Does the rogue have to make a class level check with a 60% at best chance of not sneak attacking? The fighter to see if his sword, magic or not, just breaks if he uses any feat that has two or more prereqs? As it stands, I just don't see playing a melee cleric as an option.
Maybe the beta playtest should have gotten a few more months (years?) testing.
Also keep in mind that you do not have to cast defensively. That melee cleric can focus on good armor, shield, and protective magic and just cast the spell normally. Yes it will provoke an AoO... but of you build your character for that type of fighting then you should be able to avoid being hit fairly frequently.
As it is the high level melee cleric has a much better chance to kill an opponent with a touch attack via Harm/Slay Living/Destruction/etc then the fighter that has to swing his sword and hit past all the monsters normal defenses. The cleric still has more options and you can build him to be versatile. If he has to risk failure to pull of the extra tricks then that is all part of the game of chance.
Complaining about it needing years of playtesting when you have not even read the full preview is certainly taking liberties with your opinions.
... Maybe the beta playtest should have gotten a few more months (years?) testing.By far the majority of the feedback from the Beta was take spellcasting down a notch or two. A longer playtest just would have dragged out the same arguments for a longer time period.
You mean the argument that melee characters can far outdamage nuke casters?
Or the argument that Wizards suck compared to Sorcerers?Or the argument that Sorcerers suck compared to Wizards?
All of these arguments have existed since 3rd edition came out, if not earlier.
And using the "majority of feedback" as a basis of correctness is hollow.
There wasn't any need to complain that things were "just right."
|
As a long time fan of the Beta I gladly add my sword to those defending the new cleric and by extension the new rules. There was nothing surprising or out of left field as some had mentioned.
Right from the beginning of the skill's section it was all but spelled out in bolded cap's that Spellcraft wasn't going to be the mechanic of choice for casting on the defensive, that Concentration had been buried with a stake through it's heart, and that a caster level check would be the future. The fact that melee types can now have a chance to disrupt a spell is all I asked for. I expected it to take into account the opponents BAB but this seems so much simpler and more elegant that I am sure I will enjoy it, even if the casters I run and run against don't.
And those of you who don't want changes to Channel energy, come on. You have to admit that it was a tad over the top. I love Channel energy, but these changes just surprised me so little and certainly didn't hurt my feelings. It seems to be about right.
As for the Domain spell's vs. the Powers thing. Come on, the Customization of Cleric's to god's will be as good as or better than it was durring 3.5. If it wasn't good enough for you, well that's what all of those other books out there were for.
I loved the old cleric, I'll like this one better.
p.s. I have almost finished my bomb shelter for the Druid release. Can you give me a couple more weeks so I can get it all nice and comfy please? There's room for a couple more folks by the way. Anyone?
Which one of you has the authority, not just the audacity, to declare that any less valid than others' enjoyment of the changes?
This is the kind of thing that forms edition wars.
A new front in the Edition Wars?
Great. Just what we need. :(
(Didn't someone make a game based on the "Edition Wars"?)
And using the "majority of feedback" as a basis of correctness is hollow.
There wasn't any need to complain that thing were "just right."
Well, the rules developer (Jason) posted on a thread asking for feedback about the issue and said he was entertaining the idea of changes to the spellcasting vs. melee dynamic. The result of the remainder of the thread was pretty much for over the top nerfing of spellcasting. Jason took that feedback into account and gave spellcasting a slight nerf.
It's appropriate based on the feedback.
Or the argument that Wizards suck compared to Sorcerers?
Or the argument that Sorcerers suck compared to Wizards?
Actually, this pair of arguements implies that the balance between these two classes is right.
Actually, this pair of arguements implies that the balance between these two classes is right.Or the argument that Wizards suck compared to Sorcerers?
Or the argument that Sorcerers suck compared to Wizards?
And a wiser man than me once said (about Star Wars Galaxies, back in it's beta) "a game is never truly balanced unless all side b%$$% equally."
While that is wise, it does suggest that 3.5 was pretty well balanced between spellcasters and melee characters... And that the concentration "alteration" wasn't even needed then...
While that is wise, it does suggest that 3.5 was pretty well balanced between spellcasters and melee characters... And that the concentration "alteration" wasn't even needed then...
Good then PF is even more balanced, clerics and spellcaster now cry nerf, fighters cry I can't do enough...Druids cry I am now useless, so see more balance :)
Good then PF is even more balanced, clerics and spellcaster now cry nerf, fighters cry I can't do enough...Druids cry I am now useless, so see more balance :)
While that is wise, it does suggest that 3.5 was pretty well balanced between spellcasters and melee characters... And that the concentration "alteration" wasn't even needed then...
If every food was made of tofu, it would be more balanced.
Some of us like variety, strange as that is. The kind of objection that prevented some of us from liking 4th edition.
Good then PF is even more balanced, clerics and spellcaster now cry nerf, fighters cry I can't do enough...Druids cry I am now useless, so see more balance :)
While that is wise, it does suggest that 3.5 was pretty well balanced between spellcasters and melee characters... And that the concentration "alteration" wasn't even needed then...
If every food was made of tofu, it would be more balanced.
Some of us like variety, strange as that is. The kind of objection that prevented some of us from liking 4th edition.
Oh I know the feeling, caster are still king, they can just now longer have 12 guys surround them and cast a 9th level spell without fear of failing.
They have not been nerfed to useless , they have been brought beck to what many feel is a more reasonable level of failing.
I myself hate spell nerf. But when 7 out of 10 people say something is wrong here, ya need to go look and do something about it. And yes you may hate it but it is more in line with 1/2e. 3e changed that and it was a good change on some level, bad change on others.
I like powerful spellcasters I want a 20th level spellcaster to make most people pee there pants. I want army to shake in fear. But that same guy who gets surrounded should be able to blotch a spell.
I myself think it fits. You should never let someone get that close while casting and if you do, well ya take your chances
I'd like to point this out again:
It looks like occasionally, the full-caster might just need a melee specialist for protection once again. On both sides of the screen. It'll be more of a two-way street again.
Paizo guys, I commend your work again!
|
Admitedly, I have not seen the preview. However, I have seen a 6 page topic grow in a matter of hours that has explained it somewhat. I have only commented as to what I have read from everyone else's examples of the previews, and it is depressing.
