My players keep me on my toes, they are for the most part skilled optimizers who pretty much know the game inside out.
Well a barbarian's BaB would be 13 and the AC of the golem is 30. Factor in about another +8 to +10 for a raging strength bonus and another +3 for a magic weapon, and you have a conservative +25 to hit. Any player who has even a tad of munchkin in him can get this up another 4-5 points, which pretty much equates to an auto hit with your first attack.Not much chance of munchkining in my group, all fairly n00bish other than me.
...I can judge it on a spell-by-spell basis and nerf whatever I feel needs to be nerfed.Why not just do that for the Spell Compendium instead of banning the entire book. Every book has something broken in it...
This is how my DM runs it and has only had a problem with a few spells. He denied the "Bite of X" spells or any spell that "casts as a swift action"... that's what Metamagic is for and I agree completely.
Now a 12th Human Celestial Sorcerer(converted from Beta to Core), I have been using "Orb spells" which IMO help fill out the 'Ray Caster's' arsenal, even if they are conjuration. They also help a conjurer DO SOMETHING at lower levels other than pull rabbits out of his hat for 6 seconds at a time.
I use many of the "[Force] descriptor spells" which are mostly for flavor/theme. They also tend to help with the 6th level+ syndrome that is... fire/eletrical resistance. (Blast of Force, Chain Missiles, Force Missiles, Shard Storm)
The other spells I'm fond of and use VERY frequently... Rainbow Beam(random energy ray), Rainbow Blast(multi-energy line AoE) and Whirling Blade(Slashing weapon line AoE, using greatsword), Spell Vulnerability(removes SR). Again, mostly for flavor/theme and all very much approved by the DM.
On the same note, there are spells he doesn't like in the PHB/Core either, that's his rules and that's fine, he's the DM. You either deal with it or find a new game/group.
I agree that as a dm you can deal with these issues- using the tips you mention. That is all fine and good when you run your own adventures, but if you are using published material and that published material bases its encounter design on this broken system you are the required to rebalance all the encounters in the adventure. This can equate to a lot of extra work. It would be much better if it actually worked. It doesn't take a lot of play experience to see how messed up that part of the game is, so why didn't they fix it when they put out Pathfinder?
My example was actually an iron golem, so I'm not sure that stone to flesh would be that great. However, in subsequent rounds the wizard would still likely have some 4th level spell slots, but there probably wouldn't be any subsequent rounds. Wands and scrolls are pretty useful to supplement your spell supply. Like I said above it's more the balance of the entire system that is messed up than that particular spell. My basic belief is that the system is unbalanced coming out the gate, and the more non core stuff you add in the more broken it will get. It might not seem like a big issue to those who are never behind the dm screen, but if you are the dm and it's your job to try to monitor your players and properly build encounters to challenge them, then these issues start to bother you more- at least that's what I discovered (I'm basically always a dm and never a player). Yes it's easy enough to add more monsters and the like, but then you start having to think about the xp you hand out and so on. After some experience you learn how to deal with it all, but I would still prefer if underlying design actually worked.
Alright, I'm going to try to reply to this.
We've known for a long time that the CR and XP systems aren't ideal. The only real way to use them is to determine the CR as an appropriate challenge, rather than looking at the numbers in the book. If a 'CR' 16 creature is really only a 'CR 12' to your party, then reward them as a CR 12.
Honestly I just scrapped the XP system and give my PC's levels when they earn them, but that's neither here nor there.
The point though, is that the Orb spell in question doesn't disbalance the Wizard, it just gives the wizard an option that actually counts for that encounter.
The problem your seeing, is 'magic immunity' not applying to SR-no spells, and the simple solution, is to make that an exception.
Besides, if a wizard were feeling dirty he could just dissentigrate a massive hole in the ground beneath the golemn and the...
My players wouldn't like that style of dming. I don't share the stat blocks with them, but they generally prefer it when I beat on them within the confines of the rules. They too have put a lot of effort into learning and mastering the rules, and if I just start making things up on the fly it invalidates that learning to some extent, which I think they would find frustrating. That being said, I optimize my monsters and often throw in upgraded or extra opponents to challenge them better, and generally as long as they feel they are being adequately compensated in xp they don't have a problem with it. The problems I mention, aren't a huge issue for me, other than having to put more prep time in than is always ideal. But, I'm more trying to look at things from the perspective of an inexperienced dm, and I think that it could be quite overwhelming for someone who doesn't have years of gaming experience under their belts.
