|1 person marked this as a favorite.|
Use Headbutt!! wrote:I continue to find the analysis paralysis excuse completely unconvincing. If MY derp-ass player group can run 3.x / DS Psionics just fine with no holdups or problems, then 99% of players could handle unlimited heightening without a problem. It's not worth designing around the 1%.Blave wrote:It's not just a analysis paralysis issue. It's also about stuff like spontaneous casters always having the exact level of dispel magic to dispel an effect wihout overspending.originally when the playtest first came out and people had issues with limited heightening Mark Seifter mentioned that in their internal play testing total heightening led to decision paralysis. Mind you, I am sure there are other balance reasons too, but that was the reason they had mentioned for doing away with it.
I fully agree, but I was just clarifying to Blave why Data originally dedicated his argument to opposing decision paralysis instead of other balances.
As for dispelling, I think it is fine as is? I mean if dispel magic was a cantrip that scaled then anyone within 6 character levels (3 spell levels) could spam it until they succeeded at a counteract check. I feel like lvl 14 characters should not be able to auto-dispel epic level spells if given an half an hour. That being said, it being feasible through days/weeks of hard work (i.e. repeated castings from high level slots) seems decently fair.
On the dispelling note, I don't think sorcerers being able to always have the right level dispel magic is really that huge a benefit. Thanks to counteract levels you take a -5/lvl that the spell is lower than the thing is is trying to counter act. If sorcerers had a feat that gave them a +5 but only when trying to dispel an existing magical effect I am not sure how frequently that feat would be taken. Is it good? sure. Is it so good that you need to completely redesign sorcerer hightens to avoid it? not really.