Nadar the chaotic's page

We've just switched from PF beta to the final core rules. The paladin is now way over-powered for my campaign in which all the major opponents fit into its 'double smite group' (evil dragons, undead and evil outsiders). A paladin may be an average fighter against non-evil creatures, but in high level campaigns the most serious challenges are generally from evil creatures, many of which (conveniently) fit into this uber-smite category. So either smite or double-smite...AND the ability to pass this on to group members for 10 full rounds of smiting frenzy * N players? People are also disregarding the fact that a paladin already has 3 important advantages over a regular fighter: spells, two good saves, rather than 1 and weapon bonding. It is thus unfair to simply look at damage potential when comparing a paladin to a fighter. The ability to bypass any non-epic damage reduction against evil is the final unecessary cherry on the top, when they are already doing insane amounts of damage. Creature DR is usually an imporant part of CR estimates - which is suddenly irrelevant. The arguments that only limited smites per day (7 at high level which is what I'm concerned about!) means this is not that useful...well, I have *never* played in a campaign where we had more than 2-3 >>>major<<< combats in any single game-world day. By major I mean that, not piddling secondary encounters. Now that smite is endless per opponent - and given that most major combats only have one BB(E)G + lesser minion(s), thus requiring only 1 or perhaps 2 smites for each major combat - the 'less useful' argument is just not true. You cannot really allow more serious combats per day since priests/wizards etc need to be allowed to replenish their spells - or ruin their game play experience. I expect that for the run-of-the-mill mostly-evil-opponents type campaign - which appear to be the dominant kind at leats for published modules - , the paladin will be out-damaging the fighter all the time. That must surely be unbalanced?

I'm going to house-rule some changes - and hope that they will release a revision to normalize things. I feel that only allowing a smite to persist for as many *attacks rolls* as the paladin has charisma bonus, would be a step in the right direction, as well as scaling down the damage to +1 /2 levels. A low level, decently specced pally would have at least +3 cha and at higher levels with enhancements and magic, probably +6 if not more. If they can choose which attacks to smite with then they can also go for higher order attacks and probably land all 6 smite attacks ove rteh course of a few rounds. Even with these changes, all the other benefits like overcoming DR, spells, weapon bonding, immunities to X, y and Z and so on still make this class very potent.

Why is a primary spell caster wanting to enter melee?

So what can you do with this spell that you can't do with the others? You can take a form, scout a location, take a biped form, cast your spells, take another form, move around the battle field.. etc, etc. etc.- all with one casting of the spell.

-S

I'm not arguing to take over the fighter's melee role - but in some cases you need to step in and take a more physical role (perhaps the fighter has been KO'd and you have to do something, I've been in such desperate straights before), and a *9th level* spell should certainly enable that.

Referring to your scenario above: I could do all those things with lower level spells. Using the lower level variants in fact (perhaps even one casting, since flying is probably the most useful form change). The point is: why bother turning into a dragon *with a 9th level spell* if all you can do is fly/scout etc? Why not simply cast fly (or overland flight) - which allows you to fly and retain all your abilities, cast all your spells and so on (which dragon shape may not)? There are well established ways to scry/scout etc - we certainly don't need another spell to accomplish this. If this is the intention, they should drop the pretence and create a new spell call "Mages Versatile Locomotion" or something (at a much lower level) and have done with it. I assume that since it's a dragon and not say, a homing pigeon, they actually *expect* the form to have some use beyond simply flying about? And what else could that be but combat? The even mention attacks, breath weapon etc). Granted, you could toast a few peasants with your breath weapon - but we all know that's not what you'll be facing in the next cave...

Currently, your draconic form is too weak to mean anything at high levels (which is what I'm concerned with). I don't mind the lower level poly school spells - but as it stands, shapechange simply looks too weak - my group has already agreed that we will house-rule in such a variant. Yes, even the fighter.

looking at the beta rules for "shapechange" the spell seems woefully underpowered for a 9th lvl Wizard level spell (not sure how it plays out for other classes). I understand that the 3.5 version was powerful and had to be capped. I even accept that the spell chains are a reasonable compromise. But they do not work at all with high level campaigns.

