'Could' you? Sure! As a GM you can even say everyone literally poops rainbows. I don't see this issue.
With UMD, any class can be almost as proficient with magic via scrolls and items as any other. Instead of nerfing spells, or something else that is completely arbitrary, potentially very time consuming, etc, provide boons or other ways the 'lacking' classes can play up to casters.
All classes can use magic items. It's just a matter of how (x/day uses, innately, with a check, etc) they go about that. For example, provide new feats that might supplement charisma to UMD such as allowing a character that doesn't have a caster level to use their constitution modifier instead. Another feat to make it a class skill and you're essentially set to be on par with most casters.
The only thing they have to do at this point is spend move actions to retrieve an item from a handy haversack and they can use a scroll of wish with the best of them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is one of those questions where ten posters will give ten answers...
Having said that, I don't personally feel that the "overlap" spells that let casters fill other roles are a huge problem. They waste spell slots doing something that a class proper in that role can do all day. In the case of the combat role, they require pre-combat buffing which is trivially easy to balance by simply attacking while they buff.
There's a ton of analysis out there, you either agree or disagree with it. But as I sit here and try to come up with the list of spells that break the logical definition of party balance, I'm coming up empty. I don't usually have a problem with casters. I just accept what they can do and exploit their limitations sometimes.
I think the OP was referring to how, for instance, overland flight can make ground based ambushes almost moot.
Supposing that the ability to mimic other classes and bypass encounters is the main issue of the disparity, could you ban certain spells and help the problem?
The thing is, no class can perfectly mimic others or entirely avoid encounters without expending precious resources to do so, either in the form of their spells or magic item usages / much money each day. If you build an adventure with enough encounters in it each day, you'll find that the smart casters will focus a little less on showing off on the smaller encounters, either by doing the melee themselves or trying to obliterate everything they first come across with their high-end spells, and a bit more on supporting the rest of the party until the big fights arrive. This is where the game works best, with the different classes supporting each other. The party wizard attempting to Maze, Disintegrate, or Prismatic Spray her way through the opposition is good, but SR / saves can negate some/all of the effectiveness there. However, when she mixes those in with buff spells for the rest of her friends, summons for cannon-fodder, divination spells for recon, and things like Telekinetic Charge to get the heavy damage melee fighters into range, she becomes amazingly valuable because, unlike her offensive abilities, no rolling to beat resistance or relying on a failed save is required.
TL;DR - don't ban spells, instead eliminate tactics / dungeon planning on the GMs part that allow casters to go nova without consequence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty much. The "broken" stuff involves a lot of RAW nonsense like Planar Binding and Simulacrum. I don't think this comes up a lot in actual games.
For things like Overland Flight and Teleport... well, it's just a matter of realizing that high level games are different from low-level games. The "bandits wait in the forest to ambush the PCs" style of encounters are over now. Instead, ambushes are "the demon is scrying on the PCs, will teleport him and his flunkies in to attack them when they least expect it". NPCs get things like Overland Flight and Teleport too.
I'm a proponent of giving Martials Nice Things, not banning spells. Balance is more fun when you're giving, not taking away.
Except for Blood Money. Ban that cheese.
Thats like 2/3rds of the arcane spell list, and like half of the divine spell list. You would be left with a relatively watered down spell list if you do that. If you want to limit the disparity in these terms I would consider replacing arcane magic entirely with the super genius games riven mage. At least then the class is designed with the limited 'spell' list in mind, it also eliminates alot of the disparity.
|
The simple answer to the question, IMHO, is to make sure your players trust you and encourage them to run anything "weird" by you before they pull it out during play. This will give you time to read the spell (which fixes a lot of problems) and if there is a problem or disagreement, talk about it.
Can some spells "break" a game? I would answer "Kinda".
My current favorite James Jacobs quote on Simulacrum sums up my view.
"Keeping it from being abused is what a good GM does.
A bad GM won't, but then again, a bad GM's game is going to have more problems than abused simulacrum spells."
As a GM, you hopefully have built up the trust of your players and selected players who aren't jackasses.
So given those two things, you can pretty much deal with anything that might appear.
Er... I don't think people are saying that everything is balanced. I agree that the game isn't balanced. That why I specifically said that you should give Martials Nice Things instead of nerfing spells. Giving people things is more fun than taking things away IMO.
