As should now be obvious to anyone who has trotted out the Pathfinder rules at even modest levels: very small amounts of damage are very small. Seriously man, what was the thinking behind crap like the Evoker's Energy Ray? It does about 3 points of damage. You shoot it at an Orc Warrior and the Orc doesn't drop. On the other hand, the Orc is equipped with a Falchion, and if he hits you with it, the 2d4+4 damage it inflicts will drop a low level Wizard. Heck, it will often drop a low level Ranger.
Abilities like the Evoker's Energy Ray and the Necromancer's Gravetouch are offensively worthless. Not only are they extremely inferior to what other characters can do by simply using simple weapons, they are inferior to what the low level monsters do by just existing.
I applaud the idea of giving Evokers and Necromancers some love at low level, but this really obviously isn't it. The ability to do less damage than a random character will inflict with a Longsword is completely worthless. Heck, the ability to do less damage than is inflicted with an Acid Flask is fairly suspect. Remember that even an Expert can, and often will inflict 2d6 of Acid Damage with a ranged touch attack at first level. It's called purchasing some Acid Flasks off the basic equipment list and then throwing them at enemies. It even does splash damage.
Wizards can still defeat large numbers of Orcs by casting spells like sleep and color spray, but even the most casual of playtesting reveals - unsurprisingly - that a Wizard who attempts to fall back on Energy Rays is simply torn limb from limb without accomplishing anything of import.
-Frank
|
As should now be obvious to anyone who has trotted out the Pathfinder rules at even modest levels: very small amounts of damage are very small. Seriously man, what was the thinking behind crap like the Evoker's Energy Ray? It does about 3 points of damage. You shoot it at an Orc Warrior and the Orc doesn't drop. On the other hand, the Orc is equipped with a Falchion, and if he hits you with it, the 2d4+4 damage it inflicts will drop a low level Wizard. Heck, it will often drop a low level Ranger.
Abilities like the Evoker's Energy Ray and the Necromancer's Gravetouch are offensively worthless. Not only are they extremely inferior to what other characters can do by simply using simple weapons, they are inferior to what the low level monsters do by just existing.
Umm... the idea of this ability is to essentially replace the wizard using the crossbow or simple melee weapon in combat and as such it does so fairly well.
XBow - +DEX to hit normal AC/ 1d6 piercing damage (avg 3.5)
Energy Ray - +DEX to hit touch AC/ 1d4+1 energy choice (avg 3.5)
Against your typical AC 14-18 1st-3rd level enemy touch AC gives you a 40-50% better chance to be effective.
So rather than having a 1st-2nd level wizard using his 3-4 spells in his first encounter with magic missile he can focus all of his spells on area effect or utility spells and use his at will ability as a basic attack. This gives him more staying power without significantly increasing his power.
At higher levels this ability becomes less significant and less important but that's ok because at those higher levels the wizard generally has enough spells to last the day.
Umm... the idea of this ability is to essentially replace the wizard using the crossbow or simple melee weapon in combat and as such it does so fairly well.
The ability to have a flavorful replacement for a light crossbow is in no way also a replacement for having an extra spell of your highest level for low level characters.
Recall that Wizards are getting an actual ability to shoot little worthless neebly beams instead of throwing little worthless darts. That ability is worthless because if you actually fight with it you don't win.
Also note that X-Bows do a d8 (4.5 damage).
-Frank
The ability to have a flavorful replacement for a light crossbow is in no way also a replacement for having an extra spell of your highest level for low level characters.
Well, that is certainly arguable. I think it depends significantly on what the designer's or player's goal is. I think it's worth a small decline in overall power to be more flavorful. That said, I'm not sure there is a great decline in power. As Ogre noted above, the fact that the evoker's ability is a touch attack is quite a boost and will lead to significantly more damage done over a series of rounds. Further, I'm not sure that having a SINGLE spell at a low-level wizard's highest level is, in fact, preferable to the ability to drop 4 (or more) hp per round on the bad guys. Remember that the damage increases with the character's level. I guess it would depend on the spell.
Recall that Wizards are getting an actual ability to shoot little worthless neebly beams instead of throwing little worthless darts. That ability is worthless because if you actually fight with it you don't win.
I agree with you 100% that a lone wizard who doesn't use his spells is likely to get trucked by a lone orc, but that is unlikely to change because he is wielding a crossbow. In actual practice, the wizard has buddies who prevent the orc from reaching him and chopping him in half. Further, the evoker in question is only likely to use this ability in order to save his spells or when they are used up.
Also note that X-Bows do a d8 (4.5 damage).-Frank
Also note that the damage of the ray ability increases with level (as mentioned above), while the crossbow's doesn't (barring magical enhancement, which is unlikely for a low- or medium-level wizard).
I actually think it's quite fun and useful. Well played, Pathfinder RPG.
O
|
Umm... the idea of this ability is to essentially replace the wizard using the crossbow or simple melee weapon in combat and as such it does so fairly well.The ability to have a flavorful replacement for a light crossbow is in no way also a replacement for having an extra spell of your highest level for low level characters.
Recall that Wizards are getting an actual ability to shoot little worthless neebly beams instead of throwing little worthless darts. That ability is worthless because if you actually fight with it you don't win.
Also note that X-Bows do a d8 (4.5 damage).
-Frank
Um, what first-level evocation spell is significantly better than the energy ray?
Don't get me wrong, I think the shift to a d4 instead of a d6 for the energy ray is not worth the variability (or, more accurately, I think that evokers should be able to have beef and variability, because direct damage is less effective than save-or-lose, as a general rule), but I'm not seeing how an infinite number of 1d6 attacks is somehow worth less than a single 1d4+1 or 1d4 cone. I'm not even sure I see how 1d4 is worth less. Admittedly, you might get lucky and take out one orc with a magic missile. You've got a 25% chance, it's hardly impossible. But then where are you?
The simple fact of the matter is, if 1st level wizards fight with their spells, they don't win, particularly if those spells are evocation. And, frankly, necromancy - outside ray of enfeeblement, I will grant you, and that's definitely an option for an alternative basic ability - isn't much better. There's basically no difference between gravetouch and chill touch at first level.
|
Umm... the idea of this ability is to essentially replace the wizard using the crossbow or simple melee weapon in combat and as such it does so fairly well.The ability to have a flavorful replacement for a light crossbow is in no way also a replacement for having an extra spell of your highest level for low level characters.
So your argument is actually that the specialist abilities do not make up for the loss of the 3.5 'extra spell per level per day' ? On that point, I would tend to agree. While 3.p specialists are much more flavorful, as a player I would much rather plink away with my crossbow, and have the extra spell/level (of my choice, as soon as I get that level of spell), rather than a flavorful at-will attack and preselected spells/day (not of my choice, not optimal, and only the level after I get that level of spell)
Frank, I'm curious where you are getting 2d6 for an acid flask? The SRD clearly lists them as 1d6. Is there something I missed? Plus, this is an entirely useless method of combat, as it costs 10gp per attack. Cost prohibitive for 1st level characters.
|
|
So your argument is actually that the specialist abilities do not make up for the loss of the 3.5 'extra spell per level per day' ? On that point, I would tend to agree. While 3.p specialists are much more flavorful, as a player I would much rather plink away with my crossbow, and have the extra spell/level (of my choice, as soon as I get that level of spell), rather than a flavorful at-will attack and preselected spells/day (not of my choice, not optimal, and only the level after I get that level of spell)
Are you honestly suggesting it would be a bad thing if Pathfinder nudged wizards downward a bit, powerwise?
So your argument is actually that the specialist abilities do not make up for the loss of the 3.5 'extra spell per level per day' ? On that point, I would tend to agree. While 3.p specialists are much more flavorful, as a player I would much rather plink away with my crossbow, and have the extra spell/level (of my choice, as soon as I get that level of spell), rather than a flavorful at-will attack and preselected spells/day (not of my choice, not optimal, and only the level after I get that level of spell)Are you honestly suggestig it would be a bad thing if Pathfinder nudged wizards downward a bit, powerwise?
