Saves, Charismatics, and Spell Balance

[malcolm_mountainslayer]

I still think increase dcs is a bad idea. Its just power creeping and will make medium/low save builds less viable. If I had it my way, id partial nerf enchanting while adding more partial save spells (rather than modifying old ones)

As for pushing divine cha benefits, i already stated my opinion that shutting down brycer builds as an option would be a shame as 17 blackgaurd builds are just as viable (if not more with knight class). Peole don't roll brycers just for powergaming, a cookie cutter weapon master or gosh, a spellsword weaponmaster are not any weaker than a brycer build.

The only problem i see is every good aligned sorceror wanting to be a paladin (unless they for fighter EDR III dip build.) Which to be fair, is a 2 edge sword. Yeah its rp pigeon holing, but also makes sorcerors more viable compares to their wizard counterparts that get all the feats and skillpoints. I have mixed feelings about it.

But brycer builds are not shoehorned powergame builds. There are so many other options for viable melee builds that brycer just creates another option for paladin concepts.


I am also going to say something controversial, arelith meta isn't traditional DnD meta, nor should it try to be. You are better off with NWN 2 where discipline skill does not exist and tumble gives less ac if you want a closer to PnP feel.

*edit*

Upon some reflection, I feel some cookie option for 28 sorceror is due. I can defend pure fighters being viable, wizards can be chaos mages or spellswords. Rogues rp wise shouldn't have gripes about 6 fighter levels but still have other options. Brycers are fine. But there is way too much pushing a sorceror into being a paladin if they arnt evil. And paladin is stricter RP class. And sorcerer has lack of any options to be pure unlike all the other caster classes (they arnt necessarily optimal but they are viable).

Healer path clerics, wild mages, pure druids, bards, every caster class but sorceror has a potential pure build.

[Gobbo Champion Inc]

Casters are already top tier builds. I am not certain why making them comparitively more powerful is desirable. I also don’t get why some people fetishize pure class, or most in one class builds. There is nothing inherently desirable or virtuous about them. People will still power build, and the meta will adjust, only now with less build diversity.

[malcolm_mountainslayer]

Casters are already top tier builds. I am not certain why making them comparitively more powerful is desirable. I also don’t get why some people fetishize pure class, or most in one class builds. There is nothing inherently desirable or virtuous about them. People will still power build, and the meta will adjust, only now with less build diversity.

Well i agree casters don't need more power, but giving sorcerors a balanced 28 cookie option would not make them more powerful, it would actaully encourage people (but not force) to do the opposite while not forcing divine class changes upon everyone (as the post was complaining about pal/BG dips and the only problem i admitted was sorc Pal dip being such a no brainer that you force all good sorceror to be a paladin or harper agent).

There is no reason to force mundane builds to take 5 paladin over 3 paladin/blackgaurd from a build balance perspective or RP perspective. I whole heartedly think such a notion is silly, but would understand if people wanted to complain about sorceror paladins and feel rather than messing up the boat of viable mundane builds, why not just produce more options for sorceror than divine dipping?

[Tarkus the dog]

Brycer doesn't beat high paladin.

30 fighters can cross class tumble, and thus have the same ac as 27 fighter 3 rogue.

Evasion isn't a free feat. It costs 3 rogue levels, and classes are capped up to 3 in total making evasion very desirable by: Literally anyone who can't afford to lose either of the 3 classes.

Any character that dips loses something in the process. Sorcerers lose hp, 3 CL and spell duration. Paladins lose... absolutely nothing, actually. If you're doing high paladin, go 27/3 rogue. 4 fighter is pretty good but so is higher CL and spell duration. I guess if you want some extra feats you can go for it. Clerics are strictly 27/3 dip these days for the sake of CL and can't afford to go fighter anymore.

I mean, hell, everyone dips. That's sort of the entire point of Neverwinter Nights. Rangers dip monk. Monks dip fighter and shadow dancer. Rogues dip fighter. Wizards dip ranger/bard. Fighters dip almost anything they like, because it's a pretty goddang GOOD class and if anyone disagrees, they are a mage player. Barbarians dip fighter, bards dip paladin/blackguard or fighter. Spellswords dip almost whatever the hell they like these days, and everyone dips weaponmaster.