I realise that Pathfinder is focussed on lower/intermediate level play, but as it stands, except for the ability to fly/burrow/swim etc (which you could get with a low level poly variant) there is no good reason to use a higher level spell varaiant when you are a playing a high level wizard.

You're essentially useless in a fighting role:

- your BAB is used, +9 @18th lvl for wiz
- you get a paltry +5 to your BAB for the strength increase *at best*
- if you have average strength that's an amazing +14 attack bonus,
- I'd be surprised if you hit any decent 18th level foe with that (AC34+ seems common) And that's the primary attck - -5 for the next and ...well...

Yes, you could be buffed, but even that won't add more than what, +6 to strength...? so + 3? hm. still, not much help.

Ok, so physical attacks are not useful. Ok, - what about other/supernatural etc? Severely curtailed. Ok, I have bo problem with that. To a point. lets take Form of Dragon 3 (a mighty 8th level spell) - an awesome 12d8 (save for half - or evade for none).... every 1d4 rounds (so what, twice in a combat?) And a few other odd and ends that won't help you much against decent level foes. Or you could turn into a giant turnip (sorry a Huge [plant] turnip) and lash enemies with your turniptian tendrils ;-) or something...

Anway, my rambling message is basically saying this: pegging the stat increase to one, fixed value, regardless of spell caster level is not likely to yield a useful spell at high levels. I agree with the removal of many of the abilities that the old shapechange granted (or I accept them as necessary), but I really think that these spells need to be scaled to account for caster level. So +x/level above X etc. I'd love to know how a storm giant (a 'huge' giant) can even lift a storm giant sized boulder with the paltry strenth boost (+8 to average wiz strength) granted by the spell, let alone toss it hundreds of feet. If the scaling was done correctly, the lower level spells could retain their existing power levels and the higher level ones would scale to the point where they could actually serve a purpose in combat (both physical and other attacks). And if you are going to insist on the hard wired stat - make it the stat for a typical example of that type e.g. Huge Dragon (set the strength 30 etc, don't give a bonus. Or give a bonus that will take average caster to to average strength etc).

Zil wrote:

2. If I was guessing, he had Automatic Quicken Spell Epic feats, and a couple of those epic feats that allows you to cast more then one quicken spell per round. He also had improved metamagic feats so could cast all other metamagic with only +1 to spell level and probably couple of Epic spell level slots so he could metamagic lvl 9 and 8 spells with multiple matamagic feats.

Then he probably caster TimeStop and cast many, many buffs. Then he caster quickened split rays and that feat that lets your casted spells to repeat itself in the next round.

That is how I would cast 17 spells in one round at epic levels :D (of course you would need to be about lvl 30+ for all these Epic feats)

Automatic quicken spell is not a problem - you can still only cast one quickened spell, unless you have multispell (which still only allows you 1 more per round per acquired feat). I think multispell can be game breaking - especially if you allow timestop to be quickened/chained. I would rule against that simply because "quickening" is in a sense a "time effect" so there'd be interference. Many rules are poorly written (look at pun-pun...say no more). The intent, I would argue, of the spell casting rules is 1 spell per round + 1 if you have a quckened spell. If you're epic *perhaps* one or two more (say, multispell X 2) - so 4 *spells* per round. If you allow 1 timestop + 3 quickened spells, assuming timestop gives max of 5 rounds (might be as low as 2), that's still only 9 possible spells over the combat round, including the timestop...which is already insane. 17 spells in a round is just outrageous and clearly an exploit of some rule loophole(s) (assuming one can actually do that, and that the OP didn't mean 17 spells in a combat...) I have no idea what "quickened split rays" is - SRD? - or the repeating spell thing you mentioned (for free?! - but it sounds like it violates the basic casting rules I refereed to above so I would simply ban it.

I'm not sure I agree about it lessening the horror.

...

If we assume that your statements are correct and that every major villain is as protected as the PC's, that still leaves the vast majority of the story arc succeptible to SoD. The PC's clear through the adventure only to have one battle at the end. Then do the same to the next. and the next.

...

