Reasonable Spell nerfs!


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hey guys! I am working on a doc for reasonable spell nerfs in pathfinder! Many times it gets talked about that magic needs nerfing, but actual suggestions are pretty rare!

I have been writing my nerfs down for little while. I am not really far in, but I will continually be updating the google document. If you have any comments or questions, let me know!

Spell Nerfs


The basic problem is that martial classes get 99% "stuff to do in combat" and casters get 50% combat, 50% out of combat utility, and so they can totally ignore fights and break the campaign by doing the impossible. This is a systemic problem not really fixed by individual nerfs. You either have to give martials the great out of combat stuff, generally with magic items, or powerful creatures granting boons, or take away the ability for magic-users to do stuff out of combat. The second clearly isn't a nice idea for Pathfinder, so stock your fighter up on useful items.


I like what 5e did with Wish.

If you use it for anything other than duplicating a lower-level spell, you take d10/spell level damage every time you cast another spell until you rest. Then your STR drops to 3 for 2d4 days. Then, there's a 33% chance of never being able to cast Wish again, ever.

Honestly, there are quite a few things sprinkled through the 5e spell lists that I believe take the power back down to a manageable level.

EDIT: JUST TO BE CLEAR, I'm not saying go play 5e. I'm simply saying it might be worth browsing the spells for some ideas.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For explosive runes/symbol spells, it might be better to have an unused rune/symbol lock out that spell slot/use per day until it is either dismissed/dispelled or activated.


Simon Legrande wrote:
I'm simply saying it might be worth browsing the spells for some ideas.

This is a good idea, thanks!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

IF you want to nerf spells, I think it would be 'better' to restrict access to spells.

Eg pick a school, pick an opposed school. You can't use the opposed school at all and neutral school spells need 2 slots.

Or eg pick a 'theme': Fire Wizard gets fire-based spells and no others.

Do the same for Clerics and Sorcs/etc.

This removes a lot of the supposed 'narrative power' of spellcasters while still allowing them to be good at the narrower range of things they can still do.

You could still adjust individual spells as you see fit, but making eg Hold Person last 1 round maximum simply means that it won't be used - it's 3rd level for a wizard, and making it functionally equivalent to a 1st level spell (Command) means other spells (like Haste) will be used even more often.
On the other hand, nerfing Protection from Evil/etc in the way you have is something my group already does.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Quite honestly, a lot of these are very heavy handed, some ridiculously so.

Compare the nerfed Color Spray to the nerfed Hold Person. Why would I even consider Hold Person in comparison? Or even in general?

In regards to the nerfed Invisibility, you do realize that the spell Vanish exists, yes? First level spell that does everything the nerfed Invisibility does, save with a cap to the scaling.

If this is all to nerf casters, well, there's a thing about nerfing magic generally. You weaken it for everyone, casters, monsters, and others alike. For example, the Ninja's Invisible Blade Master Trick takes quite the hit with the Greater Invisibility changes.

Some spells certainly could use some changing, but nothing should be nerfed into uselessness. You might as well ban the spell at that point. And the big thing is, none of the changes happen in a vacuum. All of them affect the whole of the system.


Yeah, it's just best to nerf access to spells and nerf summoning spells. Force all full casters to pick one and only one school of magic they can cast from, for example.


From the discussions I have seen different people have different problems with different spells and sometimes different overall problems from spells in general.

I am on a phone right now so I did not click in the link but I would write down the problem each nerf is supposed to prevent. There should also be a statement on how much.magic. is supposed to be held back.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You've made all the good conjurations useless. I think you've turned a caster into someone who fails a percentage of the time and then does minimal impact. Stinking Cloud the works for one additional round is marginal for a 3rd level spell. There are some spells that could be limited, like Wish, but honestly just ban casters or play a different game, don't just force casters to be impotent. Boring.


I think that you are trying too hard and you are doing more harm than good but here is my list: (ignore the numbers, i copied the information below from my list of house rules)
49) The snowball spell to the evocation school and is subject to SR.
50) If a subject makes the initial save of the terrible remorse spell then the subject isn't staggered but only takes -2 penalty to AC.
51) The burning disarm spell has a will saving throw instead of a reflex one. In addition when the subject makes the save he takes 5d4 fire damage, when the subject fails the save he drops the held item.
52) The emergency force sphere spell is a 5th level sorcerer/wizard spell instead of a 4th level spell.
53) The acute senses spell gives a +5 enhancement bonus on Perception checks (+10 at 8th caster level and +15 at 16th caster level) instead of +10 (+20 at 8th and +30 at 16th).
54) The subject of the spell irresistable dance, who made his save, can act normally (but take the associated penalties) while dancing for 1 round.
55) The subject of the spell suffocation who makes his initial save isn't staggered.
56) The spell feeblemind doesn't carry a -4 for it's save for arcane caster subjects.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you're going to nerf spells, do it based on experience, not theory. Many spells are broken in theory, but when reality is applied, not so much. Some of the so-called broken spells only break when mixed with lots of game downtime and money. Some break until your opponents change up (how many creatures are immune to mind-affecting spells, for example). Others have simple counters (dirt floors and flour work well against invisibility, as does just a muddy streambed).


