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

[Mon]

G'day runestar.

You made a very good point here: the Person/Monster difference for charm, dominate etc. This is a valid criticism the reserve system and one I haven't yet considered. Thanks for the insight, I will think long and hard on it.

Most of the rest of the post is just re-stating things I had already addressed, and which I don't believe are valid points for dismissing the reserve system. I'll explain why, but I already did so upthread for most of those points.

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.

...The fact that lower levels spells shift over to buff/utility is valid, but I have already said upthread that I am thinking about this one.

There is nothing else in this snippet that I haven't already explicitly called out as wanting to overcome/bypass/change as a design goal, though. To clarify, it's not upsetting the equation, it's chaning it so that those lower level things you mentioned are meaningful. It is quite a deliberate and intentional change, the very reason for the change, infact.

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.

...This snippet actually explains exactly what I am trying to achieve, complete with examples. Uh... thanks, I guess.

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.

...This is a very good point and a valid concern about this reserve system. I'll have to think about it deeply.

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?

...I've already addressed this one.

1. because it costs you a feat to do it that way.
2. empowered FB doesn't do more damage at higher levels, even with the feat.

Conversely, Why burn a feat to empower fireball when cone of cold does the same damage at 15th level and has a DC two points higher?

(edge case level-specifying is unfair in a scaling system like this I know, but you started it ).

(I know the answer here depends on what you value more as a resource - spells or feats. I'm just illustrating the point in the damage-dealing-only context in which the original question was asked).

The rule does interact poorly with highten spell, but as i said upthread, no great loss IMO.

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.

...Burn through those lower level spells, baby. That's one less spell of your most powerful spell level that you're using.

Casting a spell with a meaningful outcome every round isn't going nova... burning through your top 2-3 spell levels then resting is going nova.

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.

*sigh*

Again, I've already addressed this.

I'll go through it one more time.

What are these spamming casters going to do? Cast them all in the first battle? the first round?

Casting a spell on your turn isn't spamming - especially if it is a less powerful spell than other spells you have available.

You will still only be able to use X spells per encounter... because having a greater number of meaningful spells available doesn't give you more actions with which to cast them in a given battle. It just means you'll have more battles before they're gone (c.f. the design goal). And outside combat, where actions aren't a commodity, the DC changes nothing.

--

That person/monster distinction is a bit of a zinger though. I'll get back to you.

 

[Runestar]

There is nothing else in this snippet that I haven't already explicitly called out as wanting to overcome/bypass/change as a design goal, though. To clarify, it's not upsetting the equation, it's chaning it so that those lower level things you mentioned are meaningful. It is quite a deliberate and intentional change, the very reason for the change, infact.

And I am saying that you shouldn't, even though that may be a deliberate goal you are working towards. My reservation is that you hope to end up changing may well be very different from what does end up being changed.

You will still only be able to use X spells per encounter... because having a greater number of meaningful spells available doesn't give you more actions with which to cast them in a given battle. It just means you'll have more battles before they're gone (c.f. the design goal). And outside combat, where actions aren't a commodity, the DC changes nothing.

You should still be able to cast more spells over the course of the entire combat. Lets take a typical encounter which lasts 5 rounds. Assume you normally ration yourself to no more than 2-3 of your higher lv spells for the fight. For the rest of the remainder of the battle, you can still contribute meaningfully by casting your lower lv spells (which are suddenly useful again because of their heightened DCs). You can also quicken spells (via feats, items such as charms or metamagic rods, master specialist10 etc).

Especially at higher lvs, it is not so much that I lack for spells to cast, but more that I lack spells powerful/useful enough to cast. Under the normal rules, I wouldn't bother with quickening grease or glitterdust at higher lvs. Under your intended houserule, I would.

Even if my spell output may still be the same, my spellcaster is now stronger as the quality of the spells cast is higher.

1. because it costs you a feat to do it that way.
2. empowered FB doesn't do more damage at higher levels, even with the feat.

Conversely, Why burn a feat to empower fireball when cone of cold does the same damage at 15th level and has a DC two points higher?

Because while I would use empowered fireball at lv9 or 10 when it still does more damage than cone of cold, I would obviously stop using it when its potential for extra damage starts becoming irrelevant due to fireball's damage cap.

Yes, I would be indifferent between using an empowered fireball or a cone of cold at lv15, but that still does not change the fact that at lv10, the empowered fireball still does more damage, and its sole drawback (a lower DC normally) is essentially moot under your houserule.

