Forums of the Megaverse®

Yes, I know I can change it via house rule, that being said:

I have always felt that all magic users have always got slighted in all game systems as to their saves vs effects on creatures. Does anyone else feel this way?

In Palladium all I have to roll on a d20 to hit melee is a 4, ranged 8. The save vs spell is a 12! Which most every one makes with their pluses to save vs magic spell. So, what's the point in taking spells that have a standard saving throw, when I have a better chance blasting with a weapon and doing X SDC/MDC damage, sometimes in the 100's potentially?

And then most magic users only get +1 to spell strength every three levels.

Too me, magic users should be the most feared and pwerful creatures on any battlefield or in any fight.

So, what do y'all think?[/b]

I have always 1/2 the bonus from high P.E. My first GM up all the savethrows to 18 for magic 20 ritual. Which was funny think one of my character still need a 5 to fail.

That is part of what makes Carpet of Adhesion so nasty... even if you pass, you still fail.

However, one thing I have experimented with is to change saves to be not a flat 12 + spell strength bonuses, but d20 + 3 + spell strength bonuses for invocations; it makes the percentages about the same, but gives wizards a chance of getting spells off very well.

bigbobsr6000 wrote:Yes, I know I can change it via house rule, that being said:

I have always felt that all magic users have always got slighted in all game systems as to their saves vs effects on creatures. Does anyone else feel this way?

In Palladium all I have to roll on a d20 to hit melee is a 4, ranged 8. The save vs spell is a 12! Which most every one makes with their pluses to save vs magic spell. So, what's the point in taking spells that have a standard saving throw, when I have a better chance blasting with a weapon and doing X SDC/MDC damage, sometimes in the 100's potentially?

And then most magic users only get +1 to spell strength every three levels.

Too me, magic users should be the most feared and pwerful creatures on any battlefield or in any fight.

So, what do y'all think?

The flaw there is you don't save vs. magic for combat spells ANYWAY. you just roll strike/dodge as normal.

Nekira Sudacne wrote:The flaw there is you don't save vs. magic for combat spells ANYWAY. you just roll strike/dodge as normal.

I'm not talking about those, I'm referring to spells that affect creaures like Befuddle, Paralysis (Lesser) the ones creatures and people get the save of base 12 vs being affected by spells. That, I think is too high. Most players I have delt with over the years have always had a +2 to +4 or more at 1st level to save vs magic which further makes such spells almost useless.

Why does a regular human being with no powers automatically have a 12 save vs spell magic? They should not in my oppinion.

The save should be a minimum of 0. That way if you have no pluses to save, the spell will affect you as it should in my oppinion.

I know, I am rambling a bit, but the weakness of magic users spells to have a chance to affect a creature is really poor game mechanics Since all I need to hit with a ranged weapon is a mere 8 with bonuses vs trying to affect someone with a spell who has a save of 16 (12 +4 vs magic). it is very unbalanced.

Sorry for the ramblings of an old gamer

bigbobsr6000 wrote:

Nekira Sudacne wrote:The flaw there is you don't save vs. magic for combat spells ANYWAY. you just roll strike/dodge as normal.

I'm not talking about those, I'm referring to spells that affect creaures like Befuddle, Paralysis (Lesser) the ones creatures and people get the save of base 12 vs being affected by spells. That, I think is too high. Most players I have delt with over the years have always had a +2 to +4 or more at 1st level to save vs magic which further makes such spells almost useless.

Why does a regular human being with no powers automatically have a 12 save vs spell magic? They should not in my oppinion.

The save should be a minimum of 0. That way if you have no pluses to save, the spell will affect you as it should in my oppinion.

I know, I am rambling a bit, but the weakness of magic users spells to have a chance to affect a creature is really poor game mechanics Since all I need to hit with a ranged weapon is a mere 8 with bonuses vs trying to affect someone with a spell who has a save of 16 (12 +4 vs magic). it is very unbalanced.

Sorry for the ramblings of an old gamer

I think the real problem here is you and other people/game designers have a difference of philosphy.

You think magic users should be the most powerful, period.

Why?

Nekira Sudacne wrote:I think the real problem here is you and other people/game designers have a difference of philosphy.

You think magic users should be the most powerful, period.

Why?

I have exaggerated my point a bit . That being said I feel magic users get the shaft on the whole “saving throw” thing because at minimum their spell effect will only work 55% of the time with EVERYONE getting a base save of 12 on a d20. And because you have a Tooth Pick Maker OCC you get a +2 (save of 14) or more to save vs magic. Now the spell chance of affecting you is reduced to 45%. And if you have an non-human Race that can be a Tooth Pick Maker OCC, there’s another +2 (now save of 16) or more. This reduces the chance to 35% that the spell will affect you.