Lyee wrote:
The second clearly isn't a nice idea for Pathfinder

Why not?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Things that were changed:

Well, I notice that Protection from Evil takes a nerf bat to the face while Charm and Dominate remain the same.

Changing the range on Glitterdust doesn't change the fact it utterly negates stealth and invisiblity, and with such a short range you'll always lose about half the sphere of the spell if you don't want to blind yourself.

Hold Person is now AWFUL, especially with color spray still stunning (and having an effect on a failed save). Also, daze exists and is at-will.

Things that were not changed:

Level 1.

Endure elements is still 24 hours immunity from the environment.

Infernal healing still exists.

Abundant Ammo still mocks mundanes pretty hard.

Obscuring mist still gives rogues and archers a giant middle finger.

Unseen Servant can still be weaponized.

Are all the other Detect X spells going to get the Detect Magic treatment or is it special?

Charm Person still exists and still contains that clause on forcing them to do what you want with an opposed CHA check.

Magic Aura is still days/level "No officer, I have no magic items" unless they're willing to blow an Identify on everything you have.

Silent Image is still either the greatest spell ever (I create a wall of lava, they have to touch it to get a save) or utterly useless (they don't feel the heat so they automatically know it's fake).

Level 2.

Obscure Object utterly defeats scrying if you can prep it 3 times a day. At high enough levels, you can hide houses.

Fog Cloud, Obscuring Mist but targetable!

Hideous Laughter, now better than Hold Person!

Oppressive Boredom, ditto! Actually, slightly worse, but still, Will save or do nothing for rounds/level. Level lower too.

Shatter. Instantly destroy anything nonmagical! Combine with dispel magic to make it nonmagical!

Make Whole, never hand your players anything broken and assume it's worthless. Recreate artifacts (with enough CL).

Rope Trick, because why would I ever have to worry about camping in the middle of a warzone?

And I'm going to stop here, but I think that should give you something to chew on. Honestly, all of your choices look like they're pulled from a specific player or guide. I tried to avoid too much splatbooky stuff, but your inclusion of Blood Money means you were probably looking at all spells, as it's from a pretty obscure source (an AP). Your targeted spells seem heavily Conjuration or defensive in nature, while leaving by far the most powerful level 1 enchantment spell (Charm Person) and illusion spell (Silent Image) untouched. You seem to have given very little attention to any school except Conjuration. Even within that you've missed Snowball, though to be fair it's not on the d20pfsrd Wiz/Sor list for some reason. Additionally the out-of-combat stuff (except for Alarm) is completely untouched.

Be honest, are you just pulling from one of the God Wizard guides and selectively nerfing those? Because that's kind of slipshod.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CWheezy wrote:
Hey guys! I am working on a doc for reasonable spell nerfs in pathfinder! Many times it gets talked about that magic needs nerfing, but actual suggestions are pretty rare! . . . .

I'm sorry. I don't really have any suggestions for spells. I understand that spells have more utility than running up and hitting it with a stick, which is why when I change the game, I try to make skills more useful, make feats scale better, and give martials abilities that are more versatile.

Let martial abilities stand in for some skill checks, like a dirty trick or disarm stand in for intimidate and diplomacy. Let martials start creating crowd control, like hammers possibly create difficult terrain or arrows and darts treated as caltrops. Just think of something cool and let it happen.

That's just my opinion. I could be wrong.


Are you nerfing the enemies too? Enemy NPC spellcasters are going to be equally nerfed; are you rewarding the same amount of xp for a dead caster as a dead nerfed caster?

How about monsters that can cast spells, such as dragons? Are you nerfing their spells? If you are, again, are you rewarding the same xp for a dead nerfed dragon as a dragon whose spells are untouched?

What about spell-like abilities? Monsters with SLA?

Well, if you weakened the power of SLAs, it sure makes Supernaturals look more powerful by comparison. What about supernatural abilities? Looks like you need to nerf those too.

The Archive is right, you're opening a whole can of worms by starting down this road.


Detect Magic: This should be left alone. Most problems with this spell have more to do with people not following the rules and/or problems with the illusion school being too easy to pick up. It is easier to force a caster level check or to avoid detect magic being able to notice the school is there.

Alarm: If you leave detect magic alone it will be less of a a problem, well assuming players don't forget to use detect magic anyway. Magic mouth is also a pretty good stand in, so you will have to nerf that also.

Blood Money: Make it drain instead of damage or just make it a flat stat reduction that cures on its own, but no form of magic can accelerate it, not even miracle or wish.
I do like the spell because you might forget to buy a component, but I think ability damage is to easy to cure.

Instead of commenting on every spell, I will just say many of these changes were not needed. As an example phantasmal killer already sucked since it requires 2 saves. I would rather just throw a fireball spell at someone and at least get half damage.


Lathiira wrote:
If you're going to nerf spells, do it based on experience

Don't assume I am not, thanks!

Anyway, to address some concerns!

1. I think some people are underestimating range and not knowing the difference between paralyzed and stunned. Also, many status effects are roughly equivalent to save or die (Nauseated, stunned, paralyzed, sleeping, etc. Staggered is close, but not quite).

