wizard/sorc/druid/cleric dominate 3.5e because spellcasting can't be interrupted.
In 1e/2e/hackmaster, when they start casting the spell takes so long to cast and any damage makes them lose the spell.
Meele in 3e gets a *double* nerf. Most spells are 1 standard action, so fighters have to give up their turn to ready an action to attack casters if they want to interrupt, AND casters get a (fairly easy) DC check when they take damage.
This is the primary reason casters are so overbalanced compared to high level hackmas- I mean 1e/2e play.
The Combat Dynamic was also nice. It was like a football game where the wizard was the QB "protect him till be gets his spell off".
Can this *pretty please* be addressed? People might have more success with higher level games if the casters weren't so dominating.
Ways to address this problem?
1) standard 1 round casting time
2) make it much more difficult to maintain the spell. 15+dam+spell level or 10+2xdam+spell level
other suggestions?
1) standard 1 round casting time
I would still allow for variations, such as Featherfall and other spells that pretty much MUST be faster to cast or else they are useless.
I would go further and also have some spells (ones that might be thought of as "Rituals" in 4E) take many rounds to cast. You can see examples of these spells in the 1E PHB. I'm talking about spells like Locate Object and other divination things, but there are many examples of spells that if you just used their original casting times they would be much less abused in current editions.
2) make it much more difficult to maintain the spell. 15+dam+spell level or 10+2xdam+spell level
I fear that no matter what DC you make it, as long as the PC is able to max out his appropriate skill slots and burn feats on it, he will still have a crazy chance (or no chance if he doesn't). This is why I am more in favor of it being like a caster level check, or an ability check, or some sort of saving throw. Perhaps the DC would be 0+damage suffered and the ability in question would depend on the casters class, ie, a cleric would make a wisdom check, a mage would make an int check, bard/sorcerer charisma etc.
So in example, wizard bob gets thwacked over the head with a frying pan for 4 points of damage. He makes a DC4 Int check or he loses the spell.
Now certainly at higher levels the damage is likely to be much higher, but in all fairness/reality, spellcasters should not be expecting to be able to take a 20+ damage hit and still be able to cast a spell.
Just my thoughts.
|
I think that some people may think such broad change in this part of the Beta would be foolish, I would beg to disagree. This concept is the single greatest flaw with 3.5, and one of the easiest to fix! Melee type will either have to become a bigger threat (like 1/2nd ed) or better linemen (more like a, ug, MMORPG)
its quite possible that increasing casting time, (there fore opening up the time period that spell could be disrupted) would be THE ONLY fix this problem need to be alleviated.
I hear this a lot but I have to ask:
How often did casters actually get interrupted in previous edition? I'm not sure I remember it happening to me or fellow player more than a couple of times in about 20 years of playing 1e/2e.
We didn't really bother much with the intricacies of casting times and interruptions. When we played 1e, we just had one side either win or lose initiative with the old 1d6. We didn't even bother with reaction adjustments. It was just too much of a hassle.
In 2e, we came a little closer. My recollection of a lot of games is that the caster was unable to cast if hit in the round before he started casting. Technically, he wasn't interrupted and didn't lose the spell. He just couldn't cast that round. But I don't think that was a major factor either.
I suppose it did happen a lot in the gold-box games by SSI. But I was doing it more often than the computer player. An opponent would start casting and if one of my character's initiatives came up, he's fire off a missile at the caster to try to disrupt (worked really well with magic missile spells). But tabletop playing? Almost never...
So, how many players in previous editions DID follow the rules with respect to casting times and interruptions?
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I also don't think this is a needed change. It's actually quite easy to use a readied action under the rules to stop a spellcaster. A power attack should have the DC for concentration sufficently high. I don't see why a spellcaster should have it be hard to cast spells. If someone wants to stop them, they should have to try to (i.e. a readied action, grapple the caster, etc.)
|
|
I hear this a lot but I have to ask:
How often did casters actually get interrupted in previous edition? I'm not sure I remember it happening to me or fellow player more than a couple of times in about 20 years of playing 1e/2e.
We didn't really bother much with the intricacies of casting times and interruptions. When we played 1e, we just had one side either win or lose initiative with the old 1d6. We didn't even bother with reaction adjustments. It was just too much of a hassle.
In 2e, we came a little closer. My recollection of a lot of games is that the caster was unable to cast if hit in the round before he started casting. Technically, he wasn't interrupted and didn't lose the spell. He just couldn't cast that round. But I don't think that was a major factor either.
I suppose it did happen a lot in the gold-box games by SSI. But I was doing it more often than the computer player. An opponent would start casting and if one of my character's initiatives came up, he's fire off a missile at the caster to try to disrupt (worked really well with magic missile spells). But tabletop playing? Almost never...So, how many players in previous editions DID follow the rules with respect to casting times and interruptions?
We did, and it worked out fine. Casters were interrupted far more often, which made tactical consideration imperative. Casters had to weigh the benefit of the spell against the casting time, as, generally speaking, the more powerful the spell, the longer the casting time, and the more time the opposition had to get in and screw up the spell.
3x wizards, on the other hand, are basically magic items, not casters. It is hard to take that the rules insist that there is this concept of "somantic components" to spells when a wizard (or any spellcaster) can run around, tumble, dodge swords, and still perform the intricate gestures needed to activate the spell, mostly without fail. And to the detriment of the poor fighter who can barely run around and swing a sword once...
I like this quote quite a bunch:
3x wizards, on the other hand, are basically magic items, not casters. It is hard to take that the rules insist that there is this concept of "somantic components" to spells when a wizard (or any spellcaster) can run around, tumble, dodge swords, and still perform the intricate gestures needed to activate the spell, mostly without fail. And to the detriment of the poor fighter who can barely run around and swing a sword once...
because it is very accurate. The wizard can do a normal move action, dodge attacks, and still cast a meteor swarm, potentially dealing vast amounts of damage, but poor fighter bob, even at 20th level, can only move and attack one time. Either jack the wizard (preferable) or cut the poor fighter some slack and let him attack more and still move.
|
How often did casters actually get interrupted in previous edition? I'm not sure I remember it happening to me or fellow player more than a couple of times in about 20 years of playing 1e/2e.
We didn't really bother much with the intricacies of casting times and interruptions. When we played 1e, we just had one side either win or lose initiative with the old 1d6. We didn't even bother with reaction adjustments. It was just too much of a hassle.
Well, you won't see it happen, if you didn't use the rule.
But to answer your question;
Not often enough to stop people playing wizards.
Often enough to make them play smarter.
|
Thing is, an EXTREME minority want to "Cripple" the casters. What many of us do want, to a certain extent, is to achieve inter-class parity. For the fighter, or monk, or what-have-you, to contribute as much to combat as the casters do. Basically the goal is to bring casters down one step, bring the melee classes up one step, and meet in the middle alongside the rogue.
[tinfoil hat on]
I think some of the people who start threads like these are 4th ed Wizard of the coast cronies who are trying to get the designers to turn PAthfinder from a RPG to a PvP or a PvE where everyone is competing against eachother to be the most useful at everything, character. This way pathfinder will not be as good, and wont take as large a share of the market.[/tinfoil hat]
just an opinion.
|
|
Lets go on this train of thought:
What we DO have (contrairy to some opinion) are some people who understand how 3x changed the dynamic between melee and magic. Most of us who DO understand this are just as upset that 3x nerfed a bunch of wizard spells. Wizards are SUPPOSED to wield life changing magic at high levels. They are NOT supposed to do so unhindered, like a machine gun, going "pew. pew. pew.".
Before you youngsters start thinking we want to nerf the wizard, no, sorry, it isn't so. What we do want is melee types to be relevant past, say 12th level. You know, like they were before, in the "dark ages" of D&D...
Personally, I would love for Jason to UNnerf the spells that were nerfed in 3x. Isn't going to happen, so I'm not going to harp on it. BUT, melee types DO lag at high levels, and wizards DID get off easy in 3x, so, the only thing left to do is either a) make spell disruption a REAL possibility again, or b) change the name of 3x to "Ars Magica Lite".
Either one is fine with me...
|
What we DO have (contrairy to some opinion) are some people who understand how 3x changed the dynamic between melee and magic. Most of us who DO understand this are just as upset that 3x nerfed a bunch of wizard spells. Wizards are SUPPOSED to wield life changing magic at high levels. They are NOT supposed to do so unhindered, like a machine gun, going "pew. pew. pew."