Also, heck, you can roleplay being a paladin just fine with just 3 levels of it. Or how about this? You can roleplay being a blackguard with just 3 levels of it as a 27 warlock.

It's okay to dip.

It's okay.

[Kalopsia]

First of all, I know this is a long post.
Having read most of this thread, I believe that it might help to look at a comparison between divine/non-divine versions of certain builds. Due to the great versatility of builds out there, I’ve decided to look at three common examples of builds with the option for a divine dip: Fighters, Sorcerers and Rogues.

Disclaimer: I am aware that RP is more than numbers, and not everyone “minmaxes” their builds - but when evaluating the balance of classes and game mechanics, RP builds should play a subordinate role. Numbers are more important in such cases :)

That said, let’s begin!


How building for CHA impacts starting stat and gift selection:

• Human Fighter without divine dip: STR:19 DEX:9 CON:18 WIS:8 INT:14 CHA:8
• Human Fighter with divine dip: STR:17 DEX:8 CON:14 WIS:8 INT:14 CHA:18
  Sacrifice for CHA benefits: 1 AB/damage, 60 HP, 2 Fortitude
  Possible CHA benefits: 10AC, 9 (=10-1) damage, 8 (=10-2) Fortitude, 10 Reflex, 10 Will
  Comments: Divine Fighters lose many hit points, but the added saves can justify this investment, as Fighters have a D10 hit dice and are struggling with saves more than they do with HP.
  
  .
• Human Sorcerer without divine dip: STR:9 DEX:8 CON:18 WIS:8 INT:14 CHA:19
• Human Sorcerer with divine dip: STR:13 DEX:9 CON:16 WIS:8 INT:14 CHA:19
  Sacrifice for CHA benefits: 30 HP, 1 Fortitude
  Possible CHA benefits: 14 AC, 13 (=14-1) Fortitude, 14 Reflex, 14 Will
  Comments: As Sorcerers already have high CHA, adding a Divine class generally only necessitates higher starting STR. This is by far the smallest investment of the three.
  
  .
• Human Rogue without divine dip: STR:9 DEX:19 CON:18 WIS:8 INT:14 CHA:8
• Human Rogue with divine dip: STR:14 DEX:17 CON:12 WIS:8 INT:14 CHA:16
  Sacrifice for CHA benefits: 1 AB/AC, 90 HP, 3 Fortitude, 1 Reflex
  Possible CHA benefits: 8 (=9-1) AC, 9 damage, 6 (=9-3) Fortitude, 8 (=9-1) Reflex, 9 Will
  Comments: Divine Rogues lose a large chunk of hit points, making them vulnerable against direct spell damage (IGMS etc.).
  
  .

How building for CHA impacts class dips:

• Human Fighter with Rogue dip: Gets UMD, full Tumble AC, Evasion, 2d6 of Sneak Attacks, Uncanny Dodge and 18 skill points.
• Human Fighter with Bard dip: Gets UMD, full Tumble AC, access to Spellcraft (usually a +4 saves difference), bardic harps (notably, Greater Restoration and Mass Haste) and 12 skill points.
• Human Fighter with Specialist dip: Gets UMD, full Tumble AC, access to Spellcraft (usually a +4 saves difference), 12 skill points and a free Epic Skill Focus.
• Human Fighter with divine dip: Can access the CHA benefits above. Paladin levels add fear immunity and access to divine wands on top of that.
  
  .
• Human Sorcerer with Bard dip: Gets Discipline, UMD, full Tumble AC, access to Spellcraft (usually a +4 saves difference), bardic harps (notably, Greater Restoration) and 12 skill points.
• Human Sorcerer with Specialist dip: Gets Discipline, UMD, full Tumble AC, 12 skill points and a free Epic Skill Focus.
• Human Sorcerer with Ranger dip: Gets Discipline, 12 skill points and a free Epic Spell Focus, as well as access to divine wands. Due to innate access to arcane wands, this makes UMD mostly superfluous.
• Human Sorcerer with divine dip: Gets Discipline and access to the CHA benefits above. Paladin levels add fear immunity and access to divine wands on top of that. Due to innate access to arcane wands, this makes UMD mostly superfluous.
  