That would mean ripping out almost all of the save or dies, something they can't do and maintain the illusion of compatibility. (Not that this is really compatible, since you have to rework every existing NPC to the new rules- stats (racial bonuses), skills, feats, etc).
Are you honestly suggesting it would be a bad thing if Pathfinder nudged wizards downward a bit, powerwise?
At first thru third level? Yes, yes I think we are. They are so weak that they are useless. You get a spell or two, and then you might as well hide behind a door until the fighter finished off the monsters.
The whole idea behind giving wizards a reusable magical attack is to prevent the 15 minute adventuring day and to boost the low level mage so that they are useful in a way that doesn't boost the high level mage. (who I agree is already so powerful its not funny.)
At the moment, the low level school powers are not accomplishing either goal. Baiscly, the warlock's attack is what this kind of power should be based off of. It hits reliably, does good damage without being too powerful, and will encourage the party to keep going once the wizard has used up his spells.
Simple solution: Add your int bonus to damage. (1d6+int mod)
This would be a very good solution.
|
Simple solution: Add your int bonus to damage. (1d6+int mod)This would be a very good solution.
I have to disagree.
So now a 1st-level wizard with 18 INT can do better damage than a greatsword as a ranged touch attack? Low-level wizards are supposed to be weak. If you want to play a warlock, play 4e.
Hell, with a rule like that, I can take a level of rogue first so I can wear some armor, get 12 skill choices, and add +1d6 sneak attack damage to my ray for 6-20 points of damage at will. Why play a fighter, or any other class, for that matter?
No thank you.
|
|
Are you honestly suggesting it would be a bad thing if Pathfinder nudged wizards downward a bit, powerwise?At first thru third level? Yes, yes I think we are. They are so weak that they are useless. You get a spell or two, and then you might as well hide behind a door until the fighter finished off the monsters.
At first level, you're trading one spell for a reusable effect that is only slightly less powerful.
At second level, you have the same number of spells - including one SLA that duplicates a spell you would otherwise have memorized.
At third level, you are one spell behind, I admit... that is, unless you chose an object for your arcane bond, in which case you are where you were before, and in fact ahead of the game because you don't have to choose that spell until it's time to cast it.
At fourth level, you have two uses of magic missile, plus an additional SLA that replaces the 2nd level spell you would have otherwise. And your ranged touch attack is up to either 1d4+2 or (hopefully) 1d6+2.
There's no power loss at low levels. None. The one extra 1st level spell is not, in any way shape or form, going to help you over the supernatural ability you get that replaces it.
At high levels, there might well be, because the wizard's save DCs are likely to be lower (thanks to Cha-based SLAs) and the spell choices are not necessarily what you would always want them to be. But where we're talking, there's really no cause for complaint here.
Baiscly, the warlock's attack is what this kind of power should be based off of. It hits reliably, does good damage without being too powerful, and will encourage the party to keep going once the wizard has used up his spells.
The 1st level warlock does 1d6 damage as a ranged touch. This is exactly the way the fire ray worked before, and even at 1d4 is only 1 point of damage ahead (on average). At 2nd level, they're equal. This is already doing what you're asking for.
Its spontaneous for damage type (acid, cold, electric, or fire) and it can score a critical hit because its a ray. That means feats like weapon focus, point-blank shot, improved critical, power critical, etc... are all now applicable!
That's not so bad.
Multiclass ranger-wizard anyone?
Oh I hadn't thought of that yet. cant you sneak attack with a ray?
|
|
Oh I hadn't thought of that yet. cant you sneak attack with a ray?Its spontaneous for damage type (acid, cold, electric, or fire) and it can score a critical hit because its a ray. That means feats like weapon focus, point-blank shot, improved critical, power critical, etc... are all now applicable!
That's not so bad.
Multiclass ranger-wizard anyone?
Absolutely. There's a whole PrC built around the concept, actually.
We rarely use Prc at all so didnt know that
I have a system of Metamagic that keeps low-level spells attractive at higher levels. I'll post it here, hope it makes some sort of sense:
Forget the original metamagic rules except when creating magic items. Applying metamagic is a free action for all classes, and it is never prepared in advance. You can apply metamagic that brings the effective spell level of a spell up to the highest spell level you can cast, for free. You can apply the same metamagic feat several times to the same spell, with cumulative effects.