My point was that high level games play a lot differently than low-level games. High level martial can jump off of a mountain and bend steel bars. Just embrace the fact that it's different and adjust your expectations accordingly. If you banned all of the, say, save-or-puppet spells, then you're telling an Enchanter that his character is now useless. If this is one of your PCs, then he's no longer having fun in your game. Is this "good" DMing? I would think it'd be better to throw in an undead encounter every now and then to play to the PC's weaknesses rather.
My advice to the OP is not to be an overbearing DM. Banning spells CAN solve the "disparity" problem but keep in mind that many players will now have a "the character I've been playing for 9 levels is now banned and I'm not having fun" problem.
As Ciretose says, it's not a huge problem if the players aren't being jackasses. And I honestly believe that most PCs aren't trying to "break" the game. Everybody has a vested interest in keeping the game fun.
Guys, if you're just going to whine that there's no such thing as balance or imbalance in a thread where a GM is asking how to fix balance just hit the "cancel" button instead of "submit post."
The OP has a problem and is looking for solutions, not people telling him he's imagining things.
There is no such thing as balance and imbalances. The OP in the case is more question spells that break the game. Not so much spell that make other characters not worth playing. If you think Casters are so good that it means there is no use playing a martial class that is your perception and preference. The guy who loves playing the fighter would strongly disagree. But that is their perception and preference. It's just different not an balance issue.
Now there are spells that as GM you need to plan for. IT is easier to do at low level as there are fewer of them. At higher level there more and combinations can be used to really give a GM problem. The same it true with Martial character too but the variables are fewer so you can keep track of what they do better. Spells are a lot variables and can just ruin your day. So really advice on how to deal with spells as GM is best.
What do you do with situation X when the caster has spells A, B, and C.
Supposing that the ability to mimic other classes and bypass encounters is the main issue of the disparity, could you ban certain spells and help the problem?
Yes, nerfing and/or banning problematic spells is the most effective way to reign casters in, and that's what I did during my 3.x years.
Of course, it's impossible to foresee every potential problem and very time-consuming to go through every spell in the game, so simply have a standing rule that you reserve the right to nerf and/or ban things that prove to be problematic. I do suggest pre-nerfing or pre-banning the obvious problem spells so that your players can get a sense of what you consider problematic and how you handle it. Offer the option to immediately pick a different spell if a player feels that your nerf/ban ruins the spell for him/her.
Supposing that the ability to mimic other classes and bypass encounters is the main issue of the disparity, could you ban certain spells and help the problem?
You could ban certain spells. But, if you and your players have a mutual respect for one another, you should trust them not to bring any ridiculous combo's to the table (ie blood money). Just as they should trust you not to put them in impossible scenarios.
As far as casters stepping on the toes of other players, that's really something the players should hash out among themselves. From a GM's perspective, it shouldn't matter whether the door was opened via disable device or knock.. Just that it's open.
Guys, if you're just going to whine that there's no such thing as balance or imbalance in a thread where a GM is asking how to fix balance just hit the "cancel" button instead of "submit post."
The OP has a problem and is looking for solutions, not people telling him he's imagining things.
Calling people you want to have a discussion with "whiners" isn't the best way to start off. Just sayin'.
Also, you'll notice at least two of us discussed ways in which to make casters actually not broken in a high-level game, namely by adapting tactics overall to suit the party's new power level.First, we have teleportation. Teleportation has similar implications to FTL.
Ships that can exit FTL flight anywhere coupled with ships that cannot be detected while FTL will open the possibility to genocidal interstellar wars that last all of five minutes.That's all long-range teleportation and teleport substitutes except teleportation circle. Even without WMDs it's a nigh-unstoppable assasination or terror weapon.
Unless you have no idea where the target is. Or some sort of anti-teleportation magic is in the destination. Or the place the party REALLY wants to be is another demi-plane. Or when you Scry on the area you want to teleport to, you don't see the small contingent of demons or whatever in the adjoining room that makes a supposed 'assassination' mission an ambush.
Speaking of WMDs, Contagion has to go. Probably also control weather, fire trap, explosive runes and, sadly, shrink item. Possibly even the Create Water cantrip, though the duration prevents the worst abuses without a very large force of clerics working together. You cannot have balance when a single druid can start a plague or send a thousand year flood down-river while a fighter can hit a single person at a time with a pointy bit of metal.
