Hoary Muntjac

Jassin's page

21 posts. Alias of moritz Bächle.


RSS


The Mailman wrote:

Just to return a cross-reference to this thread where we're having a related discussion. We're focused more on the underlying problems people see with DCs rather than an optional rule fix.

To summarize: some players feel their PC spellcasters have a hard time getting high level monsters to fail even their best saves, while other players feel like they're getting reamed by high level monsters because their saves are too low. I'm wondering whether the problem isn't the gap between PC saves and DCs and Monster saves and DCs of a given CR.

I think the main problem is the diversity of the casting system. With melee combat you use always the same factors. To hit vs. AC and damage vs HP, that is it basically. The magic system however entails a lot of different factors. There are 3 saves to begin with. On top of that there are touch spells and spells which just work 100% of the time, no chance of failure. The effects are equally diverse. Some target HP, some abilitys, some restrict movement ect. ect. While I think that Paizo should´t take away too much at the effect diversity, since this makes up much of the flair of the spellcasters, I really start to think it would be good to get rid of the spells which do not target one of the 3 saves ( or change them in a way that they do target one save) That way you can at least make a observation concerning the abilitys of spellcasters without totally ignoring the other aspects.


The Mailman wrote:
snip long text

Pretty accurate description of the controversial views on the topic. The only thing I would question is your number of a 40 % succes-rate when a 20th level caster attacks the bad save of an equal counterpart. Maybe I misunderstood you here, but if not I would question that number. (I´m really too tired to do the number crunching myself right now)


Jason Sonia wrote:


That's pretty much how I feel about it, even if I didn't put it nearly as elegantly as you just did. I'm looking for an average Boost to spell DCs for an overall improvement for casters in general. We don't pour through books over here in my parts looking to super-optimize our characters, and since the whole edition is being streamlined, I say, why not build an optional rule (or Feat, or whatever) that does that.

I haven't been all that interested in arguing about how people view the relative power of the caster (which, strangely enough, people just assume is a Wizard ... perhaps because I used one in the example, I suppose).

I am interested in a fair and balance mechanic that scales DCs for spells.

Right now, I'm thinking this formula (in the...

Well, though I can´t agree with you concerning your problem at hand, I don´t want to try and change your mind. You and your players will work out if it suits you or not.

But if your goal is only to take the pressure from casters I would recommend you to just lower the saves of the monsters. Why. Because that way your players at least wont be on the receiving and of augmented save DCs of NSC casters. And by that way only be forcing them to minmax their saves.


hmarcbower wrote:


Oh... and "always"?

Ok, I should have said: in your last few posts. Sorry, but with those one-liners you never really know if a person is actually interested in making an argument. Your last post I can wok with.

Jassin


hmarcbower wrote:


Nope... I don't read the CO boards. I've never been motivated to build such a character.

Although, that does bring up something that I think affects this discussion - and others have brought it up too. It doesn't take a munchkin (and I use the term with affection) to break a class. There are so many degrees of optimization that I think now we're arguing from two different angles that aren't really talking about the same thing.

Some are saying that Wizards are WAY too powerful. Yes, I can see that is probably the case if you peruse the CO boards a lot for optimal builds.

Some are saying that Wizards are underpowered. That's my position, but that is probably because I don't make super-optimized wizards (and I suspect many on here are in the same boat that way). So we want the wizards we build to be more effective without having to resort to going to the CO boards and copying a template down for how to make the best damned wizard ever to appear in the game world of your choice that bends all rules to near the breaking point, possibly exploiting poor wording, and taking half a dozen different prestige classes and obscure feats from Mongoose products in order to even exist.

We're trying to make the middle-of-the-road more effective without resorting to excessive number-crunching, and you're trying to protect against super-optimization. Both are valid and important positions to take. I guess it just comes down to which is more important: making the game more balanced for the average character, or making sure that the super-optimizer is balanced against mediocre builds of other classes and monsters. The problem with the latter, of course, is that it totally buggers the middle-of-the-road wizard players because they're so nerfed just to protect against something they won't do anyway.

Not sure this can be resolved when we're discussing...

It´s not about perfect builds. These exist of course, and they exist as well for melee characters. Most people are aguing that this difference in power starts at core base classes. Regarding the casters (clerics, wizards and druids), they just have so many options with their spells that you can use. For example we are arguing about saving throws and the above mentioned level 20 creatures can be affected 65% of the time using ninth level spells. But if you look at the spells of the core books (3.5) there are a number of spells which totally change the outcome of a battle without any of the creatures being allowed to roll a save at all. To list a few of them ( you will find much more if you search for them):

Bigbys crushing hands
energy drain
gate
Power words

All of these are core. Some of them maybe have been changed in PF I don´t have the time to double check. But you get the point. Summoning high-CR cratures, shaping the battlefield through creating new walls (which are real and so theres no counter through Saves, SR or antimagic fields). The evocation spells are actually considered by some the weakest spells a wizard can cast.


hmarcbower wrote:


OK, that's fair if the creature also has 65% immunity to physical damage.

It is really astounding how you always simplify it to melee damage <-> magical damage, or spell to hit <-> melee to hit. Totally diregarding all the other options a spellcaster has besides going for the targets HP. On top of that you keep disregarding everything that would keep the melee character from reaching the target in the first place. Or the fact that charging a dragon, even if you can do it, is such a good idea, considering the full attack as soon as the dragons turn starts.

And if aou thin these 65% are the best that you can achieve you are way off.

@Stuart: I read your replys to my post but really we don´t differ in opinion too much. My last post was meant ironically as a reply to hmarcbower previous post


hmarcbower wrote:


That's true, unless someone does something so foolish as to cause the Wizard to need to put stat points into something else - like CHA - for silly SLAs because of school powers. But nobody would do something like that, would they? ;)

Do i sense little irony in your post ?? ;)

To answer in kind:
Because the above example of mine completly und utterly destroy the ressources of a level 20 charcter to boost another attribute or two. And because it would utterly ruin the wizard class if it had to cope with more than one attribute.


Jason Sonia wrote:


Well, I can't honestly argue much with that. I still think, however, that some of the lower end spells should scale up ever so slightly as the character levels. I just need to figure a fair, balanced, and logical way to do it.

I'm leaning heavily toward a mid-level Feat that would accomplish this.

Well here could be a few ways to accomplish this. One could be a PrC that lets you boost your DC´s at the cost of full caster progression. Another possiblity would be a feat that raises the DCs of spells up to a certain level ( for example +2 to DCs for all 4th level or lower spells). This would unfotunatly lead to the paradox that your 4th level spells are hasder to resist than your spells of fith level. A feat that gives a flat bonus above 1 to all spells would be probably to good since you could stack it with every other method of raising the DC through raising your int. But as a house rule it would be entirely up to you to decide.


-Archangel- wrote:

Personally I would cap this spell at max 5 because the old Divine Might by lvl 20 gave only a +5 bonus to attack (or raised the BAB from 15 to 20). So having +6 at lvl 18 is too much and makes this spell even stronger at that level.

Not to mention old Divine Power only game +3 damage that did not stack with Str items. Now you can have a +6 Str Bracer and get an additional +6 to damage on top of that.

Only real nerf is the extra attack that does not stack with Haste but again before the extra attack you would get would be the last one (the one that has the lowest chance to hit anything) while now it is the strongest one.

Not sure if Divine Power really got nerfed...

Basically that´s true. Doesn´t really seem like a nerf only a shift. The only real differece apllies to characters with levels in another class without full spell progression. As far as I remember the old version raised your BAB to your character-level and not just caster level( correct me if I am wrong).


A Wizard that is maxed out in Int can hardly be called a munchkin-character. You can fairly assume an Int modifier of +11 at level 20.

16 starting value, +5 because of level, +6 because of magic items, and another +5 by using his of own wish spells. DC of 9th level spell is
10 + 11 +9 = 30

And if you factor in specialized school or prestige classes like archmage this would be higher still. None of that has anything to do with beeing a munchkin, because dedicated wizards who strife to master magic above anything else is a staple archetype and in some settings like FR can even be considered the norm.


The dying rules you sugest sound a lot like the 4ed rules, but never the less I like them.
The SoD cap sound great but I would go even further with the cap.
For example Single-taget So: max HD = caster level, multi target SOD = casterlevel / 2. The way they work now they are kind of boring because they add to the list of "just damage" spells and at the same time are still SoD spells when you factor in the massive damage rules.

