Saving throws for spells

[Annok]

One of the (legitimate) critiques of C&C I have encountered is the absence of 'progressive' saving throws generated by the SEIGE engine. This is particularly the case when a non-PRIME character is going up against a spell-caster of similar level. For example a 10th level Ranger makes a save against a 10th level spell caster and their level bonus is cancelled out by the CL generated by the casters level (the same roll is required for a 1 level ranger going against a 1st level spell caster). In this example being of 10th level has not really benefited the ranger in relation to spells unless they are cast by a (significantly) lower level caster. In the original game because saving throws were not modified by caster or spell level, the ranger has a much higher level of success as they progress in levels. I prefer this more 'traditional' approach wherein the ranger becomes more tolerant to magic generally (perhaps as they have witnessed its strengths and weaknesses through time). Unfortunately this conundrum is not (as far as I can tell) addressed in the CKG. Here is what I did about it.
In my campaign the SEIGE challenge level is determined by the SPELL level not the caster level. To me this makes perfect intuitive sense. It has an added bonus, in that the party's spell casters must make a more astute assessment of their enemy and determine whether to employ a more powerful spell knowing the lower level spells have lesser potential efficacy. To date this has worked with no problems and the 'hopelessness' of the non-Prime saving throws has been resolved for the player-characters.
Love to hear other crusaders and keepers solutions and thoughts on this!

[pawndream]

The alternative you proposed seems to be one of the more common house rules to address the issue of the chance of saving throw success/failure remaining fairly static through the various levels.

In the default method, saving throws against spells will present significant challenges throughout a character's career and creates an underlying tone of caution when dealing with enemy spellcasters. This method probably works best in relatively low magic campaign settings, unless you are going for a high character lethality rate. The house ruled method makes characters more resilient against magic and probably works better if you run a more high magic campaign.

In the games I run, I have not really seen any issues with using the default C&C saving throw system. Having said that, I tend to run fairly low level/low magic games and am okay with using the system as-is, without tweaking it. But, I can definitely see why other groups use the house rule you described above. Nothing will break if you adjust the saving throws to fit your expectations.

[Treebore]

Saves depend. At 10th level they are likely to have more than just their level to add. Even so, I can't tell you how many times I have seen "Impossible non Prime saves" get made. Sure, the odds are much lower, significantly so, which is why the Trolls chose the difference of 6 points, but I continue to like saves as is. I don't like the problem from other editions of D&D where the characters almost always make their saves. Doing it your way will likely have this problem grow a little slower than in other Versions of D&D, but I have grown to much prefer to keep doing it by the book. But what makes C&C so awesome is how easy it is to tweak it to give you the type of game play you want, which is what you have done. So I am certainly not complaining. I am just saying I like doing it by the book on this particular part of the rules.

[mmbutter]

Wait a minute. If the saves between a Ranger at 1st level against a 1st level Wizard are relatively the same as saves between a 10th level Ranger versus a 10th level Wizard, isn't this a "correct" result? Yes, the Ranger has gotten better, but so has the Wizard...

[Arduin]

One of the (legitimate) critiques of C&C I have encountered is the absence of 'progressive' saving throws generated by the SEIGE engine. This is particularly the case when a non-PRIME character is going up against a spell-caster of similar level. For example a 10th level Ranger makes a save against a 10th level spell caster and their level bonus is cancelled out by the CL generated by the casters level

The critiques you have encountered are not exactly correct. The saving throws ARE progressive. The difference between C&C and say D&D is that the power of spell casters (to address this particular example) is also progressive.

There was a fairly recent thread about this where Tree laid out some good examples.

[EDIT] here is that thread I mentioned: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=14648&hilit=saves

In D&D if you were a high level wizard you were crap against many other high level characters. I had high level fighters that would eat MU's of a similar level for breakfast, lunch & dinner.

[Thrasaric]

"Wait a minute. If the saves between a Ranger at 1st level against a 1st level Wizard are relatively the same as saves between a 10th level Ranger versus a 10th level Wizard, isn't this a "correct" result? Yes, the Ranger has gotten better, but so has the Wizard..."

I have to agree with mmbutter.

[Buttmonkey]

I don't think there is an objectively right or wrong position here. It all comes down to how dangerous you want spellcasters to be. Personally, I'm getting pretty damned nervous about high level spell casters. It's all fun and games until the party runs into a group of bad guys that include a couple middle to high level clerics casting hold person. Combined arms incorporating spellcasters can be devastating as opponents. It's almost a quick draw competition. Whichever group gets initiative will probably knock out the other's spellcasters while their meat shields hold off the other side's meat shields. Starting with round 2, the side that won initiative in the first round is going to start laying waste with its spellcasters. I'm not sure I want that to be the run of the mill for higher level encounters. Yes, creative play can skirt around that, but straight head to head confrontations are going to happen and I don't think the first round's initiative roll should be that determinative of the final outcome.

[Arduin]

I don't think the first round's initiative roll should be that determinative of the final outcome.

That's why I require spells that require a full round to cast (almost all of them), go off at the END of the full round. At high levels this can generate a M.A.D. situation...

[AndyMac]

To the OP: using spell level instead of caster level should mimic the effect that you call "progressive" saving throws. I use this house rule as well because of the nature of "save or suck" spells. As always, though, I point out that I play a grittier game than most and certainly a lower magic game. Factor that in for my opinions.