All this at first level!!

Again, why bother with spells that have the “standard” saving throw that EVERYONE has 55% chance or less to beat. I could just blast with my ranged weapon with a 60% chance to hit (an 8 on d20) or higher with bonuses like an Aimed Shot which gives a +2, now my chance to hit is 70% (a 6 on d20).

70% success rate vs 55% failure rate or 65% as per above Tooth Pick Maker.

This is why I feel magic should be more effective.




Edited due to me getting the save throw reversed and not using save throw as 12 or higher not higher than 12. Thanks, Malakai and Talavar

Evil Psychologist wrote:When you have knowledge of an enemy's statistics, most cases will show that some weakness can be found such as poor reflexes, willpower or physical endurance. Choosing the right spell for the job maximizes your chances of success and is very aesthetically rewarding as well.

It does not "maximize" you chances that a magic spell like Befuddle will affect the target. Because EVERYONE has the same base saving throw of 12 to resist it. I am not talking about Carpet of Adhesion or Lightening Bolt and other "combat spells". I referring to the spells that affect the person directly like Paralysis, Lesser and such.

Couple points here:

1. - I think someone's math is a little off - base save for spell magic is 12, meaning that a target needs to roll a 12 or higher to save - this means that, disregarding spell strength, Magic has only a 55% chance of working against even the most mundane victim, one who has no bonuses to save.

From there, the highest I think you can go is an 18, (Shifter linked to a God of Magic), and even then, by that time (13th level), you enemies likely have something around at least a +4 to save (the same character has a +5), meaning that most spells only work 65% of the time, and this is the BEST that can be done, most casters top out at a spell strength of 16, thier magic only works 55% of the time. And to top it all off, Ritual Magic NEVER gets more difficult to resist, meaning once a mage gets +4 to spellstrength, casting a spell is just as effective as casting a ritual, (for the above-mentioned Shifter, there comes a time when it's BETTER to cast the spell than do a ritual).

So, on average, magic works a little better than half the time.

Um, bigbob, aren't you using your saving throw backwards? To save vs. magic, the victim has to roll above 12, not under 12. That means they've only got a 40% chance to save, not 60%. The spell is 60% likely to effect most people at level 1 - that's the standard saving throw.

Someone with +2 to save is at 50% likely to be effected, not 30%. +4 to save means the spell is only 40% likely to effect the target - which still isn't great, you're right about that.

Edit: What the poster above me said.

Thanks Malakai and Talavar. You both are right, I had it backwards and not using target # as 12 or higher, I was using higher than 12. I have edited my post accordingly.

I apoloigize for any and all confusion, especially on my part.

Thanks again, guys.

Big Bob...............................

Mephisto wrote:To take this argument in another direction, should Saving Throws be a roll high mechanic like combat, rather than the roll under mechanic that is currently used? The Befuddle spell for instance, could be interesting if the mage rolls a 1D20+Spell Strength vs. the defenders 1D20+Resist/Save Bonus.

Beat you to it, demonic biatch. 4th post.

That is an interesting idea though, but it might get tedious for spells that require repeated saves, like Multiple image for example.

Mephisto wrote:

Mark Hall wrote:

Mephisto wrote:To take this argument in another direction, should Saving Throws be a roll high mechanic like combat, rather than the roll under mechanic that is currently used? The Befuddle spell for instance, could be interesting if the mage rolls a 1D20+Spell Strength vs. the defenders 1D20+Resist/Save Bonus.

Beat you to it, demonic biatch. 4th post.

Except your post indicates a change to the save, not making it an adversarial roll, so they aren't the same.

It's still going to be an adversarial roll. If the base changes from 12 to 1D20+3, you're doing adversarial rolling.

Mephisto wrote:

Mark Hall wrote:

Mephisto wrote:

Mark Hall wrote:

Mephisto wrote:To take this argument in another direction, should Saving Throws be a roll high mechanic like combat, rather than the roll under mechanic that is currently used? The Befuddle spell for instance, could be interesting if the mage rolls a 1D20+Spell Strength vs. the defenders 1D20+Resist/Save Bonus.

Beat you to it, demonic biatch. 4th post.

Except your post indicates a change to the save, not making it an adversarial roll, so they aren't the same.

It's still going to be an adversarial roll. If the base changes from 12 to 1D20+3, you're doing adversarial rolling.