Now if you maximize this with a maximize feat (which you could do at 13th level with 7th level spell slot) or metamagic rod you can dish out 78 points of damage with your first attack.The last barbarian I had was dealing over 100 points of damage by 9th level, simply via core feats and rage.
I was gonna say pretty much the same thing... our 12th Orc Barbarian has an magic'd Adamatine Earthbreaker on top of everything you mentioned. I would be more worried about losing initiative and never getting to cast my Orb of Force, lol!
The 2 - 12th level Rogues on the same note are starting to bypass said Barbarian in damage, though likely not on an Iron Golem.
Most recent damage spells I have cast (9-20-09)... Empowered Orb of Force - 45 dmg.(single target), Rainbow Blast - 32 dmg./Half for 16(4 targets, 1 saved), Chain Lightning - 42 dmg./Half for 21(4 targets, 2 saved).
Our Barbarian has a +25 to Hit and EASILY clears 35-45 dmg. with one attack.(3 a round + cleave) (Sorry I do not know the exact stats of the Earthbreaker, or the Orc... only that he makes things into paste at an alarming rate.)
EDIT: Sorry about delayed responses, big thread... playing catch-up.
My players wouldn't like that style of dming. I don't share the stat blocks with them, but they generally prefer it when I beat on them within the confines of the rules.
Psst. Don't tell them. Just don't cheat them by killing them unfairly. ;)
The point though, is that the Orb spell in question doesn't disbalance the Wizard, it just gives the wizard an option that actually counts for that encounter.
It seems to me like you don't much care about the classic encounters of the game. Iron golems being nearly immune to magic is something that goes way way back in the history of the game. Maybe it's Ok to you that wizards are suddenly 'effective' in a situation where thematically they haven't been for 20+ years but for some of us this is not cool.
Note: It's cool if you want your game to have wizards blasting iron golems to slag. Just don't trivialize the opinions of people who have deeper roots in the game.
The problem your seeing, is 'magic immunity' not applying to SR-no spells, and the simple solution, is to make that an exception.
So basically: A special "new" class of SR where it bypasses SR but not immunity... urm... sorry but this doesn't work for me.
Further these spells also nerf a lot of other classically challenging encounters like dragons for example.
Besides, if a wizard were feeling dirty he could just dissentigrate a massive hole in the ground beneath the golemn and the...
First that's a sixth level spell versus a 4th level spell. Second I don't recall how tall the golem is but I imagine it would be able to climb out of a 10' hole in a round or two. Third, that's a creature use of a spell and the kind of thing you reward players for.
You know, I think I've figured out why I never have as much trouble as anyone else does with spells and power levels.
I don't GM the way anyone else does apparently. I don't run encounters, I make up my own worlds. In my worlds, there are few dungeon crawls. The PC's are generally involved in big things (even at low levels, they are just making minor contributions). I don't have four fights in one day, I have four fights in one month usually (of game time). It's rare to have more than one fight per gaming session, and not uncommon to have a game session or two with no combat at all. I give XP for RP, Story Point completions, creative thinking, and so forth. When they do get into a battle, I generate one that is uusally an equal fight (with a slight nudge in the PC's favor). So, if they are 5 8th level characters, then their enemies are 5 8th level characters, or 7 7th level ones, or 4 8th levels and a dozen 4th level minions. They might get attacked in the middle of a night as well, but that's rare. My players are always nervous about a fight, they expect a bulet to crash up out of the ground at any moment, but always enjoy the after battle rush.
So, for spells like orb etc, I set the enemies based on the characters level and what I know of their combat styles, so it's always a challenge for them. Then, if they are lucky, they don't get attacked the next day (since they probably used most of their spells the next morning healing up from yesterdays big battle). That's not to say they don't have any encounters between big fights, we just always assume they are minor ones (something less than half their level).
stuff
See I think exception based rules get weird. If evocation should bypass SR, then shouldn't ALL evocation bypass SR? Rather than forcing players to by a supplemental book (which isn't really current with the Paizo rules).