As I and most here understand it, this is no "notch or two". No "slight nerf". It seems like an entire play concept is now impossible.
I could be wrong, but that is based soley on the rest of the rules we do not know yet. Problem is, there are probably a lot of people now that don't know, (or know they don't) want to know about the rest of those rules based on this and what will be done to their favorite class or concept.
I can easily see entire sessions were casters do absolutely nothing as their cool spells i.e. the spells that are needed for an apropriate challenge of their level all fail. I can also see, especially when it is needed most, the one spell or effect you need to survive getting wasted on pure chance. It is far to easy to surround a spellcaster. And now a spellcaster being surrounded is a death sentence as far as wee can tell.
We also have no evidence, as far as I can tell, that says spellcasters needn't make concentration checks to maintain their spellcasting if they take damage. So it doesn't matter if it is an AO or damage because your spell failed and you can't do anything. Your still going to die.
And what about those groups that don't have a tank? What than? Are they just out of luck now, like it seems? Depressing. . .
I like powerful spellcasters I want a 20th level spellcaster to make most people pee there pants. I want army to shake in fear. But that same guy who gets surrounded should be able to blotch a spell.
I myself think it fits. You should never let someone get that close while casting and if you do, well ya take your chances
Or, you whip out a wand or staff, or other item, or cast a lower level spell, or withdraw, or try not casting defensively, or you already have buffs on that it doesn't matter, or you call a buddy for aid…
I can't see the justification that casters shouldn't be nerfed this much when a caster can nerf a noncaster in so many ways (blindness, hold person, fear, dominate, flying, mirror image up, invisible, blurred, etc, etc…), but when the non-caster actually has a chance to nerf the caster (he might actually waste a spell) it's an injustice.
At least now, my fighter doesn't have to grapple every caster he gets close to.
|
|
Beckett,
Here's a copy/paste of the preview for you (minus formatting):
The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Core Rulebook is set to release on August 13th, 2009, and in anticipation, we are releasing a preview of the game each week until the game hits store shelves. This week, we are taking a look at Kyra, the iconic cleric.
Kyra
Female human cleric of Sarenrae 8
NG Medium humanoid (human)
Init +3; Senses Perception +5
Aura good
DEFENSE
AC 19, touch 9, flat-footed 19 (+8 armor, –1 Dex, +2 natural)
hp 55 (8d8+16)
Fort +10, Ref +5, Will +13
Resist fire 10
OFFENSE
Speed 20 ft.
Melee +1 flaming scimitar +9/+4 (1d6+3 plus 1d6 fire/18-20)
Special Attacks channel positive energy (4d6, 4d6+8 vs. undead, DC 17, 4/day), fire bolt (+5 ranged touch, 1d6+4 fire, 8/day), nimbus of light (8 rounds/day)
Cleric Spells Prepared (CL 8th):
4th—death ward, divine power, fire shield*, holy smite
3rd—dispel magic, fireball*, prayer, remove curse, searing light
2nd—bull's strength, heat metal*, silence, spiritual weapon (2)
1st—bless, burning hands*, divine favor (2), protection from evil (2), shield of faith
0 (at will)—detect magic, light, read magic, stabilize
* Domain spell; Domains Fire, Sun
STATISTICS
Str 14, Dex 8, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 20, Cha 12
Base Atk +6; CMB +8; CMD 17
Feats Improved Channel, Improved Initiative, Lightning Reflexes, Selective Channeling, Turn Undead
Skills Diplomacy +12, Heal +16, Knowledge (religion) +11, Spellcraft +11
Languages Common
SQ sun's blessing
Combat Gear wand of cure light wounds (50 charges), pearl of power (2nd level), scroll of flame strike; Other Gear +1 flaming scimitar, +2 chainmail, amulet of natural armor +2, cloak of resistance +2, headband of inspired wisdom +2
Kyra is a relatively straightforward cleric, worshiping Sarenrae, the fiery goddess of the sun. While much about the cleric is unchanged, there are a number of notable alterations.
First off is a change to how domains work. In the Beta version of the rules, the domains lost their bonus spells and gained a host of special abilities that were gained when the cleric reached certain levels. For the final version of the game, we went back to bonus spells, but we altered the spell lists a bit (you might notice fireball in her 3rd-level list of spells prepared). In addition, we kept some of the special abilities, replacing many of the granted powers. Kyra receives fire bolt and sun's blessing at 1st level. Fire bolt allows her to shoot rays of fire a limited number of times per day. The sun's blessing power adds to Kyra's channel energy ability and prevents undead from adding their turn resistance to their saves to resist her channeled energy (but more on how this works in a bit). At 6th level, the fire domain grants Kyra fire resistance (that increases as she gains levels). At 8th level she gains the nimbus of light ability from the sun domain. This powerful ability allows her to shed light like daylight for a number of rounds per day equal to her cleric level. This dispels any darkness effect and deals damage to undead in the area at the beginning of Kyra's turn (1 point per cleric level per round). The light spells themselves got a bit of an overhaul. There are now four levels of illumination: darkness, dim light, normal light, and bright light. Spells like light shed normal light in a set radius and increase the light level by one step in a set area beyond that. Spells like darkness reduce the light level in a set radius. Deeper darkness can actually make an area so dark that not even darkvision can penetrate it.
In addition to the changes to domains, the turn undead rules have been revised as well. Now called channel energy, this ability releases a wave of positive or negative energy in a 30-foot radius. When Kyra uses this ability she much choose to heal living creatures or to harm undead creatures (in the Beta rules, she could do both simultaneously). If she chooses to heal, all living creatures in the area are healed the listed amount (4d6 in this case). If she chooses to harm undead, all undead in the area take the listed damage (4d6+8 in this case, due to her sun's blessing domain ability), but they receive a save for half damage. Evil clerics can use this power in reverse, to harm living creatures or heal undead creatures. Kyra also has a few feats to enhance her channel energy ability. Improved Channel adds +2 to the DC to resist the channel and Selective Channel allows Kyra to exclude a number of targets in her area equal to her Charisma modifier. The big change here though is the Turn Undead feat. This feat allows Kyra to spend one use of her Channel Energy ability to force undead to flee from her unless they make their save. This version does not deal damage, but it can turn the tide in a battle.