2. I am not really touching many illusion spells because the base rules on them are not clear. If anyone knew how to actually run them maybe I could work on them more, but as is not really.

2a. As a corollary to this, I am not worrying about spells that need clarification as to what you can actually do with them, such as charm person. Those are supposedly coming eventually. It isn't a nerf so much as fixing something that was broken rules wise.

3. Mentioning spells that I may have missed is good! Pathfinder has way too many things, no one can remember them all. Some of them are missed intentionally, for example:

Shatter: I have never seen this used, ever. Dispel magic does not make an item not magic, it just suppresses the effect of it, so dispel shatter does nothing

4. Limiting spell access does not fix the problem. The spells themselves would still be broken, and the game would still be not playable, it would just happen "whenever". I agree that there should be more limited spell access, but paizo wants specialists to do everything, so that is that.

Thanks for the responses! I will be updating the nerfs soon ish


1. My issue with paralyzed v stunned is that all paralyzed does over stun is give you the ability to coup de grace. Flyers still fall with stunned (can't take an action to stay up) and swimmers still drown (can't take an action to swim).

2. The easiest way to do illusions is to require that a specific action type be spent before "interaction" is declared. Anything above swift. Whether this is a move action for perception to search a room, an attack action to shoot an arrow at the wall, a standard to cast/concentrate on detect magic, some sort of action needs to be spent. Probably grant the +4 if they make the spellcraft check that it's an illusion.

3. Right, that might have changed. Disjunction then. That explicitly says they're made normal objects. It's still a pretty mean thing to do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Uh. I don't think the difference between paralyzed and stunned is enough to warrant the giant power gap between the 'nerfed' color spray and nerfed Hold Person.

Color Spray: Save and be staggered, fail and be stunned for one round. One failed save for full effect. 1st level spell.

Hold Person: Save and be fine, fail and be paralyzed. On your turn try and save again to still have a move action. 2 failed saves for full effect. 3rd level spell.

Stunned vs. paralyzed is debatable. Paralyzed will remove three more AC than stunned, but allows mental actions. Stunned prevents -all- actions and drops anything they were holding.

And again, what about spell-likes and things that emulate the effects of spells? Do they just have to deal with it? I will again cite Invisible Blade as an example of a possibly unintended casualty.

It's a whole can of worms being opened, not just some spell nerfs for casters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No spells should be nerfed the system assumes that level of power and frankly some of the restrictions your suggesting would send me away from the game entirely. If your concerned about martial vs caster then buff the martials, if you just don't like magic, well that's a different game.


I would be way more concerned with the following spells types if I was going on a nerfing spree:

Enchantment: Maybe you haven't had the pleasure to experience how entirely game breaking this school of spells can be. Someone whose specced for it can create a hit squad off of charm person, a first level spell. Take charm monster in and it expands. I literally specced out a PFS sorcerer who was rocking +12 to charisma checks with charm person to make my pets do what they want by level 6, and he easily would've had the cash to do so. This is by far the most disruptive school of magic.

Animate Dead: Creating an army of time sucking animated things that can be as effective as the entire party (at least when including the cleric(or other caster).

Scry & Fry: I don't even think I need go into this one.

I do usually make detect magic a 1st level spell. Mostly cause I hate "I detect magic" with every foot step and magical traps being ridiculous easy to find (I know there are tricks around that but they do tend to get repetitive.)

Prestidigitation is particularly broken from what it does for the spell level, but doesn't really break anything balance wise.

Oh, and so I don't forget, my biggest grievance, dazing spell! Just ban that, everything else is fine.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to point out half of these nerfs are significant buffs to the point of which the new color spray is one of the most powerful spells in the game. 2 Rounds of staggered is insanely strong as a swift for a 5-6th level slot.

As for other's you effectively remove some spells from the game. If you want to ban them just ban them don't insult your players.

Blood money is either an all or nothing spell. It either functions giving you free stoneskins/restorations/exct or does literally nothing.

Blur is already mediocre/terrible, why make it worse?

Command undead nerf makes it functionally impossible for bad guys to have undead in conjunction with living targets.

You buff the most broken 3rd level outside of possibly haste (Animate dead) for absolutely no reason.

You also nerf the ever living heck out of the defensive spells which were largely terrible in the first place but leave out nerfs for spells which are actually strong at defensive abilities like mirror image, resist energy, resinous skin, and defending bone.

I concur with some other posters here.

If you truly want to nerf spells limit the caster to a maximum of 2 schools of magic.

TLDR: Either prevent them from casting the spell or don't, reducing the spell to trash is the same as banning it because no one will pick it. Seriously, don't insult your players intelligence.


Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:

I would be way more concerned with the following spells types if I was going on a nerfing spree:

Enchantment: Maybe you haven't had the pleasure to experience how entirely game breaking this school of spells can be. Someone whose specced for it can create a hit squad off of charm person, a first level spell. Take charm monster in and it expands. I literally specced out a PFS sorcerer who was rocking +12 to charisma checks with charm person to make my pets do what they want by level 6, and he easily would've had the cash to do so. This is by far the most disruptive school of magic.

Animate Dead: Creating an army of time sucking animated things that can be as effective as the entire party (at least when including the cleric(or other caster).