So I am much more on board with Hogarth's idea of just making all Evo SR=Yes than using a bunch of non-core spells be some sort of hack to make the direct damage caster work well.
Or you could take the other guy's idea and make evocation blasting spells (with the exception of force spells perhaps, since force resistance doesn't exist and immunity is so rare) into SR=no, leave the SR for the auto-win spells like the ones in enchantment, necromancy, and transmutation (flesh to stone anybody? lol).
Umm, wait.. that's what I said isn't it? Damn I guess not. In my last post replace YES with NO. I would rather see ALL of evo get SR penetration rather make a special exception for some SC spells.
I ran a beta-test game, and am running a core game now, and I allow some of the spells from the spell compendium, but I treat them as 'long-lost' spells and prayers, or unique ones found in the baddie's spell book/prayer book as a reward. This way I control exactly which of the spells I allow in and which I don't want. Personally, I think the Caltrop cantrip is too powerful as a 'whenever I want' spell (I picture a line of 1st level wizards walking back and forth across the battlefield, dropping caltrops as they go, all day long--perfect charge breaker). I don't have a problem with Launch Bolt, since it just means the wizard doesn't have to carry a crossbow around with him (he still has to have the ammo for it), and it will not replace a masterwork or magic crossbow.
The Subject presents the general concept of this thread, though I'm open to more generalized discussion on people's thoughts on the book as well.
I'm curious, what issues do people have with the book, and why do, or do not, they think it's a balanced source of spells for play?As an aside, and not meaning anything offensive by this, I find it amusing how often people say they have issues with the spell compendium.
I do not think the Spell Compendium fits smoothly even into 3.5
I think it is a great book with many interesting spells, but it carries a heritage from all the 3.5 splatbooks and is therefore by default not ballanced for 3.5 or PF play.
I think many of the spells within are interesting and can easily be addapted to PF but many should never be let into your campaign.
Well a barbarian's BaB would be 13 and the AC of the golem is 30. Factor in about another +8 to +10 for a raging strength bonus and another +3 for a magic weapon, and you have a conservative +25 to hit. Any player who has even a tad of munchkin in him can get this up another 4-5 points, which pretty much equates to an auto hit with your first attack.
Yeah pretty much, and unlike high level orb spells the barbarian isn't expending anywhere near the same amount of resources to pull it off. The orb example given used up a 7th level spell slot, which should be pretty powerful, especially considering that, even with bonus spells, will at best get 2 per day at that level.
So if the barbarian is able to do this just twice hes already outdoing the spellcaster. A rogue can easily get off more damage per round as well due to sneak attacks. A ranger with ethe appropraite favoured enemy can also be doing quite a bit as well. When it comes to direct damage, it's rare for casters to come out on top.
If someone says the orb spells are overpowering, I really feel they should have a closer look at the spells in general. Have a look at any Caster vrs Melee debate, the problems always arise when non-direct damage spells are brought in, since they can do more. When paizo said they were nerfing spells, they didn't seem to focus that much on spells like Fireball or Disintegrate, but Ray of Enfeeblement and Glitterdust got a dent, even though they can't physically kill anything.
In fact, the two examples I listed (Reverse Gravity and Forcecage)- They might not kill a golum, but they put it out of comission just as easily. A 13th level mage can send a golum flying for up to 14 rounds potentially, that's 14 rounds to prepere for it or even just bypass it altogether. And these are with core-only spells.
Have a look at any Caster vrs Melee debate, the problems always arise when non-direct damage spells are brought in, since they can do more. When paizo said they were nerfing spells, they didn't seem to focus that much on spells like Fireball or Disintegrate, but Ray of Enfeeblement and Glitterdust got a dent, even though they can't physically kill anything.
This. In fact, the only damaging spell I can think of that got nerfed was scorching ray, which was pretty universally considered much too strong for a 2nd level spell. They actually buffed polar ray (extra range and added 1d4 dex drain), although it's still lousy.
In fact, the two examples I listed (Reverse Gravity and Forcecage)- They might not kill a golum, but they put it out of comission just as easily. A 13th level mage can send a golum flying for up to 14 rounds potentially, that's 14 rounds to prepere for it or even just bypass it altogether. And these are with core-only spells.