There have also been a number of changes to cleric spells. Many of these were made to balance the cleric with some of the other classes or to otherwise simplify a confusing spell. Death ward, for example, no longer grants blanket immunity to death effects. Instead it grants bonuses to resist such affects and gives you a save even if one is not normally allowed. It also removes the penalties from negative levels while it lasts. Divine Power was significantly altered to prevent the cleric from becoming a better melee fighter than the fighter with just a spell or two. Now the spell grants a bonus to attacks and damage rolls, temporary hit points, and an additional attack whenever the cleric makes a full attack (just like haste). While it is still a good spell, it is no longer overpowering. Remove curse also deserves a bit of inspection. This spell (and those like it that remove ailments) is no longer automatic. When casting one of these spells, Kyra must succeed at a caster level check to remove the condition (using the ailment's DC). The goal here was to add some bite back into curses, diseases, and poisons, which have been a trivial concern past 5th level.
Last, but not least, it is time to talk about casting on the defensive. The Concentration skill was removed from the game in one of the early versions and there have been a number of systems proposed to replace it. In the final game, whenever a spellcaster is called upon to make such a check, he adds his caster level and whatever ability score is used to determine his spell DCs. To avoid confusion, we kept the old name, calling it a concentration check. This really is the simplest solution that avoids a skill tax on all spellcasters and does not favor one class over another (due to the variable ability score modifier that is added). When casting on the defensive, the DC is equal to 15 + double the spell's level. This makes it a little harder to cast on the defensive than it was, but that works to help balance out the spellcasters a bit (especially when you consider new feats that allow enemies to move with you if you attempt to 5-foot step away to cast a spell).
That is about all there is to show here on Kyra. Next week we are laying our hands on the mighty and powerful Seelah, the iconic paladin.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
I need to ask:
When did a difference of opinion automatically get dumped into the "ranting," or "whining" category?
Historically, It's usually about the fourth time someone repeats their point.
Admitedly, I have not seen the preview...
Are you serious? All your b~#**ing and you haven't even seen the preview yet?!? Why don't you wait to inform yourself before going all "woe is me" on us?
As I and most here understand it...
And stop being a jackhole and speaking for "most here". It's more like 3 guys, and apparently one of them hasn't even seen the preview yet.
And on that note, time to leave this thread for a while. All the angst is making me cranky. :P
Historically, It's usually about the fourth time someone repeats their point.I need to ask:
When did a difference of opinion automatically get dumped into the "ranting," or "whining" category?
So then people are ranting and whining for these changes?
I know this is not always possible, but the power of spellcasters needs to have some checks and balances to it. Being able to cast high level spells in the face of your enemy should be hard... and a 50% chance of your highest level spells is far from unreasonable. Its a change, but one that adds a bit of tactics into the equation.. which is a good thing.This one quote confirms that I will purchase the hardcover rules. I was honestly on the fence until I read this.
THANK YOU !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You do realize, oh king-of-the-fighter-lovers, that this affects all casters, right from level 1.
You yourself have frequently said that you are fully aware that fighters rock the mages in low levels, and that fighters only really start to fall behind when they reach double digits.
Are you sure you're OK with this new mechanic that will destroy even level 1 mages and clerics?
Remember, there's lots of enemy mages and clerics that will now be sitting ducks for mobile PC groups.
This is a huge change, and while it gives you a great deal of what you've wanted for a long time now, parity for high-level fighters, it also gives you some huge drawbacks that I haven't seen you asking for at all, an overwhelming nerf to both PC and Bad Guy low-level casters.
So then people are ranting and whining for these changes?Historically, It's usually about the fourth time someone repeats their point.I need to ask:
When did a difference of opinion automatically get dumped into the "ranting," or "whining" category?
I guess so. It's a lucky thing Paizo read their audience so well!!
wizards are supposed to be illustrated... yet they are limited... damn the barbarian has more skill points and he didn't received an education...
Illustrated? I think you meant "educated", or maybe you meant "enlightened" and got a wrong turn in a thesaurus?
It's cool, I know what you meant.
But you're wrong about barbarians.
They do receive an education, from about the day they learn how to walk.
Look at real-world examples.
Children in the few remaining primitive cultures on Earth are educated from the time they're toddlers.
Educated in surviving, hunting, tracking, stealth, spotting enemies or other dangers, constructing homes, healing wounds, curing ailments, preparing food, etc.
Their life is much more difficult than yours or mine. They can't go to McDonald's for food. They can't hop down to the corner bakery for a loaf of bread. They can't go to a doctor if they get an injury or become sick. They can't buy a house, rent an apartment, buy a bicycle, or turn on the sink to get a glass of water.
Of course they are educated.
It's just not a university education, but it is a long and detailed education just the same.
Fortunately D&D rolls this into just a handful of skills. Survival, Healing, Stealth, Perception, and maybe a bit of crossover into crafts or some Knowledge(local).
Which works out just about right for a barbarian, though as an adventurer, he may want to look into a few new things, like maybe Climb, Athletics, Intimidate, Ride - but he can do that as he goes up in levels.
To the Paizo Crew *HUGS*
I, personally, am intrigued with the changes, am liking what I am seeing and being tantalized by in the previews, and can't wait to get the book in my hands come August.
Jason B., thank you for all your hard work, and know that there are those out here that do like what you have done, and we also remember that a preview is not the whole magilla :) Trying to guess how everything is going to work from these previews is a guessing game and I have faith that this will work in the end!
... Anyway it's gone to print. They didn't want to discuss a rather huge change for some reason and now is too late. I simply lament their poor choice of not allowing input on something this big. I expected better of them.Wow, just wow. A HUGE part of the discussion during the playtesting for the Beta was how spellcasters were overpowered. There won't be any reductions to melee to compensate for the tough concentration check...the tougher concentration check was put in to even out the power levels and take casters down a notch. Paizo only responded to what we wanted.
I think we wanted high-level casters brought down a peg.
This change affects the lower level even more than the high level.