Jassin


I at least support the idea of changing the number of bonus types. The OP even forgot to mention some boni, for example size boni.
A lot of players on thiese boards stated thyt at high.lvl play one dispel magic on a PC took ages to resolve. That´s partly because of the many boni thyt seriously undermine the stacking rules. 4 different boni from different sources and maybe one non.source bonus type which can be stacked and your PC are not gonna need five pages of paper to list all theitr boni.


Ahh the good old times of Shadowrun second edition: Though i really like D&D Shadowrun was so much more better systemwise, IMHO. No class or level system and totally free character building causes so much less problems. There was no superhuman-effect because theoretically even the most upgraded Streetsam could be taken down by a shot to the head fired by average joe. And if you really messed things up....well let´s say your Dm had lot´s of ways to totally ruin your day.
Only the decking rules were practically unplayable if you didn´t want to tell all the other players to fo to the pub for a few hours because the player playing the decker is getting bored.


- Frees up the cleric from being everyones healing dummy.

I´ve read such statements pretty often on thiese boards, and it really doens´t go at all with my own experiances. I came to love the cleric more than any class, but though sometimes you have to heal during combat (which is a satisfying experiance to be there when the time comes to save someones butt) I never, ever felt like the groups heal-b****.
Tis may be a little off topic but i am gonna ask this anyway: Have those of you who played clerics had lots of such bad experiances with your role in the party ?


Actually I don´t mind spending some combat time healing my teammates. It´s one of those many different options of play that makes the cleric so appealing to me. The only problem is that most cure x spells are totally inefficient for in-combat healing. Most of them won´t heal the amount of HP a creature in a decent encounter is going to dish out in a single attack, let alone several mosters or monsters with more than one attack. So unless the choice is between letting a character die right there and throwing a cure serious wounds spell his way, it is often a much better option to lay some smackdown on the moster attacking your mates character.


Dennis da Ogre wrote:


Wait, his name isn't David is it? I have the same guy... no lion shield but he has to make a big show of every single die roll. Often tossing it up in the air like he's flipping a coin which causes it to roll off the table about 1/3 the time. Also, he can't sit for his turn, nor can he roll while someone else is talking or doing something. Grrr

I don't think you have to do everything you list to keep things flowing, just being ready, and eliminating the drama is enough. Roll, add, roll, add... even 8 rolls can go quick but NO DRAMA thanks!

Nope his Name isn´t David :)

But reading abaout your description I can now almost appreciate my player. Sounds like things can get a lot worse than the things at our table :))

To be fair, there´s another thing that really slows down the game, and I have to admit sometimes I´m guilty of doing it myself. That is playing a spellcaster and not remebering the spell you want to cast. No problem up to here, but sometimes I just forget to look the spell up before it is my turn again.


Wolfknight wrote:
ABSOLUTELY!! I completely agree. An experienced DM usually requires such time-saving techniques to be performed by his players. I personally let my players roll ahead of time as well. Having played with them for many years, I do not need to witness every roll made at the table. Of course, this may vary depending on your group....

Yes you bring up a very good point. Trust in your players. If a DM has to watch every dice roll, it´s gonna take ages. To cheat at a RPG game basically is cheating yourself, so don´t do it. When you miss you miss, when your character dies because of a bad roll, tough luck, he´s dead. Once your DM doesn´t have to watch your every move, things will go much more smoothly.


I think most of the times it´s not the number of attacks that slows down the game too much, its the player who rolls the dice. Let me tell you abaout one player in my gaming group. He plays a babarian lvl 10. On top of his two Base attacks ( soon to be three ) he carries a lion shield which can also attack two times a round, three times a day. Now to clarify things, he´s a nice guy and I like to play with him, but theres one thing that sometimes drive me crazy. When he makes a full attack the following thing happens:

put one d20 in your dice-box, remember to give it a reaaaaly good shake, slam it down on the table, look beneath it but take your time, add the bonuses to your dice roll. Now if your strike was a hit, put all your damage dice in the dice-box, another good shake above your head for luck and slam it on the tabel. Lift it up, add it up and tell the DM the score. REPEAT THIS 3 MORE TIMES !! (sorry caps)

Now this is the thing that bogs down gameplay. If you play a character with several attacks remember a few things: Always have some spare sheets of paper where you can write down your current attack and damage bonuses when buffed, so you don´t have to think abaout them all the time, do this when the other players cast those spells before your turn. Always roll your damage dice with your attack roll, not seperatly. If you fight with two weapons youse two different coloured dice sets. Most of the time you have the exact same bonuses for main-hand and off-hand. Say your red dice is for the main hand, blue dice for the off hand. Roll both attack and damage dice for aff and main hand together. While your DM adjust the HP of the mosnter add aup the next attack and damage sxores so aou can tell them right away. Don´t wait for him to ask you abaout the second attack and start counting.