Grease will pretty well eliminate most golems and it's a first level spell. I can't think of a single golem with ranks in Acrobatics, and constructs have very poor reflex saves. There's no need to go outside of core nor to cast a damaging spell if you want to nullify a golem.
Individual monster stats trump general rules. In the Iron Golem's case it is only affect by the SPECIFIC spells mentioned, not spells with similar effects.The people who don't think orb spells are broken probably haven't really had that much experience with particularly at high levels of play. I'm not so familiar with Pathfinder meta magic feats, but in 3.5 there are some nasty ways to ramp up orbs so that they can be real game breakers. A quicken or maximize metamagic rod and few orbs spells can be truly devastating at high levels.
Example- let's say you have an 13th level party going up against an Iron golem. According to 3.5 rules an iron golem is a CR 13, which is in theory an encounter that will use about 20% of the party's resources (clearly not a very good theory). The golem has an AC 30, which makes it fairly tough to hit, but its touch AC is only 8, and it has 130 hp. A wizard's BaB is +6 at 13th so even with no Dex bonus the wizard would only need 2 or higher to hit with an orb. One of the golem's main defenses is that it is immune to magic. However, according to the rules any magic immunity only works against spells that allow for spell resistance, so orbs would damage it.
The orbs are not going outside the monster's general rules because they dont allow spell resistance. The spells specifically mentioned are an exception because they normally allow spell resistance, but still affect the golem.
Individual monster stats trump general rules. In the Iron Golem's case it is only affect by the SPECIFIC spells mentioned, not spells with similar effects.
Wrong wrong wrong. Go read the monster, it is specifically affect by those spells -- and any spell which allows spell resistance. If the spell does not allow spell resistance then it can affect the golem. Those specific spells listed normally allow spell resistance, so they specifically had to be singled out as exceptions.
Wrong wrong wrong. Go read the monster, it is specifically affect by those spells -- and any spell which allows spell resistance. If the spell does not allow spell resistance then it can affect the golem. Those specific spells listed normally allow spell resistance, so they specifically had to be singled out as exceptions.
?!?
I think you need to review this response. It's not saying what I think you mean to say... otherwise, you're quite wrong. Golems are unaffected by effects that allow spell resistance with the exceptions of the spell effects, several of them modified, listed.But any spell that doesn't allow spell resistance (like the orbs) affects the golems normally.
Wrong wrong wrong. Go read the monster, it is specifically affect by those spells -- and any spell which allows spell resistance. If the spell does not allow spell resistance then it can affect the golem. Those specific spells listed normally allow spell resistance, so they specifically had to be singled out as exceptions.?!?
I think you need to review this response. It's not saying what I think you mean to say... otherwise, you're quite wrong. Golems are unaffected by effects that allow spell resistance with the exceptions of the spell effects, several of them modified, listed.But any spell that doesn't allow spell resistance (like the orbs) affects the golems normally.
You both said the same thing I did, but in different ways. In other words, we all agree.
If the Orb spells don't allow spell resistance, especially considering thier effects, than they're just simply broken, plain and simple and should not be allowed without modification. There simply is no justification for these spells not to fall under spell resist.
On the other hand, if they do allow spell resistance, they're broken in the other direction (no reason to ever cast them).
|
If the Orb spells don't allow spell resistance, especially considering thier effects, than they're just simply broken, plain and simple and should not be allowed without modification. There simply is no justification for these spells not to fall under spell resist.
See Acid Splash. As conjuration spells, the energy damage is resulting from natural effects, not magical. If you say otherwise, you are declaring alchemist fire and acid ineffective versus golems.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
If the Orb spells don't allow spell resistance, especially considering thier effects, than they're just simply broken, plain and simple and should not be allowed without modification. There simply is no justification for these spells not to fall under spell resist.See Acid Splash. As conjuration spells, the energy damage is resulting from natural effects, not magical. If you say otherwise, you are declaring alchemist fire and acid ineffective versus golems.
So, since Instantanious conjuration effects are permanent... How much does an orb of force weigh?