  .
• Human Rogue with 6 Fighter levels: Gets Discipline, effectively 2 pre-epic feats (Fighter adds 4, but I’m subtracting 2 for WS/EWS), +1 Fighter AC bonus and +6 damage via (Epic) Weapon Specialization.
• Human Rogue with 5 divine levels: Gets Discipline and access to the CHA benefits above. Paladin levels add fear immunity and let the rogue use the Squire’s Vestment, which is very powerful.
  
  .

How building for CHA impacts feat selection:

• Human Fighter: 3 of about 17 pre-epic feats
  Comments: Fighters rarely lack feats - if anything, they are lacking opportunities to use their plethora of feats for. Low investment.
  
  .
• Human Sorcerer: 2 of 8 pre-epic feats:
  Comments: This generally equals the difference between having a second (in some cases, third) spell focus or not, and could thus be called a fairly high investment.
  
  .
• Human Rogue: 3 of 8 pre-epic feats (plus the rogue bonus feats):
  Comments: This generally equals the difference between having active combat feats like (Improved) Knockdown or not. In light of the recent knockdown changes, some Rogues might use these feats for higher saving throws instead, lowering the gap between CHA and non-CHA variants.
  
  .

How building for CHA impacts endgame (“soft 5%” or rune) gear:
With the (notable) exception of sorcerers, characters generally gear for [STR or DEX]/CON/Discipline/[another skill], then use a rune to add universal saving throws. Divine builds would gear for [STR or DEX]/CON/[singular save bonus]/Discipline/[another skill], then use a rune to add CHA.
What this means is that in order to reach +7 CHA on their gear, these builds sacrifice up to 7 universal saving throws. The added CHA save bonus only makes up for half the difference, the higher base CHA (over-)compensates the rest. In practice, the resulting increase in saving throws is not as dramatic as the numbers in the stat-section would suggest.

Conclusion:
Building for CHA doubtlessly has its merits, but the added AC, damage and saving throws come at a price that makes the actual benefits less powerful than they might seem on paper. Most builds need to sacrifice HP and/or AB, making them more vulnerable against burst damage, while others sacrifice feats and lose access to other combat options. (The one exception that, in my opinion, might require further consideration is divine sorcerers, which can access these CHA benefits with a much smaller investment than most other characters.)

37+ fortitude, reflex and will against spells can be achieved by many, if not most builds when properly geared - and builds that cannot do so can generally make up for the difference by sacrificing a few feats.

It should also be noted that Divine Shield AC is not as reliable due to being dodge AC (which is lost while flat-footed, even with Uncanny Dodge) and both divine feats last a fairly short duration. This fact can be used to a tactical advantage.

With all that said, I believe the current situation regarding these divine builds is fairly balanced, and limiting the bonuses would limit build versatility rather than saving throw numbers. Many melee characters are building and gearing for saving throws these days, to survive against casters despite the loss of their former UMD scrolls.

[Ork]

Kalopsia, well done.

[malcolm_mountainslayer]

I think the impact builds have on RP is paramount.

But I am glad you did a breakdown of it all. I agree pushing benefits of dips just removes options and limits RP rather than encouraging the RP of the class while offering no significant mechanical balance of cha vs non cha mundane melees.

My suggestion about lvl 28 sorceror cookie was not to stop people from doing existing builds, but to make them more on par with other pure caster classes when going pure (not that you need or have to be pure to RP, I like options).

[CptJonas]

My take on this...lover saves...
More impactfull stuff on 28 level for all classes...
And make all DC spells not like save or Die, more like SS imbue...deal damage, and if you dont save you get debuf...

[Hazard]

Casters are already top tier builds. I am not certain why making them comparitively more powerful is desirable. I also don’t get why some people fetishize pure class, or most in one class builds. There is nothing inherently desirable or virtuous about them. People will still power build, and the meta will adjust, only now with less build diversity.