I don't recall anyone saying level 1 mages/clerics were too powerful (except maybe for unlimite at-will ranged attacks, which Paizo gave them in the first place).
This change will hurt all spellcasters, of all levels, both PC and enemy.
I already imagine that every spellcaster in every dungeon and every module will need to be tweaked with new stuff, or at least new henchmen, just to make them as challenging an encouter as they used to be.
I'll reserve final judgment until I see it in play, but I think this writing is already on the wall.
I'll still buy Pathfinder - they haven't scared me off, but I smell a very quick houserule coming.
This is a huge change, and while it gives you a great deal of what you've wanted for a long time now, parity for high-level fighters, it also gives you some huge drawbacks that I haven't seen you asking for at all, an overwhelming nerf to both PC and Bad Guy low-level casters.
I in no way see this as an overwhelming nerf at low levels. Take a 5-foot step back. Are you a high AC cleric? Take the attack of opportunity and hope that the chance he misses you combined with making the concentration check versus the damage if he does works out for you.
Are you seriously suggesting that a spellcaster backed into a corner, engaged with an enemy, shouldn't have a hard time casting a spell?
|
|
As I and most here understand it...
And stop being a jackhole and speaking for "most here". It's more like 3 guys, and apparently one of them hasn't even seen the preview yet.
So are you trying to imply that only 3 guys thing there are any changes whatsoever, or that you failed to read what I wrote. What I wrote was that there are some changes to the rules overall, as I and most here understand it .
P.S. And because not everyone on here is an absolute ass, by the time you wrote this, ya, I already had seen it.
This is a huge change, and while it gives you a great deal of what you've wanted for a long time now, parity for high-level fighters, it also gives you some huge drawbacks that I haven't seen you asking for at all, an overwhelming nerf to both PC and Bad Guy low-level casters.I in no way see this as an {i}overwhelming[/i] nerf at low levels. Take a 5-foot step back. Are you a high AC cleric? Take the attack of opportunity and hope that the chance he misses you combined with making the concentration check versus the damage if he does works out for you.
Are you seriously suggesting that a spellcaster backed into a corner, engaged with an enemy, shouldn't have a hard time casting a spell?
5' step isn't always available. There isn't always a safe place that isn't in range of another enemy. People often delay ("when that mage moves, I move with him and attack") - mage moves, enemy follows and attacks, mage casts, provokes, and gets an AoO for his trouble, or risks the 50% spell failure. Either way, this is a quickly dead mage.
Touch attacks will become nearly useless now. Sure, you can cast/move/touch in that order, but that doesn't work if there is an enemy within threat range at the start of your turn - and any PC group better very well understand this while they cruise through encounters against spellcasters.
It is a big nerf to all spellcasters at all levels. The lowbie casters are, unfortunately, also taking just as much (more actually) heat as the Elminsters of the world.
As I and most here understand it...So are you trying to imply that only 3 guys thing there are any changes whatsoever, or that you failed to read what I wrote. What I wrote was that there are some changes to the rules overall, as I and most here understand it .And stop being a jackhole and speaking for "most here". It's more like 3 guys, and apparently one of them hasn't even seen the preview yet.
What you wrote was:
As I and most here understand it, this is no "notch or two". No "slight nerf". It seems like an entire play concept is now impossible.
There are a couple of people that clearly believe that. You're implying that most feel there has been a major nerf, and I don't agree that most posters here are saying that.
Honestly the new concentration isn't that bad.
You can even auto pass it fairly easily at 20th level on ninth level spells (at 18th level you need to roll a 3~5) and probably before then.
It's the worse at 1st level (DC 17 VS total mod of 5~6) at just gets much easier from there:
10th level with Casting stat 22 = +16 versus DC 25 means you need 9 or better.
5th level with a casting stat of 20 = +10 versus DC 21 means an 11 or better.
And this is without combat casting. Even assuming it's been "nerfed" down some too it will probably be a +2~3 which is plenty to put you back into the "I'll probably pass this check" range.
Everything looks good to me!
Everyone should check out travel domain, wands of mirror image, spells like displacement, and a high AC.
A caster can be great at making monsters waste their AoO.
Thanks everyone at Paizo, for all the hard work!
I can't wait to "Pathfinderize" my old Dwarven Skiing Cleric...
There are a couple of people that clearly believe that. You're implying that most feel there has been a major nerf, and I don't agree that most posters here are saying that.
You're right.
I didn't count exactly, but there are only a few of us saying the concentration nerf is huge, while there are lots of people here saying it's no big deal.
I put myself publicly on record as saying, unless there is more to it that we haven't seen yet, this is huge.
I suspect that most of the people who like the rule are only looking at the player side of things.
The PC wizard is more powerful than the PC fighter. This will even things up.
Fine, that might even be right.
But the problem will lie in the NPC side of things. The Adventure Paths, and modules, and, really nearly every adventure published by every OGL source since 3.0 was released, contain (collectively) thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, of encounters where the PCs must face one or more spellcasters. Not to mention however many more unpublished encounters that DMs have created at home.
All of those spellcasters are nerfed too.
I get the sense, having read all the posts here, that nobody is realizing this fact yet. Maybe it's too soon for it to sink in fully.
All of those possibly hundreds of thousands of spellcaster encounters just became trivial, if your party of PCs understands tactics and plans ahead to handle spellcasters.
Those enemies don't all have minions. Those that do usually lose their minions early in the fight and face the PCs more or less alone after that. Either way, now they're toast. Trivial.
It was hard enough to keep those guys alive against good players. Now the PCs will just laugh at them and loot their corpses.
It's big.
You'll all see how big it is soon enough.
As for the argument "Just cast your lower level spells"...
Which low-level spells do the level 1 spellcasters cast? Or even level 5 spellcasters - how big a difference will those spells make in the encounter?
Everyone worried about the high-level game.
So did I.
Casters at high level blow away the non-casters.
Something had to be done.
But this change hurts the low-level casters way way more than the high-level casters in two ways:
1. The math is clear. The roll is harder at low levels than it is at high levels. So low-level casters will fail more often than high-level casters.
2. Low-level casters cannot simply dip down a few spell levels to find something they can safely cast - they are low-level; they don't have lower spell levels...