In the same vein, why bother with delayed blast fireball when I can have an empowered cone of cold instead? There are clearly thresholds where certain spells are clearly much stronger than other spells, and I feel that this warrants attention. It does not matter that it will all eventually balance out, because it still means that you may be facing a problem when your party is playing in a 9th or 10th lv campaign. I won't care that this will cease to be a problem 5 lvs down the road, because it is proving to be an issue now, and one that may threaten to upset your game if not dealt with quickly.

Likewise, I feel the benefits far outstrip what you should be expecting from a single feat. You can't say that just because you have spent a precious feat slot on empower spell, then you should get so much advantages from it.

Your proposed overhaul is not really all that different from an earlier suggestion that DCs be determined by caster lv instead of spell lv (in that the spells still end up sharing your highest lv spell DC at the end of the day). These were some of the pointers that were raisd in that discussion, so I am just modifying them for use here.

 

[Mon]

And I am saying that you shouldn't, even though that may be a deliberate goal you are working towards. My reservation is that you hope to end up changing may well be very different from what does end up being changed.

... a genuine and noble concern, cheers. However other than this general overview you haven't yet provided an explanation as to WHY I shouldn't - in terms of tangible game-breaking or fun-wrecking problems.

Assume you normally ration yourself to no more than 2-3 of your higher lv spells for the fight.

... and this assumption underlies the flaw in this line of reasoning. Since when do casters decide they'll ration themselve to 2-3 of their higher level spells for the fight? If they did that, there wouldn't be a nova problem in the first place...

For the rest of the remainder of the battle, you can still contribute meaningfully by casting your lower lv spells (which are suddenly useful again because of their heightened DCs). You can also quicken spells (via feats, items such as charms or metamagic rods, master specialist10 etc).

Yes, my point exactly... are you playing devil's advocate here?

Aside, yes you can quicken - under either system. Thats a part of the "action economy" that takes a lot of resources and (usually) higher level spell slots. You get extra actions either way. This system doesn't add to that number of extra actions at all, though.

Especially at higher lvs, it is not so much that I lack for spells to cast, but more that I lack spells powerful/useful enough to cast. Under the normal rules, I wouldn't bother with quickening grease or glitterdust at higher lvs. Under your intended houserule, I would.

Sweet. That's the idea.

Even if my spell output may still be the same, my spellcaster is now stronger as the quality of the spells cast is higher.

No, the quality of your weaker spells is higher than it would otherwise be, but it is not as high as the quality of your most powerful spells. As I asked before, how does spending some of those 5 rounds (from the example combat) casting less efficacious spells make you more powerful than spending those actions casting your best spells?

Remember, lower levels spells are lower level because of a more limited effect. That's why there were spell levels in BECMI, 1e, and 2e. In those games, the chance of saving was the same across all spell levels, and yet there were low level and high level spells. Clearly, even with the same chance to save, lower level spells are designed to be weaker than higher level ones.

Because while I would use empowered fireball at lv9 or 10 when it still does more damage than cone of cold, I would obviously stop using it when its potential for extra damage starts becoming irrelevant due to fireball's damage cap.

Can't argue here, that's the point of it afterall.

Yes, I would be indifferent between using an empowered fireball or a cone of cold at lv15, but that still does not change the fact that at lv10, the empowered fireball still does more damage, and its sole drawback (a lower DC normally) is essentially moot under your houserule.

Dude... the -2 DC isn't the sole drawback - you've burned a feat on this.

In the same vein, why bother with delayed blast fireball when I can have an empowered cone of cold instead?

'cause DBF has the delay feature... worth a couple levels there (see upthread).

There are clearly thresholds where certain spells are clearly much stronger than other spells, and I feel that this warrants attention.

I am aware of the threshhold thing, and as I said I know it wasn't exactly fair to go using edge cases, but you did it first

It does not matter that it will all eventually balance out, because it still means that you may be facing a problem when your party is playing in a 9th or 10th lv campaign. I won't care that this will cease to be a problem 5 lvs down the road, because it is proving to be an issue now, and one that may threaten to upset your game if not dealt with quickly.

...What's the problem though? The 9th level guy's empowered fireball does more damage than CoC and has the same save DC? I never contested that fact, and hooray for him. An extra ~12 damage (6 on save) from a very valuable (at that level) 5th level slot + feat burned combo isn't close to game-breaking. It isn't even optimal in core. I'd much rather spend that 5th level slot on cloudkill, teleport, baleful polymorph, or overland flight. And have a feat to play with to boot.

If that 12/6 damage (in best case scenario) truly is the problem to which you refer, then rest assured that to my group it is no problem at all.

I would've thought that you'd point out a potentially more meaningful situation: Mr Wiz9's non-empowered fireball is doing the same damage as his cone of cold, with potentially the same DC under the reserve system. No feat burned, nothing.

