Spell DCs House Rule: Applying the "reserve feat" principle.

[Mon]

First, some design goals:

(1) Spell DCs scale with level: So that low level spells see more use in high level games.

(2) Casters have some incentive not to go "nova" in the first encounter, preferebly casting their spells from the "bottom up" rather than from the "top down"

The system combines scaling spell DC with the concept of reserve feats from Complete Mage. Namely, encouraging casters to keep their most powerful spells in reserve to try and counter this: "go nova, then rest when my top 2 spell levels are depleted". AKA the 5-minute adventuring day.

Instead of Complete Mage's feats that are cooler if you keep your higher level spells in reserve, just apply the same principle to spell DCs.

The DC formula is...

10 + ability modifier + the level of the highest level spell currently available to cast (from the same class).

Thus, a 14th level wizard (7th level spells) with 20 Int (+5) has a DC of 22 for ALL of his spells (10 + 5 + 7); as long as he has at least one 7th level spell left to cast. If he uses all his 7th levels and has only 6th level spells remaining the DC drops to 21 (10 + 5 + 6), and so on.

I know it gives casters a boost, over non-casters. That's something I plan to address with a different house rule.

Thoughts? Success at meeting design goals? Unforseen side effects? How would this work in a campaign that also uses reserve feats? Or one that doesn't?

(please be kind, I am new at this - posting to forums, not playing D&D... been gaming since '88).

 

[Jack Simth]

Well, let's see....

Heighten Spell is now an almost-useless feat (it counters a handful of very specific things, and it's used in certain cheesy builds).

Low-level save or suck spells are even more powerful. Between Glitterdust, Web, and Stinking Cloud you can nullify most opponents very effectively using just your low-level spells. And that's just with Core spells. Even minor spells like Charm Person are now very strong, and stay that way throughout your career.

This is a considerable boost to casters - but you already knew that, so...

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I like the basic idea, but Jack's right, as written, it's a huge boost to casters. May I suggest a fairly simple addendum that might make it balanced? Try the following:

The DC for any spell cast is equal to 10 +casting score modifier +highest spell level that has not been cast from yet

In other words, you've got a level 13 Wizard with 24 int. His DC's all start out at a base of 24 before feats and such, but when he uses ANY level 7 slot, the DC falls to 23 (based on spell level 6). It might make going nova TOO restrictive; or just cause casters to only spell dump with their second highest level spells. On the other hand, limiting yourself to one level lower for spells is like being down two caster levels, something generally considered painful.

 

[Jack Simth]

I like the basic idea, but Jack's right, as written, it's a huge boost to casters. May I suggest a fairly simple addendum that might make it balanced? Try the following:

The DC for any spell cast is equal to 10 +casting score modifier +highest spell level that has not been cast from yet

In other words, you've got a level 13 Wizard with 24 int. His DC's all start out at a base of 24 before feats and such, but when he uses ANY level 7 slot, the DC falls to 23 (based on spell level 6). It might make going nova TOO restrictive; or just cause casters to only spell dump with their second highest level spells. On the other hand, limiting yourself to one level lower for spells is like being down two caster levels, something generally considered painful.

A third of the 1 spell level lower bit is the save DC (a third of it is flexibility - higher level spells generally have better options; killing someone with Finger of Death is usually a better bet than turning them into a little woodland critter with Baelful Polymorph; Overland Flight is in most ways superior to Fly, and so on - the final third is spells per day and caster level - seriously, a lot of people cringe at the spell-slot cost on the Archmage PrC). Almost everybody saves against Charm Person by the time Dominate Person is available (1st vs. 5th level spell - 20% static difference, but when that 20% means a 30% vs. a 50% failure rate, you've got a spell you can't use anymore when you need it) - this is the basic reason Sorcerers ought to pick up heighten spell in standard play - but if the save DC of the two is the same, that doesn't matter nearly so much. Slow someone, then they can't take the Full Round Action to break free from Hold Person and... say goodnight Gracie. Blindness/Deafness at your max level save DC is a devastatingly good debuff (start with Blindness on 99% of targets), and so on. Add to that the little bit that you're not using a lower save DC when you're using a metamagic'd spell, and things get downright mean.

 

[Mon]

Hi Jack and StreamOfTheSky,

Thanks for the feedback.

Well, let's see....