And, ironically, given a post above yours, making wizards uninterruptible 'pew pew' machines, doing pretty much the exact same sort of damage as a fighter, but throwing generic energy bolts instead of throwing axes, is pretty much *exactly* how 3E led logically to 4E.
In 1st and 2nd editions, the wizard needed to be protected in the back of the group to get off his spells, and his spells could justifiably be way cooler than a sword swing, because of their limited uses per day and chance to be negated and completely lost.
If a spellcasting is going to be as infallible as a sword-swing, then, the logical progression, leading inevitably to 4th edition 'pew pew,' is that the spellcaster's spells can't do anything that a fighter's sword couldn't do.
And so, yeah, regardless of what Pathfinder does (and, frankly, I don't think that there is a snowballs chance in hell that anything along this lines will even be considered at this stage of development), I will try out a game where most standard action casting spells are changed to full round actions, to bring back that 1st / 2nd edition chance of failure. (I've already discussed this with a couple old-school players, and they agree that there was a bit more of a tactical nature to spellcasting in earlier editions, and that attacks of opportunity and Concentration checks don't come close to replicating that. We'd definitely exempt spells that already are cast as a Swift/Immediate/Free Action like Close Wounds or Feather Fall or Swift Invisibility, as well as Touch spells like Shocking Grasp and Inflict Moderate Wounds, dropping them to Move Actions to cast, to mix things up.)
As someone who plays Clerics, Druids and Wizards, almost exclusively, this is *hardly* coming from a desire to 'nerf' the classes I prefer. And, not only is it not from a secret desire to make Pathfinder more like 4E, it's actually from a not-at-all-secret desire to make Pathfinder *LESS* like 4E and more like the game that spawned it, where some greybearded dude in Canada could write, completely seriously, about a Fighter killing a Wizard and saying afterward, 'The sword is faster than the Art.'
[tinfoil hat on]
I think some of the people who start threads like these are 4th ed Wizard of the coast cronies who are trying to get the designers to turn PAthfinder from a RPG to a PvP or a PvE where everyone is competing against eachother to be the most useful at everything, character. This way pathfinder will not be as good, and wont take as large a share of the market.
[/tinfoil hat]
just an opinion.
First, when I posted this, It was on a semi-related thread, and didn't realize there was a discussion ongoing in another thread. That's my bad for the effective double post.
Second, this has *nothing* to do with PvP. Changes were made in 3e and they had the consequence of not only weakening every magic spell in the game, but also making it so that melee types were useless after a certain point. Effectively 3e Nerfed mage power and changed the combat dynamic to favor spell-casting over melee.
I am also *not* saying that pathfinder hasn't already attempted to address these issues. Some of their solutions are, frankly, brilliant (the skill ranks, tying HD into BAB progression) and they deserve credit for that.
This thread, and these ideas do not have to do with nerfing mages, or buffing fighters or anything. It has to do with a party dynamic. The classes in 1e/2e were in *no* *way* balanced with each other, and yet, each person in a hackmas- I mean 1e/2e combat feels like they are doing something important and valuable at high levels.
In my experience of high level play, that does not seem to be the case. Mages do mutiple dice of damage or huge battlefield control every round, while melee fighters can *not* move or engage the enemies without both drawing an AoO and not getting all their attacks (due to reach or enemy battlefield mobility). If the intent is to not have melee work effectively after 8th level, and break down completely a few levels later, then the system should stand as it is in 3.5.
The issues have to do with damage output per action.
Fact: Mages can move and do full spell damage.
Fact: Fighters can move and make one attack doing a die or two of damage.
Fact: After a certain point mages cannot be interrupted while casting.
Fact: Your options as a spellcaster are greater than melee classes.
It isn't about PvP or who can beat who. It's about having a group of people who are having fun. 3.5 really starts to cause melee focused players to feel useless in combat, compared to the other players.
A unnecessary in-play example
When playing a fifteenth level mage in 1st edition, you would start to cast your 15d6 fireball (hah save) that is going to fry the 12 stone giants. Once the party realizes that they *need* this spell to go off to survive the encounter, the fighters have the job of making sure the mage doesn't get damaged. Fun for them, fun for the mage if he gets the spell off.
Now? it's the mages turn. 10d6 damage to the giants. Fighter moves to engage, draws AoO, hits once for 2d6+12.
Turn two. Mage does 10d6 damage to the giants and moves back. Fighter takes four hits, gets one full attack action (if he's lucky and the giant he could target didn't tactically withdraw while the others keep him in threat range) doing maybe 6d6+36 to one target.
I know we can make up play examples all day. I know that doesn't accomplish anything. Here is the questions we need answered.
What is fun for the fighter? How is this fun for the player? The fighters very quickly doesn't do damage on scale with spell casters. The fighter is reactionary and has no control over the battlefield. The mage can never fail and can always do more damage to more targets.
What about combat is fun for fighters? Of course there are *role-playing* reasons to play fighters, but that's not the question we're asking here. If you're a fighter, during the combat/game part of the game, what is fun for you after level 8?
Answer this question and address the issues in combat with that in mind.
The risk of failure and the power of the spells were what made magic fun and fighters feel valuable. Hell, they *are* what make fighters feel valuable in my hackmaster games.
Just saying (as in my original post) that these two changes altered a dynamic that is still successful. And that this altered dynamic clearly affects the fun for my players and me when we play 3.5. There is a system where this isn't a problem, was looking at taking that working functioning system that doesn't have this problem and finding a way to make it work in 3.PF. My intent was not to 'nerf' mages, but address the enjoyment of my players.
-Campbell
|
|
I have to say the big difference is spell speeds and initiative. I think the simplified initiative system of 3.0/3.5 is the biggest culprit in creating:
a)overpowered casters
b)fighters with limited options and/or effect in combat.
In older versions of d&d action speeds and weapons speed, etc were huge factors in how a battle turned out.Rolling for round to round initiative helps eliminate some aspect of the overconfident casters, but having a dynamic round with different actions going at different speeds is the biggest factor.
I don't know, maybe it was the influence of MtG, with locks and combos,fixed turns, etc. I personally think the current initiative system is crap, but I am probably in the minority on that one.
I have to say the big difference is spell speeds and initiative. I think the simplified initiative system of 3.0/3.5 is the biggest culprit in creating:
a)overpowered casters
b)fighters with limited options and/or effect in combat.In older versions of d&d action speeds and weapons speed, etc were huge factors in how a battle turned out.Rolling for round to round initiative helps eliminate some aspect of the overconfident casters, but having a dynamic round with different actions going at different speeds is the biggest factor.
I don't know, maybe it was the influence of MtG, with locks and combos,fixed turns, etc. I personally think the current initiative system is crap, but I am probably in the minority on that one.
No, man, I agree with this. But to remain 3.5 you can't chunk the initiative system. Way too big a change, plus, I'm pretty sure there aren't any weapon speeds in the equpiment tables. The idea is to find a way to fix it within the context of 'everyone takes turns in a cycle'.
|
|
No, man, I agree with this. But to remain 3.5 you can't chunk the initiative system. Way too big a change, plus, I'm pretty sure there aren't any weapon speeds in the equpiment tables. The idea is to find a way to fix it within the context of 'everyone takes turns in a cycle'.
Yeah,I know. I think keeping as it stands is playing with an unworkable design flaw. I tried running it as it was and my guys hated it, so I ported and modified the 2nd ed speed factor system over to 3.5. Requires more tracking, but it eliminated attacks of opportunity.
I don't really know of a fix, maybe change some spells to be standard actions (instant damage spells) and have more powerful spells take a full round to cast - which doesn't go off until the initiative phase on the next round. Any attack in between the round it is cast to when it goes of will cause the caster to make a check.
I can't add too much since I stopped using the 3.5 initiative system years ago.
[tinfoil hat on]
I think some of the people who start threads like these are 4th ed Wizard of the coast cronies who are trying to get the designers to turn PAthfinder from a RPG to a PvP or a PvE where everyone is competing against eachother to be the most useful at everything, character. This way pathfinder will not be as good, and wont take as large a share of the market.
[/tinfoil hat]
just an opinion.First, when I posted this, It was on a semi-related thread, and didn't realize there was a discussion ongoing in another thread. That's my bad for the effective double post.
Second, this has *nothing* to do with PvP. Changes were made in 3e and they had the consequence of not only weakening every magic spell in the game, but also making it so that melee types were useless after a certain point. Effectively 3e Nerfed mage power and changed the combat dynamic to favor spell-casting over melee.