High-level casters, the ones most of us seemed to really want to nerf, are more likely to make this roll and are certainly likely to have some lower-level stuff they can safely cast that will be meaningful in the encounter.
What we've done here is the opposite of what we seemed to want - we've hosed the lowbies and left the high-level guys still ruling the battlefield.
That's completely backwards!
I think it's time to mop up our tears of joy that we finally tore down those casters who can move mountains, slay with a word, gate in uberfiends, and wish us into oblivion.
We didn't tear them down at all.
But, we have torn down their little cousins who won't surivive long enough to reach level 5, let alone long enough to move mountains.
Backwards, backwards, backwards.
DM Blake,
A typical first level caster in 3.5 probably has a Concentration skill of around +5. The DC to defensively cast a first level spell is 16, so yes it's harder for low level casters to cast defensively.
So what. Currently being in campaigns on both the DM and player side, I rarely get caught with my evil spellcasters or with the wizard I play in a situation where I HAVE to cast defensively. It just doesn't come up that often.
And when it does, well then things will just be a little bit tougher for the spellcaster. You can cry foul and HUGE, but I don't see the problem and welcome the change.
|
I like the preview. I've been looking forward to seeing Kyra. She's the NPC Cleric I ran for my party through Savage Tide, so I grew fond of her over the span of 20 levels.
That said, I'm very happy with the changes to Concentration. Midway through STAP, my players and I had a rules debate about whether of not to change defensive casting. Many of the bad guys could auto-pass their concentration checks and effectively didn't have to worry about AO's. In the end, we decided not to change the rules (oddly, the Druid player advocated throwing defensive casting out all together), although I did allow the party's Fighter to take the Spellcasting Harrier feat by removing the Epic requirement.
Having DM'd several campaigns into high levels and an epic campaign, my personal experience tells me this is a needed change. Melee character, be they low -level, mid-level, or high-level, have no decent counter to the defensive caster (other than readying a standard attack or something similar). If that defensive casting succeeds automatically, the melee types might as well be scarecrows for all they're worth.
Jason's changes to defensive casting are a solid solution to a long-standing 3e problem.
-Skeld
5' step isn't always available. There isn't always a safe place that isn't in range of another enemy. People often delay ("when that mage moves, I move with him and attack") - mage moves, enemy follows and attacks, mage casts, provokes, and gets an AoO for his trouble, or risks the 50% spell failure. Either way, this is a quickly dead mage.
You are certainly right in the first case, but again: if someone has the spellcaster cornered, shouldn't it be more difficult to cast?
I was thinking about your second instance (please realize I'm trying to be clear and not pedantic here): delaying just lets you jump back into the initiative order later: you can't interrupt. In that case the wizard takes the step and casts, then the fighter steps up and attacks. So what you want is ready, which requires you to call the action. If some fighter walks up to your wizard and doesn't attack, he's readying to attack you when you step back an cast. Walk away. Withdraw. No attack of opportunity and he's wasted his round not attacking you. You're able to double move, so if you have the room you can move beyond his move speed, and he'll have to take a double move to catch up: he can't ready an attack action. Worst case scenario he then charges you, so he in effect just takes the attack he should have taken the round before, and can't ready an action to attack you the next round (so take a 5ft step and cast on your turn).
Touch attacks will become nearly useless now. Sure, you can cast/move/touch in that order, but that doesn't work if there is an enemy within threat range at the start of your turn - and any PC group better very well understand this while they cruise through encounters against spellcasters.
You have a legitimate gripe here, but I still wouldn't say the failure chance makes it "nearly useless", just chancy.
Creative Director
|
The beauty of tabletop RPGs is that you can house rule things, of course... but I would ask that you try out a rule for a few sessions before you house rule it. Sometimes, the way a rule reads and the way a rule actually plays out can be quite different. If it really does change the game in a way you don't like, by all means change how it works in your game. I know that there's a few rules in the final PFRPG that I'll be houseruling (and in fact have ALREADY house ruled in my Sandpoint game). That's not a sign of a game's weakness. It's a sign of a game's strength that you can make it your own in that way.
Sure, it's tougher to cast spells defensively now (and as folks have noted, this change is in large part due to playtester feedback calling for a nerf to melee spellcasting to even up the playing fields for the fighter), but it's a change that, I think, the game is stronger for having. And for those who want to play a front-line spellcaster, well, there are ways to bolster your concentration check. Combat Casting is the obvious one, as is bolstering your appropriate stat modifier. There are others in the PFRPG, and frankly, if this creates a new desire and need for a new type of feat chain or spell or magic effect or whatever, I think that's pretty cool too.
Anyway, and it should go without saying, don't make personal attacks against each other. Passions run hot and strong among gamers when it comes to rules, but that's no excuse to be mean to each other. Save that for the school-yard bullies who took our lunch money and pushed us down and stole our glasses, yeah? :-)
|
|
I tried to explain that months ago when I first heard of this being suggested. My main concern is that if a party goes first in init., a spellcaster drops. Boss fight or not, unless the dm "cheats". No threat, whatsoever.
Summons are full round spells. They wouldn't even show up until the second round and the party is already surrounding the caster. Not that he'd be able to complete the spell, but it just doesn't work.
Doesn't matter if he has goons, the players will ignor them to take out the caster so they never become a threat, and without the dm basically cheating with precast buffs or terrain, caster can't do a single thing to stop it. I really hope that this is some sort of april fools joke, or we just don't understand all the other things that don't make this so bad yet.
From a more logical perspective, the new Concentration ruling makes perfect sense. A spellcaster who is taking his first steps into the big, wide world is going to have a harder time avoiding blows in melee simply by virtue of his inexperience. It makes sense, then, that a lower-level caster has a tougher time of it than a higher-level one.
Personally, I like the new Concentration. I can see why some people feel upset about it, but I heartily approve. I'm REALLY excited to see the Paladin next week!
I tried to explain that months ago when I first heard of this being suggested. My main concern is that if a party goes first in init...
Even in 3.5 a spellcaster against a full group who loses initiative is in trouble...unless he has minions to protect him and/or protective spells in place. All this new rule does is emphasize that a caster should take a little care in preparing defenses and have some goons around to slow down the attacking party while he rains down the magic.