Now THERE is something to think about. Fortunately, it was one of the first things I considered when conceiving of the reserve rule: It is one of those edge cases where a low level spell overlaps a higher level one in utility for a level or two before the higher level one pulls ahead. (eg. Magic Missile and Force Missiles from the Spell Compendium - no saves involved, and MM does more damage until 12th caster level). Not an ideal situation to be sure, but it is a small price to pay for a better Play-time:Rest-time ratio. It just means you take cone of cold at some point above 10th level, or you take it for the cold energy type, or whatever.

Likewise, I feel the benefits far outstrip what you should be expecting from a single feat. You can't say that just because you have spent a precious feat slot on empower spell, then you should get so much advantages from it.

I think this might be a un-resolvable point between us... my group generally can't see that the extra few damage points is "so much advantage". As I said above, use cloudkill or teleport or whatever and save your feat for something less sub-optimal.

Your proposed overhaul is not really all that different from an earlier suggestion that DCs be determined by caster lv instead of spell lv (in that the spells still end up sharing your highest lv spell DC at the end of the day). These were some of the pointers that were raisd in that discussion, so I am just modifying them for use here.

Ah, but it is quite different although there are many similarities.

Under that 10 + half level + ability mod thing, there isn't any incentive not to use your best spells straight up. Under the reserve system, there is a fairly strong incentive not to do so. As such, they'd play quite differently at the table. The key difference being actions spent on lower level spells are less powerful actions, even with the same DC.

 

[Runestar]

Under that 10 + half level + ability mod thing, there isn't any incentive not to use your best spells straight up. Under the reserve system, there is a fairly strong incentive not to do so. As such, they'd play quite differently at the table. The key difference being actions spent on lower level spells are less powerful actions, even with the same DC.

You just need to hold one of your highest lv spells back in reserve. Which depending on whether you went focused specialist or not, may or may not be such a big deal. I concede there is a difference, but I feel that it is less significant than you believe it to be.

No, the quality of your weaker spells is higher than it would otherwise be, but it is not as high as the quality of your most powerful spells. As I asked before, how does spending some of those 5 rounds (from the example combat) casting less efficacious spells make you more powerful than spending those actions casting your best spells?

Not quite what I meant. My point was that their efficacy is improved when you cast them in addition to the higher lv spells you are normally casting. You don't cast them in place of your higher lv spells - you cast them in addition to your higher lv spells.

Lets say my wizard is able to quicken spells (chronocharm, rod of quicken, master specialist conjurer10 etc). Now imagine that I am casting a quickened lower lv spell (~lv1-3) in addition to the higher lv spell each round. Normally, the lower lv spell won't be expected to have much of an impact unless you specially chose spells which do not have saves (such as damage spells like magic missile or scorching ray). You wouldn't bother with spells like grease or glitterdust because their low dcs means they will rarely get through, however useful an effect they may produce on a failed save).

Now with your proposed houserule, I can quicken those spells I had previously shunned and still have the desired results, because their heightened dcs means that I will now have a much higher success rate.

Because the effectivenss of those lower lv spells improve, so too does your efficacy. Likewise, while the lower DCs of said spells may have discouraged you from casting them in the first place, you will face no such reservations now. Your improved effectiveness comes from casting these extra spells you otherwise would not have cast to begin with, slots which may well have gone to waste at the end of the day unless you fill them all with utility spells and get the chance to use them (like rope trick or fly).

I think the impact of your houserule is only more significant at higher lvs, where the disparity between your highest and lowest lv spells becomes all the more apparent.

I am not making myself any clearer, am I?

 

[Mon]

You just need to hold one of your highest lv spells back in reserve. Which depending on whether you went focused specialist or not, may or may not be such a big deal. I concede there is a difference, but I feel that it is less significant than you believe it to be.

...As I've said, it is losing one of your best actions to do a few more of your not-best actions... If losing one of your highest level slots, and replacing it's use with lower level spells, isn't significant in your game then that's fine. However in every game I've played and DMed (which is many), it would be very significant indeed. Different personal experiences I guess.

Aside, I actually think that all the doom and gloom you predict won't be as significant as you think...

Not quite what I meant. My point was that their efficacy is improved when you cast them in addition to the higher lv spells you are normally casting. You don't cast them in place of your higher lv spells - you cast them in addition to your higher lv spells.

...No, you do use them 'instead of' on a round-by-round and encounter-by-encounter basis. The only sense in which you use them "as well as" is over more rounds of combat... which arise from... (drum roll) more encounters. Which is what I want.