Scry & Fry: I don't even think I need go into this one.

I do usually make detect magic a 1st level spell. Mostly cause I hate "I detect magic" with every foot step and magical traps being ridiculous easy to find (I know there are tricks around that but they do tend to get repetitive.)

Prestidigitation is particularly broken from what it does for the spell level, but doesn't really break anything balance wise.

Oh, and so I don't forget, my biggest grievance, dazing spell! Just ban that, everything else is fine.

A lot of things can break someone's game depending on how much the player focuses on then and the GM. That does not make them broken universally.

Many monsters are flat out immune to it, and it is often handled by a 2nd protection from ____ and/or mindblank at higher levels. This is one reason why players should not put all of their eggs in one basket.

As for animate dead, they cost money, and they have to be kept somewhere. It is also possible for an opposing cleric to take control of them. I am not saying do it to the player all of the time, but it is something that can be controlled.

Scry and Fry might get the players killed if they get to the boss before they are high enough level to fight him. If such a tactic were common I would think those high enough level to deal with it would have a way to do so. I understand that this will not always happen, but certain people should know they are making enemies.

Detect Magic is a 60 foot cone. There is no reason to use it every step or the player can just say he uses it every 30 feet to keep the game moving. Since you know he is using it every so often just take it into account while they move.

Prestidigitation barely does anything. Some GM's are very lenient with it, but that is on the GM. Don't let it do anything a higher level spell is required for and that solves a lot of problems.

I do understand how dazing spell can be a problem. That is when you talk to the players and let them know anything they use is on the table for you to use also. If they want to go for it, I would be ok with it. If not, the problem is solved.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

DSP Psionics is how I would accept casters being rebalanced.

If you really want to tone down casters without making them less fun, just re-fluff psionics as magic and have people play that.

EDIT: You will notice how certain spells don't exist, while other things have been redone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, save or dies/save or lose spells shouldn't exist. Color Spray, Hold Person, Sleep and the like are just horribly designed.

Dazing Spell should not exist, nor should, IMHO, any teleportation spell with a range listed in units greater than yards.

Spells like Charm and Dominate should have saves made at the start of every round, before the target acts; they're just too powerful and game-breaking to be 'once it landed, you have a puppet'.

Divinations ... oy. Where to start ...


Zhayne wrote:

Well, save or dies/save or lose spells shouldn't exist. Color Spray, Hold Person, Sleep and the like are just horribly designed.

Dazing Spell should not exist, nor should, IMHO, any teleportation spell with a range listed in units greater than yards.

I disagree.

Psionic Version of Dazing Spell


Hi! I would like to note that some posters are not correctly parsing my changes.

For example, I nerfed animate dead, not buffed it.

Also, some posters are lying about the realities of the changes, such as "Command undead nerf makes it impossible for bad guys to have undead", or "Colour spray staggers for two rounds(???)". There are many ways for bad guys to have undead as minions, not just one spell.

I think another thing is that magic has been so insanely powerful for SO LONG that any nerfs seem crazy. Incorrectly parsing changes in order to post vitriol against any attempt is not welcome in my thread thanks!

I will be continuing on with my changes, more feedback is welcome!

EDIT: As a fun fact, protection from evil basically defeats 90% of monster tactics in Wrath of the Righteous.


CWheezy wrote:
Hi! I would like to note that some posters are not correctly parsing my changes.
CWheezy wrote:
Also, some posters are lying about the realities of the changes, such as "Command undead nerf makes it impossible for bad guys to have undead", or "Colour spray staggers for two rounds(???)". There are many ways for bad guys to have undead as minions, not just one spell.

Without command undead most arcane casters can't have undead as slaves.

Color spray doesn't exist in a vaccume. To put in perspective how silly your suggestion is extended color spray is a level 2 spell. Irresistible dance is 1 round hard CC as an 8th on a fail. Your suggestion is broken.

CWheezy wrote:


I think another thing is that magic has been so insanely powerful for SO LONG that any nerfs seem crazy. Incorrectly parsing changes in order to post vitriol against any attempt is not welcome in my thread thanks!

No it's just insulting your players. The suggested spells are inferior versions of existing spells. You have to nerf so many spells to make any of the spells you changed even mildly attractive that it's an insult to player intelligence.

I see you nerf Invisibility, Greater but you ignore Shadow Projection. You buff color spray at levels >2. You nerf hold person but leave HASTE ALONE! Haste would be powerful as a 7th level spell.

CWheezy wrote:

I will be continuing on with my changes, more feedback is welcome!

EDIT: As a fun fact, protection from evil basically defeats 90% of monster tactics in Wrath of the Righteous.

Prot evil is assumed in monster difficulty statistics. You should add 1-2 to any monster with a mind effecting ability if you alter Prot spells.


Undone wrote:


Prot evil is assumed in monster difficulty statistics. You should add 1-2 to any monster with a mind effecting ability if you alter Prot spells.

Do you have a source for this?

Quote:
Without command undead most arcane casters can't have undead as slaves.

False


CWheezy wrote:
Undone wrote:


Prot evil is assumed in monster difficulty statistics. You should add 1-2 to any monster with a mind effecting ability if you alter Prot spells.

