn't.
First, it slows 'ghosts' or other ethereal creatures down. But this doesn't make it balanced with 'Wall of Stone' because its easy for a 'ghost' to go around it.
The real advantage of Wall of Force is that for the duration almost nothing can destroy because its immune to brute force. At high levels, 'Wall of Force' is a pretty essential spell that gives a party time to run away when the dice don't go their way. 'Wall of Force' allows evasion in a way that Wall of Stone or Wall of Iron generally don't, because a high level monster can quickly bust through material walls in short order. 'Wall of Force' is however immune to attack, allowing it to fulfill its purpose as a wall.
However, 'immunity' proves to be an abusable concept. Ideally, you don't want anything that involves essentially infinite numbers, which is what immunity represents. Things with infinite numbers prove to be show stoppers. A player can not only trap a monster behind a force effect, but players can themselves be trapped behind them and non-spellcasters lack the narrowly tools to deal with 'infinite' magical effects like 'completely immune to all damage'. Hense, 'Wall of Force' needs to be fixed such that it works as intended (relatively immune to brute force), but doesn't represent quite the complete game breaker an absolute immunity represents.
A 'Wall of Force' without some immunity to damage is a nerf not a fix. It prevents 'Wall of Force' from being used in the manner intended.
I'm unconvinced 'Wall of Force' needs an armor class or hit points. I'm certain that it needs a hardness (and probably a strength break DC).
You hit on something I think critical here, and at the same time swing well wide of the mark. Animate dead is 4th level for 2 reasons. First, because the 1e spell was high level and quite powerful. Second, because Animate Dead has a permenent effect (a new monster is created).
Animate Dead could be a lower level spell in 3e than it is. In fact, it could probably be 2nd level and still be just fine.
But, secondly, just because we decide Animate Dead shouldn't be a 1st level spell doesn't mean that we've decided that necromancers shouldn't be viable from 1st level. It's quite easy to invent more limited versions of Animate Dead as low level spells or to provide other sorts of flavorful necromancy to the spell lists. For example, on my official spell list you'll find 'Ambulatory Dead' which does the same thing a duration of 'Concentration' and 'Least Animation' as a cantrip which animates a tiny animal or vermin as a servitor. Viola, Necromancer from 1st level with minimal overhaul of the rules.
I like it!
If you made the time be "Concentration", you could allow a larger number of or more powerful undead to be created, because they will tie up the wizard's actinos every round. It's a great counterbalance!
Hell! for summoning it could work great too! I can summon my demon horde, and direct them, but I'm unable to do anything else in t he meantime. Things could be summoned for longer amounts of time, (possibly indefinitely), so long as the wizard is keeping them under control.
And as for other possible limits, if the caster is not controlling them, then they could instead of just going away, become loose. *evil grin*
HD dcitate attack-rolls, HP, #skills, #feats, spells, features ad whatnot?
Often not, especially with giants
CR dictates nothing beyond the wrighter's personal assesment of his creation's aveage threat (which we both know by now to be quite way off sometmes).
Most of them just pull a number out of their asses. If they used a system like UK's CR guide, the numbers would be more standardized (you still need to be reasonable though).
I suggested to also require minimum base save bonuses to avoid making glass cannons suddenly not so glassy.
So, in order to be immune, one should be a real badass, but also quite resistant to begin with.
This could work, mayhaps.
For what it's worth, my Wall of Stone will not be permanent.
I can see some logic issues with Wall of stone. If it's permanent, why does anyone mine minerals, or build castles manually? I support Wall of Stone being temporary, but that does not mean it should necessarily be the same spell level.
Debatable. Rather than debate it though, let's talk about two other possible balancing mechanisms: Nonsi's full-round casting time idea, and single round durations. What do you think of those two ideas?
Full round casting could work maybe, but that's effectively the same as just releveling the spell. they could quicken it and cast it faster at a higher level. So you're really just saying "make it a higher level spell".
Hmm, you did just give me an Idea though: Reverse Metamagic (Someone else probably already came up with this, but you never know)
Slow Spell said:
Slow Spell
You can cast a spell, but not as effectively as usual.
Like Quicken Spell in reverse.
You can cast it as a lower level spell, at the cost of a longer casting time.
single Action Spells become Full-Round, etc.
it takes up lower level spell-slots
Single Round Duration: This makes the spell virtually useless. If Petrify is a 1 round duration spell, it's not worth being level 7(I think its 7, I dont have the book in front of me), it's like, a 2nd level spell.
If a permanent spell is okay at 4th level, I don't see why it can't be okay at 1st level either. (And if it's not okay at 1st level, it's not really okay at 4th level either.) Of course we can't have a 1st level spell producing higher CR monsters, but scaling power down is implied in lower level spells like yours.
Some things can be scaled down in power. Many permanent effects can be scaled down. I agree. Create Undead is scaled down, true. But you don't want CR 1 player summoning up 1-4 CR 1 Monsters. That just doesn't work.
All true. The problem I'm seeing is that CR is at least a rough estimation of a creature's challenge, while HD are a rough estimation of...well, nothing. 99% of the time, attack bonuses are further modified by Str/Dex, HP look vastly different than HD would suggest thanks to how Con applies to HP, skills are more influenced by Int and creature type, etc... Especially at high levels, HD vary wildly from monster to monster. For example a melee brute might have 40 - 50 HD while a caster might have just 20 HD -- yet they're all roughly the same challenge. Honestly, I don't know how HD managed to remain the nerve-center for all these stats beyond 2e, because HD hardly mean anything.
I'd argue that most of the time CR is not accurately guaged. *shrug*
So combatants who already have the best chance of surviving a SoL get to be immune, while combatants who have the worst chance are just as vulnerable as before? Doesn't sound appealing to me.
Agreed, but what's the point of having saves if youre immune based on your bad saves? This is the problem that is presented when you provide immunities to ANYTHING. There should be few immunities.
Unless the effect makes no sense to work, then it shouldnt be immune.
Fire Elementals: Obviously should be immune to fire. I'd argue it should heal them.
Dragons: Nooooot reaaaally, but people just like to make dragons awesome. fire Resistance for the red dragon? absolutely. full-on Immunity? no.
Part of the problem, is this obsession with giving immunities all willy-nilly.
There's a feat that makes yoru fire spells ignore fire immunity. It doesn't make your fire any hotter, or do any more damage, it just makes your fire "super fire". Where is the logic behind this? There is none.
, a multiclassing fix, an explicitly worded and expanded Heighten Spell, improved direct damage spells and as I promised Celebrim:
