My group and I have been playtesting Pathfinder for a few weeks now and so far I haven't seen anything to suggest wizards need to be capped out at 3 spells a level.
My main problem with Wizards right now? Bonus spells.
Specialist Wizards used to be able to memorize extra spells because they made a huge sacrifice - they designated a few schools of magic as their "opposition schools" and were barred from casting spells from those schools forevermore. They were forced to sacrifice some of the Wizard's versatility in exchange for a little more firepower.
But now Specialist Wizards can cast spells from their Opposition Schools pretty easily. All they have to do is give up their "Specialist Bonus" for a day and they can cast spells from their Opposition Schools as well as any other Wizard. They don't even lose most of their special abilities - they just lose their Specialist Bonus. So you can have a Transmuter Specialist that can still make Telekinetic Attacks, Change Shape, and have a Fluid Form despite the fact that every spell that they have memorized belongs to one of their Opposition Schools.
To further muddy the situation, Specialist Wizards aren't even getting extra spells now - they are gaining spell-like abilities that they can select from the Wizard spell list. Unfortunately, the power of these abilities are tied to the Charisma of the Wizard, which means that in most cases, their DCs for these abilities are going to be pretty poor.
All in all, this new system seems like a lackluster attempt to let Specialist Wizards have their cake and eat it too.
My suggestion: Bring back the Specialist rules from the 3.5 SRD. Have them select two forbidden Opposition Schools and let them get to cast an extra spell per level. Or better yet, sit down and figure out what Opposition Schools best offset the strengths of a particular Specialist School, much like they did in D&D 3.0 and 2nd Edition AD&D.
Generalist Wizards shouldn't get bonus spells or bonus spell-like abilities at all. They aren't being forced to give anything up for these bonus spells. So why do they get them? You want to give all Wizards special abilities as they level? That's fine. But the extra spells for Generalist Wizards have got to go.
The unlimited Cantrips? The D6 Hit Die? Not a huge issue. Some of the Bonus Abilities are pretty screwed up (I'm looking at you, Metamagic Mastery), but the idea is sound.
My suggestion: Bring back the Specialist rules from the 3.5 SRD. Have them select two forbidden Opposition Schools and let them get to cast an extra spell per level. Or better yet, sit down and figure out what Opposition Schools best offset the strengths of a particular Specialist School, much like they did in D&D 3.0 and 2nd Edition AD&D.
This, the schools aren't all equal.
If you want specialist wizards to be more unique, I would suggest something more akin to the focused specialist rules were specialist are really specialized.
|
rescinding the new bonuses to the wizard would put him in a disadvantage position in relation to all the other classes as how Paizo has remade them...
Selgard i have seen specialist in wizards or sorceres able to help the campaign or route it... using the less damaging spells, they just use interesting use of what they know
2 words for your master... Tactical Planning
if all your enemies are always in front of you... then they are calling for you to blow them to pieces!
enemies should not be stupid to not understand that your wizard or sorcerer is able to vring hell on earth to them... next time they will ambush your group, surroinding them and attaking from everywhere, making it difficult to your spellcaster to just blow them all..
the world and adventure is a 3D universe... if they just make a line for you to use "lightning" or came in mass asking for a "fireball"
what can i say... its not only your fault that others have no fun in combat... in our old game the wizard/sorcerer (yes, damn maniac) whose favorit spell was "fire in the hole!" yes plagued our enemies... still their tactical movements or the number of them or how strong they were make that every fireball that hit made us feel grateful
... and no, enemies where not overpowered, they were canned adventures from 3.5 "whisperer in dreams" and the enxt one which name i don't remember
its all about how to play... combat in RPG should nto be just another kind of chess (don't get me wring, i like chess, butits pretty boring looking at people thinking that if they move here they would be in trouibles, but from ehre he can use his sopells, blah blah
rescinding the new bonuses to the wizard would put him in a disadvantage position in relation to all the other classes as how Paizo has remade them...
There are some people that might argue that they wouldn't be disadvantaged, but finally on equal footing.
If you took a 3.5 cleric, wizard, or druid and compared them to any of the updated nonfullcasting classes in Pathfinder, could you honestly tell me that any of them are actualy more powerful than the 3.5 fullcasters I listed above?
Wizards have been fine with little extra sidedressing to the class other than spells since forever, I'm not sure I understand the pathfinder need to add all the extra little fiddly bits in.
Ask anyone to rank the classes from most powerful to least powerful and Wizard will always be either #1 or #2.
Why?
Because of their spell lists.
Those who have looked at the numbers also know it's because of their Save or Die spells that they are really #1 on the list and not #2 or #3.
Hold Person was a perfect example of how a 3.0 SoD spell was toned back to be appropriate for it's level in 3.5 by simply adding a new save against the spell each round.
Baleful Polymorph is an example of a spell that was toned down in PF to more appropriate for it's level (now as Beast Shape III and allows 2 saves)
I think the same needs to be done for all the SoD spells. Flesh to Stone should take 2-3 rounds, 1st round failed save = slowed, 2nd round failed save = paralyzed, 3rd round failed save = stone. Feeblemind should gain a saving throw each round to reverse the effects.