Pure classes are a safe route to go if your character concept is straight forward and only fits to one class. It makes it much less likely that balance updates will break your character concept and force a re-roll or re-level. Also, some people/characters just want to do one thing. If a wizard wants to only be a wizard and not dabble in other things, and be the most wizardy-wizard he can be, then that makes perfect sense. A level 30 wizard is MORE wizardy than a level 27 wizard/3 rogue. Specifically 3 levels of more wizardness.

[Hazard]

My take on this...lover saves...
More impactfull stuff on 28 level for all classes...
And make all DC spells not like save or Die, more like SS imbue...deal damage, and if you dont save you get debuf...

I agree with this, except for 'all' DC spells not being save or die. Death magic has to be save or die, haha. But I'm being pedantic lol

[Aodh Lazuli]

There are two really really REALLY big topics in this thread... And they're both ancient arguments.

1. Are class dips "good RP"?

Answer: Yes, they're fine.

Why? Because provided everything which goes into your build is factored into the manner in which you play the character in interactions with others, you are roleplaying your build. The suggestion that dips are purely for mechanical power is one of the most mindblowingly moronic I've ever heard. There are pureclass builds that are mechanically powerful and often roleplayed terribly, and there are builds with TWO whole dip classes which are roleplayed just fine and dandy. The suggestion that somehow the more pure the build the better the RP, is absurd. Roleplay quality is entirely down to the quality of the roleplayer - Not their build. My general feeling is that those who have hard and fast rules about what does and does not make for good roleplay, tend to be terrible roleplayers, who produce nothing but tedious cardboard cutouts of class fantasy, or lorebook dumping machines with no personality.



2. Are class dips balanced?

Answer: They damned well used to be... And now they are not.

The reason for this (here we GOOOOOO) is the change to lore and UMD. Previously, scroll use without caster levels was attached to one of three (later four) classes. Bard, rogue and assassin (and later specialist). This meant that in order to have access to the utility scroll and wand use offers, mundane builds would have to sacrifice one of their three classes in order to obtain the skill. Meaning that the character then had fewer build options open to them.

Now, those same characters do not need to sacrifice a class slot for scroll use, and thus can pick the three classes which offer the concept the greatest outright combat utility. Because it has been mentioned here, lets use paladin as an example.

The old classic bryce build was 23 fighter/4 paladin/3 rogue. This offered CHA to saves, AC and damage, full AB progression, the fighter bonuses added by arelith, and weapon spec/epic weapon spec for extra damage, another 6 AC from tumble and scroll and wand use from the rogue levels. This was regarded as one of the better blanced builds on the server. It was potent and powerful, but not excessively so. It had a good mixture of utility, offensive and defensive capabilities. The 2 (TWO) dips on this build were reasonable.

These days, the meta has shifted. That build is now outmoded and old hat, purely due to the shift of scroll use from UMD (a skill only four classes have) to lore (a skill all classes have). The result is that now we'd see fighter 6/pal 4/cot 20. This build hits 50 lore with ease, giving it access to word of faith scrolls... Along with a MUCH larger lay on hands, no need to gear any saves (or take any spellcraft), due to the increase of NINETEEN unisaves from cot's divine wrath/sacred defense combination, on top of the paladin's cha to saves. +9 (AAAAAAA PANIC) to AB and damage on a cooldown. Damage reduction on a cooldown, better BASE reflex save... All for the cost of 3 tumble AC, evasion, and not getting wand use.

In short... the bonuses granted from dipping classes were kept in line by only really having two classes to play with. UMD only being accessable by four classes in total was extremely useful in keeping AB/AC/saves/damage/attacks per round (lookin' at you, monk dip) and so on, within a reasonable, controlable, and BALANCABLE bracket.

Now these builds with no UMD dip were possible before... You could achieve these huge numbers - But to do so, you had to sacrifice magic use, and the wards and buffs magic use provides, leaving you with notable weaknesses alongside the notable strengths.


As a result, "the best melee build" is now a far more quantifiable thing, and build diversity will suffer as a result, despite the initial illusion that the field has opened up.