[Andrew]

I'd say I like both ways. I'd conditionally figure it off a per-basis scenario.

Say it's just some random group of baddies wandering some random dungeon/castles/ruins/what-have-you... Then spell level works. Give my PC's a little bit of a cutting edge perhaps, as there's only a small prize at the end of the rainbow.

The boss I'd expect some trouble with? The other way around. Use their level to make the fight a little tougher. Force my PC's to think... There's probably an entire pot of gold at the end of this rainbow.

[serleran]

There is a way to make the progression more like AD&D. C&C already has effect categories. One can simply have a "good, OK, and bad" increment.

For example, a fighter might be "good' at saves vs. whateverification. That means they're normal C&C rules. Prime + level + attribute bonus. OK saves would be "half-Prime." Bad would be "not Prime." This would be saves, only. Abilities would depend on Prime selection as normal.

Don't want to rewrite the charts I once did, but it is entirely possible to make the SIEGE Engine "look like" AD&D, even if its not exactly the same.

[Omote]

"Wait a minute. If the saves between a Ranger at 1st level against a 1st level Wizard are relatively the same as saves between a 10th level Ranger versus a 10th level Wizard, isn't this a "correct" result? Yes, the Ranger has gotten better, but so has the Wizard..."

I have to agree with mmbutter.

My sentiments exactly. The way things work in C&C is the way I always wanted it to be, looking back. Wizards should be dangerous, from 1st level through any high level. Wizards become better in their approach to magic and their connection with mystical energies is even stronger at higher levels. Therefore, as wizards advance in levels the progression of their saving throws also increases. I think this is of paramount importance to the wizard class. Enemies beware.

~O

[Arduin]

Annok, you can always use the rule that if a spell caster takes damage in a round when they are casting a CT 1 spell, they lose the spell. No concentration check. That creates a dangerous situation for spell casters who meet high level fighter types. That 10th level Ranger is going to pepper that wizard with arrows and ruin his/her spells.

[Annok]

Thanks for the comments and link.
I found it interesting that there were two views around how this relates to the 'magic level' of the campaign.
pawndream: "The house ruled method makes characters more resilient against magic and probably works better if you run a more high magic campaign."
AndyMac: "I use this house rule as well because of the nature of "save or suck" spells. As always, though, I point out that I play a grittier game than most and certainly a lower magic game."

Nobody really commented on the strategic component of this house rule. In fact because spells are 'less effective' I think it works well in my relatively 'low magic setting'; where most/half of encounters are with classed humanoids - a first level spell remains the same effectiveness (but may become more powerful if it has cumulative level effects). A magic user must whip out the big stuff to fight the big stuff. It makes this spectacular magic rarer. I'm not really convinced that the mechanics reflect the magic level either way. It is just different.
Some other good suggestions but I'm not really keen on initiative changes and spell loss as encounters tend to be brief in my low-mid level games. I already give PCs a Demi Prime (15 SEIGE base).

Annok

[AndyMac]

Nobody really commented on the strategic component of this house rule. In fact because spells are 'less effective' I think it works well in my relatively 'low magic setting'; where most/half of encounters are with classed humanoids - a first level spell remains the same effectiveness (but may become more powerful if it has cumulative level effects). A magic user must whip out the big stuff to fight the big stuff. It makes this spectacular magic rarer. I'm not really convinced that the mechanics reflect the magic level either way. It is just different.
Some other good suggestions but I'm not really keen on initiative changes and spell loss as encounters tend to be brief in my low-mid level games. I already give PCs a Demi Prime (15 SEIGE base).

Let me clarify. I play a game where magic is not only less prevalent, it is less powerful. One way this manifests as different from a "standard" game (in terms of magic), I use a house rule that makes higher level characters more likely to pass saving throws.

As to the "strategic" component, I'm not really seeing it. Typically, the casters in my games will come out firing their biggest guns if there is a doubt about lower level stuff being effective. If the spell has no saving throw (like magic missile, acid arrow, darkness), they'll use those instead. Granted, one of those require touch attacks instead. But, if they need to hit a big group, fireball, ice storm or cone of cold still see a fair amount of action too even though at higher levels the enemies are mostly taking half damage.

Could you clarify what you mean by strategic component?

Edited: removed Ray of Enfeeblement from example!

[pawndream]

Annok: You may be right that the house rule has little bearing on the high versus low magic spectrum. It probably mostly comes down to how you want the mechanics to work.

In my case, I like simplicity, so the rule works pretty well as described in the C&C book. I haven't noticed any issues yet, but then again, game mechanics have never been that much of interest to me, so I don't really spend that much time thinking about them. Just let the dice fall where they may and deal with the resulting consequences

[Annok]

bumping ... good discussion; spell level as save doesn't really effect my casters as there is a perpetual sense of threat/death/risk that has nothing to do with the actual challenge/level/HD of the foe. so in a sense i agree with pawndream here - it is not really about the mechanics just about how i perceive the mechanics having meaning .... AndyMac you have nailed what I consider the 'strategic' component - because magic is rare the PC may be reluctant to use their most potent magic - this has resulted in adventures ending with the players exhausted in many other capacities and yet the caster thinking 'what have I waited for' and i LIKE this uncertainty - to me the unknown is what keeps them on edge ... where every PC should reside