Seltyiel

Ryuhi's page

3 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


I was honestly at a bit of a loss as to how this ability was meant to be handled, given that on a failed save and without anything but the harpy attacking breaking the effect, it is I think more devastating than it should be...

I used two harpies in an encounter, first song got successfully averted by countersong on the bard, second song got to two characters out of four.
Because of the confusion about fascinated and the spell effect, I went with allowing a new save each time an ally was targeted by a hostile action, I do think otherwise that encounter would have been unwinnable.

To be fair, it is not the only monster, a Vampire's command can be similarly deadly, but I am admittedly a bit confused given that it seemed to have been the goal, at least with spells, to have a lot less of those "fight enders" at a lower level.


The issue with the short adventuring days is not just "can the players rest and continue after eight hours of sleep?", but also a much more common thing:

Do I have to make sure every day in game has several encounters so I do not end up making it trivial because of player resources?

My experience with Pathfinder 1e was that this WAS a big issue.
Lots of abilities were based on daily uses so if you did not include enough battles per in game day to actually challenge the players to not be able to always be under Bard song, always be raging or always use one of your best available spell slots each turn, this had a really big effect on balance.

Having a lot more resources that are expected to usually recover between encounters or be based on action economy is a VERY welcome change there.
It is really hard to balance strategic daily resources. Not unless you want to take away a good bit of flexibility for the game master to create his story as it makes sense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was really, really disappointed when I had my suspicion confirmed, that they removed spells scaling by level.

So many people have already said how this has been in 5th Edition DnD and you can pretty easily just go through the numbers in your head.

This is exactly not how you solve the balance issue between casters and martial characters...

At the core, it is about trade-off.
If two characters both fill a similar function (dealing damage, doing battlefield control, soaking up attacks, solving various out of combat problems), there should be balance to their pros and cons at their respective job.

One thing of course always is what other functions they also fill, but assuming balance there (with both having equally valuable other areas where they contribute), we would want to have a relatively steady level of trade-off at every character level.

Scaling Cantrips I personally like because they mirror scaling attack damage.
But combining that with fixed damage spells leads to a weird thing where it always centers around the highest spell slots.
Cantrips outclass the level 1 damage spell at some point and then you have no use for such a spell ever again.

Could we not instead have a system, where a level 1 spell always does at least X% more damage than a cantrip?
It would not be all that hard and I think it would smooth out damage a lot more than slowly having damage spells of low levels peter out into uselessness.

My experience from other systems usually is that the way to deal with the imbalance between the magical and non magical is not such a tough issue.
And damage usually will always be the easiest part of it, given how quantifiable it is.