-S

using a massive damage substitution doesn't prohbit this either. The damage is deliberately set so high (e.g 10 hp/lvl) so that at higher levels it is pretty much a guaranteed kill against any low level minions. But this is really an argument against spells which do a lot of damage as being unbalancing - a different argument I think. Also, most SoD's are single target/minion - and those that are not are either very high level like Wierd (and thus designed to be terrifying in power) or limited by HD (like circle of death). Hardly the mook-destructor you're alluding to above (well not in an appropriately leveled adventure - if someone sends canon fodder at you they will die anyway, and cause you potentially to burn spells - a good strategy). I still think the "frisson" (!) of possible death by pointy finger adds to the verisimilitude of the gaming experience. But this is a personal opinion, so I don't expect everyone to share it.If you have taken precautions and learned death ward etc - that's good planning. If the enemy has done that, he has planned well too. Just cast greater dispel and then SoD him ;-) There are ways around everything - which is what I like about table-top gaming in general. I suppose it can be abused - but most spells/rules can. The DM just needs to do his job. It's never been an issue in campaigns we've played in (even though I have been on the receiving end twice) - c'est la vie. I died and was reborn, better, stronger, faster (well, almost).

People seem to be forgetting the other problem with SoD's: the fact that they're another way for spellcasters to end encounters in one round at high levels, thus making fighters more useless. And if both sides have SoD effects, combat can potentially be decided by which side wins initiative.

At high levels it is comparatively easy to protect yourself against death effects (death ward, spell immunity etc). In fact, most high level parties have items that do just that - or spell casters like clerics who can provide such protective spells. In these cases, SoD spells become pointless. Many high level spell users opt to use sure-fire damage dealing spells, since they *assume* that any well prepared villain will have the appropriate protection and they want to guarantee some damage. And usually they are right. Certainly, I gave up trying to use SoD spells for just this reason - sure, you can take care of a minion, but dropping a fireball or some such is generally better for ensuring damage.

I think SoD has its place, and can add to the drama as long as it's not overdone (which is hasn't been in the campaigns I've played in) I have lost a few characters to SoD and while I wasn't happy, the times it happened were completely appropriate from a story-telling/scene point of view. At least you *have* a save, it's not like power word kill where you just keel over. If all death effects were like that, then I *would* be squealing like a stuck pig. Why shouldn't some potent creature be able to kill with a gesture? Fantasy is rife with creatures that can kill with a gaze, touch etc. Sure, you can end combat with an SoD spell, but many other things can do this too. Whether its massive melee damage or a spell - the end result is the same: you're dead. I don't really mind either way though - the proposed massive damage substitution works for me too.

I've played wizards under 2e, 3e and 3.5e - their damage dealing ability and versatility have been reduced with every iteration of the rules (culminating in 4e). Yet, their base HD has remained the same lowly 1d4. I accept that they should have a lower hp progression than, say, fighters, I just think that given the way the game has been "rebalanced" over the years (more enemies who are simply immune to your spells - SR, spell immunity, elemental immunity, death ward, stoneskin v admantine - which everyone now has oddly enough - short buffs etc etc) 1d4 is too low. This becomes particularly apparent at high levels, where every villain of note (and their sidekick) can shrug off most potent spells (unless they are unlucky) And you can't always hide behind your burly companions - in that case every hp counts. I think that 1d4 in conjunction with 2 poor saves, low BAB, armour/shield/weapon restrictions, etc is not justified. 1d4 belongs in the dustbin of history - time for something more current. 1d6, 1d8, 1d10 works just fine.

I ran an 8th level playtest with an 8th level sorcerer, with d4 hit dice, a 14 Constitution, +1 hp/level favored class, and Toughness, with 61 hit points. That's hardly shaky. If he had a d6 hit dice, we're talking another 8 hp, or 69 hp.

I don't think they need the D6 at all ...

I think the idea is that "all things being equal", d6 vs d4 (mean 3.5 vs 2.5) can make a small, but significant difference esp at lower levels. The wizard still has a low HP progression, as is "proper". There has also been a marked decrease in wizard spell potency over the years, as well as HP creep on the top side which makes opponents harder to kill. Especially when your most potent (esp elemental) damage spells can usually be neutralised, particularly at the levels where they would be really nasty. So I do not think this is unreasonable, given the way the character classes have evolved - in fact I'd go so far as to say that d4 for a wizard is an anachronism. I so think sorcerers are somewhat overpowered (having been on the receiving end of a sorcerer with disintegrate...aghain and again and again...ouch!)