This is of course entirely aside from the damage done to mundane-vs-caster balance, by making it incredibly difficult to reliably obtain any means of reducing a sufficient level of SR from a target for a mundane... But that is rather beside the point I'm making here.


Basically, people bitched and moaned hard enough about UMD and dip classes, that eventually something was done about it. This was clapped and cheered, and continues to be, despite the fact it has in fact made certain dips wildly and ridiculously OP, and made it possible to quantify "the best" at melee.

What we'll probably see coming soon is a nerf to divine dips and monk dips, which will narrow the field of viable builds once more, and make a whole set of concepts get thrown into the trash - When in fact, the solution would simply be to reintroduce the need to sacrifice something for your magic use.


Edit: This was linked to me by someone, and I didn't look at the date. APologies for the thread necromancy... However! The content remains relevent.

[-XXX-]

Am I the only one who's noticed this multi-layered thread necromancy in a topic about paladins?

[Ork]

I feel the post is relevant in that there's been rumor mongering of nerfs to divine dips. I'll say that the continual mechanical shuffle we have experienced is directly related to the UMD change as classes have to be patch worked around this new reality. If divine dips are nerfed, it will be another casualty of the UMD change.

A lot of people begrudged UMD, but these same commentators continue to gripe and groan about everything mechanical that infringes on their preferred manner of play and will never be content with any change that occurs.

I had hoped that our devs would see through these dissenters, but the squeaky wheel gets the oil. I hate to pick on Xerah alone, but he has an excellent quote displaying this behavior:

Before this, the complaints were always how humans were so good because they could start in the UD, use a -ECL reward and access all the UD levelling. Now it's the same thing, except your leveling process is less optimal.

People will complain about anything, and I suppose the great irony is that I've chosen to complain about the UMD change. However, a whole lot of people complained about UMD without recognizing the severity of change this would have to our server on a macro level. We are now seeing the repercussions.

I hope it was a learning experience and changes will be more thought out instead of patchwork.

[Xerah]

That presumes that we are only controlled by voices outside of the dev team. Sometimes things are brought up and we say "yo what do we think" but other times things are on the radar (with or without an ongoing feedback thread on the forums) but are left alone since we don't have a clear agreement on how to approach it or no one wants/can to do it.

Restricting humans a bit more in the UD was something that I always felt was needed, but I had nothing to do with the change. It was obvious that more slaves would be created as a result, but I'm sure the team wasn't certain they wanted to reward slaves as well. A lot of times, "wait and see" is a perfectly reasonable and valid approach.

That said. Ultimately, it is the players who play here and for the server to stay healthy, sometimes the majority opinion needs to be taken into account even when it seems to not be the most logical approach to those of us who understand the ins and outs of this 20-year-old game.

[Aodh Lazuli]

That said. Ultimately, it is the players who play here and for the server to stay healthy, sometimes the majority opinion needs to be taken into account even when it seems to not be the most logical approach to those of us who understand the ins and outs of this 20-year-old game.

Following a perceived majority opinion without the mechanisms in place for it to be determined with any degree of accuracy would be a very silly idea. Often the majority opinion is not the one most loudly expressed...

Even if it was possible to accurately determine the most popular opinion from the loudest, frequently both the majority opinion and the loudest one are plain wrong. Popularity and quality are unrelated.

[Ork]

It isn't an easy gig running a server like this. You got a lot of people with a lot of opinions that are often in direct conflict with one another. When Irongron and co. took over there were some pretty amazing developments. Mechanics were changed, classes were revamped, areas were created, new avenues of roleplay were created. I have and still hold immense respect for IG, and I have and will always be an ally to the creative minds of Arelith.

That said, the UMD change threw me for a big loop. I felt that the change was rushed, short-sighted and placating to uneducated voices. Voices that aired that UMD was bad because a fighter shouldn't be able to use timestop. Voices that were grumbling because their idea of what Arelith was didn't mesh with what occurred in play. And most importantly, voices that refused to educate themselves on the pivotal basis UMD played in the game's mechanics.