5' step isn't always available. There isn't always a safe place that isn't in range of another enemy. People often delay ("when that mage moves, I move with him and attack") - mage moves, enemy follows and attacks, mage casts, provokes, and gets an AoO for his trouble, or risks the 50% spell failure. Either way, this is a quickly dead mage.You are certainly right in the first case, but again: if someone has the spellcaster cornered, shouldn't it be more difficult to cast?
Absolutely.
But this change will pretty much make him dead, unless he makes a habit of getting very lucky on those CD rolls.
PCs may have to make hundreds of such CD rolls, maybe thousands, over a career that reaches up to or near epic levels - clearly many of those will fail, no matter how lucky he is.
NPCs may only have to make a couple of these rolls. Some of them will make every roll in the encounter, since "every roll" means just a couple rolls. But there will be hundreds of these guys in a long campaign, and many of them will die for failing this roll, trivializing each of those encounters when this happens.
I was thinking about your second instance (please realize I'm trying to be clear and not pedantic here): delaying just lets you jump back into the initiative order later: you can't interrupt. In that case the wizard takes the step and casts, then the fighter steps up and attacks. So what you want is ready, which requires you to call the action.
You are right. Good catch. My group rolled both actions into one, and we usually just say delay. I misused the game terminology.
I meant "ready an action".
If some fighter walks up to your wizard and doesn't attack, he's readying to attack you when you step back an cast. Walk away.
AoO.
Withdraw. No attack of opportunity and he's wasted his round not attacking you.
You cannot withdraw and do anything else this round, so you've both wasted a round.
This is suicide when the caster is outnumbered. You lose a round but only one of your enemies loses a round - the rest get free shots because you're doing nothing this round (it's like giving them one free round to do whatever they want). Suicide.
And dang near every NPC caster is outnumbered by the PCs before the fight is done, after the PCs deal with the minions, or ignore the minions and make a beeline for the caster.
You're able to double move, so if you have the room you can move beyond his move speed,
Most PCs and most NPCs all move at 30'. It's rare that a spellcaster can move beyond the move speed of all the PCs - surely the fastest PC is the mage-hunter anyway.
and he'll have to take a double move to catch up: he can't ready an attack action. Worst case scenario he then charges you, so he in effect just takes the attack he should have taken the round before,
But you lost your round too by only using the withdraw action, and that mage-hunter guy now gets his best attack on you, and all his buddies took their shots too.
and can't ready an action to attack you the next round (so take a 5ft step and cast on your turn).
Now you're right, unless he has Step Up, so it might be best to make a normal move - oh, but that's an AoO.
And you can absolutely bet that any PC group worth their salt has someone to chase the mages and that someone has Step Up, the ultimate magekiller feat.
Except at the lowest levels before he can learn Step Up.
And even after all that, it took you two rounds to finally cast one spell, and every single enemy you're facing got to spend at least one of those rounds making some kind of attack against you first. If you survive all that, and your enemy doesn't have Step Up for some reason, you can finally cast a spell without worrying about DC failure.
One spell every two rounds.
Might as well just stay put and risk the DC - odds are in two rounds you'll succeed at one spell anyway, and what's left of your minions might be more useful if you stay put.
Touch attacks will become nearly useless now. Sure, you can cast/move/touch in that order, but that doesn't work if there is an enemy within threat range at the start of your turn - and any PC group better very well understand this while they cruise through encounters against spellcasters.You have a legitimate gripe here, but I still wouldn't say the failure chance makes it "nearly useless", just chancy.
I was too brief.
Touch spells have become chancy enough that no sane spellcaster will use them. Heck, most spellcasters avoid them now, unless they're built specifically for it (like a duskblade, for instance).
This change makes those builds highly questionable, and non-built touch attacks will go the way of the dodo.
My wizard surely won't prepare any.
(by the way, since it's been asked somewhere on this thread, although I am playing a wizard now, I am also playing a rogue and a paladin, and my first choice of character is almost always fighter, or a variation of fighter, or at the very least, a melee class that sounds like an interesting analog of a fighter, so none of my concern for this DC change is in any way related to me crying over my favorite class getting nerfed. Quite the opposite, really).
|
|
All this new rule does is emphasize that a caster should take a little care in preparing defenses and have some goons around to slow down the attacking party while he rains down the magic.
And if that isn't possible? Pc's don't have that little "whatever the dm wants them to have" special quality.
In solo games, that essentually means hirelings are a caster class feature, I mean restriction.
Particularly in the case when it is more likely that pcs will be surprized a great deal more often than the monsters, it becomes a vulnerability that can't be helped. Way to many spells have very short durations, so you can't just be prepaired.
And what is everyone wants to play a caster. It seems like now you must have a tank or two, per caster, or not even bother.
In solo games..
In 3.5 a PC playing a solo fighter is dead as soon as he misses his first will save. At least in 3.5 the fighter has even odds of disrupting the spell should he somehow corner the caster into trying to cast defensively.
|
|
Doesn't matter if he has goons, the players will ignor them to take out the caster so they never become a threat, and without the dm basically cheating with precast buffs or terrain, caster can't do a single thing to stop it. I really hope that this is some sort of april fools joke, or we just don't understand all the other things that don't make this so bad yet.
But since spellcasters suck now according to so many, there's no need to ignore the goons and go attack the spellcaster. Just leave him be, he'll apparently choke on his own evocation words of power and fall limply to the ground in a pool of his own urine.
Okay, so I engage in occasional hyperbole. At least its funny.
I wont pretend that the concentration rule change isn't a big change - because it is.
I was one who have lobbied for years to bring sexy back to the non-spellcasters who always had a hard time surviving against a spellcaster. So I'm pretty happy that some change was made. It 'may' wind up being too great of a change....it 'may not' I'll wait to see everything in action before slamming down the gavel. Even if it is too much of a nerf (as far as my opinion is concerned), I'll be more satisfied that it was changed this way than not changed at all.
One thing that has occured to me - is so many of the creatures that cast "spell-like" abilities at a caster level of a given level - which are usually not commensurate of the challenge of the creature or APL of the party. This would seem to affect them significantly at first glance.