We're banning cantrips and orisons now? Also, you do realize that Control Weather not only has a huge wind-up time, it has stipulations on what you can do with it. You don't suddenly become Storm from the X-men. What are the issues with these other spells?
Then there are the minion spells. That's all the undead creation spells, all versions of planar ally and planar binding, simalcrum, and any charm or compulsion that can have a duration of more than a day.
Every single one of those spells has a lot of stipulations on what is and isn't possible with said 'minion'. They are by no means 'auto-win' spells. And that's not even going into the cost of some of them. Seriously, you lose a simulacrum, it's an expensive ordeal to restore it.
The last major problem group are the save or puppet spells. The dominates and stuff like murderous command in particular allow a caster to turn an enemy into an ally or a PC into an NPC. These produce a greater combat power swing than any other single target spell and are almost always far more effective against martials than casters. This is not balance.
Don't a lot of those also have restrictions on what you can force the new 'NPC' to do? And allow saves later on? And many are blocked by a simple 'Protection from <Insert Alignment Here>'?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
'Could' you? Sure! As a GM you can even say everyone literally poops rainbows. I don't see this issue.
With UMD, any class can be almost as proficient with magic via scrolls and items as any other. Instead of nerfing spells, or something else that is completely arbitrary, potentially very time consuming, etc, provide boons or other ways the 'lacking' classes can play up to casters.
All classes can use magic items. It's just a matter of how (x/day uses, innately, with a check, etc) they go about that. For example, provide new feats that might supplement charisma to UMD such as allowing a character that doesn't have a caster level to use their constitution modifier instead. Another feat to make it a class skill and you're essentially set to be on par with most casters.
The only thing they have to do at this point is spend move actions to retrieve an item from a handy haversack and they can use a scroll of wish with the best of them.
I'm not sure that going from 'some classes break the game' to 'ALL classes break the game' is an improvement.
|
|
Calling people you want to have a discussion with "whiners" isn't the best way to start off. Just sayin'.
A bit off topic, but...
People seem to always assume this is the goal. Sometimes you aren't trying to "start a discussion". Sometimes someone else says something that you really don't want to give the credabilty of discussion to.
Like if someone starts off with "Well you know how (X stereotype) is..." you don't really want to have discussion. Discussion gives what they are saying some sense of equal value.
So you dismiss them, calling them a racist for example. And then they get indignant and say "That isn't how you start a discussion."
But you weren't trying to start a discussion. You were trying to dismiss what they were saying.
I think that was the goal of using the word. To dismiss people who believe balance exists or is a goal.
So if you do...well...that is what he is saying. I'm not saying I agree, I'm just saying to often we pussyfoot around such things...
It's intra-party power level that's the most important to the "casters are unbalanced" group, I think. If casters have all of these goodies that other classes lack, then they can just do more than those other classes. Some people have less fun playing with classes that can do objectively less. Giving everybody nice toys just helps with this intra-party balance.
Once everybody's on the same level power-wise, the GM can adjust challenges accordingly. Now instead of wondering how to challenge a player that can cast Fly, they can design a situation that assumes or even requires players to be able to fly. You can have mysteries that can only be solved by use of Divination effects, or areas that are only reachable through Teleport. It's really just about tailoring games to the capabilities of your PCs. As long as every PC is relatively equal in capabilities, the game can't really be "broken".
They have a place in the conversation in the sense that they play the game. If I don't care about balance, and the DM bans my abilities in order to promote balance, then it's making the game worse for me. Especially so because the DM is trying to promote something that isn't important to me in the first place. A solipsist's views on government can be important because the government's policies affect the solipsist.
Talk to the group about your proposed changes, and the reasons for them. I'm sure they'll have input on the matter. This will go over better if it is a group decision.
|
To address a couple points.
- I do not have any current ongoing games, so I have no worries of suddenly nerfing a player's character. Also my group is very easy going and aren't interested in discussing this, thats' why I'm bringing it up here.
- Removing problem abilities is vastly preferable (IMHO) to giving new abilities to those without them.
- I've got my sight set on two types of spells. Those that allow a spellcaster to perform another class's role better than it can (ie. Knock, Tenser's Transformation, etc). And second, those that allow the party to ignore/bypass encounters (long range teleportation, rope trick, etc).
- I intend on re-including some of these abilities as extended rituals, so they are available, but just not in a combat situation.
- Debate of whether or not there is a problem is out of place, as my OP stated "supposing this is true". That's like going into a thread about atheism and quoting scripture to prove god does exist. It's irrelevant to the proposed discussion at best, and trolling at the worst.
Thank you Atarlost & ciretose*, having my original premise be dismissed is my biggest pet peeve and I appreciate you defending that, regardless of your opinion of said premise.
*And anyone else, if I missed someone.
Supposing that the ability to mimic other classes and bypass encounters is the main issue of the disparity, could you ban certain spells and help the problem?I prefer to nerf the problematic spells instead of bannin them completely. Although if a spell is too broken I do not see th problem banning it.
A example of a nerf that I have seen in this thread and I really like is to make that scry and teleportation can be blocked by a wall of stone. This give castles and dungeons a new reason to exist.
Lead lined walls can prevent the scry aspect of scry-n-fry if you don't want to go with banning teleportation through stone. I could see stone prevented teleportation creating more issues than it solves.
Well, let's take overland flight for example, since someone brought it up.
Are ground-based ambushes impossible once overland flight comes into play? First, it is a personal range spell, so you can't move the whole party. Second, at the level where overland flight is in play, NPCs should be accounting for flying enemies, especially if they're setting an ambush. Third, ranged weapons and spells exist.
The existence of this spell actually does surprisingly little to change the nature of the game. I absolutely would not consider banning it.
I feel like I have a similar rationale for just about every other spell, but heck, test me! What's another spell people are considering nerfing and why?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lead lined walls can prevent the scry aspect of scry-n-fry if you don't want to go with banning teleportation through stone. I could see stone prevented teleportation creating more issues than it solves.
Preventing Scry and Fry starts long before lead-lined walls.
The simplest, best protection against scrying is not to reveal your identity and to work through minions who themselves may not know your true identity.
Luckily, that sounds like classic villain behavior (both the minions and the disguises). It is also cheaper.
Hmmm. Rope trick doesn't seem to bypass encounters to me. Assuming it's used in a dungeon, an intelligent enemy with a sufficient Spellcraft check would look at that hanging rope and go "Yup, that's a rope trick" and would be able to lay some sort of ambush for when the PCs leave the extradimensional space. If the PCs just use it out in the wilderness to rest without being ambushed at night... what's wrong with that?
And Teleport has limitations. The PC has to be able to touch all of the creatures to teleport, so it's only a "get out of combat" card in cases where the group is clustered tightly together. At level 9 when the PC first learns it, they can only transport 4 medium sized creatures. If your party has 5 people, then... tough luck! And if the players have mounts, then even tougher luck.
Scry is strong, but it's not too difficult to disrupt. An intelligent and powerful being can shield themselves from it pretty easily, or actively mislead the PCs.
And I'll re-iterate:
1) NPCs get access to these abilities too. A BBEG teleporting a group of bad guys on top of the PCs is a good way to structure ambuses in high-level games.
2) High level PF is just... different. It's like in comics. Low level games are like Daredevil-- solving crimes, taking out drug dealers, things like that. High level games are like the Justice League-- taking on continent-sized starfish that can control the minds of everybody on earth. If you're throwing drug dealers at the Justice League, don't be surprised if they handle the encounter pretty easily.
To address a couple points.
- I do not have any current ongoing games, so I have no worries of suddenly nerfing a player's character. Also my group is very easy going and aren't interested in discussing this, thats' why I'm bringing it up here.
- Removing problem abilities is vastly preferable (IMHO) to giving new abilities to those without them.
- I've got my sight set on two types of spells. Those that allow a spellcaster to perform another class's role better than it can (ie. Knock, Tenser's Transformation, etc). And second, those that allow the party to ignore/bypass encounters (long range teleportation, rope trick, etc).
- I intend on re-including some of these abilities as extended rituals, so they are available, but just not in a combat situation.
- Debate of whether or not there is a problem is out of place, as my OP stated "supposing this is true". That's like going into a thread about atheism and quoting scripture to prove god does exist. It's irrelevant to the proposed discussion at best, and trolling at the worst.