If you stick to these rules nobody who isn´t totally inept at adding up numbers should take too long for his round.


Aaron Goddard wrote:

I noticed that save or die spells aren't in the Alpha.

First Point: Find the Path

I disagree with your logic that it takes fun out of the game. There are people who don't like dungeon crawling and would prefer to get straight to the big guy at the bottom. Nobody's forcing the wizard to memorize find the path, if they want to use it they can. Some times people want to walk instead of teleport, it gives more experience points and treasure. Please don't ruin it for the ones who want the game to go a little faster.

On the other hand it is not very logical of the character not to use it if he has the ability. But it comes in handy in times when you lack someone who can actually track someone

Aaron Goddard wrote:


Second Point: Polymorph Subschool

I always disagreed with this nerf to transforming. It doesn't just reduce the power of a shifting character, it also pigeonholes them into a certain number of forms. What if I want to turn into a Roc instead of a dragon? or a basilisk? Or something nobody else has wanted to become before?

Personally I havent run into the problems that polymoph caused, but judging from the WOTC boards they where severe. And it was the stated intention of Paizo to stick close to the 3.5 system but solve some of its major problems. And since plymorph semms to have been the number one transgresser here it fits the intention of the game.

Aaron Goddard wrote:


Third Point: Breath of Life

This spell is a gigantic middle finger to resurrection, hence why I consider it a nerf, its a nerf to raise dead and the like. Worse than that, it takes away some of the lethality of the game by allowing "combat rezzes".

Agree. Raising the dead is far too simple as it is already.


This discussion is getting a bit emotional. Just keep calm, you can´t force your opinion on the developers anyway.

To add a little bit to the discussion.

First, it is true that melee characters with power attack ( and probable upgrades like spring attack ) have the ability to dish out huge amounts of damage if the conditions are right. It is also true that these numbers exceed the single target damage potential of most unoptimized casters.

What you have to consider is this:
Melee classes have to deal with lots of unfavorable circumstances: Damage reduction was mentioned before and though there are ways to overcome them. nobody guarantees you that you can. This is one of the major examples of the necessity of power attack. The only way for a melee charakter to punch through 10 or 20 points of DR. But theres more. Flying creatures, unfavorable terrain, spells and effects that give a flat miss chance, quick enemies and so on. The list is nearly endless.

The casters on the other hand tend to have the all the tools they need to hit an enemys weak spot build in their class. They can pick the save they want to target. Melee characters can´t circumvent the AC. And to those who state that there are alway creatures who make the save: so what, your spell is seldom wasted. You just dont deal as much damage. A miss with a melee weapon is a miss. If a crature has resistances they simply can choose another element to harm it with. there are practicaly only 2 things that screw up casters really bad. SR and antimagic fields, both of them very uncommon. Last but not least: being in melee means being the first in line for the beating. ANd some mosters are just to dangerous to stay in reach so you can full attack every round.

Long story short: power attack like it uesed to be was the only method of melee characters to inflict enough damage with single attack when this strike has to count. And if your DM likes monsters with a lot of special abilitys this situation occurs pretty often. All the while the caster can strike from a safe position and doesent have to cope with most of the problems listed above.

But thats just my take on things. Be it as it may it ist no reason to leap at each others throat, whatever the final outcome you can always houserule it without any problems

Cheers
Jassin

Edit: Sorry for all the mistakes and bad spelling, english is not my native language.


Instead of giving the Fighter just a little more offensive ability how about giving him some unique features that distiguish him from other melee classes. For example the ability to rwally cover his allies. For example

Intercept
For each attack that you give up during your round you can intercept one attack targeting an adjectant ally. That way the fighter would be a nice addition for every party and even high level wizards would like to have a Fighter in the group.