As I've said above, Orb of acid is the only one I can see making sense as conjuration. I can find no spell in core that 'conjures' energy beside acid. Even incinderary cloud summons burning cinders and ashes, not 'fire'
If the Orb spells don't allow spell resistance, especially considering thier effects, than they're just simply broken, plain and simple and should not be allowed without modification. There simply is no justification for these spells not to fall under spell resist.
I think they're broken under certain considerations but not all.
Among the big optimizer crowd, you tend to hear that damaging spells are not optimal for primary casters in the first place. As such, it's hard to argue that any damaging spell that isn't completely outlandish is truly "broken". This is particularly the case for limited spell lists like the warmage's.
The warmage has so little in the way of non-damaging spells and utilities that packing the list up with damage spells, even ones that break convention like most of the orbs, isn't much of a game breaker. It makes the warmage very effective against creatures with spell resistance, but that's not that big a deal. It gives the character a point of distinction compared to wizards and sorcerers. They can throw around similar wide area evocations like sorcerers or drill down to hit spell-resistant creatures with individual orbs. It offers them a nice tactical niche.
I think that it's the inclusion of the spell on a broader spell list, the sorcerer/wizard spell list, that really makes the spells problematic for overall game balance.
I have to say that I have some sympathy for removing the issue of spell resistance for all energy damage spells and simply rely on energy resistance/immunity for defense. But that would entail a pretty much whole review of SR as a game feature and that's not what PF has set out to do... although a GM's book of alternative rules like the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana would be an excellent place to put that sort of work.
I can find no spell in core that 'conjures' energy beside acid.
This is a really lame argument. By that rationale, there'd never be any new rulebooks, because if it isn't in core it's not valid! New rulebooks exist to expand the options. That's kinda pointless if they're not allowed to ... you know ... expand the options.
That said, I do agree about orb of force. Force in D&D is defined as a purely magical energy. There's no way to conjure nonmagical force because there is no such thing as nonmagical force.
|
|
I can find no spell in core that 'conjures' energy beside acid.This is a really lame argument. By that rationale, there'd never be any new rulebooks, because if it isn't in core it's not valid! New rulebooks exist to expand the options. That's kinda pointless if they're not allowed to ... you know ... expand the options.
That said, I do agree about orb of force. Force in D&D is defined as a purely magical energy. There's no way to conjure nonmagical force because there is no such thing as nonmagical force.
where does mage armor come from then? is there some place that stores suits of mage armor?
where does mage armor come from then? is there some place that stores suits of mage armor?
Mage Armor should be abjuration (or possibly evocation), not conjuration, IMO.
where does mage armor come from then? is there some place that stores suits of mage armor?
I always thought that was a little off. Why can't it just be abjuration, like shield, or maybe evocation (which is the de facto "something from nothing" school).
EDIT: Ninja'd by hogarth!|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Mage armour should be evocation or abjuration I think it was Conjuration as legacy.
So... if 'expanding options' are fine. Why not make 'big honking orb of fire' say one that fills a 20' cube? Or why not make a abjuration spell that 'defends you' by whisking you to a new location? Or an evocation spell that 'evokes' negative energy into a corpse, allowing it to be controlled by you?
where does mage armor come from then? is there some place that stores suits of mage armor?Mage Armor should be abjuration (or possibly evocation), not conjuration, IMO.
And here we touch on one of the challenges I have with 3.X spell schools (and it comes from the whole heritage of the game). Some schools are based on *what* a spell does, while others are based on *how* they do it. Abjuration school spells protect; divination spells inform you. On the other hand, necromancy school spells deal with the power of life and death to do "something"; conjurations bring "something" here that was somewhere else. There's a difference there, and if I had time to redo magic schools, I'd choose one or the other.
So... if 'expanding options' are fine. Why not make 'big honking orb of fire' say one that fills a 20' cube?
What, like a really big flaming sphere? Sure, what's the problem?
I see what you're trying to do, but it's misguided. Fire, frost, lightning, and sound all exist. Hell, there's entire planes made of nothing BUT fire, frost, and lightning (and sound if you count Pandemonium). They could theoretically be conjured. That's not the same as making an "abjuration" spell that teleports.