Thank you Atarlost & ciretose*, having my original premise be dismissed is my biggest pet peeve and I appreciate you defending that, regardless of your opinion of said premise.
*And anyone else, if I missed someone.
If my post came off as dismissing I appologize. But, you did start your post with an assumption that I don't necessarily agree with: "Supposing that the ability to mimic other classes and bypass encounters is the main issue of the disparity"
The main issue with caster/martial disparity to me is the power creep. Casters are just more powerful than martials in most areas.
Now, the assumption aside, it seems as though you already have the right idea to address the problems you mentioned. Getting rid of certain spells like Knock and Transformation or Invisibility helps. I would look into a lot of the Transmutation spells as they tend to change the caster into something that can perform the duties of other classes.
Getting rid of Teleport and Overland Flight would help prevent encounter bypassing, as well as getting rid of a lot of the divination spells.
I disagree that rope trick is game-breaking. At best you can rest there for a while, but that doesn't mean they've bypassed the encounter.
I'm sure there's plenty other "problem" spells that mimic/bypass as you have described, I would give you more if I had the time to really dive into it.
Again, sorry if you felt I was dismissing you.
Preventing Scry and Fry starts long before lead-lined walls.
The simplest, best protection against scrying is not to reveal your identity and to work through minions who themselves may not know your true identity.
Luckily, that sounds like classic villain behavior (both the minions and the disguises). It is also cheaper.
True that. Can't scry something nobody's seen ;)
Also, I remember a thread about the cost of lead lined walls a while ago, but I missed the answer. How much does it cost to line a wall?
To address a couple points.
- I do not have any current ongoing games, so I have no worries of suddenly nerfing a player's character. Also my group is very easy going and aren't interested in discussing this, thats' why I'm bringing it up here.
- Removing problem abilities is vastly preferable (IMHO) to giving new abilities to those without them.
- I've got my sight set on two types of spells. Those that allow a spellcaster to perform another class's role better than it can (ie. Knock, Tenser's Transformation, etc). And second, those that allow the party to ignore/bypass encounters (long range teleportation, rope trick, etc).
- I intend on re-including some of these abilities as extended rituals, so they are available, but just not in a combat situation.
- Debate of whether or not there is a problem is out of place, as my OP stated "supposing this is true". That's like going into a thread about atheism and quoting scripture to prove god does exist. It's irrelevant to the proposed discussion at best, and trolling at the worst.
Thank you Atarlost & ciretose*, having my original premise be dismissed is my biggest pet peeve and I appreciate you defending that, regardless of your opinion of said premise.
*And anyone else, if I missed someone.
Unfortunately, you came to a place where a "Casters are broken!" vs "Caster are fine!" set of warring mentalities is currently going at it. As such, some of us made broader points than necessary to address your concern. Sorry about that.
The obvious answer, as Buri initially noted, is yes, a GM can ban or modify any problem elements from the rules, including sets of spells, that they find problematic. I think you'll be hard-pressed to find someone on this thread that will argue that. The real question is whether that's a good idea or not. There's workarounds like ramping up difficulty of individual foes, longer adventuring days, supernatural and magical boundaries that aren't easily surmountable, and last but not least enemy casters that can do the same things the party can. But, maybe you've thought of all that already, so I'll not make assumptions any futher.At the risk of losing focus on what it is you're specifically after, what about those spells you listed seems like it's too powerful? If you wish, i'll not critique your reasoning further, but Rope Trick and Transformation are ones I just didn't expect to see on that list, so my curiosity is getting the better of me.
Sure. And it’s not a bad idea to get rid of some of the more problematic spells anyway, such as Simulacrum. Some spells are difficult to adjudicate and subject to weird reading. I’d ban Simulacrum & Planar Binding (if we ever got that high) and The Blood Money feat.
Other spells always bring the game flow to a halt. I find that Web and Black Tentacles belong in this group. I ban them. We also ban multiple summons.
BUT there’s a huge difference from dumping some problematic spells, and dumping a entire spell concept, such as Teleportation or Flight spells. You simply need to plan around those.
Hmm, Knock? Not been an issue. But I can see the point.