Heighten Spell is now an almost-useless feat (it counters a handful of very specific things, and it's used in certain cheesy builds).

Yeah, This one I foresaw. No great loss, IMO. Thanks for the heads-up though.

Low-level save or suck spells are even more powerful. Between Glitterdust, Web, and Stinking Cloud you can nullify most opponents very effectively using just your low-level spells. And that's just with Core spells. Even minor spells like Charm Person are now very strong, and stay that way throughout your career.

This is part of the intention (see design goals). I've never seen a wizard achieve anything other than wasting an action with these spells after about 13th level. YMMV. "Even more powerful" than almost useless (at such high levels) is a Good Thing (tm) IMO.

Of course, my obtuseness aside (with apologies), "Even more powerful" than powerful is a Bad Thing (tm) as you say. I agree that at levels where save-or-suck spells were still useful under the orginal formula and potentially get a DC boost with the proposed formula, they might be too good.

However, I think "Save or Suck" spells are a diffferent problem in their own right and thus deserve a nerfing house rule of their very own (probably a save each round to shake them off or stave them off, a-la 4e).

This is a considerable boost to casters - but you already knew that, so...

Hmmm yes it is. And yes, I do. I'll discuss the several caster nerfing house rules I have in mind in another thread I guess. Or maybe another post later on in this one.

Thanks for the feedback

I like the basic idea, but Jack's right, as written, it's a huge boost to casters. May I suggest a fairly simple addendum that might make it balanced? Try the following:

The DC for any spell cast is equal to 10 +casting score modifier +highest spell level that has not been cast from yet

In other words, you've got a level 13 Wizard with 24 int. His DC's all start out at a base of 24 before feats and such, but when he uses ANY level 7 slot, the DC falls to 23 (based on spell level 6). It might make going nova TOO restrictive; or just cause casters to only spell dump with their second highest level spells. On the other hand, limiting yourself to one level lower for spells is like being down two caster levels, something generally considered painful.

Hmmm, you know what? That sounds pretty sweet. Thanks.

Slow someone, then they can't take the Full Round Action to break free from Hold Person and... say goodnight Gracie.

This tactic is viable using either system... see also response regarding save-or-suck spells being a seperate problem.

Blindness/Deafness at your max level save DC is a devastatingly good debuff (start with Blindness on 99% of targets), and so on.

So why should a 5th level wizard be able to use it on his enemies effectively, but a 15th level one can't? (without heighten spell).

Add to that the little bit that you're not using a lower save DC when you're using a metamagic'd spell, and things get downright mean.

I dunno... metamagic has never really seemed worth it to our group due to our early experiences with 3e leading us to conclude that, in general, spell level X + metamagic addition Y usually provides an equal or worse outcome than spells of level X+Y, for the same slot and a feat. There are, of course, exceptions (quicken spell, splatbook metamagic insanity, etc)

Thus this one slipped by me... I know that other groups feel differently so it is probably significant none-the-less. Thanks for the heads up here, Jack Smith. I'll ponder it.

 

[Jack Simth]

Hi Jack,

Thanks for the feedback.

Glad to help.

Yeah, This one I foresaw. No great loss, IMO. Thanks for the heads-up though.



This is part of the intention (see design goals). I've never seen a wizard achieve anything other than wasting an action with these spells after about 13th level. YMMV. "Even more powerful" than almost useless (at such high levels) is a Good Thing (tm) IMO.

At higher levels, a optimally played standard caster turns lower-level spell slots over to buff and utility - or the ones where for the effect you're actually after, the save doesn't matter (save or no, Glitterdust counters invisibility on the targets; save or no, Web still entangles those caught in it's area, which makes for easier targets and ones that don't hit as effectively anymore; Grease still forces balance checks, and even if you make the check, this means you're flat-footed without at least five ranks in Balance... the Rogue will thank the caster if he's thinking about it; and so on).

But you're also missing a side-effect here - the Wizard is using his low level spells up for offensive effect - that Wiz-13 with the Int-22 has 6 1st level spell slots, 6 2nd level spell slots, 5 3rd level spell slots, 5 4th level spell slots, 4 5th level spell slots, 3 6th level spell slots, and 1 7th level spell slot - if he does nearly as much effect with his 3rd+ spell slots as what would normally require his 6th and 7th level spell slots, he's got 18 spell's worth of near-maximally effective actions, rather than the 4 spell's worth of near-maximially effective actions that the standard-rules wizard has available - his endurance is way, way up there... and a lack of endurance was previously one of the balancing factors on the Wizard class as a whole.