I would've been fine with the UMD change if we were given a system that filled the void, and maintained the near-perfect balance we had enjoyed before. I don't understand the change, and I don't understand how those voices that argued against the change were met with stonewalling and hostility.

Now, I don't own this server and I'd never want any of your positions. I have enjoyed Arelith and Arelith has provided me with relatively free entertainment. I will present my dissenting voice purely because of my love and adoration of this server. I will remind people when these agreements come around that we are truly only at this junction because of the UMD change. I will continue to hope for a reversion or a system that fully addresses the issues UMD has left in its wake.

I know my vision of what Arelith is is no longer, but if the clamor of UMD-gripers won over this change, maybe the reverse can as well.

[Seven Sons of Sin]

I know it is probably infeasible, but I would love if most "save or die" spells were changed to follow Pathfinder 2e mechanics. Most DC spells have:

Critical Success (where you succeed by the DC+10)
Success (where you succeed)
Failure (where you fail)
Critical Failure (where you fail by DC-10)

This is infeasible to import across the board in Arelith, but I think we could retweak some spells to work under this mantra. Take Hold Monster, for example.

Right now, it's: you pass a Will save, nothing happens. You fail a Will Save, you're paralyzed (dead).

What if, when cast by ESF: Enchantment, it looks something like,

Success - No paralysis, but takes 3 second slow (no save)
Failure - as normal

We actually have seen more of this under the some of the new spells and spell balances. I honestly wonder if they're inspired by the Pathfinder 2e mechanics because there's a lot of similar ideas there.

I think most save-or-die spells need to be retweaked, and really should only be a handful of spells rather than the plethora we have right now. If we gave more tools to arcane/divine casters, maybe they wouldn't need to really on using IGMS to avoid high-save cha builds and the meta would shift.

[Anomandaris]

I know it is probably infeasible, but I would love if most "save or die" spells were changed to follow Pathfinder 2e mechanics. Most DC spells have:

Critical Success (where you succeed by the DC+10)
Success (where you succeed)
Failure (where you fail)
Critical Failure (where you fail by DC-10)

This is infeasible to import across the board in Arelith, but I think we could retweak some spells to work under this mantra. Take Hold Monster, for example.

Right now, it's: you pass a Will save, nothing happens. You fail a Will Save, you're paralyzed (dead).

What if, when cast by ESF: Enchantment, it looks something like,

Success - No paralysis, but takes 3 second slow (no save)
Failure - as normal

We actually have seen more of this under the some of the new spells and spell balances. I honestly wonder if they're inspired by the Pathfinder 2e mechanics because there's a lot of similar ideas there.

I think most save-or-die spells need to be retweaked, and really should only be a handful of spells rather than the plethora we have right now. If we gave more tools to arcane/divine casters, maybe they wouldn't need to really on using IGMS to avoid high-save cha builds and the meta would shift.

Save or die is always so vilified but it’s so easy to counter, even with low saves... and saves are very high making it a terrible strategy to rely on. Casters are just fine, in fact with saves and time stop nerf arguably they aren’t even on the top meta wise. Melee builds with warding capability are. As well as stealth based burst DPS builds.

What’s the difference between a save or die with a hard counter (let’s say anywhere from a 5-50% chance of success) and a 1 round KD kill from a monk rogue with sneaks and 8 apr or some high dmg wm? So many classes have 1-2 round kill capacity. There’s no difference between me hasting, breaching and wailing you, and me getting beaten to death by 150 dmg crits in 1-2 rounds. Both are scary, both can be countered.

There’s so much counterplay from a build, wand, potion, spell or scroll perspective it’s easy to avoid and people know it. How many wails does a wiz have prepared? 1-4? How many death ward charges on that wand? How many breaches/mords does that wiz have? How many pots of warding in your stack? Or SS charges on your penumbral vestment? When we’re talking stun or enchantment it’s the same, pray, clarity, mind blanks, etc.

DC related casting is not OP, coming from someone who’s PC has an awful fort and will save. And by the way, there aren’t a plethora of save or die spells really (Nybors, finger of death, wail, weird, phantasmal- did I miss any?). And frankly most have dual saves will and fort. If anything there need to be more secondary effects from DC dependent abilities as any build that relies heavily on them is screwed going up against a wide range of builds from monks to divines to bg/pally dips etc.