I guess, but your wording seemed to imply that only one party rolled the dice, that was what I was trying to say.

It's not my fault that you never learned how to read in evil school.

Mephisto wrote:To take this argument in another direction, should Saving Throws be a roll high mechanic like combat, rather than the roll under mechanic that is currently used? The Befuddle spell for instance, could be interesting if the mage rolls a 1D20+Spell Strength vs. the defenders 1D20+Resist/Save Bonus.

Thinking about it, this still doesn't really improve a spell-caster's chances much, since a lot of people's save vs. magic bonus is greater than a spellcaster's bonus to spell strength.

Add in the level of the caster as well?

The Beast wrote:Add in the level of the caster as well?

Personally, I would go with the level of the spell, instead of the level of the caster. The level of the caster is already accounted for by the increase in spell strength with level; if you add his level, you're double dipping level strength. If you add the level of the spell, you're basically saying that a more powerful spell is harder to resist.

I'm now leaning toward + to spell strength = to spell level. Like +1 for 1st level, +2 for a 2nd level spell, etc. So, the save against a 4th level spell would be 16 instead of 12. This makes more sense to me as it should be harder to save vs a higher spell. This would only affect spells that have a standard saving throw. The others that have like dodge as save throw would not be affected.

Big Bob..............

masterw3 wrote:

bigbobsr6000 wrote:I'm now leaning toward + to spell strength = to spell level. Like +1 for 1st level, +2 for a 2nd level spell, etc. So, the save against a 4th level spell would be 16 instead of 12. This makes more sense to me as it should be harder to save vs a higher spell. This would only affect spells that have a standard saving throw. The others that have like dodge as save throw would not be affected.

Big Bob..............

if you do that though, when someone casts a fireball at YOUR characetr, having to roll 16 or higher means you have a 25% chance of survival.

RUE PAGE 210, Fireball is a level six spell and does not have a standard saving throw. The save is a dodge of 18 or higher and the victim must know it is coming. So, it would not be affected by what I stated. I am talking about spells that only have a standard save of 12. Like Befuddle, Concealment, Heavy Breathing, Leviation, Turn Dead, Paralysis: Lesser, Blind, Charismatic Aura, etc. If it states anything different than "Saving throw: Standard". My +1/level of spell would not affect it.

I hope this further explains my intent. And with PCs/NPCs having +4, 5, 6, etc. to the "Standard" save, spells of that nature are virtulally useless because there is no creative way to use it against victim that almost constantly saves against it.

Thanks, for yout input and explaining you system, Big Bob.............

masterw3 wrote:the fireball reference was a "point of reference" not meant to be law..But by that reference, you got a 15% chance of evasion... even worse... why not just set fire to the character sheets, they won't need them for long...

Not when most FIRST LEVEL characters start with +4 or +10 to dodge. Which they can and do.

masterw3 wrote:if you want to use spell level or caster level as spell strength, I would suggest making it every 3 levels for extended campaigns and higher level characters.

That's the normal pluses to spell strength for most mages in the RUE. So, no help there.

masterw3 wrote:I've tried 1 per level, and at level 5 or 6, you'll have problems.. may as well just say it succeeds and not even roll dice.

No, you do not, because most FIRST LEVEL characters starts with pluses to save vs magic +3, 4, 5 or more. I've had PCs, following all the rules in RUE with some high attribute rolls, OCC, and or RCC getting +10 to save vs magic at FIRST LEVEL.

masterw3 wrote:In the standard rules, each character class has a bonus of some kind for each class. for many classes there are 2 or 3 bonusses to spell strength at certain levels. Check Class Description for each class.

First of all I do and have checked class descriptions as I make up characters. Maybe a +1 or 2 at first level and +1 every 3rd level or less.
It is too low when normal PC in Rifts can get +4 to save vs magic at 1st level or higher

masterw3 wrote:Do what you feel will work best for your campaign, it's your campaign after all. You will learn what works best with trial and error. I'm just offering 25 years of role playing and design experience.

Over 35 years of gaming experience and I have and will always feel that when it comes to saving throws vs magic in any RPG from the beginning of time, that the mages really super get shorted on this issue. When a grunt with a big honking gun can hit his target with a mere roll of an "8" with pluses far beyond what a mage needs to over come, a 12 or higher usually 13 to 16 at level one to effect a living creature.

Just some thoughts, Big Bob..................

Evil Psychologist, Thanks for your input. I like that idea.