Of course, my obtuseness aside (with apologies), "Even more powerful" than powerful is a Bad Thing (tm) as you say. I agree that at levels where save-or-suck spells were still useful under the orginal formula and potentially get a DC boost with the proposed formula, they might be too good.

However, I think "Save or Suck" spells are a diffferent problem in their own right and thus deserve a nerfing house rule of their very own (probably a save each round to shake them off or stave them off, a-la 4e).

Not too unreasonable.

Hmmm yes it is. And yes, I do. I'll discuss the several caster nerfing house rules I have in mind in another thread I guess. Or maybe another post later on in this one.

Thanks for the feedback



Hmmm, you know what? That sounds pretty sweet. Thanks.


This tactic is viable using either system... see also response regarding save-or-suck spells being a seperate problem.

True - but with the reserve system, it's a lot more likely to succeed.

So why should a 5th level wizard be able to use it on his enemies effectively, but a 15th level one can't? (without heighten spell).

Because stronger enemies have stronger defenses. Charm Person isn't effective at higher levels because your targets are generally more experienced with resisting magicks, more set in their ways, better at dodging things, et cetera.

I dunno... metamagic has never really seemed worth it to our group due to our early experiences with 3e leading us to conclude that, in general, spell level X + metamagic addition Y usually provides an equal or worse outcome than spells of level X+Y, for the same slot and a feat. There are, of course, exceptions (quicken spell, splatbook metamagic insanity, etc)

A big chunk of that is from the save reduction. If the save isn't reduced, at 13th level, that Empowered Fireball (5th level slot) is more effective than that Delayed Blast Fireball (10d6*1.5 for the Empowered Fireball, average of about 52 damage; 13d6 for the Delayed Blast Fireball, average of about 45.5 damage) ... and you can cast more of the Empowered Fireballs (they're 5th level slots, vs. the 7th level slot for the Delayed Blast Fireball). With the save for half put back in, the average damage of the two gets a lot better for DBF - because targets are a lot less likely to save. Take that away, and the EF is a lot better than the DBF for just about any case except where you're specifically using the delay on the DBF. Oh yeah - and the Empowered Fireball has been doing that much damage since 10th level. With the same save DC, the DBF doesn't become better than the Empowered Fireball until 15th or 16th, when the DBF's higher damage die cap overwhelms the bonus from Empower Spell on the Fireball.

Granted, direct-damage evocations aren't optimal - but they're useful when trying to illustrate a point, as they're very easy to use for mathematical comparisons.

Thus this one slipped by me... I know that other groups feel differently so it is probably significant none-the-less. Thanks for the heads up here, Jack Smith. I'll ponder it.

 

[Mon]

Hi Jack,
Again thanks for all the feedback - you're giving me alot to think about

But you're also missing a side-effect here - the Wizard is using his low level spells up for offensive effect - that Wiz-13 with the Int-22 has 6 1st level spell slots, 6 2nd level spell slots, 5 3rd level spell slots, 5 4th level spell slots, 4 5th level spell slots, 3 6th level spell slots, and 1 7th level spell slot - if he does nearly as much effect with his 3rd+ spell slots as what would normally require his 6th and 7th level spell slots, he's got 18 spell's worth of near-maximally effective actions, rather than the 4 spell's worth of near-maximially effective actions that the standard-rules wizard has available - his endurance is way, way up there... and a lack of endurance was previously one of the balancing factors on the Wizard class as a whole.

I'm not missing a side effect - this exact thing is an intentional feature (and one of the main design goals) of the reserve system, rather than a bug.

This area is where our game experiences differ, I think. IME, the lack of "endurance" (meaning, they run out of spells) doesn't work out as a balancing factor on the wizard and other casters - at least not a good one. Instead, it is a game-staller for the whole party due to being one of the primary culprits behind the "5 minute adventuring day" aka "caster goes nova then rests".

Infact, this reserve system doesn't make the wizard more powerful - it just lets him remain at around the same power level for longer. When you think about it in terms of the "action economy" the 4e crowd speak of*, the wizard still has only X actions per battle for N battles. All the reserve system does is increase the size of N. Now he can have X actions for more battles before resting, and they're not ineffective.