Do you have a source for this?

Do you not assume a +5 weapon for CR 15 monsters either? Or cloaks of resistance?


I will explain why I left haste alone: If you cast haste, The fight still happens. Other people get to attack, your guys still have to attack, things can happen, etc. Haste doesn't let you skip anything or end the fight right there. It gives you a pretty strong advantage but it doesn't make you immune to anything.


Undone wrote:
Do you not assume a +5 weapon for CR 15 monsters either? Or cloaks of resistance?

This doesn't answer my question. I guess you are just assuming it to be true with no source?

ALSO: Cr system is almost 100% terrible, many many monsters are way tougher than their cr, and many are actually much weaker.


CWheezy wrote:
I will explain why I left haste alone: If you cast haste, The fight still happens. Other people get to attack, your guys still have to attack, things can happen, etc. Haste doesn't let you skip anything or end the fight right there. It gives you a pretty strong advantage but it doesn't make you immune to anything.

What this tells me is that you're fine with OP spells as long as they don't help the caster in any way.


Also, being attacked because I missed a spell is pretty disheartening. Instead of saying your disagreements in such a way as to be very insulting, why not just say 'I see you nerfed invisibility, why not shadow conjuration? It is pretty powerful as well!"

That way I get information on something I may have missed, instead of just feeling like I am being attacked personally


Undone wrote:


What this tells me is that you're fine with OP spells as long as they don't help the caster in any way.

This is a lie, because haste helps the caster. Please do not lie in discussions


3 people marked this as a favorite.
CWheezy wrote:

Also, being attacked because I missed a spell is pretty disheartening. Instead of saying your disagreements in such a way as to be very insulting, why not just say 'I see you nerfed invisibility, why not shadow conjuration? It is pretty powerful as well!"

That way I get information on something I may have missed, instead of just feeling like I am being attacked personally

No it's just a point.

If you go through nerfing spells for the reasons you stated you'd have like 10-15 spells which weren't changed.

It also sounds like pathfinder isn't for you. Pathfinder is a high magic realm. People who want low magic aren't going to enjoy this. I'm GM'ing a game of high level (14) right now and to be honest the only unable to GM spells are things like Animate Dead, Simulacrum, and 9th level in general which break fundamentals of the game. Shockingly with just a few problem spells (Which either have duration of permanent or defeat all counter measures.

Spells are powerful because otherwise no one would play a spellcaster. They're more work, they require system mastery, they require good guesses as to what you'll fight, aren't as "Heroic" as a strong guy that hits things, and they STILL don't dominate high level play in actual combat, the archers do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:
CWheezy wrote:

Also, being attacked because I missed a spell is pretty disheartening. Instead of saying your disagreements in such a way as to be very insulting, why not just say 'I see you nerfed invisibility, why not shadow conjuration? It is pretty powerful as well!"

That way I get information on something I may have missed, instead of just feeling like I am being attacked personally

No it's just a point.

If you go through nerfing spells for the reasons you stated you'd have like 10-15 spells which weren't changed.

It also sounds like pathfinder isn't for you. Pathfinder is a high magic realm. People who want low magic aren't going to enjoy this. I'm GM'ing a game of high level (14) right now and to be honest the only unable to GM spells are things like Animate Dead, Simulacrum, and 9th level in general which break fundamentals of the game. Shockingly with just a few problem spells (Which either have duration of permanent or defeat all counter measures.

Spells are powerful because otherwise no one would play a spellcaster. They're more work, they require system mastery, they require good guesses as to what you'll fight, aren't as "Heroic" as a strong guy that hits things, and they STILL don't dominate high level play in actual combat, the archers do.

This, pathfinder is a high level magic world that assumes casters can do these amazing things. If you don't want that level of power there are other systems which would be better suited to playing. A large reason I played 4th Ed Dnd once then never again was the massive nerf to out of combat utility makes took.


I think the problem you're facing at the moment is that none of the spells exist in a vacuum. If you don't update ALL of them, you're going to miss something that becomes the "new best". A 15 foot range stun is directly inferior to a medium range paralysis (at least in range), but then there's spells inbetween that do similar things (lose actions) for rounds/level instead of 1 round.

Honestly, if you're building from the ground up psionics or words of power are probably better if you want to ensure balance. The modular building blocks or "this spell, but I pump more power into it" lets you keep everything approximately in line. You could form them using that system and then write them out fully made, if you wanted. It also gives players more options (as many a magus has said about shocking grasp). So a low level enchantment might stagger, level 2 dazes, level 3 stuns, then level 4 paralyzes (or whatever order you feel like).

Either way it's probably better to write out hard standards like: no more than 1 round of lost actions unless it's spell level 5+, nothing permanent until you can cure it (or maybe not until spell level 8+), nothing that lets you skip material costs, and nothing that lasts for multiple battles unless it's spell level 3+ or a weaker effect. These are all random, but either way you need some actual hard standards to apply.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Out of curiosity, by the time you get done throwing the nerf bat at all this stuff, what's the point of playing a caster?

First, you really just nerfed their combat spells for the most part when the bulk of their real "campaign power" comes from out of combat spells, most of which are higher level.