How about a standard +4 to spell strength at 1st level and then a +1 for all spells 1-5 lvl, +2 6-10 lvl, and +3 11-15? And maybe +1 per 3 lvl of experiwnce? Let's see 3rd level mage casting 5th lvl spell = +4 from 1st lvl +1 from 3rd lvl xp +1 from spell lvl = +6 to spell strength.

15TH level caster using 15TH level spell = +4 from 1st level, +5 from 15th level XP +3 from 15th level spell = +12 to spell strength.

Then could add in any RCC/OCC spell str bonuses as well.

So, in my example just leave off any OCC/RCC bonuses and you still only have +12 spell strength = 24 spell and 28 ritual save at 15th level and 15th level spell. Same as your range. Be higher at lower levels than your system as below.

Level 6 Line Walker and Befuddle is +4 +2 +1 = +7 spell power. Spell save 19, ritual 23.

Level 15 Line Walker and Id Barrier is +4 +5 +3 = +12 spell power. Spell save is 24, ritual 28.

Or the old opposing roll with no standard pre-set saving throws at all:

Mage rolls 1d20 + Spell Strength Bonus.

Defender rolls 1d20 + Save Vs. Magic Bonus.

Highest roll wins, ties to the defender.

This is another idea I am toying with.

How about the mage can give up 2 OCC Skills to get a +1 to spell strength to simulate he put more time and effort into this aspect? The restrictions this must be done at character creation and max is 8 OCC Skills to get a max of +4.

Or 3 OCC Related Skills tp get +1 to spell strength?

Or something along those lines. Suggetions Please.....

OK, I thought I would lay it out here -

NOTE that the only reason I am posting actual stats are so we all are working from an equal standing

Everyone keeps on mentioning that there opponents have massive bonuses - so lets see how they compare.

As per RUE: levels the class gets a +1 to Spell Strength
Fusionist: NONE
LLW: 3, 7, 10, 13 = +4
Mystic: 2, 4, 8, 12 = +4
Shifter: 3, 7, 10, 13 = +4
Shifter Linked to God of Magic: 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 13 = +6
TW: 4, 8, 12 = +3

Saving throws based off of OCC
FC Borgs: +3
Crazy: NONE, though PE is increased 1D6
CK: NONE, though PE is increased 1D4
GB: NONE
HH / Partial Borg: +1, and PE is increased by 1D4
Juicer: NONE, though PE is increased by 2D6
Merc: NONE
Robot Pilot: NONE
Body Fixer: NONE
City-Rat: NONE
Cyber-Doc: NONE
Operator: NONE
Rogue Scholar: NONE
Rogue Scientist: NONE
Vagabond: NONE, though PE is increased by 2
Wilderness Scout: NONE, though PE is increased by 1D4
Fusionist: NONE
LLW: 3, 6, 9, 11, 13 = +5
Mystic: 1, 3, 6, 9, 12 = +5
Shifter: 3, 7, 10, 13 = +4
Shifter Linked to [Blank]: +0 to +2, depending on the type, at first level, in addition to normal bonuses
TW: 3, 7, 10, 13 = +4
Dog Boys: NONE, though PE bonus ranges from 1D4 to 1D4+2D6
Mind Melter: NONE
Psi-Stalker: 1D4, plus 1D6 PE higher than normal

Bottom line: the only reason these classes easily save is because of a High Bonuses based off of PE. Thus, to make it balanced, Bonus to Spell Strength should be based off of an attribute as well, say IQ or ME - thus to give things a more equal footing

and to those who mention the supernatural badies that get uber-high bonuses, remember that there are spells geared specifically against such creatures, where their bonuses won't help much (ensorcel comes to mind, as does Dessicate the Supernatural)

can anyone point out the races / D-Bees that get high bonuses to save vs Magic?

Thanks, Malakai for your input. My main complaint is that average human Joe Snuffy automatically starts with 12 vs Spell Magic. The number the mage has got to meet or exceed to have a spell affect him. WHY? What is in a normal human that he can resist magic at that high of resistance? I can understand supernatural beings, magic beings, etc. having an auto resistance, but a normal human? It doesn't make sense to me. He should start with ZERO (0) and then add pluses to that from OCC's. And I can't seem to get anyone to see my point about this. Maybe I am just totally wrong about this, but I can't see it.

Well, how about this:

Non-mystically-inclined characters need a 15 or higher to save vs Magic
Practictioners of Magic need a 12 or higher
Creatures of Magic / Supernaturals need a 10 or higher

and for the above to work, remove all racial bonuses to save vs magic - count them as either a practictioner or a Com / SN


AND, so the Psychics don't compain - give them a "Psi-Strength" and a bonus based off of MA

How does that sit with everyone?