The point about casters turing lower level slots over to buffs and so forth is a very good one though.... definately worth a ponder. Thanks

* Disclaimer: 4e isn't my cup of tea, however many of their design philosophies seem sound to me.

True - but with the reserve system, it's a lot more likely to succeed.

No, it just remains viable for longer in terms of both levels of play and encoutners per day.

Because stronger enemies have stronger defenses. Charm Person isn't effective at higher levels because your targets are generally more experienced with resisting magicks, more set in their ways, better at dodging things, et cetera.

All of this is represented by... higher save bonuses. Not by lower save DCs. By the same token, a high level wizard has more experience overcoming magical resistances, has more magic power to put behind his spells, is better at targeting things et cetera.

Charm Person is lower level than Dominate Person because the effects of Charm < the effects of Dominate.

A big chunk of that is from the save reduction. If the save isn't reduced, at 13th level, that Empowered Fireball (5th level slot) is more effective than that Delayed Blast Fireball (10d6*1.5 for the Empowered Fireball, average of about 52 damage; 13d6 for the Delayed Blast Fireball, average of about 45.5 damage) ... and you can cast more of the Empowered Fireballs (they're 5th level slots, vs. the 7th level slot for the Delayed Blast Fireball). With the save for half put back in, the average damage of the two gets a lot better for DBF - because targets are a lot less likely to save. Take that away, and the EF is a lot better than the DBF for just about any case except where you're specifically using the delay on the DBF. Oh yeah - and the Empowered Fireball has been doing that much damage since 10th level. With the same save DC, the DBF doesn't become better than the Empowered Fireball until 15th or 16th, when the DBF's higher damage die cap overwhelms the bonus from Empower Spell on the Fireball.
Granted, direct-damage evocations aren't optimal - but they're useful when trying to illustrate a point, as they're very easy to use for mathematical comparisons.

I have pondered the metamagic thing overnight, and then found your example here this morning.

In this example you're ignoring the Delay feature of DBF which, if the Delay Spell metamagic feat is anything to go by, is worth 3 levels all by itself. The delay feature is a key contributer to DBF's higher level, not just the damage.

Lets compare Fireball modified by Empower Spell and Delay Spell (8th-level slot) vs. unmodified Delayed Blast Fireball (7th level slot). Two spells that do (roughly) the same thing. For the former, you've burned two feats and used a higher level spell slot. Not only that, but your 8th level spell has a DC 4 lower than your 7th level one into the bargain.

devil's advocate
Cone of Cold better illustrates your point, I think (unless I am off base) - but then you lose the two-level bump DBF bings. Different range/area and energy type aside, empowered FB trumps CoC in terms of raw average damage at levels 9-14, FTW!
/devil's advocate

However, you've then spent a feat so that your empowered FB averages ~12 more damage than CoC at best (9th level) and ~3 damage at worst (14th level). You've taken a -2 hit to the save DC as well. If saves are made, the extra damage falls to about 6 and 1 respectively.

I know many folks think this feat-slot & DC-hit trade off for that extra 12 (or less) average damage is worth it. Our group, though, generally doesn't.

With the reserve system, you've burned a feat to empower your FB so it does a bit more damage than CoC with no DC hit. Now THAT might be worth burning a feat for. Maybe. YMMV.

--

I guess, what I'm getting at, is that you are right - this is a boost to casters (but this I already knew, as stated in my OP). However it is a boost in terms of how many of their daily spells are useful at a given time, not in terms of the raw power they can put down at the game table in a single round - with either save-or-suck or raw damage spells. I.e. it drags up the bottom without pushing up the top. Mostly, anyway.

In other words, Magical Trevor the 15th level wizard may average higher damage with his fireball by virtue of a potentially higher save DC. He may also nauseate more baddies with his stinking cloud (more than 0, that is). But neither of these effects is more powerful than effects he can achieve with Horrid Wilting or Irresistable Dance (infact, they are generally less powerful for the same reason that charm < dominate). And he can't use any more of them per round, either. He can just do it for longer (i.e. more encounters).

Outcomes so far...

1. This means most of the Magical Trevor's actions are meaningful and powerful. Given this was mostly the case anyway due to the nova/rest thing, no problem here.