Example: A lvl 9 wizard can prepare 5th level spells. This means he can apply 5 levels of metamagic to his level 0 spells, 4 levels to his level 1 spells, 3 levels to his level 2 spells, 2 levels to his level 3 spells, and 1 level to his level 5 spells. This does not change the spell slot used.
Add to this my modified version of Heighten spell:
Heighten Spell (Metamagic)
Benefit: A heightened spell has a higher spell level than normal (up to a maximum of 9th level). Unlike other metamagic feats, Heighten Spell actually increases the effective level of the spell that it modifies. All effects dependent on spell level (such as saving throw DCs and ability to penetrate a lesser globe of invulnerability) are calculated according to the heightened level. The heightened spell is as difficult to prepare and cast as a spell of its effective level.
If a spell is heightened by two levels or more, all of these additional benefits apply. Each applies once per two levels of spell level increase. I.e., a first level spell heightened to sixth level (+5 levels) gets each of these bonuses twice.
* Increase the cap on the maximum amount of damage your spell can do by five dice.
* Increase the limit on any spellcasting level based bonus in the spell by ten.
* Affect four additional hit dice of enemies. Only applies to spells who affect a limited number of hit dice.Example: Tim the Enchanter is a ninth level wizard who considers how he can prepare various heightened spells. Hypnotic pattern is normally a first level spell that affects 2d4 hit dice of creatures, plus a number of hit dice equal to the caster level. Tim can prepare it in a third level spell slot, and it will affect 2d4+13 hit dice of creatures, or use a fifth level spell slot to affect 2d4+17 hit dice of creatures. A fireball that uses a level 5 spell slot has a damage cap of 15 dice, while a seventh level slot gives it a cap of 20d6. A dispel magic that uses a level 5 spell slot has a cap on the dispel check of +20.
Add these changes, and those low-level spells become very useful. Especially if you hand out more feats too.
|
|
Are you honestly suggesting it would be a bad thing if Pathfinder nudged wizards downward a bit, powerwise?
I wasn't trying to imply whether it was a good or bad decision. I'm just saying what I would rather have as the player of a wizard. But yes, in general, I don't like do see things get nerfed. Just personal preference there.
For example, I like the new grapple rules, but I won't implement them in my current campaign because they would screw my grapple-focused monk player. She is having a blast dominating combats right now and I don't want to take that away from her.
At first level, you're trading one spell for a reusable effect that is only slightly less powerful.
At second level, you have the same number of spells - including one SLA that duplicates a spell you would otherwise have memorized.
At third level, you are one spell behind, I admit... that is, unless you chose an object for your arcane bond, in which case you are where you were before, and in fact ahead of the game because you don't have to choose that spell until it's time to cast it.
At fourth level, you have two uses of magic missile, plus an additional SLA that replaces the 2nd level spell you would have otherwise. And your ranged touch attack is up to either 1d4+2 or (hopefully) 1d6+2.
There's no power loss at low levels. None. The one extra 1st level spell is not, in any way shape or form, going to help you over the supernatural ability you get that replaces it.
At high levels, there might well be, because the wizard's save DCs are likely to be lower (thanks to Cha-based SLAs) and the spell choices are not necessarily what you would always want them to be. But where we're talking, there's really no cause for complaint here.
My point earlier was that, as a player, I would much rather have the choice of those bonus spells every odd level than a fixed SLA at even levels. I totally agree that it is just a balanced/"powerful" now, but I would prefer to be able to customize my specialist a bit more. For example, a conjuration specialist may well not summon monsters at all. I would much rather have that extra grease than any number of summon monster I s.