That said, we needn’t nerf saves either. It’s fine. I see every type of build get worked over by one or another. Nothing is invincible, everything has a counter and most builds have a “thing” they do that is spooky. Let the few ppl that wana roll the dice on some weird necromancy have theirs..

[Baron Saturday]

Save or die is always so vilified but it’s so easy to counter, even with low saves... and saves are very high making it a terrible strategy to rely on. Casters are just fine, in fact with saves and time stop nerf arguably they aren’t even on the top meta wise. Melee builds with warding capability are. As well as stealth based burst DPS builds.

What’s the difference between a save or die with a hard counter (let’s say anywhere from a 5-50% chance of success) and a 1 round KD kill from a monk rogue with sneaks and 8 apr or some high dmg wm? So many classes have 1-2 round kill capacity. There’s no difference between me hasting, breaching and wailing you, and me getting beaten to death by 150 dmg crits in 1-2 rounds. Both are scary, both can be countered.

There’s so much counterplay from a build, wand, potion, spell or scroll perspective it’s easy to avoid and people know it. How many wails does a wiz have prepared? 1-4? How many death ward charges on that wand? How many breaches/mords does that wiz have? How many pots of warding in your stack? Or SS charges on your penumbral vestment? When we’re talking stun or enchantment it’s the same, pray, clarity, mind blanks, etc.

DC related casting is not OP, coming from someone who’s PC has an awful fort and will save. And by the way, there aren’t a plethora of save or die spells really (Nybors, finger of death, wail, weird, phantasmal- did I miss any?). And frankly most have dual saves will and fort. If anything there need to be more secondary effects from DC dependent abilities as any build that relies heavily on them is screwed going up against a wide range of builds from monks to divines to bg/pally dips etc.

That said, we needn’t nerf saves either. It’s fine. I see every type of build get worked over by one or another. Nothing is invincible, everything has a counter and most builds have a “thing” they do that is spooky. Let the few ppl that wana roll the dice on some weird necromancy have theirs..

Save or die spells (and I include things like hold monster, confusion, and flesh to stone in that category) aren't vilified because they're considered OP, they're vilified because they're so incredibly binary that they're almost never worth having in a spellbook when you could instead slot spells that have guaranteed effects.

I've suggested before that this style of spell should instead cause the targeted character to remake the saving throw every round for the duration (or possibly a reduced duration, ie 1 round per caster level/4), or else suffer the effect of the spell for a single round. Being disabled for a round is impactful, but doesn't necessarily completely end the combat, and on the other hand if the target makes the first save, the spell isn't utterly wasted. This then sets up some potentially interesting counterplay of the target doing something to counter the effect (ie clarity, freedom of movement, PfA), and the caster attempting to prevent/remove the counter or weaken the target's saves.

This is just one example of how save or die spells could be made less binary. Another example of non-binary spell design is the majority of evocation spells, which still do half damage on a reflex save unless the target has evasion.

[Might-N-Magic]

We're actually complaining that we can't kill some people (a minority) with the ease of one button press.

Think about that.

Most builds have saves that are utter trash vs a DC 40 whatever, yet one type is less trash so let's complain about it? C'mon...

[AstralUniverse]

Two months later. I still think there's no problem. And that if there was one, it would only be in 2 rare cases of classes which make no mechanical sacrifice at all for these dips - sorc/div and healer/monk. Those are the only cases which I might consider considering problematic. Every other build makes sacrifices. The example with the pally/ftr/cot build is great. That build wouldnt need any more than 8 charisma if it were Rogue instead of paladin and it would get evasion and umd. These days, I'd take rogue over fighter and STILL have umd anyway, mostly just trading some damage for Evasion and umd. Sorcs and healers simply make no sacrifices as their primary ability is the one relevant for their dip and they get nothing important between lvls 28-30, AND they want a discipline dip anyway. They are the only classes that get this ac or saves boosts for literally free. I really dont want to see dips nerfed just for the sake of these two problematic (maybe) classes and I'd hope that things are either left untouched or we hit the nail right on these classes and nothing else.