2. This means more encounters between rests. Good, first design goal achieved.

3. This encourages Magical Trevor to start with his Charms and Colour Sprays before moving up to his Domnates and Scintillating Patterns. Good, second design goal achived.

Unresolved issue so far...

1. It does require more thinking about lower level slots not all being turned over to buffs... buffs are an important part of play, afterall.

2. Maybe I haven't finished considering the metamagic thing yet...

Other issue that are indirectly related (i.e. they apply to some extent no matter which DC formula you use).

1. Save-or-sucks need a good ol' fashioned nerfing.

2. Caster vs. Non-caster relative power levels need addressing.

Thanks for all of the feedback... it really is helpful even in instances where
I disagree, because it forces me to think about it.

-- Mon

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Infact, this reserve system doesn't make the wizard more powerful - it just lets him remain at around the same power level for longer. When you think about it in terms of the "action economy" the 4e crowd speak of*, the wizard still has only X actions per battle for N battles. All the reserve system does is increase the size of N. Now he can have X actions for more battles before resting, and they're not ineffective.

The point about casters turing lower level slots over to buffs and so forth is a very good one though.... definately worth a ponder. Thanks

* Disclaimer: 4e isn't my cup of tea, however many of their design philosophies seem sound to me.

See though, Jack's right. You can't think in terms of 4E. 4E's design philosophies are combat-based. In 3E, a Wizard really can find tons of out-of combat uses for his spell slots, so no ""the wizard only gets so many actions in combat" rationale works too well. Arguably, the most "broken" thing about casting isn't how they dominate in a fight -- other than save or suck/die spells, and some well coordinated battlefield control they're no more powerful in a fight than a well built fighter type built to inflict horrendous damage -- it's how much more useful they are than most other classes out of a fight and how certain spells (like spider climb, fly, knock) make certain skills obsolete (climb, jump, open locks) and their overall versatility. Your basic premise makes their lower level spells stronger, thus further increasing that versatility...

This area is where our game experiences differ, I think. IME, the lack of "endurance" (meaning, they run out of spells) doesn't work out as a balancing factor on the wizard and other casters - at least not a good one. Instead, it is a game-staller for the whole party due to being one of the primary culprits behind the "5 minute adventuring day" aka "caster goes nova then rests".

If anything, it's Psionics that could use some work to trade sheer power for endurance, IMO.

 

[Mon]

Hi StreamOfTheSky,

Thanks for the feedback, and sorry for leaving you off the greetings/thanks earlier.

See though, Jack's right. You can't think in terms of 4E. 4E's design philosophies are combat-based. In 3E, a Wizard really can find tons of out-of combat uses for his spell slots, so no ""the wizard only gets so many actions in combat" rationale works too well.

Granted, a wizard can find a stack of out-of-combat uses for spells. But that isn't the issue here at all - out of combat spells aren't affected by a change in save DC, which is the only proposed change (at least in this thread)...

You've pointed out another dose of spells that may need a good stiff hit with the nerf bat, save DC formula aside. Might add this to my other thread about nerfing casters. Thanks, Stream

Back on topic, I think that the "action economy" rationale holds water for these three reasons:

1. 3e is an "action economy" and "combat based" game just as much as (or at least, almost as much as) 4e is. That's why there are different action types and most (but not all) of the written material deals with combat-related stuff. The 4e designers only gave names to things that have always been there - at least in the editions of D&D I've played: Mentzer BECMI, 2e, and 3e.

2. Spell save DCs (the only thing changed here) apply to combat spells almost exclusively. When are spell saves used outside combat?* Hence "combat" is a valid context for this discussion.

3. "Action economy" mechanics began to creep in during late 3e design, with things like the Bo9S and the fighter features in PHB2, so it clearly applies to 3e as well - at least to some extent.

*EDIT: Charms and so forth in social encounters, I suppose. And the odd sleep to sneak past some guards. Those things also apply in 4e though, as powers, so it doesn't undermine my point that the so called "action economy" rationale is valid. However, such encounters would seem to be another valid context for discussion. sweet

I agree with this 110%:

Arguably, the most "broken" thing about casting isn't how they dominate in a fight -- other than save or suck/die spells, and some well coordinated battlefield control they're no more powerful in a fight than a well built fighter type built to inflict horrendous damage -- it's how much more useful they are than most other classes out of a fight and how certain spells (like spider climb, fly, knock) make certain skills obsolete (climb, jump, open locks) and their overall versatility.