A challenge Rating 12 creature that casts spells 'as a 7th level sorcerer' will be quite hard pressed to pass a concentration check - having a lower spellcasting level, and usually not the min/maxed stat in the spellcasting stat that would be as high as a true NPC/PC would be for that level.
Here's a question for those who feel that this concentration thing completely nullfies a spellcaster's effectiveness..... based on alot of the commentary here and in other threads that defend the need to "cast defensively or lose a spell", a common theme is that "A fighters sword doesn't have to be lost if he fails, a rogues sneak attack etc etc, but an important spell is wasted and gone form the repertoire with a failed Casting Defensively roll......"
I can see a slight validity in this notion. So my question is:
Things as they are with the new Concentration mechanic - would the idea of the spell NOT being gone and wasted with a failed attempt make it a fair system. In which case it's no different from "missing with one's attack" for that round etc. The spell is still in memory, it just didn't get cast that round - like a failed attack or CMB check or other such combat-oriented mechanic.
Personally - I see this as a truly fair concept. And if it wasn't in the actual rules - it seems like a viable and easy house rule concept.
No one is claiming Pathfinder was going to be perfect for everyone - like James was saying - every group is going to find SOMETHING to houserule. For me, Pathfinder has continued to be much better than 3.5 was and certainly better than the 4E alternative - but I can't expect to like everything equally. This idea of a houserule may be worth considering. It may be one our group will probably adopt - now that there's a good chance that the spell doesn't work automatically all the time - just delaying the result may be the perfect blend of challenging/trying and easy success.
EDIT - for all we know - this may be exactly how this rule concept works! I'm sure if I can think of it - someone who's career is centered on game design is sure to have thought of it, too.
Robert
(PS of course my big opinions are being held back until my paladin baby is revealed - that hopefully will have my hopes soaring further and not leaving me heartbroken. But I have faith based on all the other previews I've read - especially the Ranger has given me hope.)
I was too brief.
Heh, I haven't found you have this problem very often.
|
|
If the spell was not gone, that would help a lot. That would put it in the league of a small nerf. Those were all my old school brujah arguements, by the way. Just trying to make a point that fighters always forget.
If you want to make it even with the sneak attack or not breaking sword, just get rid of AO's for spellcasting. But that's neither here nor there . . .
The other side of that is that clerics in particular are mainly in combat buffers and touch attackers. The few spells that they have for areas are usually centered on themselves, so all become essentually pointless, except to make the cleric the bandaid, just manditory.
Sigh . . . all of this discussion, and the only thing that kind of rankles me is that I might have to add an armor proficiency feat to established cleric characters that are already in the books, and that the AC of people with chain mail will be off by one . . . everywhere it appears.
The minor fiddly stuff was the stuff I was more worried about, because none of them are that bad in a vacuum, but when there are a bunch of those fiddly +1/-1/extra feat needed issues, things can get frustratingly more complicated than they should be.
However, I hate to b@~&% and run, and I really do like some of the changes, so I throw those out there as well.
I like the DC change (although I never really had a problem with the "skill tax" either) for casting defensively. My spellcasters tended to try and avoid casting in the face unless cornered anyway, though I don't mean to dismiss anyone that used other tactics with their spellcasters.
I like that it looks like it will be a lot easier to use, for example, existing non-OGL domains if I get a hankering to do so. It looks like I'll just need to come up with a "second tier" ability appropriate to the domain to flesh some of these out.
While some of my players may disagree, I also felt that the Beta channel energy was a bit wonky for undead encounters ( . . . "okay, everyone resisted the ghouls' paralysis, you erase all of the damage they did, and damage them too . . . the pack of ghouls is now gone, and all of you are at full hit points.")
I was too brief.Heh, I haven't found you have this problem very often.
LOL!
Good one.
Note: this one is pretty brief...
First the on topic comment. I like the cleric and info as posted. I am glad that they separated out the heal/hurt effect into two choices. I also like the domains and spells. Finally I think the change to concentration is for the best as at higher levels casters were VERY powerful. (And the wizard was my favorite class to play so I am not a magic hater.) The one thing I would like is if a failed concentration check did not burn up your uncast spell slot... but that is not really commented on above.
I could buy into that, instead of a lost spell, the spell is not cast. It still hurts a LOT but it's playable. I'm fairly sure that PF will make it a lost spell though.
This is a huge change, and while it gives you a great deal of what you've wanted for a long time now, parity for high-level fighters, it also gives you some huge drawbacks that I haven't seen you asking for at all, an overwhelming nerf to both PC and Bad Guy low-level casters.
This will also be a huge nerf to BBG casters. They... are also weak as hell now and even their minions can't save them (too many ways to get through). People say that they don't need to grapple anymore... but they will. They will grapple AND (on the odd chance it will fail) they will force the BBG to make Concentration checks. The chances of both failing are slim. The game is going to turn into a big whack-a-caster fest.
heh a fighter/rogue cant gate in things, move mountains or kill with a word. Your doing highly complex actions and fishing items you need to cast the spell from a pouch.
Neither can PF/3.5 spellcasters. If you've noticed, all spells that were previously "instant death" do only D6 per level, which is fairly laughable... hardly instant death like it was in 3.0/2E/1E.
So what you want is ready, which requires you to call the action. If some fighter walks up to your wizard and doesn't attack, he's readying to attack you when you step back an cast. Walk away. Withdraw. No attack of opportunity and he's wasted his round not attacking you.
That's metagaming. Because you know the mechanics of the game, you know how to avoid the situation. I try to discourage metagaming in tables I run.
Even when metagaming, a full withdraw will still draw AoO if there is more than one attacker AND you lose your round of action as well. Doing a 5 foot move will result in you getting whacked and because of the readied action you're almost guaranteed to lose your spell, especially at higher levels. If the opponent has the same speed as you, you also won't be able to move and cast without getting both an AoO and also eating his readied action. You're only real option is if you are facing a single opponent and they are slower than you and even then each round you will eat AoO.
Sometimes, the way a rule reads and the way a rule actually plays out can be quite different.