So yeah, OP, if you see that some spells here are subject to abuse and are problematic, feel free to ban them. But don't do it in a knee jerk manner.
|
|
This is one of those questions where ten posters will give ten answers...
Having said that, I don't personally feel that the "overlap" spells that let casters fill other roles are a huge problem. They waste spell slots doing something that a class proper in that role can do all day. In the case of the combat role, they require pre-combat buffing which is trivially easy to balance by simply attacking while they buff.
The problem arises when you consider frequency of class skill use in an adventure. If an adventure calls for several climb checks needed to reach objective X, then Spider Climb isn't that much of a big deal - but if the instance is only once or twice (which is the most common experience for your average adventure) then the availability of the spell - and its ability to step on toes of other class abilities becomes more prevalent.
Pre-3rd edition I always felt that martial’s and thieves were the most practical and economical classes to play. Built-in reusable (and somewhat protected) class abilities saw to that. HP inflation post 3rd and the increase of numerical skill boosters spells have flipped that notion and made every caster able to compete in the skill department, which is bad game design. IMO of course.
I would dump or change any spell that gives +X to a skill or Stat.
If you want a spell that boosts Strength for example, I would make it be a temporary ability to lift more, break down objects easier and even add some combat function (DR penetration), but I wouldn't make it +4 to STR with subsequent to-hit and functional changes. That way your STR 12 character with Bull Strength can actually try to bust down a door and lift something heavy with his magical strength boost. vs. having just gain a slight bonus above mediocrity (STR 12 to 16 with Bull strength).
That also eliminates number inflation which makes combat such a hell to track - temp STR, CON, HP - save changes, bleh. Crap.
Or ignore my changes and just spam occurrences that require a skill/ability to be used more than once so that one prepared spell doesn’t cover the need as it arises, re: call for multiple climb checks over the course of several hours, etc. Multiple small fights instead of larger ones so buffs are used less, etc.
Again, I don't think adventures should be re-written to accommodate and work around the spell system, when it's the spell system that is the problem. That and the balance of abilities is garbage (again, just my opinion on the matter).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure that going from 'some classes break the game' to 'ALL classes break the game' is an improvement.
Magic is a core quality of the game. To use it is to merely play the game.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with getting rid of all spells that might eclipse a skill is that then parties that lack a character with that skill can't solve them.
If you put a cliff in the adventure, don't you want the party to get up it? So the barbarian scampers up with his good bonus and then what? Either he ties a rope to reduce the DC to something trivial or he can't for whatever reason, and then the guy with 8 Str and no ranks in climb is stuck and can't move on? What useful function does that serve? Are we punishing characters for their build choices?
Same argument for a locked door. I'll say right now that if I'm playing a caster in a party with someone that's keeping Disable Device maxed then I'm not even concerned with knock. Why would I waste money or spell slots on a magic effect that a party member can do better for free? (Knock is really a poor way to open locks in PF anyway).
|
|
- I've got my sight set on two types of spells. Those that allow a spellcaster to perform another class's role better than it can (ie. Knock, Tenser's Transformation, etc). And second, those that allow the party to ignore/bypass encounters (long range teleportation, rope trick, etc).
I would say that you should, as the first step, look what those spell do in Pathfinder as some of then have changed (your use of the name Tenser's Transformation instead of Transformation make me think that you are still using the 3.5 version of the spells).
Knock: "When you complete the casting of this spell, make a caster level check against the DC of the lock with a +10 bonus."
So 1 single d20 roll plus CL+10.
against
Rogue (or any class with disable device):
d20+dex bonus (a rogue, so we assume a +4 or +5) + 3 (class skill) +2 (masterwork tolld, if the wizard cast 2nd level spells the rogue has masterwork tools).
Total 1d20 +9 or +10. The Rogue can take 20 on the check.
but it defeat Hold portal and Arcane lock: arcane lock add +10 to the DC of opening a lock (and breaking it), so a character with disable device has exactly the same DC for opening it that a caster using Knock.
Hold portal simply lock the door and make it a bit harder to break it, so it is even less influent.
Transformation: "You gain a +4 enhancement bonus to Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution, a +4 natural armor bonus to AC, a +5 competence bonus on Fortitude saves, and proficiency with all simple and martial weapons. Your base attack bonus equals your character level (which may give you multiple attacks).