However, this is incorrect:

Your basic premise makes their lower level spells stronger, thus further increasing that versatility...

For this reason...

A potential save DC increase doesn't make spider climb, fly, or knock any more powerful. Those sorts of spells don't use saves. If anything, the reserve system encourages casters to use their slots for more "in combat" effects meaning they'll prepare these spells LESS often.

If anything, it's Psionics that could use some work to trade sheer power for endurance, IMO.

We don't use psionics, so I wouldn't know. A trade-off of some kind isn't what I'm after though - just more encounters between rests.

--

My POV in summary:

1. A save DC increase != an across the board increase in power for all spells - it doesn't affect most non-combat spells at all.

2. It doesn't increase the power of the caster's actions - it just makes him more likely to spend actions on lower level spells (charm < dominate even with the same DC) instead of resting when his highest few spell levels are depleted, thereby spreading spell resource across a greater number of actions.

3. The save DCs will not always be through the roof - they scale down if the caster does his best stuff.

Things for me to consider

1. Nerfing utility spells that overshadow non-casters' niches (a separate issue 'cause those spells don't have DCs, but related).

2. Low level slots get shifted over to buffs and utilities (somewhat related to the above, perhaps?).

3. Change the rule a bit so that the highest unused spell level available determines the DC, or some other tweak like that.

I am grateful to both you and Jack Smith for making me think deeply through some things I hadn't considered - which will lead to me likely implimenting the change that you suggested upthread.

Please keep the analyses and counter-statements coming... although I seem to stubbornly resist this is not my intention - I have gained several points of value from them (see above) - and that's why I'm here

Cheers,

Mon.

 

[Runestar]

I personally feel that scaling spell dcs is a very bad idea.

The encounter guidelines suggests that an encounter of EL X is supposed to deplete a party of average lv X of roughly 20-25% of its resources.

This was probably made with the assumption that for spellcasters, only your highest 3 lvs of spells are worth casting in combat. The rest are left for support/utility. For example, say I am a lv15 wizard. Against a cr15 enemy, the spells which can affect it meaningfully are probably my 8th, 7th and possibly 6th lv spells. Anything lower may either have too low a DC, deal too little damage or generally have too weak of an effect to sufficiently affect the foe in question. Your houserule would upset this equation.

There are quite a number of lower lv spells which remains very useful all the way to higher lvs, the only reason why they do not see play is because their otherwise low DCs make them very unreliable. I wouldn't use grease on a wyrm dragon because I know my DC would suck. But I certainly would not hesitate to use grease, glitterdust or stinking cloud at lv15+ if their DC was the equivalent of an 8th or 9th lv spells. Previously, heightening them proved too great an opportunity cost as they were competing with powerhouses like forcecage, maze, limited wish, mindblank, and the entire array of 9th lv spells for precious slots.

Likewise, some lower lv spells are virtually indistinguishable from higher lv spells save for a higher DC. For instance, against a humanoid foe, dominate person is mechanically the same as dominate monster, save for a lower DC. If we allowed spell DCs to scale, this could be problematic as the wizard would then be getting the equivalent of a 9th lv spell from a 5th lv slot!. As long as he leaves a 9th lv spell uncast, all his other spells have been freely heightened to the equivalent of 9th lv, without the need to expend a higher lv slot.

As mentioned earlier, this houserule also interacts poorly with metamagic feats. Why bother with a cone of cold, when an empowered fireball deals more damage at 10th lv and still has the same DC?

In addition, I fail to see how this would discourage your spellcasters from going nova. Lets say I am a focused specialist spellcaster with a high int. At any odd lv, I would easily have 4 slots of the highest lv spell I can cast (for example, at lv13, I would have 4 7th lv slots). I see no real tradeoff in setting aside 1 paltry 7th lv slot to power the rest of my other spells, since I still have plenty of 7th, 6th and 5th lv spells to burn through.

Conversely, this might encourage me to go nova. Without your rule, I might cast a 7th lv spell, followed by either a 6th or 5th lv spell, and then maybe a 4th or 3rd spell if situation calls for it. Now, there is nothing stopping me from spamming my lower lv spells, since I am literally overflowing with spells prepared, and they are no less efficacious because of their improved DCs.

All in all, I would say to scrap it.