This is true even if you quicken and cast two... which you could do under either system. All you're doing is making lower level spells that allow a save become an option alongside those that don't allow a save... and they're the same level afterall. If having a choice between vampiric touch and fireball was not a balance problem at 5th level when these spells are relatively more potent, how on earth does it become one at 15th level? Especially given your 8th levels are potentially in play...

Lets say my wizard is able to quicken spells (chronocharm, rod of quicken, master specialist conjurer10 etc). Now imagine that I am casting a quickened lower lv spell (~lv1-3) in addition to the higher lv spell each round. Normally, the lower lv spell won't be expected to have much of an impact unless you specially chose spells which do not have saves (such as damage spells like magic missile or scorching ray). You wouldn't bother with spells like grease or glitterdust because their low dcs means they will rarely get through, however useful an effect they may produce on a failed save).

...So, to that 5 round battle. Lets say that somehow you have the capacity to quicken twice in that fight... a pretty big ask but certainly doable. Now you have 7 spells to use in the fight. Aw what the heck, lets cut loose and have quicken every round. Now you have 10 actions.

Under the core system, you'd use 5 slots of your highest one or two levels (or maybe three, at most) and 5 quickened spells of lower level that take up significant resources to get quickened (likely including more of your highest level slots, but not necessarily so as you pointed out with the rod, or the splatbook cheese). You'd almost certainly choose to quicken spells without saves, as you said, because, also as you said, their low DC means they'd rarely get through... waste of an expensive quicken.

Under the reserve system, you'd use 7 spells of potentially any level. You may even choose no spells at all from your top 2-3 levels. You can choose low level spells that do allow a save, or those that don't. Now instead of just using (say) magic missle because it has no save, you might choose burning hands even though it has a save, 'cause the DC is higher. Or perhaps ice storm and shout are your options since high level play is a concern here (quickened, they are 8th level spells).

It doesn't make you more powerful, at least in the terms you're speaking of. Do you have more "endurance" in terms of rounds you can sling spells for? absolutely. Do you have more flexibility in terms of how many different actions you can choose from this round? Definately. And both of these are a kind of power, I agree. But the former is a feature for smoother game play and just the think I hope to achieve, while the latter consists of the flexibility to not-do-your-best-so-you-can-do-something-weaker.

In summary:

Do you dish out more pain in a single round than you would have otherwise? Not unless you would have chosen to quicken a low-level spell with a save, which as you pointed out, you wouldn't.

Is it more powerful than a woefully underpowered tactical decision*? Yes.

Is it more powerful than what you would actually do in play? No.

* That being, casting a low level spell that allows a save against a high level opponent - quickened or not.

Now with your proposed houserule, I can quicken those spells I had previously shunned and still have the desired results, because their heightened dcs means that I will now have a much higher success rate.

...Yup. Surely can. And please do.

Because the effectivenss of those lower lv spells improve, so too does your efficacy.

...But only in comparison to their previous effectiveness... which was ~0 on the effectivenss scale. Compared to the other things you could be doing, they're still down that scale and therefore are, even with a potentially boosted DC, suboptimal choices for your limited number of actions. Or, at worst, equally as viable (when choosing what to quicken).

Likewise, while the lower DCs of said spells may have discouraged you from casting them in the first place, you will face no such reservations now.

...Goal achieved then.

Your improved effectiveness comes from casting these extra spells you otherwise would not have cast to begin with, slots which may well have gone to waste at the end of the day unless you fill them all with utility spells and get the chance to use them (like rope trick or fly).

... Checkout the design goals one more time. I want to see these slots put to use so that more encounters can be had in the day, not "gone to waste at the end of the day".

So yes, your effectiveness is improved, in exactly the way you say: because you can cast these spells you otherwise wouldn't. 100% agree.

Here's the thing though... you're doing it in different battles that you otherwise wouldn't have had to face until tomorrow or the next day when you would be all souped up to nova on your top tier spells...

I think the impact of your houserule is only more significant at higher lvs, where the disparity between your highest and lowest lv spells becomes all the more apparent.

...I hope you're right about this one.

I am not making myself any clearer, am I?

...No no, it is perfectly clear and has been since your first post. I went through this kinda stuff in my head before I even posted it here. It is just that I disagree with some of your assumptions and conclusations just as you disagree with mine... and I think we should agree to disagree or we'll keep talking around in circles like this...

--

I think I will tweak the rule a little though... you've (collectively) at least convinced me that a tweak or three might improve on the idea. I am still in the throes of thinking over a few of the things Jack, Stream, and you pointed out (I identified them upthread). It is leading me towards a different, and possibly less game-influencing, application of the same principle which I've been thinking about since I read Stream's suggested improvement in his first post in the thread. I will post it in a day or three when I have something threshed out.

Thanks again Jack, Stream, and Rune.