You lose your spellcasting ability, including your ability to use spell activation or spell completion magic items, just as if the spells were no longer on your class list."
Six level spell, so a 11th level wizard. At that level there are very good chances that the wizard is already benefiting from a belt giving him a +2 dexterity and constitution enhancement. And has at least a +2 amulet of natural armor.
So he get +2 to hit and damage from strength, +1 AC from dexterity, 2 point of natural armor and 1 hp/level.
What really matter is that he get a fighter BAB, +5 competence bonus to his Fortitude save and proficiency in all martial weapons. At the same time he lose all his spellcastign abilities.
Essentially he become a equal level warrior, almost certainly without any useful feat and probably with a mediocre weapon and bad AC.
A spell that I would put on a scroll for emergency use if I am in really deep, deep guano and for some reason can't avoid the fight, but not something that I would use more than once in a campaign.
Sure, a wizard casting mirror image and a few other buff spells, buying plenty of AC boosting items, learning what combat feat he could learn and buying a good magical weapon could be almost as good as a fighter when using this spell.
And he would be a very bad wizard.
Maybe a specific build can find a routine use of this spell (Dragon disciple?), but if your whole career as a wizard or sorcerer is about mis-using this spell, your first 10 or 11 levels will be very interesting.
To me it seem that it can be misused only if the PC is created at 11th level from scratch. But creating high level characters that didn't had the need to live through the lowest levels is always problematic.
Teleportation: "You must have some clear idea of the location and layout of the destination." People tend to dismiss the first part of that phrase, but it is very important. If you scry my now and see me typing at my computer you know the layout of my room, but you have no idea of where it is located in the world.
Some thing on the desk can give you a clue about the nation, but nothing more. Not enough to "have a clear idea of the location" where I am.
Enjoy rolling on the False destination table.
Well know locations like the King audience room can obviate to that problem, but people should protect them against this kind of tricks.
Greater Teleport resolve that problem, but we are speaking of a 7th level spells, I hope that the BEEG will be prepared for that at that level.
In older editions using gorgon blood in the mortar was a way to stop all planar travel, teleportation included.
It wouldn't be hard to develop an alchemical or magical procedure to get a similar effect. After all it is possible to magically harden a structure walls but there is no spell in Pathfinder that do that (there was a 3.5 spell in the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting but it was not updated to Pathfinder).
Find Traps: A very nice bonus to your (generally non class) Perception check to find traps.
It don't enable you to find magical traps.
So you get less than half of the Trapfinding ability.
It can be annoying till it last, but it consume valuable resources and has a duration of 1 minute/level. Unless the cleric benefit for short gaming day he rarely can substitute for the rogue with it.
- * -
Overland fly, Teleport, Phantom Steed, Communal and Phantom Chariot to move along avoiding most terrain obstacles. All work and change middle to high level play. I think that they are part of the game.
You have the player make checks against being shallowed by quicksand or other hazards while in a swamp more than once or twice during a gamin session? Or even multiple sessions?
Most GM after they have communicated to the players that the environmental dangers exists and seen that they have taken adequate measures to prevent them avoid asking for repeated skill checks.
It will bog down the with little fuin for most people.
Same thing for desert hazards and other environmental hazards.
Even in a book or film that kind of perils are dealt off screen for most of the time.
Same thing when they allow the PC to surpass the low level moocks of the BEEG. A ambush by 10 1st level warriors is a speed bump for a group of 9th level characters.
- * -
So, to sum it up, while some spell can be problematic an can be misused, I don't feel that a spellcaster can substitute for the other characters on a regular basis outside of theorycraft.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with getting rid of all spells that might eclipse a skill is that then parties that lack a character with that skill can't solve them.
Problems should never setup to be single source solution.
There should be a myriad number of ways of dealing with "a problem", the problem is - for the last 20 or so years, hell even going back further - problems in modules are presented in a "win button" fashion.If you put a cliff in the adventure, don't you want the party to get up it? So the barbarian scampers up with his good bonus and then what? Either he ties a rope to reduce the DC to something trivial or he can't for whatever reason, and then the guy with 8 Str and no ranks in climb is stuck and can't move on? What useful function does that serve? Are we punishing characters for their build choices?