All the spells that are combat ending need to have these same things done to them (Wizard, Cleric, etc) and it will bring those classes back into power levels with other "I kill by attrition" classes.
I agree Mega.
And in return, Evocation needs a serious kick in the pants to bring it up to par with the 3.0/3.5 HP and Con mod changes- which is what nerfed damaging spells into oblivion in the first place.
We need to fix /both/ areas for Wizards to resume the place they had before. i.e. useful, functional, but not 'I rule the world'.
-S
|
|
its nice to hear that
usually the Cleric and Druid are accused of being the single most powerful classes... :P
they rant often about that
and i would not agree in that they are... because it would be like putting a noose on me... i love the cleric :P
if you want to nerf your wizards for your games? fine
don't try to ruin the game for the rest of us (i almost never use a wizard... as i don't know to use them... i end being more useless than in using a bard :S)
wizards, clerics and druids devote themselves to their practices
wizards and clerics are already punished for this by having just mere 2 kills + int modifierwizards, clerics and druids NEED to memorize what spells they would use
sorceres and bards does not, this is rawpower
I don't agree to your opinion: Wizards indeed get just 2 skills+int, but oh look: Int governs spellcasting AND skills. Not that much of a sacrifice then. Better to look at the actual average Skill points.
The sorcerer by the way also gets just 2 skills+int. Their bloodlines are neat (really! Really neat!), but it would be a bit nicer if they'd actually get a bump compared to the wizards. Okay, a wizards needs to memorize, but actually the sorcerer is a lot more focused on his ability to cast spells than the wizard. I'd call this "devotion".
I think that the way to balance all spellcasters, including wizards is to eliminate bonus spells from stats. This will limit the importance of mental stats so all spellcasters don't fight tooth and nail for each point. Also, it limits high level characters more than low levels ones, and at high levels, the casters don't need as many spells as they get. It adds a little more strategy at high levels becuase the casters still may need to think about conserving spells. It also increases the power of sorcerers, because more spells memorized is better than more spells perday.
I am sure that many people will think that I hate casters but this is not the case. I love playing casters, but i feel that much of the strategy is gone at hgih levels when I haev so many spells and my character always seems to outshine all the other characters. before you write up posts about how terrible this idea is, take a look at the amount of spells on the chart at about 15th level. Does that character need any more spells than what is on the chart?
|
I don't really think that 3.5 Wizards (as a class) are overpowered.
Pathfinder Specialists, I'm not so sure, and Pathfinder *Universalists,* need a drastic hedge-pruning of some sort, possibly with a chainsaw, with the 'universalist' abilities only being available as feat options and not free class abilities (and, to be consistent, I'd be fine with 'specialists' also having to use Feats to purchase specialization options, gaining them in place of Item Creation / Metamagic / Spell Mastery bonus feats, perhaps, and turning the Pathfinder Wizards into a d6 HD version of the 3.5 Wizard, with some shiny new uses for her bonus feats).
Certain spells also could use tweaking, and it looks like Pathfinder is addressing some of the offending spells. Many examples of Wizard 'overpoweredness' are examples of spells being used in combinations that were clearly not thought out, and should be addressed. Turning the Wizard into a blaster who can't do anything significantly different than what the Fighter is doing, only with spells instead of weapons, armor and training, is, IMO, only going to make the game a smaller, less compelling thing.
I do believe that Clerics and Druids, getting access to their entire spell-lists, are overpowered. If both divine classes had to abide by either the Wizard (must pay for / aquire spells) or Sorcerer (smaller flexible list of spells known) restrictions, I think they'd be better balanced against the Wizard, Sorcerer, etc.
I agree with Set on the whole here.
Overall the wizard is not overpowered (with the exception of the universilist, Oye!). Specialist have some nifty tricks, but overall they are just tricks, in and of themselves, even when combined with spells, are not overpowering.
I disagree with Temeryn. Even if you got rid of bonus spells per day, people are still going to fight toe and nail for those stat points. Why? Spell DC. I'm more worried about making sure my spells connect than I am about how many more I can cast. The extra spells are just nice, getting my spell DC's were they are "reliable" is my main concern as a player of a spellchucker.
***************** New Thought Warning *********************
I think this highlights an interesting problem though. The game is designed with some balance in mind... sometimes the players will hit, sometimes they will miss, sometimes the monsters will hit, sometimes they will miss. However if the Player's DC or AC or Damage isn't enough to ensure success, avoid all blows, kill in 1 round, then people don't think it's enough, and fill they must up it more.
I noticed this problem starting when 3.0 came out. Before then it didn't matter -- there where caps on everything. You could only get AC -10, your THac0 could only get to 2, You stats almost NEVER increased. In 3.x without these caps people see the sky is the limit and expect to reach it.
Um... I've never really had a problem making those save throws, In fact my wizard's don't seem to get DC's High enough.
Consider that at 20th level you get over 800k, and a cloak of Resistance + 5 is only 25,000.
That takes all your saves from + 6 to + 11 minimum. Beyond that most monsters have lots of good saves. + 12 + stat mod compared to 10+ spell level (and no wizard or sorcerer is going to be casting 9th level spells all day) + stat mod. Maxed out the stat for the caster is going to be 35 = + 17 (that's starting with 20 adding all four level adjustments + 5 from wishes + 6 from an item) meaning at level twenty his DC is going to be 27 + spell level. That's actually very small compared to the saves and resistances of his real targets... the monsters. Yes he maybe able to hit all day on the fighter, but he isn't going to be facing fighters all day.
Strange, in our group wizards and clerics are played because no one else wants to. (overpowered? I don't think so. Pull out your 2nd ed book and compare, then you will not say that they are.) The changes made by Pathfinder need to tested. Playing a wizard once is not tested, because any given sunday... My experience with wizards is not what you have seen and vice versa. Play ten different wizards with different schools and spell selections, then you can make a statement like "wizards are overpowered compared to x."
In my experience a wizard knows way more spells than he uses on a regular basis, so you might as well play a sorcerer and get more castings (untrained = more magic! where did that come from?). Wizards need more castings per day, not less. If they seem overpowered maybe other classes in your games have been underplayed. When our players regularly choose fighter over wizard, I wonder why everybody says fighters are unusable and wizards are too powerful. With all due respect to everyone here, I don't buy into it.
Strange, in our group wizards and clerics are played because no one else wants to. (overpowered? I don't think so. Pull out your 2nd ed book and compare, then you will not say that they are.) The changes made by Pathfinder need to tested. Playing a wizard once is not tested, because any given sunday... My experience with wizards is not what you have seen and vice versa. Play ten different wizards with different schools and spell selections, then you can make a statement like "wizards are overpowered compared to x."
In my experience a wizard knows way more spells than he uses on a regular basis, so you might as well play a sorcerer and get more castings (untrained = more magic! where did that come from?). Wizards need more castings per day, not less. If they seem overpowered maybe other classes in your games have been underplayed. When our players regularly choose fighter over wizard, I wonder why everybody says fighters are unusable and wizards are too powerful. With all due respect to everyone here, I don't buy into it.
Truthfully, I would lower the number of spells per day, or even put an overall cap on them. One thing I have found is that from about 10th level+ the spellcasters never suffer from what's supposed to be their big draw-back, running out of spells when they're too trigger happy.
Well again I point something out:
Wizards use magic --
Sorcerers are magic.
Study all you want you probably aren't going to do it as well as someone that has is it incarnated.
However:
On any given level the sorcerer is only about 1 casting ahead of the wizard after accounting for the wizard's specialist bonus spells, and advanced casting progression (n/2-1 verses the sorcerer's n/2). In fact by the time a sorcerer can cast a spell of a given level the wizard can cast just as many of that level as the sorcerer can.
Also:
I made a mistake above, the Wizard casting a ninth level spell with an INT of 35 has a DC 30. I got flubby with my math.
Finally:
While 2nd ed spells didn't have 'touch ac' several of them did give the wizard fighter THac0 for the purposes of hitting with that spell.
HA! I didn't flub my math the first time I forgot about the enhancment item the second time! Thank you!
Still at level 20 only a DC 37 (old wizard)...
actually scratch that worry, even the Tarrasque is only +38 + 29 + 20... guess those are just really lucky rolls on my DM's behalf...
I agree Mega.
And in return, Evocation needs a serious kick in the pants to bring it up to par with the 3.0/3.5 HP and Con mod changes- which is what nerfed damaging spells into oblivion in the first place.
We need to fix /both/ areas for Wizards to resume the place they had before. i.e. useful, functional, but not 'I rule the world'.
-S
I agree with MegaPlex and Selgard. We need to fix the over powered spells and leave the wizard class alone.
Sannos
Some spells need to be adjusted more than others and when we get into that section of the play testing we need to be sure to set things right. As for the wizard being OP? They are great in some circumstances and suck in others. No different than the other classes excluding bard. The problems come from smart players running any class. If you play for fun then it will be. Here is to keeping things fun.
|
Rather than nerf the wizard's daily spells, I suggest simply leaving wizards at d4 hit die. Many people will still pick wizards over sorcerers for their arcane power. Also, it maintains another reasonable distinction between Wiz and Sor that I think correlates well with some of the flavor differences between the two classes that PF has been trying to achieve.
I like that idea James.
Except the commoner now as a d6, and HD are tied to BAB. I dont think tieing them with a d4 again is a good balancing ideal
I agree Mega.
And in return, Evocation needs a serious kick in the pants to bring it up to par with the 3.0/3.5 HP and Con mod changes- which is what nerfed damaging spells into oblivion in the first place.
We need to fix /both/ areas for Wizards to resume the place they had before. i.e. useful, functional, but not 'I rule the world'.
-S
I agree with MegaPlex and Selgard. We need to fix the over powered spells and leave the wizard class alone.
Sannos
Yeah the class is fine, some spells may need fixed while others need unnerfed id ya ask me
Quandary and Charles Evans are right on the money. Spell power isn't so much an issue to me as is the fact that the entire structure of the 3e combat rules is tilted wildly in favor of casters over warriors at higher levels. Class balance, such as it was, in 1e and 2e depended on a number of factors:
Overall, the entire rules structure for 3e was revised to ensure that, at higher levels, there were absolutley no balancing features between casters and warriors. We're reaping the benefits of that, by seeing that the standard 4-person party needed at low levels (fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric) can now easily dispense with the fighter and rogue at high levels and not even notice the loss.
What Pathfinder desperately needs are ways for warriors to effectively guard companions, to intercept attackers and spellcasting, to move and still get all their attacks in, and to have a chance at disrupting spells being cast again. That would make up for the changes in the combat rules. Then, on top of that, the mundane classes need major power boosts to make up for the fact that, with the same xp, they're not higher level than the casters anymore (the rogue got those boosts, in the form of sneak attacks and talents, but fighters and paladins are still eating dirt after 11th level or so).
Q
In 1e/2e, long casting times meant the possibility of a "pre-emptive" hit on any attack against you, which made you automatically lose your spell. Again, 3e flip-flopped this: now there's no way to attack during casting except by specifically readying an action, and we've added Concentration/Spellcraft rolls to keep spells that are incredibly easy to make at higher levels.
Though many things of previous eds I prefer over 3.x, actually I always felt that one in a slight different way: 3.x makes things more even for everybody:
* Basic-1s-2nd ed: When faced by a melee or ranged attack, it all comes down to the Initiative roll (and some modifiers, like casting segments or weapon type). If the mage wins, the enemy is toast; if the enemy wins, the mage gets hit and his concentration is disrupted. It's an all-or-nothing system, which was especially lethal with SoD spells, or even those high-level no-save-and-die ones.
*3.x: Readied actions and counterspells make anti-mage strategies a possibility (besides the mere rushing at her and hoping for lucky initiative rolls or initiating a grapple). Melee casting triggers AoOs (or requires casting on the defensive). On the other hand, instead of damage automatically disrupting concentration, the mage may take a check to cast.
I agree with your point inasmuch as previous editions encouraged team play (with warrior types preventing monsters from engaging the spellcaster and thus running chances of ruining her precious daily spell stuff). Now everybody is more self-sufficient in this tactical aspect if they play their cards right. Wizards can do quite a lot of melee witch-fu if they have high bonuses, but a well-played monster is going to keep readying actions or, better still, grappling and holding. I have not seen yet a wizard with an astounding Grapple / CMB value. When one monster gags or pins you down until another one slits your throat, you definitely need a fighter or barbarian to save your hide.
Of course, getting that close to a wizard at mid-high levels might be pretty hard, but that's a feature of all editions. They have tricks up their sleeve and the rest of the party tries to shield them from melee... That requires more challenging monster tactics than rules modifications.
(a) Readied actions and (b) counterspells make anti-mage strategies a possibility (besides the mere rushing at her and hoping for lucky initiative rolls or initiating a grapple). (c) Melee casting triggers AoOs (or requires casting on the defensive). (d) On the other hand, instead of damage automatically disrupting concentration, the mage may take a check to cast.
I'd very much enjoy a game in which the points you listed worked well. But what we have in 3e seems to be that, while excellent ideas, the mechanics were implemented poorly when it came down to it:
(a) Readying actions doesn't work well because it requires you to be prescient with regards to spellcasting, but still doesn't let you do anything about it. Player: "I ready an action to attack him if he casts a spell!" DM: "Caster steps back 5 ft. and casts. Your readied action is wasted because he's out of reach." And you can't ready a move AND an attack, just one or the other; and even if you could, the caster could just move back 30 ft. and cast, and the armored fighter moves up 20 ft. and still can't reach him! Changing all "standard action" casting times to "full attack actions" would be a big help in that regard. Then, if you could ready a full move and an attack together, you might have a chance to disrupt an occasional spell -- if the caster fails his check, of course.
(b) I've never, ever seen counterspelling successfully used. One wizard player made the Spellcraft check, realized he'd already cast the exact spell needed to counterspell, and threw up his hands. "Why do they even have this rule, if you can only use it one time out of 50,000?" I had no answer for him. If you could counterspell using any spell of the same level or higher, the tactic might have merit.
(c) The static DCs for casting on the defensive are so easy for a mid- to high-level caster that AoO for spellcasting while threatened really don't ever occur... In fact, in retrospect, I don't think I've ever seen an AoO actually provoked by spellcasting. Making the DC equal to 10 + enemy's CMB + spell level might be good, but 15 + spell level = auto-success.
(d) Damage-scaling DCs are more realistic, but again, it's just too daggone hard to attack someone just as he's casting; the combat mechanics just don't really allow it (see a, above).
So, changing the rules to some extent is needed even to have the situation that you describe (which I agree would be a good one).
(a) Readied actions and (b) counterspells make anti-mage strategies a possibility (besides the mere rushing at her and hoping for lucky initiative rolls or initiating a grapple). (c) Melee casting triggers AoOs (or requires casting on the defensive). (d) On the other hand, instead of damage automatically disrupting concentration, the mage may take a check to cast.I'd very much enjoy a game in which the points you listed worked well. But what we have in 3e seems to be that, while excellent ideas, the mechanics were implemented poorly when it came down to it:
(a) Readying actions doesn't work well because it requires you to be prescient with regards to spellcasting, but still doesn't let you do anything about it. Player: "I ready an action to attack him if he casts a spell!" DM: "Caster steps back 5 ft. and casts. Your readied action is wasted because he's out of reach." And you can't ready a move AND an attack, just one or the other; and even if you could, the caster could just move back 30 ft. and cast, and the armored fighter moves up 20 ft. and still can't reach him! Changing all "standard action" casting times to "full attack actions" would be a big help in that regard. Then, if you could ready a full move and an attack together, you might have a chance to disrupt an occasional spell -- if the caster fails his check, of course.
(b) I've never, ever seen counterspelling successfully used. One wizard player made the Spellcraft check, realized he'd already cast the exact spell needed to counterspell, and threw up his hands. "Why do they even have this rule, if you can only use it one time out of 50,000?" I had no answer for him. If you could counterspell using any spell of the same level or higher, the tactic might have merit.
(c) The static DCs for casting on the defensive are so easy for a mid- to high-level caster that AoO for spellcasting while threatened really don't ever occur... In fact, in retrospect, I don't think I've ever seen an AoO actually provoked by...
Just wanted to say that this is all stuff that really needs attention and fixing it could only improve the game. Good assessment.
(b) I've never, ever seen counterspelling successfully used. One wizard player made the Spellcraft check, realized he'd already cast the exact spell needed to counterspell, and threw up his hands. "Why do they even have this rule, if you can only use it one time out of 50,000?" I had no answer for him. If you could counterspell using any spell of the same level or higher, the tactic might have merit.
We use counter-spelling succesfully all the time in my games. Dispel magic is a great tool for this, as it prevents you from having to have the right spell on hand all the time. Especially in battles that involve a casting-heavy opponents, it's well worth it for the party wizard to reserve an action to stop a fireball or other nasty AoE spell.
For those wizards dedicated to counter-spelling (admittedly, often a Cohort), Improved Counterspell is a useful and worthwhile feat.
Dramatically altering the mechanic isn't necessary.
Quicken spell helps too, I've seen and DM'ed that you can use a quickened spell to counter with. Improved counterspell is also useful...
More often than not though I see people try and prevent a spell through damage, even though the spell may go through you at least hit the mage for damage.
I'm currently playtesting a houserule where the Counterspell is an Immediate action; in 8 years of 3.x edition, I have never seen Counterspell RAW in use...
I will see if this works or not (on paper, it seems a decent idea...)
|
|
I'm currently playtesting a houserule where the Counterspell is an Immediate action; in 8 years of 3.x edition, I have never seen Counterspell RAW in use...
As written, Counterspelling seems pointless.
Changing it to an immediate action is one option.
Making it flat-out easier to qualify for (using any spell of the same school, making 'dispel magic 1-IX' spells for each level, something) would be another option.
Making it potentially more effective might also help, for instance, allowing someone to get a bonus to the counterspell check for using a higher level spell of the same school, or additional spell slots, or something.
Right now, you are guaranteed to lose your action, and, if facing a CR appropriate challenge, will be facing a spellcaster 2 or more levels above your own, giving you maybe a 40% chance of preventing his action, *if* you have the appropriate spell memorized and *if* you make your spellcraft check and *if* he casts a spell that you can counter (and doesn't activate a magic item, use an SLA, eat your face, etc.).
It's not good. I don't mind if it remains less than an optimal choice for the average spellcaster, but right now it's an awful choice for an optimized Abjuration specialist.
magic is nerfed powerfully from 2nd edition to 3.0
yes now its faster
yes ITS weaker, and in 3.5 it gets weaker,
Wrong and wrong. Magic received ENORMOUS boost in 3.0.
1)Removal of spells that screw you with system shocks and aging. In AD&D 2 many spells, including such staples as Polymorph and Haste, carried the risk of outright killing the recipient. Also, spells like Wish became partially independent from DM's mood.2)Easy combat casting.
3)Ability to dish out multiple spells with round (later reduced in 3.5).
4)Easy creation of magic items/undead/whatever.
5)At high levels, even serious opponents have more than 15% chance of actually failing their saves (in AD&D 2 just about anyone with a decent save-boosting item had even that chance only if the DM used the rule of always failing your saves on 3 and less).
6)No more flat spell resistance. That means you can actually deal with high-SR monsters, if you put your mind to it. For that matter, complete immunities to energy became a lot rarer.
7)Lots of ways to boost your caster level and save DCs. Greatly supplements the above.
8)You have way more spells at low levels and easier time supplementing them with scrolls. At high levels you are practically guaranteed to never run dry on spells.
9)Full casting progression for divine spellcasters.
10)Metamagic. Nuff said.
11)All version of 3/3.5 polymorph kick so much ass, that it isn't even funny. Yes, it so good, that is deserves a honorary mention as a spell that was kinda "meh" at best in AD&D 2, even if we discount its chance to kill the recipient, and became uber-awesomely-broken in 3E.
Casters paid for this with:
1)Some of the spells here are somewhat worse than they were. (Others are better, though.)
2)Direct damage spells don't do nearly as much to targets, vulnerable to them.
Overall, the ratio of gains to losses was greatly favorable to the spellcasters. 3.5 reigned in a few some of the most horrendous abuses, but far from all of them. It is also buffed HPs across the board, so that direct damage became even worse. But god wizards remained god wizards, as long, as they realized that their strong side isn't direct damage, and CoDzilla, IIRC, came into its own in 3.5.
Ask anyone to rank the classes from most powerful to least powerful and Wizard will always be either #1 or #2.
QFT.
Why?
Because of their spell lists.
Those who have looked at the numbers also know it's because of their Save or Die spells that they are really #1 on the list and not #2 or #3.
Here, I partially disagree. Yes, wizards kick much ass, but mostly not because of Save or Dies. SoDs are not that awesome, until you have sufficient arsenal of them to always target the weak save and by that time immunities are abound. What wizards are unsurpassed at, is the battlefield control and ability to dictate their terms of engagement, particulalrly if they have the time to prepare, but still negating whole categories of enemies with a single trick, even if they haven't. Also, the wizard truly is #1 becuase of the best ways to insta-break the game, and I think, that for purposes of practical optimization you should give the first prize to the druid. But note, that the best save-or-dies, i.e. those, with immunity harder to obtain, are still in PBeta.
Hold Person was a perfect example of how a 3.0 SoD spell was toned back to be appropriate for it's level in 3.5 by simply adding a new save against the spell each round.
Baleful Polymorph is an example of a spell that was toned down in PF to more appropriate for it's level (now as Beast Shape III and allows 2 saves)I think the same needs to be done for all the SoD spells. Flesh to Stone should take 2-3 rounds, 1st round failed save = slowed, 2nd round failed save = paralyzed, 3rd round failed save = stone. Feeblemind should gain a saving throw each round to reverse the effects.
And here I almost competely disagree. First, SoDs aren't overpowered much, if at all. Taking CR system into account, most of them are about right. Moreover, I say, thay they are almost necessary for a high-level core wizard to function well against the enemies of an appropriate CR. Particularly if he dislikes being buff/debuff machine. Second, single-target spells that can be shrugged off or don't come into effect instantly at 11th level, are perilously close to utter uselessness.
All the spells that are combat ending need to have these same things done to them (Wizard, Cleric, etc) and it will bring those classes back into power levels with other "I kill by attrition" classes.
This also breaks CR system and allows published 3.5 adventures to destroy the party, that operates under new rules. More importantly, this removes a viable option which is an unquestionably bad thing, because, perhaps, the main mechanical advantage of 3E variants over 4E is the breadth of option. So far, PBeta seems bent on removing options that the game dezigners deem too powerful, without giving proper thought to consequences of their removal for the larger picture and needlessly hurting the backwards compatibility in the process. This is my main reason of disappointment and discontent.
I agree Mega.
And in return, Evocation needs a serious kick in the pants to bring it up to par with the 3.0/3.5 HP and Con mod changes- which is what nerfed damaging spells into oblivion in the first place.
-S
This is exactly what my group has noticed...everyone complains about the power of casters, but its a paper tiger really. The problem being the supposed damage never goes through do to low save dc's. Leave the class alone...fix the save dc's so spell damage actually goes through on occasion.
Then go through the list and lower the DC's on save or die effects so that there is a high risk reward to casting them. If you make these changes to the spell list, just watch the wizard will balance out to the other classes. As the list stands right now I wouldn't rank Wizard anywhere near the top of the power chart until you reach levels 15+
I agree Mega.
And in return, Evocation needs a serious kick in the pants to bring it up to par with the 3.0/3.5 HP and Con mod changes- which is what nerfed damaging spells into oblivion in the first place.
We need to fix /both/ areas for Wizards to resume the place they had before. i.e. useful, functional, but not 'I rule the world'.
-S
Whut? "Before", in ADnD 2E wizards explicitly and unquestionably ruled the world, unless we talk about Spells & Powers system, which allowed clerics to be on par with them (in the sense, that both were super-gamebreaking with that system). Usually even in fluff, for that matter. They were punished for that by their extreme fragility at low levels and slow XP progression. 3E just allowed divine spellcasters to be competitive and reduced wizards' problems at low levels, in exchange for making their ultimate potential requiring some thinking, strategy and cooperation instead of just blasting everything that is not immune/hugely spellresisant into ash. Which is a way better game design.
fat...I think he is saying you need to look at the spells, and their DC's to save. Then compound that with SR. If you take a good close look at that "blasting things to ash" seldom if ever happens. In fact a ranger with a decent bow will out damage your Wizard 9 times out of 10.
fat...I think he is saying you need to look at the spells, and their DC's to save. Then compound that with SR. If you take a good close look at that "blasting things to ash" seldom if ever happens. In fact a ranger with a decent bow will out damage your Wizard 9 times out of 10.
And I think, that you need to read more carefully. Yeah, damage dealing sucks big time in 3.5E, barring specialized builds that exlpoit no-save, no-SR spells and metamagic tricks. But here I was comparing 3E with 2E, where, on the contrary, SoDs were unreliable-to-weak, and direct damage spells compared favorably with enemies' hit points.
Also ranger with a bow can more than scratch serious opponents only if he invested heavily in favored enemy agaist their particular type. Otherwise, he is as weak, as all archers are in general. Meaning, he is weak more often than not.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
(a) Readied actions and (b) counterspells make anti-mage strategies a possibility (besides the mere rushing at her and hoping for lucky initiative rolls or initiating a grapple). (c) Melee casting triggers AoOs (or requires casting on the defensive). (d) On the other hand, instead of damage automatically disrupting concentration, the mage may take a check to cast.I'd very much enjoy a game in which the points you listed worked well. But what we have in 3e seems to be that, while excellent ideas, the mechanics were implemented poorly when it came down to it:
(a) Readying actions doesn't work well because it requires you to be prescient with regards to spellcasting, but still doesn't let you do anything about it. Player: "I ready an action to attack him if he casts a spell!" DM: "Caster steps back 5 ft. and casts. Your readied action is wasted because he's out of reach."
Actually, then you point out to the DM p. 160 of the PH, wherein it stipulates that you can also take a 5-foot step as part of your readied action. IN YOUR FACE, 5-foot stepper!
And you can't ready a move AND an attack, just one or the other;
A common house rule, and a relic from 3.0, is the use a "partial charge" - a standard action charge wherein you just move your normal speed instead of twice normal. RAW in 3.5, you can ONLY use this when you are limited to a standard action per round (as in a surprise round, or if you are staggered, or if you are a zombie), but it's eminently reasonable to make it an option for readying.
and even if you could, the caster could just move back 30 ft. and cast, and the armored fighter moves up 20 ft. and still can't reach him!
1. You get an AoO on him when he leaves your threatened area, because he's not using the Withdraw action if he's trying to cast a spell. So you use your AoO to trip or grapple him so he can't move away.
2. If he uses Tumble to get away from your threatened area, he's probably not getting 30 feet away, so if you were able to move up to him, he's probably still in your sights.
3. If you really want to be hunting down spellcasters, you probably should have a reach weapon, ranged weapon (after all, your readied action was "to attack him if he casts a spell" not "to attack him with this sword right here in my hand right now if he casts a spell" - of course, this works better if you have a throwable weapon or a free hand and Quick Draw), and/or something to boost your speed.
Changing all "standard action" casting times to "full attack actions" would be a big help in that regard. Then, if you could ready a full move and an attack together, you might have a chance to disrupt an occasional spell -- if the caster fails his check, of course.
No real disagreement here. I'd actually move more the other way, making full attacks a standard action, but I could certainly see the logic of, say, spells 1st-3rd level being a standard action (like a fighter's BAB 1-5, before iterative attacks happen), spells 4th and up being full-round actions, with a few specific exceptions, like say the Power Word/Holy Word spells.
(b) I've never, ever seen counterspelling successfully used. One wizard player made the Spellcraft check, realized he'd already cast the exact spell needed to counterspell, and threw up his hands. "Why do they even have this rule, if you can only use it one time out of 50,000?" I had no answer for him. If you could counterspell using any spell of the same level or higher, the tactic might have merit.
I think I have seen it once, maybe twice. Counterspelling can work okay if:
1. Your PCs outnumber the opposition.
2. You are up against only one spellcasting baddie.
3. You have the Improved Counterspell feat, so you can use ANY spell of the same school, not the same exact spell being cast.
4. You have one player willing to sacrifice their actions for most or all of the combat to ready counterspells.
#4 can be solved if you just have a cohort do it, because then you don't have one player feeling a bit squelched.
#3 is not strictly necessary, since you can use Dispel Magic to counterspell, but only at the usual DM success rate, which may be less than 50/50, whereas a regular counterspell is automatic.
#1 and #2 are the tricks, and maybe the conception of 3rd Ed was that you would always be in that situation, party up against one bad guy, or one spellcaster and a bunch of mooks. That is a common enough scenario. Counterspelling does have the advantage of ignoring all of a monsters defenses - it is caster level against caster level, and you don't have to worry about all the cheats he has going. Also, if spellcasting is the enemy's main schtick, you may be able to cock-block them effectively while your allies move in for the kill.
The problem is that, besides being the brave counterspeller being kind of a thankless and inglorious job even if it is effective, at best, you only have an iffy chance to succeed. At worst, the enemy will recognize your action and do something else besides cast a spell. If he has other options... well, it sucks to be you.
(c) The static DCs for casting on the defensive are so easy for a mid- to high-level caster that AoO for spellcasting while threatened really don't ever occur... In fact, in retrospect, I don't think I've ever seen an AoO actually provoked by spellcasting. Making the DC equal to 10 + enemy's CMB + spell level might be good, but 15 + spell level = auto-success.
Usually when it has, it's because the player has forgotten, or they have a really high AC and decide to just suck up the attack, or when a caster is caught by surprise some kind of way. Still, the casting defensively bit is too easy.
(d) Damage-scaling DCs are more realistic, but again, it's just too daggone hard to attack someone just as he's casting; the combat mechanics just don't really allow it (see a, above).
So, changing the rules to some extent is needed even to have the situation that you describe (which I agree would be a good one).
Back in the pre-3 days, if you got hit during a round before you got your spell off, it was automatically zotzed. That was perhaps a bit too harsh. 3 went too far the other way.
A happy medium might be to use the Concentration check rule for "continuous damage" apply to ALL damage you take between your last turn and your current turn. Any hits on you cumulatively take their toll, 10 + 1/2 damage dealt.
Of course, it's often a moot point, since the canny caster usually never takes damage in most combats, so if they do it's usually all bad anyway. Kinda binary that way - either you're spotless or you're mangled.
Jason,
Thanks for the excellent reply; your grasp of the 3.0/3.5 rules is never short of luminary (if I might say so, it shines through even better on these open-discussion boards than it did in your WotC column). You're also far more generous than I, when it comes to brushing over the 3e disadvantages -- but I notice that you still end up with the conclusion that some tweaking of the published rules (or at least generous houseruling) makes sense in a lot of cases. Let's hope your namesake agrees!
Maybe making it easier to get a spell off while under attack is part of why wizard castings were reduced.
Counterspell could be a class ability that allows the mage to use a slot of any level he sees fit to neutralize the opponent's spell after he makes his check to recognize it. If he does not recognize it he can still try, but at a penalty. If he recognizes it but he does not know the spell then he can counterspell with a minor penalty. If he recognizes and knows the spell he has the ability to counter it. In those cases where countering is not automatic he can use a slot higher than the spell he wants to counter to offset the penalty.
The counterspell check is an AoO triggered by an opponent casting a spell within range of you.
I leave the numbers up to better minds, this is just off the cuff.
We should move the counterspell discussion to its own thread. "Wizards are overpowered" is a little broad to be helpful to the design team--it's easier to extract useful bits if we are more specific.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Maybe making it easier to get a spell off while under attack is part of why wizard castings were reduced.
Counterspell could be a class ability that allows the mage to use a slot of any level he sees fit to neutralize the opponent's spell after he makes his check to recognize it. If he does not recognize it he can still try, but at a penalty. If he recognizes it but he does not know the spell then he can counterspell with a minor penalty. If he recognizes and knows the spell he has the ability to counter it. In those cases where countering is not automatic he can use a slot higher than the spell he wants to counter to offset the penalty.
The counterspell check is an AoO triggered by an opponent casting a spell within range of you.
I leave the numbers up to better minds, this is just off the cuff.
Interesting. Counterspell as an AoO.
I kind of like it.
I'll have to think about it some more.
Maybe making it easier to get a spell off while under attack is part of why wizard castings were reduced.
Counterspell could be a class ability that allows the mage to use a slot of any level he sees fit to neutralize the opponent's spell after he makes his check to recognize it. If he does not recognize it he can still try, but at a penalty. If he recognizes it but he does not know the spell then he can counterspell with a minor penalty. If he recognizes and knows the spell he has the ability to counter it. In those cases where countering is not automatic he can use a slot higher than the spell he wants to counter to offset the penalty.
The counterspell check is an AoO triggered by an opponent casting a spell within range of you.
I leave the numbers up to better minds, this is just off the cuff.
I think this has potential.
When wizards start neutralizing each other more easily, other classes will have more opportunities to shine as well I think.
|
My group has been playtesting the wizard class too (I have a guy playing single-classed wizard, and another going the way of the cleric/wizard/mystic_theurge; all Pathfinder RPG rules of course).
The group, and I, the DM, love the improvements made to the class. It's not overpowered. They can still only do only one standard action per round, so while there are now more options, they can still only do only one thing per round.
Bottom line: fun has increased, and power factor has stayed the same.
Good job Paizo.
wizard are not overpowered, they cast spell....that's the only thing they can do to save their life!! :-p
they are still fragile and spell dependent...
SoD spell are powerfull, but one good save and it's the wizard who lose!! And DC are not very high.
without magic item, a 20th level wizard casting a mid-level spell will have a spell DC of 12-13 and only 16-17 for a 9th level spell.
A strong save for a 20th level character is +12.
clerics are clearly overpowered!! more spell per day, more hp, better saves (I don't understand why they have two strong save??), better bab, knowledge of all the spell, casting in armor...
Full round casting time is a good idea...improving counterspell too.
please pardon my poor english, this is not my native tongue...