Second, casters are already far from what they were in 3.5 in a much more negative way, btw.

Third, martials are dramatically more powerful than they were in 3.5, to the point of largely being more powerful than casters for longer.

Seriously, consider fighters and paladins in particular. Build a fighter archer, a monk archer, or a paladin anything and then let's talk. I have seen all three of those dominate games far more than any caster ever, ever has.

Sure, a caster at 17th level is going to be extremely powerful, even relative to those classes. However from levels 1-5 or so the casters are dead weight. From 6-10 they are carrying their own weight. From 11-13 they are pulling their weight in combat and more than their weight out of combat. From 14+ they are net contributors.

Want to know what the best group in the world looks like? Probably 2-3 (archers) fighters, a cleric with the travel domain, and a bard. They will *murder* anything that you put in their path.


Bave wrote:

Out of curiosity, by the time you get done throwing the nerf bat at all this stuff, what's the point of playing a caster?

First, you really just nerfed their combat spells for the most part when the bulk of their real "campaign power" comes from out of combat spells, most of which are higher level.

Second, casters are already far from what they were in 3.5 in a much more negative way, btw.

Third, martials are dramatically more powerful than they were in 3.5, to the point of largely being more powerful than casters for longer.

Seriously, consider fighters and paladins in particular. Build a fighter archer, a monk archer, or a paladin anything and then let's talk. I have seen all three of those dominate games far more than any caster ever, ever has.

Sure, a caster at 17th level is going to be extremely powerful, even relative to those classes. However from levels 1-5 or so the casters are dead weight. From 6-10 they are carrying their own weight. From 11-13 they are pulling their weight in combat and more than their weight out of combat. From 14+ they are net contributors.

Want to know what the best group in the world looks like? Probably 2-3 (archers) fighters, a cleric with the travel domain, and a bard. They will *murder* anything that you put in their path.

Just so you know, pretty much the entirety of what you wrote doesn't jibe with the standard beliefs of the Paizo forum community at large.

Secondly, isn't making the choice between casters and martials less of a choice (why play casters?) kind of the point? If you accept that casters are so far above martials that people are saying why play martials, changing that seems to be a reasonable goal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Simon Legrande wrote:


Just so you know, pretty much the entirety of what you wrote doesn't jibe with the standard beliefs of the Paizo forum community at large.

Secondly, isn't making the choice between casters and martials less of a choice (why play casters?) kind of the point? If you accept that casters are so far above martials that people are saying why play martials, changing that seems to be a reasonable goal.

I'd just like to point out that the overwhelming majority of gameplay (85% or something according to Piazo) occurs at level 7 or less. Before level 7 casters are a LIABILITY not over powered. Less than 1% of all gameplay occurs at levels casters are truly strong (11+). The truth is that all characters have a power curve. What the OP want's is for everyone to have the same power curve except wizards should just be worse at every level.

Fighters (well ok, not fighters but fighter types like barbarians and slayers) are 10x as strong as a wizard between 1-4. They're merely 2x stronger at levels 5-6. At 7-8 they're markedly stronger especially if they are a ranger/pally/BR but not overwhelmingly so. It's not till 9th that they're equal.

Wizards scale dramatically from square 1. Fighter types scale less hard but they start at square 5-6.

For the overwhelming majority of normal games Casters are weaker than marshals. The problem is people remember the one encounter that the wizard won with a black tentacles, or a disintegrate but they forget the 20,000 damage the archer did while raiding the tower because its not flashy.


Undone wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:


Just so you know, pretty much the entirety of what you wrote doesn't jibe with the standard beliefs of the Paizo forum community at large.

Secondly, isn't making the choice between casters and martials less of a choice (why play casters?) kind of the point? If you accept that casters are so far above martials that people are saying why play martials, changing that seems to be a reasonable goal.

I'd just like to point out that the overwhelming majority of gameplay (85% or something according to Piazo) occurs at level 7 or less. Before level 7 casters are a LIABILITY not over powered. Less than 1% of all gameplay occurs at levels casters are truly strong (11+). The truth is that all characters have a power curve. What the OP want's is for everyone to have the same power curve except wizards should just be worse at every level.

Fighters (well ok, not fighters but fighter types like barbarians and slayers) are 10x as strong as a wizard between 1-4. They're merely 2x stronger at levels 5-6. At 7-8 they're markedly stronger especially if they are a ranger/pally/BR but not overwhelmingly so. It's not till 9th that they're equal.

Wizards scale dramatically from square 1. Fighter types scale less hard but they start at square 5-6.

For the overwhelming majority of normal games Casters are weaker than marshals. The problem is people remember the one encounter that the wizard won with a black tentacles, or a disintegrate but they forget the 20,000 damage the archer did while raiding the tower because its not flashy.

I'd just like to point out that you're going to have a hard time convincing people here of that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:


Just so you know, pretty much the entirety of what you wrote doesn't jibe with the standard beliefs of the Paizo forum community at large.

Secondly, isn't making the choice between casters and martials less of a choice (why play casters?) kind of the point? If you accept that casters are so far above martials that people are saying why play martials, changing that seems to be a reasonable goal.