Heck, there's a video on Youtube of a guy firing a sound cannon and demolishing a brick building with one shot of it. No reason a conjuration spell couldn't do the same thing, or do something similar with concentrated heat (fire), cold, or electrical fields (lightning).
It is beyond me how people can think that direct damage spells are over powered when they are so outclassed by the rest of them. As someone pointed out grease can all but eliminate the gollem and that is a level 1 spell. A 7th level spell slot from a 13th level wizard practically IS 20% of the party resources, thats how spells work in 3.x, high level spells do alot, cant do them very often. A wizard can do that what, 2 times a day? If you have 4-5 fights, you wont see it in every fight, and he may be wishing he saved that 7th level slot for something more useful then just a 100ish direct damage later.
And it is always the extreme cases that are used in the argument. Its always the maximized, empowered, quickened acid orb. Perhaps your concern is not the spell, but the player using it. In the vaulted example, if the player was just casting an acid orb at the Golem he'd do an average of 45 damage. Not alot for a turn worth of actions by a 13th level PC.
Personally I have always had a problem with the golem magic immunity, as it is my believe combats should always involve all of the party, certainly some pcs will shine more then others during the encounter, but the idea of, "hey dropped a gollem, you wizard, sit around over there for an hour while other people have fun. If you want you can see if you can hit it with your crossbow, but really dont bother." Its just as much nonsense as having an encounter with all flying creatures and the fighter having no way to fight them. In my opinion you just dont do that as DM, because the game is not about kicking your players butts, but about everyone having fun.
And I really have a bone to pick with the "well you cant do it in core so therefore it is broken" camp. That is the whole point of splat books. They are suposed to let you do things that cant be done with the core rules. Who would buy a book full of spells that are the same as the core book with different names? Yes the spell compendium provide added versatility to different schools. They extend the capability of just about all of them. But that is what they are supposed to do. There is no point in adding 25 new versions of fireball, they should be different in an interesting way.
And there are so many spells in the spell compendium that are fun. Baleful transposition comes to mind, as does entice gift. To say no to a whole book because there are some things in it you dont like is both foolish (potentially depriving your group of wonderful moments with some of the more fun spells), and lazy as clearly you cant be bothered in figuring out what is and isnt right for you game.
I am of the thought orbs are in the wrong school, save acid. It was a cheap attempt to bypass SR and nothing more. I allow them but as evo and no SR bypassing
Same thoughts on mage armor as well. Wish paizo had went though and moved some around , but eh stuff slips though
I am of the thought orbs are in the wrong school, save acid. It was a cheap attempt to bypass SR and nothing more. I allow them but as evo and no SR bypassing
Same thoughts on mage armor as well. Wish paizo had went though and moved some around , but eh stuff slips though
Really? Why would someone use it then? as level 7 slot they could just use a maximized empowered scorching ray and do more damage than their level 4 spell would do maximized, and they could pick 3 targets.
|
|
Really? Why would someone use it then? as level 7 slot they could just use a maximized empowered scorching ray and do more damage than their level 4 spell would do maximized, and they could pick 3 targets.I am of the thought orbs are in the wrong school, save acid. It was a cheap attempt to bypass SR and nothing more. I allow them but as evo and no SR bypassing
Same thoughts on mage armor as well. Wish paizo had went though and moved some around , but eh stuff slips though
They would do less damage to each target than the orb against a single target if they picked three targets, and if they pick one target they have to make three attacks against the one target, if they suceed againts the one target three times then they'll do more damage, but at the payoff of risking misses.
Heck I moved them to evocation but kept the bypass SR as a tagline, then they were worth their level and the appropriate school.
Really? Why would someone use it then? as level 7 slot they could just use a maximized empowered scorching ray and do more damage than their level 4 spell would do maximized, and they could pick 3 targets.I am of the thought orbs are in the wrong school, save acid. It was a cheap attempt to bypass SR and nothing more. I allow them but as evo and no SR bypassing
Same thoughts on mage armor as well. Wish paizo had went though and moved some around , but eh stuff slips though
They would do less damage to each target than the orb against a single target if they picked three targets, and if they pick one target they have to make three attacks against the one target, if they suceed againts the one target three times then they'll do more damage, but at the payoff of risking misses.
Heck I moved them to evocation but kept the bypass SR as a tagline, then they were worth their level and the appropriate school.
