I thought I already did answer this question?
Nope.
What is the Fort save of a level 20 fighter? Is it not good enough to resist a level 6 spell cast by a level 11 caster?
Caster level is not significant.
Of course the save is usually good enough. You have completely missed the point.
You had already stated:
When did D&D become a game where high level folks don't fear each other? The whole reason a dragon stops to parley is because it fears that your wizard or priest might land a powerful death spell on it and vice versa. Situations where a person can just say, "I have enough hit points to survive and the cleric will heal me anyway" should not apply to everything. Death and hold spells are supposed to be dangerous, that is why they created counter spells to both.
As far as I can tell, the designers of 3.5 just can't stand anything that is too dangerous to the Players. Talk about trying to water down D&D. How can you make a fearsome priest of a death god if there are no save or die spells, just "save or possibly die, if you are already severely wounded, and the cleric can't heal you in time, and the death priest doesn't brick his damage roll." spells Even sounds pathetic written down.
So it was
you talking about how the fighter SHOULD be afraid.
PLUS this entire arguement is over the mechanics of the spell for when the target DOES fail. So anything you say about chances of making the save adds nothing.
Did I just miss something here? Since when does the level of the spell have anything to do with the level of the enemy. As a caster, I want even my first level spells to remain useful when I am level 25.
Yes, you missed something. You used the rather ambiguous term "useful". Of course your L1 spells will be "useful" at L25.
But level fo the SPELL has a ton to do with level of the enemy.
When you are tenth level level your magic missles do not take out CR10 monsters the way they took out CR1 monsters at level 1. Does your L1 spell still do the same thing? Yes. Is your level 1 spell still "useful"? Yes. Does the level of the enemy have anythign to do with the level of the spell? Hell Yes! You are not going to waste round tossing MM at a CR10 monster. Please step in here and explain if I am wrong.
So do you still claim that level of the spell doesn't have anything to do with the level of the monster?
A spell that is the big bang for a L1 wizard drops to a back-up reserve or dust off spell for weaklings when that wizard hits L10.
The EXACT same thing happens to the spells that a L11 wizard uses when that wizard becomes L20 (or 25). The spell still works. It is still "useful". But it (if it is designed well) becomes a back-up reserve or dust off spell for weaklings.
Explain to me why a L6 spell should be any more potent vs a CR20 monster than a L1 spell should be against a CR10?
Why? I only get about 20 level 7 or greater spells, and only about 5 level 9 spells. If you make all my lower level spells useless, then I am stuck with 5 to 20 spells to deal with my enemy or ENEMIES.
Look at the spell progression tables. You may notice that you have the same number (within a very small range) of your highest level spells throughout L1 to L20. It is not a bug, its a feature.
Now you use the term "useless". If you think that because a magic misslecan not take out a CR10 monster it is now "useless", then I can't help you.
Does the sword of a melee become useless agaisnt a level 25 caster or monster? then why should my lower level spells become ineffectual against a level 20 fighter when I am level 25?
How many different flaws in this analogy do you want me to list?
The sword the fighter had a L10 probably IS a lot less effective than the sword he uses now.
A sword is a piece of equipment. A spell is a class abilities. The BAB, feats and HP that the fighter gains from levels 10 to 25 are what make him better.
A fighter gains itterative attacks that play a VERY big role in effectiveness.
Your "why" has already be answered above. Please show me where I am wrong without reosrting to comparing apples and popes.
Should I only be able to affect said fighter or creature with my 5 level 9 spells, or my 10 level 8 or 9 spells? Let me know.
Of course not. I never said that. What I DO say is that you Level 5 and 6 spells should be LESS effective against the L25 fighter than they are against the L10 fighter.
You keep trying to describe a gradual and relative change in terms of absolutes (to you, a spell is "useful" or "useless"). That poerspective is severly flawed and, again, shows the weakness of the underlying argument.
I am a level 25 wizard, but only 10 of my spells do anything. Forget the other levels, a level 25 fighter shouldn't have to fear a level 6 spell, only level 7 or above? Is that it Bryon?
No, that is not it. You whole "only 10 ... do anything" reasoning is the flaw in your whole position.
A Level 25 fighter should not fear a L6 spell NEARLY AS MUCH as a L10 fighter. (Just as a L25 wizard should not fear being attacked by a L10 fighter nearly as much as a L10 wizard would)
If the terms "do anything" and "forget" are part of your arguement. Then you are WAY WAY off.
Do you even really play epic games? A level 11 wizard is not even going to have a somewhat decent chance of penetrating the SR of powerful dragons or epic monsters. You say my giant analogy is bad, this is an even worse analogy.
Duh, It was YOUR analogy. I agree it is awful. That WAS the point.