Anyway, I think the at-will specialist abilities are just fine as written
all this being said, I think most of us will agree that the 1.1 change to the Evocation specialist weakens them. the variety is good but for f&^k sake, the Evoker SHOULD do at LEAST slightly more damage than the conjurer, or any other mage in regards to damage. Evokers are one trick ponies, at least give them a good trick! JUST LET THEIR SPECIALTY BONUS ADD TO THEIR ENERGY RAY! its a little bonus now, and spreads out to make a noticeable difference at higher levels
With the addition of at will damaging spells, I really think that 1st level spells that cause damage needs to go up. There really is no point to picking a magic missile now. If you upped the damage or allow a damaging spell to be cast multiple times over a few rounds, there would be better balance. How about a magic missile spell that gives the wizard the abilty to cast magic missile as a standard action for a minute's time?
magic missile doesn't miss, burning hands hits an area, shocking grasp may be the weakest of damaging spells at first level (and i am only comparing the at wills with first level because the actual spells level up much better than the at wills) but even shocking grasp is a touch attack that gives you a +3vs armored foes, and god-forbid you build a mage with a higher strength than dexterity, it gives you a viable spell to hit with
these attributes give the per day spells a slight advantage over the at will rays FOR FIRST LEVEL there after the per days spells take leaps and bounds for damage.
keep (non evoker ) rays at or below 1d6 damage at first level, and it will be balance, i believe.
|
|
Simple solution: Add your int bonus to damage. (1d6+int mod)I have to disagree.
So now a 1st-level wizard with 18 INT can do better damage than a greatsword as a ranged touch attack? Low-level wizards are supposed to be weak. If you want to play a warlock, play 4e.
Hell, with a rule like that, I can take a level of rogue first so I can wear some armor, get 12 skill choices, and add +1d6 sneak attack damage to my ray for 6-20 points of damage at will. Why play a fighter, or any other class, for that matter?
No thank you.
First off, you are very much wrong on your stats.
A fighter with a 18 STR score wielding a great sword will deal 2d6+6 damage not accounting feats. The fighters minimum damage is almost equal to the maximum damage for the mage's ray.
First off, I never said anything about how much damage a fighter can do. Obviously a fighter with 18 STR will still do more than a wizard. I was comparing wizard to actual weapon damage, because the wizard (who usually does not have high STR)is doing the damage with his ray.
I did have my stats wrong - I was thinking of a bastard sword (1d10), which could actually be a better comparison, since more weapons do 1d10 than the single 2d6 weapon, the greatsword.Second, I did not add the caster the caster bonus. Its a flat +Int mod.
No bonus. It will scale as you boost the the casters INT score.
I didn't add a caster bonus either. Wizard, 18 INT, damage=1d6+4.
Let's compare:Wizard with 18 INT ray - D:1d6+4 (5-10 pts of dmg) - avg. damage 7.5
Greatclub, halberd, or other d10 weapon - D:1d10 (1-10 pts of dmg) - avg. damage 5.5
Greatsword - D:2d6 (2-12 pts of dmg) - avg. damage 7
The wizard would still inflict a higher average amount of damage each round at will than any standard weapon, and as a ranged touch attack. Wizards don't get proficiency in greatswords because they shouldn't be able to do that much damage every round. That's the fighter's role, with his high STR and greater weapon proficiencies.
Third, the point you made with the rogue is true for all classes. You can take 1 level in rouge with 18 Dex, take a longbow(1d8) and take the feat Deadly Aim and get 1d8+1d6+4 damage on the all important first shot. At level 1.
So how is what I suggested broken?
First, rogues don't get proficiency in longbow (unless you're an elf), so you can't do that at 1st level without spending a feat unless you're an elf), and then you have don't have a feat to spend for Deadly Aim (unless you're a human).
Anyways, adding feats to other characters makes it less and less comparable, because you're building a character to specifically beat a default example (wizard with 18 INT) to win your point. I'm sure I could add other things to the wizard too, but that's not the point.
Yes, 1st-level rogue multiclassing is a problem that is being discussed on many other threads, but adding sneak attack damage to a ray like that would make it ludicrous to start playing a wizard without taking a level of rogue first.
The most a rogue can do as a ranged sneak attack at 1st level is 1d8, avg. damage 4.5 (can't count the 1d10 heavy crossbow, because you can't fire it every round like an at will ray), compared to the wizard's 7.5 average damage above. It's still too much damage for a wizard to be putting out every round. Why ever bother with magic missile?