I'd just like to point out that the overwhelming majority of gameplay (85% or something according to Piazo) occurs at level 7 or less. Before level 7 casters are a LIABILITY not over powered. Less than 1% of all gameplay occurs at levels casters are truly strong (11+). The truth is that all characters have a power curve. What the OP want's is for everyone to have the same power curve except wizards should just be worse at every level.

Fighters (well ok, not fighters but fighter types like barbarians and slayers) are 10x as strong as a wizard between 1-4. They're merely 2x stronger at levels 5-6. At 7-8 they're markedly stronger especially if they are a ranger/pally/BR but not overwhelmingly so. It's not till 9th that they're equal.

Wizards scale dramatically from square 1. Fighter types scale less hard but they start at square 5-6.

For the overwhelming majority of normal games Casters are weaker than marshals. The problem is people remember the one encounter that the wizard won with a black tentacles, or a disintegrate but they forget the 20,000 damage the archer did while raiding the tower because its not flashy.

Casters are only weaker then Martials "in normal games" if you define "normal games" as "games where the average system mastery is below average". At level 1, a Two-handed Fighter using Power Attack can kill one guy. A caster using color spray can end an entire encounter. Also at low levels, will saves tend to be very low for enemy groups, making the casters success more likely then the odds that a Fighter hits. Casters do have an issue of "running out of spells", but this is only really from level 1-4 at *worst* (I'm usually fine at level 3 provided I'm playing a class with "wizard progression). At level 5, "running out of spells becomes extremely rare, and at level 9 virtually impossible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

*opens mouth to speak, see's Anzyr has answered more tactfully than I could bring myself to do, closes mouth and walks away*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Undone wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:


Just so you know, pretty much the entirety of what you wrote doesn't jibe with the standard beliefs of the Paizo forum community at large.

Secondly, isn't making the choice between casters and martials less of a choice (why play casters?) kind of the point? If you accept that casters are so far above martials that people are saying why play martials, changing that seems to be a reasonable goal.

I'd just like to point out that the overwhelming majority of gameplay (85% or something according to Piazo) occurs at level 7 or less. Before level 7 casters are a LIABILITY not over powered. Less than 1% of all gameplay occurs at levels casters are truly strong (11+). The truth is that all characters have a power curve. What the OP want's is for everyone to have the same power curve except wizards should just be worse at every level.

Fighters (well ok, not fighters but fighter types like barbarians and slayers) are 10x as strong as a wizard between 1-4. They're merely 2x stronger at levels 5-6. At 7-8 they're markedly stronger especially if they are a ranger/pally/BR but not overwhelmingly so. It's not till 9th that they're equal.

Wizards scale dramatically from square 1. Fighter types scale less hard but they start at square 5-6.

For the overwhelming majority of normal games Casters are weaker than marshals. The problem is people remember the one encounter that the wizard won with a black tentacles, or a disintegrate but they forget the 20,000 damage the archer did while raiding the tower because its not flashy.

Casters are only weaker then Martials "in normal games" if you define "normal games" as "games where the average system mastery is below average". At level 1, a Two-handed Fighter using Power Attack can kill one guy. A caster using color spray can end an entire encounter. Also at low levels, will saves tend to be very low for enemy groups, making the casters success more likely then the odds that a Fighter hits. Casters do have...

It's only about running out of spells at level 1-2. Color spray CAN end an encounter early... Until it's an undead encounter... Or an ooze... or any number of other monsters with good will saves, or swarms, or exct.

Color spray is really the ONLY level 1 spell which significantly impacts a fight. Grease is easily saved against as most early monsters have good ref/fort.

At higher levels it's not about running out. It's about running out of high level spells. I get the impression that most people here play 15 minute days or at most 2-3 encounters a day by the way they talk. If you do entire dungeons (6-10 encounters) in a single day running out is not common but running out of 5th and 4th level spells IS common which reduces you to at best a supportive character not the encounter wrecker people claim.

At truly high levels of system mastery unless the GM allows some things that really no one I've ever seen would allow (Like simulacrum, Magic Jar, Animating dead) high saves are more critical than the ability to "Win the encounter" because winning the encounter is all well and good but without good fort/ref saves the party will likely suffer long term losses. What happens when the wizard eats a dazing flaming sphere and gets killed while it sits on him? Or eats a stinking cloud?

In my experience saves are the king of ACTUAL, PRACTICAL, IN GAME power. "I don't suffer bad effects" Is the king of power when both the GM and players have system mastery. For example I can have a CR 3 meteor swarm haunt because the rules are absurd for haunts. If you do save against it you'll take only 42. If you don't you'll die. Shockingly I don't think many casters will save or survive that. If you assume the players will cheese assume the GM will do it as well but within the restrictions of the CR system.

System mastery goes both ways. A high level of mastery on a GM is just as powerful at pointing out weaknesses. If the players have a high level of system mastery they'll realize saves are king. Damage is a relatively weak form of danger.


Undone wrote:
It's only about running out of spells at level 1-2. Color spray CAN end an encounter early... Until it's an undead encounter... Or an ooze... or any number of other monsters with good will saves, or swarms, or exct.