I'm a pretty smart guy and people said that about 4E as well, but in the end my table had enough after 5 sessions of 4E. Yes, I'll try everything out at Gencon, god help me.
There are others in the PFRPG, and frankly, if this creates a new desire and need for a new type of feat chain or spell or magic effect or whatever, I think that's pretty cool too.
Except that clerics are currently the class with the least amount of feats. It's fun to talk about feat chains, when you actually have enough feats to make it viable.
It looks like occasionally, the full-caster might just need a melee specialist for protection once again. On both sides of the screen. It'll be more of a two-way street again.
Time for the " useless" fighters to block attacks again.
There is no such mechanic. Fighters are pylons, they don't protect anything. There is absolutely no reason at all for a monster to attack a fighter, except that the DM feels like it. Every combat can't be in a 5 foot wide hall, but it looks like it's going to have to be now. It's called tactics, I just wonder if that's enjoyable for everyone. I can't say it's enjoyable for me (as a DM), it's not epic, but players are going to do what they need to do to survive.
Also keep in mind that you do not have to cast defensively. That melee cleric can focus on good armor, shield, and protective magic and just cast the spell normally. Yes it will provoke an AoO... but of you build your character for that type of fighting then you should be able to avoid being hit fairly frequently.
Well, it looks like clerics don't have heavy armor or shields anymore, so that build is going to take a lot more work to do than before. Also, the chances of you making a build that can't be hit is fairly slim, since Fighters have very high AC now, monsters will need high attack bonus to have a chance. You're better off casting defensively if you're a target. Melee clerics are a thing of the past and they won't have enough feats to make it work.
Good then PF is even more balanced, clerics and spellcaster now cry nerf, fighters cry I can't do enough...Druids cry I am now useless, so see more balance :)
The most balanced version of the game is currently 4E. It happens to also be the most boring. Balance for the sake of balance isn't always a good thing.
It's not like every player wants to play a cleric, even though some feel they are too powerful. In some groups, no one wants to play a cleric or druid! What does that tell you? It tells me maybe the power level was about right.
And in Pathfinder, they can put full ranks in Acrobatics and thereby avoid AoO for moving
You've got to be joking. I'm quitting D&D before my cleric is doing backflips and cartwheels around the room each round just to avoid casting defensively. Besides, you can't even do that in armor and clerics have no way to reduce the armor check penalty like other classes do.
I don't know, maybe Paizo did the right thing by reducing the effectiveness of ALL spellcasters (I feel sorry for Wizards!) based on the feedback we have here. I think we'll see a lot less clerics, druids, wizards, and sorcs being played (after they try out the changes) and I can't see how this will be good for the game. I'll also go on the record for this being the single most commonly house ruled part of PF. All of the non-casters, you can cheer now. Yayyyyy!!!
Anyway, I look forward to Gencon and the cries of my fellow spellcasters and see how this playtests. I'm disappointed but I'll give it a try but I'm not getting my hopes too high (or getting rid of 3.5 yet either).
Things as they are with the new Concentration mechanic - would the idea of the spell NOT being gone and wasted with a failed attempt make it a fair system. In which case it's no different from "missing with one's attack" for that round etc. The spell is still in memory, it just didn't get cast that round - like a failed attack or CMB check or other such combat-oriented mechanic.
Personally - I see this as a truly fair concept. And if it wasn't in the actual rules - it seems like a viable and easy house rule concept.
Maybe, but only in the vacuum of player vs. player.
Which is where I think most of these class balance threads end up anwyay (not that many people actuall play PvP, or battle each other in arenas, but I think much of the class wars come from comparing a PC of one class to a PC of a different class).
This might help PC casters quite a bit. Not losing their resource means they only lose their action (still a fairly big hit though) but they have the rest of the group to bail them out and they can carry on in later rounds, or the next encounter, with their spell still safely in hand.
Heck, it might even extend the adventuring day if casters fail to cast sometimes (without losing the spell), then the fight ends, and they wind up (accidentally) with more spells at the end of the encounter than the had planned on.
But where it still fails is the NPC/enemy casters.
Assuming a CR X encounter that pivots around a single evil caster with maybe a minion or two is balanced just right for a level X party of PCs, all the PCs have to do is gang up on the caster (before or after they slaughter the minions) and now he starts blowing his spells and dies quickly and easy.
It totally trivializes these encounters, and they are no longer balanced for the PCs.
If the enemy caster in this scenario fails, say, just two spells, it may become apparent after the fight that he should have been a few levels higher. Maybe CR X+4. Maybe then he would have lived a round or two longer and got off a couple more successful spells.
Then the next encounter comes around, and the DM adds +4 levels to that enemy caster, but he doesn't fail his rolls - now we have a probably TPK on our hands.
Chancy.
Swingy.
Unpredictable.
(PS of course my big opinions are being held back until my paladin baby is revealed - that hopefully will have my hopes soaring further and not leaving me heartbroken. But I have faith based on all the other previews I've read - especially the Ranger has given me hope.)
I'm playing a paladin right now in the campaign we play the most often. I am eager to see the preview too!
|
|
Well, it looks like clerics don't have heavy armor or shields anymore, so that build is going to take a lot more work to do than before. Also, the chances of you making a build that can't be hit is fairly slim, since Fighters have very high AC now, monsters will need high attack bonus to have a chance. You're better off casting defensively if you're a target. Melee clerics are a thing of the past and they won't have enough feats to make it work.
well, before this gets completely going down a different and probably erroneous path, let me say that I feel that this is a completely unfair assumption.
The fact that Kyra doesn't have one in her possession is not indicative that she cannot use it if she did.
By your rationale, she wouldn't have the capability to use a ring of protection, potion of fly, rod of ressurection, helm of brilliance, a tindertwig, tanglefoot bag or daily rations either!
OTOH, it's probably more likely that she isn't wearing full plate and carrying a shield in her stat block, because her avatar image is wearing chain mail and has no shield - the art was done a long time ago - before the idea of "nerfing" the cleric ever came up; I doubt the artist was that precognitive. Instead, the stat block seems to merely match the art.
Now, I may be wrong and clerics may very well not have heavy armor anymore; but to base the logic on what "isnt" on the statblock would be an unfair assumption and disservice for the time being.
Robert