When did not securing a rope and helping those with trouble climbing get thrown out of the game as a solution to a problem? Should casters be all things at all times, or even "potentially be"? I say no.
Again though, it's looking at how challenges are written in most modules. There should be obvious workarounds, magical ones and the long way. Each one viable: since the first two are probably trapped anyway. There should never be: "the players must do X" to "get around Y problem" when it comes to scenario design. Players are going to think up a bizarre work around anyway, but from a DM perspective I think it’s a good way to present each challenge with multiple solutions when those challenges are created.
As to punishing characters - no, I don't take that approach. I am merely rewarding the ranger or barbarian for his build choice and skill investment, he can pass those benefits onto his team if he likes. Every character should not be able to do every thing. That works for martials, but not the other way around.
Same argument for a locked door. I'll say right now that if I'm playing a caster in a party with someone that's keeping Disable Device maxed then I'm not even concerned with knock. Why would I waste money or spell slots on a magic effect that a party member can do better for free? (Knock is really a poor way to open locks in PF anyway).
While Knock is not as offensive, it is both faster and safer than standard DD on a lock. To me when the wizard uses Knock it's like a scene from a movie, where the master thief is getting out his toolkit to open the locked door, and the big burly star uses the shotgun to blow away the lock and says "step aside". Burly star (competent), master thief (comic relief). Knock is not as egregious as some other spells but it's pretty fast and safer than regular lock picking, which puts it in the toe stepping category though.
Create Pit has a DC25 Climb check listed in the spell text. Is your point that this is too high, then (I certainly don't disagree).
I'm not sure that going from 'some classes break the game' to 'ALL classes break the game' is an improvement.Magic is a core quality of the game. To use it is to merely play the game.
Which means if it can be used to avoid playing the game, by bypassing and trivializing encounters and making investigations into 'I cast a spell and solve it', there's something wrong.
Thank you for agreeing with me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only Disparity comes from poor DMing. No amount of house rules can fix it.
I'm not sure that going from 'some classes break the game' to 'ALL classes break the game' is an improvement.Magic is a core quality of the game. To use it is to merely play the game.Which means if it can be used to avoid playing the game, by bypassing and trivializing encounters and making investigations into 'I cast a spell and solve it', there's something wrong.
That *IS* the game.
It's a FANTASY Roleplaying game, with "magic".
Create Pit has a DC25 Climb check listed in the spell text. Is your point that this is too high, then (I certainly don't disagree).I don't own a lot of non-core products, so I had to look this up in the PSRD, and saw no Climb DC listed. I assumed that there wasn't one. Guess I was wrong.
"The pit's coarse stone walls have a Climb DC of 25." Where were you looking?
If the party has someone with trapfinding and disable device, I rarely see a caster type prepare Find Traps or Knock. Other spells like Invisibility and Fly can help bypass encounters but they usually involve a substantial investment of resources (to cover the entire party) to make them worthwhile. Higher level spells like Teleport can certainly allow a party to bypass encounters but, as mentioned, these tactics carry their own risks (limited use, or skipping an encounter that would otherwise provide the party with relevant info about their current goal).
"The pit's coarse stone walls have a Climb DC of 25." Where were you looking?Create Pit has a DC25 Climb check listed in the spell text. Is your point that this is too high, then (I certainly don't disagree).I don't own a lot of non-core products, so I had to look this up in the PSRD, and saw no Climb DC listed. I assumed that there wasn't one. Guess I was wrong.
Create Pit is also a CRB spell, so if you were looking on only core products that shouldn't be a problem.
Which means if it can be used to avoid playing the game, by bypassing and trivializing encounters and making investigations into 'I cast a spell and solve it', there's something wrong.
Thank you for agreeing with me.
I did nothing of the sort. If your story arch is solvable by a single spell then you need to write a better story. If you don't like an encounter that's solvable by a single spell then create better encounters. If neither of these appeal to you, the PFRPG is not the game for you.
In the future, don't put words in my mouth. I never said there was anything wrong. In fact, I encouraged to "spread the wealth" of magic, as it were. Your post is kind of repulsive by attempting to baselessly co opt my statement to mean its exact opposite.
Might I refer you to this course: https://www.coursera.org/course/thinkagain
There totally are. Also, I was speaking to the spell and not about party composition.