Mindless monsters are incredibly easy to beat regardless of what class you are playing. Beating an Ooze is literally as simple as Move - Ranged Attack, Move - Ranged Attack, ad naseum. There really aren't many good will save, CR 1-3 monsters, so it's pretty unlikely outside of a hypothetical enemy WIS based caster.

Undone wrote:
At higher levels it's not about running out. It's about running out of high level spells. I get the impression that most people here play 15 minute days or at most 2-3 encounters a day by the way they talk. If you do entire dungeons (6-10 encounters) in a single day running out is not common but running out of 5th and 4th level spells IS common which reduces you to at best a supportive character not the encounter wrecker people claim.

I'm talking about 4-6 encounters. With a specialist (or better yet a Sin Magic Specialist) and your bonus INT a 9th level Wizard should have access to at minimum 3 5th level spells (but realistically 4) and minimum 4 (but realistically 5) 4th level spells. 4/5th level spells can end encounters. So with at minimum 7 of those to throw around, you should be able to end 4-6 encounters with no problem. That being said don't forget you have a lot of useful 1-3rd spells that can be used to play support. If you seriously manage to burn through all your 3rd-5th level spells, the problem is the player.

Undone wrote:
At truly high levels of system mastery unless the GM allows some things that really no one I've ever seen would allow (Like simulacrum, Magic Jar, Animating dead) high saves are more critical than the ability to "Win the encounter" because winning the encounter is all well and good but without good fort/ref saves the party will likely suffer long term losses. What happens when the wizard eats a dazing flaming sphere and gets killed while it sits on him? Or eats a stinking cloud?

Casters are likely to have the highest saves (outside of Superstition Barbarians and even then Oracles will crush everything else), because they have the buffing power to raise them.


Anzyr wrote:
Casters are likely to have the highest saves (outside of Superstition Barbarians and even then Oracles will crush everything else), because they have the buffing power to raise them.

This alone makes me chuckle.

The highest saves i've seen are barbarians, zen archers, and paladins. Of which only 1 has spells and it's not exactly at a high rate of progression.

Will saves are not the only saves.


Anzyr wrote:
Undone wrote:
It's only about running out of spells at level 1-2. Color spray CAN end an encounter early... Until it's an undead encounter... Or an ooze... or any number of other monsters with good will saves, or swarms, or exct.

Mindless monsters are incredibly easy to beat regardless of what class you are playing. Beating an Ooze is literally as simple as Move - Ranged Attack, Move - Ranged Attack, ad naseum. There really aren't many good will save, CR 1-3 monsters, so it's pretty unlikely outside of a hypothetical enemy WIS based caster.

Undone wrote:
At higher levels it's not about running out. It's about running out of high level spells. I get the impression that most people here play 15 minute days or at most 2-3 encounters a day by the way they talk. If you do entire dungeons (6-10 encounters) in a single day running out is not common but running out of 5th and 4th level spells IS common which reduces you to at best a supportive character not the encounter wrecker people claim.

I'm talking about 4-6 encounters. With a specialist (or better yet a Sin Magic Specialist) and your bonus INT a 9th level Wizard should have access to at minimum 3 5th level spells (but realistically 4) and minimum 4 (but realistically 5) 4th level spells. 4/5th level spells can end encounters. So with at minimum 7 of those to throw around, you should be able to end 4-6 encounters with no problem. That being said don't forget you have a lot of useful 1-3rd spells that can be used to play support. If you seriously manage to burn through all your 3rd-5th level spells, the problem is the player.

Undone wrote:
At truly high levels of system mastery unless the GM allows some things that really no one I've ever seen would allow (Like simulacrum, Magic Jar, Animating dead) high saves are more critical than the ability to "Win the encounter" because winning the encounter is all well and good but without good fort/ref saves the party will likely suffer long term losses. What happens when the
...

Pretty much this. Depending on how you play low level spells can be equally as useful anyway. My conjuration specialist wizard has been playing tier 10-11 and I pretty much have ended a few encounters with 2nd level spells, and sometimes only cast a single spell in a combat anyway. If you make every enemy go prone with a single spell and the martials are on them, why waste resources on a non-threat?

Granted, society is the typical 4 encounters a day, but I still have at least 50% or more of my spell resources left at the end of the day, and have yet to even use one of my 6th level spells. On my 13th level AT(so only a 10th level caster) he played a mod type game and went through 10 encounters without sleeping. He still had 25% of his resources left when we finished it. I think the only people who have real resource issues are the blaster type people who keep throwing around spells once the battles already done. Thats more of a personal problem though. I play with sorcerers who will run out of spell while my wizard still has a full tank.


Undone wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Casters are likely to have the highest saves (outside of Superstition Barbarians and even then Oracles will crush everything else), because they have the buffing power to raise them.

This alone makes me chuckle.

The highest saves i've seen are barbarians, zen archers, and paladins. Of which only 1 has spells and it's not exactly at a high rate of progression.

Will saves are not the only saves.

I'm not talking about just Will Saves, I mean saves in general. Spells can do a lot of bring up all your saves (and Otherwordly Kimono is a sweet sweet +6 Resistance). Oracles are full casters and are going to have the highest saves bar none. Even human FCB Superstition can't beat that.

1 to 50 of 129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Reasonable Spell nerfs! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.