(I know, it automatically hits. It does still have a use.)
Umm... the idea of this ability is to essentially replace the wizard using the crossbow or simple melee weapon in combat and as such it does so fairly well.The ability to have a flavorful replacement for a light crossbow is in no way also a replacement for having an extra spell of your highest level for low level characters.
Recall that Wizards are getting an actual ability to shoot little worthless neebly beams instead of throwing little worthless darts. That ability is worthless because if you actually fight with it you don't win.
Also note that X-Bows do a d8 (4.5 damage).
-Frank
Well the way I see it, it's a more effective hit that helps a wizard with an area he is sorely lacking in (attack bonus with weapons) and also adds some neat flavor.
You were just arguing that the low level wizard is already more than formidable enough, so I guess what would be the point in giving him another powerful low-level effect?
I guess I see this as adding a flavor and also adding an attack that the wizard doesn't fundamentally suck with as badly.
Well the way I see it, it's a more effective hit that helps a wizard with an area he is sorely lacking in (attack bonus with weapons) and also adds some neat flavor.You were just arguing that the low level wizard is already more than formidable enough, so I guess what would be the point in giving him another powerful low-level effect?
I guess I see this as adding a flavor and also adding an attack that the wizard doesn't fundamentally suck with as badly.
A low level Wizard can cast such mass-killer spells as color spray and sleep. That's very impressive.
But a low level Evoker is a loser. Magic missile is just deeply unimpressive. Round by round the Ranger just does more damage even counting the fact that his attacks miss now and again. An Evoker doesn't do anything except dish out damage, and at low levels that amount of damage is literally laughable.
You could give the Evoker unlimited magic missile castings at first level and he still wouldn't be particularly good. Go ahead and try it - I have. Clerics, Rogues, and even Fighters all massively outperform a character who tosses McMissile every round at virtually any level.
-Frank
Yes, but under the proposed changes, an Evoker would have access to all the same spells a generalist wizard has, which seems to be more than ample in power.
He could take his evoker spells along with other spells that allow him more than adequate strength.
I also wouldn't argue that perhaps the evokers constant ability to deal energy damage shouldn't be a bit higher than the rest of the school abilities given the skill-set he is focusing in, but I guess I don't see the power issue of this ability needing a significant boost due to the already powerful abilities the wizard has. This seems to be better for flavor and probably a slightly better option than wielding a light crossbow since most wizards attack with weapons vs normal AC.
I would also be for a feat or two that may alter these abilities a bit at other levels, but that may be getting ahead of myself or slightly off topic.
Yes, but under the proposed changes, an Evoker would have access to all the same spells a generalist wizard has, which seems to be more than ample in power.
So you are saying that an Evoker can be a reasonably effective character so long as they don't use any Evocations? I agree actually, but that still sucks.
If a player writes "Evoker" on their character sheet, it is probably because they want to burninate things with magical fire. Telling them that in order to be effective they have to use the same magics that the Illusionist uses and scrupulously avoid fire and lightning is a literal slap in the face.
The fact that the character can contribute doesn't mean that the Evoker isn't broken. For the rules to be working properly, an Evoker needs to be able to pull his weight by burning and freezing his opponents, in the same way that an Illusionist can make himself known by filling up the area with intangible walls and colored lights.
-Frank
burninateing the country side, burninateing the village,burninateing the pesents and all the people burninateing.
sorry had to be said.
True. Like I said, I certainly wouldn't be against the Evoker being able to do a bit more damage with the ability than the other schools, but this becomes less of a problem at 3rd level when the evoker can start stacking a bit of damage in Burning hands and has access to spells like Shatter, scorching ray, and Darkness which start giving the evoker a bit more power and versatility with his chosen school.
Maybe give the Evoker the same progression with a d8 or d10 dice attack instead and perhaps let him take a full attack action with it as if it was a ranged weapon. This would make the ability a bit more useful at high levels as well, but not overpowering compared to anything that can deal damage at something like 15th level...it would also make it interesting with something like rapid shot at lower levels.