That is a reasonable edit. Overcoming SR is part of what figured into them being level 4. If you remove that you severely weaken the spell.
|
|
That is a reasonable edit. Overcoming SR is part of what figured into them being level 4. If you remove that you severely weaken the spell.Really? Why would someone use it then? as level 7 slot they could just use a maximized empowered scorching ray and do more damage than their level 4 spell would do maximized, and they could pick 3 targets.I am of the thought orbs are in the wrong school, save acid. It was a cheap attempt to bypass SR and nothing more. I allow them but as evo and no SR bypassing
Same thoughts on mage armor as well. Wish paizo had went though and moved some around , but eh stuff slips though
They would do less damage to each target than the orb against a single target if they picked three targets, and if they pick one target they have to make three attacks against the one target, if they suceed againts the one target three times then they'll do more damage, but at the payoff of risking misses.
Heck I moved them to evocation but kept the bypass SR as a tagline, then they were worth their level and the appropriate school.
I agree, if you do that, drop them to 3rd level, maybe even 2nd, I'm not gonna think about it since it's not what I decided to do.
Really? Why would someone use it then? as level 7 slot they could just use a maximized empowered scorching ray and do more damage than their level 4 spell would do maximized, and they could pick 3 targets.I am of the thought orbs are in the wrong school, save acid. It was a cheap attempt to bypass SR and nothing more. I allow them but as evo and no SR bypassing
Same thoughts on mage armor as well. Wish paizo had went though and moved some around , but eh stuff slips though
shug, then don't take it. You always have that option. As I have said before I often do not use that book, as I just do not feel like rebalancing the spells
|
Apologies in advance for not having read the previous posts - I'm new to the discussion and if this has already been said and dissected, then forgive me. :)
We've used the SC without too much trouble in our 3.5 games for some time. It's my impression from what I've read of the core book so far that Pathfinder characters are, in general, a good bit more powerful than their 3.5 equivalent.
If that's the case, and these spells didn't cause terrible problems in our 3.5 game, why would I worry about them here? If it matters, I will say that we use all the "splatbooks" too, the Complete Books, and so on. We often use the Forgotten Realms stuff too, so that may make our game a bit more powered than what some of you have been doing already, and hence might be part of why I'm not seeing a problem you all seem to be seeing.
[I agree, if you do that, drop them to 3rd level, maybe even 2nd, I'm not gonna think about it since it's not what I decided to do.
They seem a 3rd level spell, lighting bolt has longer range and don't need an attack roll, however it is limited to 10d6 where as the orbs are limited to 15d6. so they are within the same power range
They seem a 3rd level spell, lighting bolt has longer range and don't need an attack roll, however it is limited to 10d6 where as the orbs are limited to 15d6. so they are within the same power range
That's the damage caps at work. A 4th level spell can have higher damage than a 3rd.
Ice Axe looks broken to me. [Cleric 3rd]
2d12+2 minimum damage via touch attacks for a minimum of 5 rounds.
The Orbs are so-so, I'd grant SR and a save for half if I were to allow them in my games [which I don't!].
Ice Axe looks broken to me. [Cleric 3rd]
2d12+2 minimum damage via touch attacks for a minimum of 5 rounds.
The Orbs are so-so, I'd grant SR and a save for half if I were to allow them in my games [which I don't!].
How many save for half damage spells can you find in the core rulebook that require an attack role? Touch spell typically means no save look at scorching ray, enervation, vampiric touch, etc. Save for half means you got out of the way of the main blast of the fireball(insert desired area spell here) Touch means he nailed you with the ray etc.
They seem a 3rd level spell, lighting bolt has longer range and don't need an attack roll, however it is limited to 10d6 where as the orbs are limited to 15d6. so they are within the same power rangeThat's the damage caps at work. A 4th level spell can have higher damage than a 3rd.
while I can not seem to find anywhere it spell out damage cap/level you seem to be correct with core. That being the case it is in line with a 4th level spell meaning you'll be using 7d6 damage at lest, so it is fine as a 4th level spell as really in core ya have shout or ice storm at 4th level, both which are area so I am ok with this being 4th level, shug if someone thinks it's weak well then don't take it