[Aren]

Here’s a hot take: Give sorcerers shaman/favoured soul spell progression.

[Aodh Lazuli]

Two months later. I still think there's no problem. And that if there was one, it would only be in 2 rare cases of classes which make no mechanical sacrifice at all for these dips - sorc/div and healer/monk. Those are the only cases which I might consider considering problematic. Every other build makes sacrifices. The example with the pally/ftr/cot build is great. That build wouldnt need any more than 8 charisma if it were Rogue instead of paladin and it would get evasion and umd. These days, I'd take rogue over fighter and STILL have umd anyway, mostly just trading some damage for Evasion and umd. Sorcs and healers simply make no sacrifices as their primary ability is the one relevant for their dip and they get nothing important between lvls 28-30, AND they want a discipline dip anyway. They are the only classes that get this ac or saves boosts for literally free. I really dont want to see dips nerfed just for the sake of these two problematic (maybe) classes and I'd hope that things are either left untouched or we hit the nail right on these classes and nothing else.

I've read and re-read this in an attempt at working out whether the depth to which you failed to understand my post is intentional or not.

To start with, when I picked up the old school bryce build as an example, and it's modern counterpart, I was taking divine shield/divine might and cha-to-saves as the primary features which define the build

As a more direct reply to your sense-devoid word-farting... Let me explain:

If you replace fighter with rogue, you lose AB, 6 flat damage, base fort save, and feats (which are in this case used for save feats, toughness etc).

If you replace CoT with rogue, you are going back to the original build despite the newer one being demonstrably more powerful.

If you replace paladin with rogue, you're talking about an entirely different concept, which not only isn't even remotely relevent to the discussion, but also loses out on 10 to saves, damage and AC.

We could pull the same trick with other builds... For example:

"Yeah but I'd replace the sorc levels with cleric and the paladin levels with SD, and I know this doesn't make sense, but if I make enough barely intelligible noises then maybe the well reasoned criticism I'm totally incapable of arguing with will just go away."

Come on. You can surely do better than that.

You have utterly failed to address the key points of my post. Utterly. How it struck you that your reply was in any way appropriate is beyond me. The ENTIRE POINT is that by not gating magic use on mundanes behind one of four classes, you open the field to a massive inflation of AB, AC, saves, damage per hit, attacks per round, and so on... And that is a problem, as it becomes far harder to balance the game when you are dealing with a much wider array of numbers. I used one particular example of one particular build archetype to do that, and there are plenty of others that coule be used as an example - That have seen a massive increase in potency through abandoning their UMD dip classes (and opening the slot for some other class instead), while retaining Word of Faith use in particular.

Your reply, which is framed as some sort of refutation, makes absolutely no mention of this, nor does it contest it in any way that makes the slightest shred of sense - It simply pukes up a bunch of words about build specifics, which are an utter (probably intentional) distraction and irrelevance, before saying "so there!".

[NPC Logger Number 2]

I played a 27 Sorc/3 Paladin before. I role played them as if they were a straight 30 paladin pureclass build. If you see paladins going around helping drow catch slaves then making them fight in the pits or whatever, REPORT THEM! Most of us decent players know how to role play our class and alignment. DM's will take care of player characters who break their paladin oaths IC. As for balance, the only class that really gains a lot from a three level paladin dip without sacrificing anything is sorcerer, because they already have high charisma and a pixie familiar which means they don't need rogue levels. When I played my divine sorcerer the DM's released info about how many players were playing what race, what class, etc. I was the only divine sorcerer build on the entire server. They really aren't common enough to warrant this much complaining. Any other class that takes a paladin dip is sacrificing other ability scores and losing out on HP, AB, skills, etc. for a modest boost to saving throws that you could already get from gear or feats.

[Morgy]

Can we just remember that just because -you- might not see someone RPing their 3 level dip, does not mean they are not doing it. The same applies to alignment.

Many of my characters have been subtlety evil, but doing many wrongs nonetheless as spies or infiltrators.

Good RP is good RP.