Any thoughts on why Paizo decided to change that?
just a shot in the dark... but perhaps because they are spell-like abilities... and as spell-like abilities thier save DCs are calculated by charisma, like everybody/everything elses spell-like abilities...
|
Any thoughts on why Paizo decided to change that?
just a shot in the dark... but perhaps because they are spell-like abilities... and as spell-like abilities thier save DCs are calculated by charisma, like everybody/everything elses spell-like abilities...
Except for Rogues. Theirs are based on INT. Go figure. (Alpha 3, pp39-40, Major Magic and Minor Magic)
The whole SLA's based on CHA thing is one of the factors contributing to the "school powers" and domain stuff being nearly useless - at least where saves are important. Sure, some whole schools of magic (and domains) have spells that don't really need saves. But there are those that do, and those schools (or domains) are particularly unattractive now thanks to tying the DC to CHA.
Any thoughts on why Paizo decided to change that?
just a shot in the dark... but perhaps because they are spell-like abilities... and as spell-like abilities thier save DCs are calculated by charisma, like everybody/everything elses spell-like abilities...
I realize that other classes' spell-like abilites use the Charisma modifier (i.e. Wizard's Arcane schools) to calculate their DCs. However the question of "why" still stands. In 3.5, the DC for cleric domain spells used the Wisdom modifier. So I can only assume that Paizo developers wanted their domain spell-like abilites (and Wizard arcane school spell-like abilites) to be weaker than actual spells.
They must have wanted them weaker so much, that they were willing to add complexity to the game to achieve that result. My question is why. Its much easier to track DCs using one key attribute (Int for Wizards and Wisdom for Clerics).
in 3.5 the clerics domian spells were SPELLS not SPELL-LIKE ABILITIES, spells use the classes casting stat, spell-like abilities use charisma. It is not making the game more complex, it is keeping it so that all spell-like abilities work the same way... what would be more complex is if all spell like abilities in the game except the clerics used charisma, but the clerics SLA's used wisdom.
|
|
in 3.5 the clerics domian spells were SPELLS not SPELL-LIKE ABILITIES, spells use the classes casting stat, spell-like abilities use charisma. It is not making the game more complex, it is keeping it so that all spell-like abilities work the same way... what would be more complex is if all spell like abilities in the game except the clerics used charisma, but the clerics SLA's used wisdom.
Um... again, except Rogues. They use INT for their SLAs. Note my reference above.
I guess maybe the question could also be phrased "why take away actual spells and replace them with substantially less powerful SLAs?"
I haven't looked closely at the domains (I haven't played a cleric yet under Pathfinder), but with the wizard schools they are all spells that the wizard could have selected the level before he actually gets the SLA. So not only has Pathfinder taken away the bonus spell from your specialty class (or domain list), but what it has given back is almost like a mockery....
Anyway, there's no consistency issue here - they already broke that by giving the rogue SLAs that go off of INT.
It would be nice to someday get a response to these concerns. I am guessing that the response will be in the form of the beta and nothing before.
rogues using int is just as stupid as clerics using wisdom.
rogues using int is just as stupid as clerics using wisdom.
But yet it sets a precident that they are not basing the SLA abilities off of the standard set in the original SRD. Instead it shows that they are simply doing it to make the casters more multi-stat dependent, something that isn't needed IMO.
I too would like to see some sort of feedback from Paizo on this, considering I don't think they have chimed in even once in the multiple threads related to the "gimping" of the specialist wizards by taking away their bonus spells and giving them SLA's that they are usually going to suck at.
I think they do feel that the multi-stat dependency is needed, or at least a good idea.
A lot of non-caster classes depend on two statistics, but wizards can get away with putting everything in intelligence. Paizo's trying to spread the love.
|
|
I think they do feel that the multi-stat dependency is needed, or at least a good idea.
A lot of non-caster classes depend on two statistics, but wizards can get away with putting everything in intelligence. Paizo's trying to spread the love.
Multi-stat dependency for other classes is not as dire as it would be for the wizard. Spells are already finicky. Heck, I don't even get to USE the big ones unless I have a big stat. Most other classes who have special abilities that normally have stat prerequisites have those prerequisites waived - but not the wizard. It's a specific limitation which encourages... no, *requires* pumping up one stat to the exclusion of all others just to be able to use the major class features of the wizard - spells.
To even consider that a wizards needs to use force of personality instead of arcane discipline and training to use the special powers granted him by focussing his studies on one school of magic is ... well, sorry, but it's just silly. It runs counter to *any* kind of flavour you try to wrap around it, and thus smacks entirely of crunch for the sake of crunch. Where do these powers come from? "Due to their devotion"... is this some kind of religious devotion? Or is it a devotion to study... in which case, why do they manifest powers that they're not really that good at?
I guess if we were going from "there never was any kind of specialization" to this option, it wouldn't seem so ... bad. However, we had a good system of specialization from 3.5, and it's been turned into this. If we can ever get a comment from Jason about it, maybe he can explain the rationale behind what is going on with this School Powers stuff. It might make sense then. I still won't agree with it, but I hope at least I'll understand what he is trying to do with it. :) However, I expect I'll have to wait and read the beta to see if it even got touched.
I don't like it, either, and I just ignore those parts. Doesn't make sense that they're weaker with the very spells that are supposed to be their strength.
Edit, it's one more thing you have to remember. It's not necessary that they're different, so it's an unnecessary complication. The worst kind of complication
|
I think they do feel that the multi-stat dependency is needed, or at least a good idea.
A lot of non-caster classes depend on two statistics, but wizards can get away with putting everything in intelligence. Paizo's trying to spread the love.
Clerics have to many needed high stats as it is. I definitly see the Need ofr the Wizard, and even Sorcerrer, but Clerics need a decent or better Str, Con, and Cha, and a high Wis. And that is just 3.5.
Now they need a decent or better Str, Con, and Int, and a High Wis and Cha.
To be honest, the extra powers granted in exchange for bonus spells per day...I say definitly "NO"!
I would only agree if the system would work something like this:
You get 1 bonus spell per day at each spell level that means. 10 bonus spells from (0-9th). Of course (Intelligence-based).
You can swap 0-9th level bonus spell slot 1x/day every 4 Caster Level to earn a specific specialist power which than is cast as a spell-like, supernatural ability (Charisma-based) or maybe extra ordinary. The powers should be interesting enough for the wizard, to consider take a little bit more than 8 or 10 in Charisma. The higher the Charisma modifier is, the higher the benefits should be the wizard gets.
In any case, I personaly in 3.5 played always wizards with a high INT.
1st. level character would look like that with POINT BUY 32:
STR 8
DEX 14
CON 14
INT 18
WIS 8
CHA 12
If it's gonna stay like this, I tend to houserule again or in this case stay 3.5 for only that rule!