I am also *not* saying that pathfinder hasn't already attempted to address these issues. Some of their solutions are, frankly, brilliant (the skill ranks, tying HD into BAB progression) and they deserve credit for that.
This thread, and these ideas do not have to do with nerfing mages, or buffing fighters or anything. It has to do with a party dynamic. The classes in 1e/2e were in *no* *way* balanced with each other, and yet, each person in a hackmas- I mean 1e/2e combat feels like they are doing something important and valuable at high levels.
In my experience of high level play, that does not seem to be the case. Mages do mutiple dice of damage or huge battlefield control every round, while melee fighters can *not* move or engage the enemies without both drawing an AoO and not getting all their attacks (due to reach or enemy battlefield mobility). If the intent is to not have melee work effectively after 8th level, and break down completely a few levels later, then the system should stand as it is in 3.5.
The issues have to do with damage output per action.
Fact:... [/QUOTE
No way,not ever,should a fighter ever be able to equal the damage of a mage casting damage spells. Thats like asking that a rifle deal out the same damage as a b52.
The caster has a limited number of those spells he can lob. he should be able to do more damage with them than any old magic sword.
The problem lies more with the speed of the spell casting, and the in ability to interupt it, rather than the magnitude of the damage the spells can do.
How many fireballs can that mage lob out,when the three next encounters also have giants in them (like the against the giants modules?)
The problem lies more with the speed of the spell casting, and the in ability to interupt it, rather than the magnitude of the damage the spells can do.
How many fireballs can that mage lob out,when the three next encounters also have giants in them (like the against the giants modules?)
Are you finding this to be the case in your games? Because in my games, when the casters are out of spells, we rest. and then it's back to 8d6 a billion times. And no role playing reasons for not being able to rest. it's called rope trick and it's broken.
In older versions of d&d action speeds and weapons speed, etc were huge factors in how a battle turned out...I personally think the current initiative system is crap, but I am probably in the minority on that one.
I don't know why there is such resistance to going back to the speed factor days. Was it really that hard to use? I sure don't recall it being that complicated. Same with spell casting times. Just put them back to where they were is all I'm saying. Its not really that hard.
|
|
I think players only get an easy night if the DM lets them. Maybe in some "dead" type dungeons where everything is static, then they can use the Rope trick. But every single dungeon I have every ran has been dynamic, even "dead" ones (tombs, etc).
Rope trick doesn't work in the Dwarven hold the party is defending from a siege and is in constant danger of being breached. Nor does it work in a in any fortification, dungeon, etc where there are halfway intelligent creatures inside. Rope trick in an orc infested lair, guess what - they have the equivalent of tracking animals too and even if they can't find the magic space they will find the trail, or scent or path of carnage which leads up to it and will be encamped waiting nearby. Then the wizard can blow his load trying to break out of an encirclement, then what- jump back into the rope trick while the enemy closes in and the noose gets tighter?
If the DM wants to run "15 minute workday" type adventure that is up the that DM, I don't. I tend to run things in a more realistic Iron Man approach. They rest when they can find a safe place (and not some unsecure spell like rope trick), not before not after. No DM meta reason, no "they need their 8 hours" to replenish their spells. It only happens if the situation calls for it and if their actions have earned it - and hopefully the caster will have saved up a few spells to get to that point.
Well, you won't see it happen, if you didn't use the rule.
Right. I think there were a lot of people, particularly in 1e, who didn't use the rule. It was pretty damn cumbersome. 2e made it easier to deal with but I still rarely saw it ("it" being an actual disruption) even if we did use casting times + a couple points to determine when the spell went off.
I'd rather see a way to allow more fighter-types moving around, blocking AoO, and getting more attacks in than nerfing the wizard down.
|
|
How many posts are there going to be about this same topic?
Are people trying to make it seems like the handful of people who want to cripple the casters are actually greater in numbers than in reality based on the number of threads?
no one want to "cripple" the caster, I am all for giving them a bump to damaging spells (minus combust and a few already deadly spells) and having much more open ended effects that mages can do (earthquake spells to ravage cities and such) but the IDEA behind the mage is the weakling with the ability to alter reality at his fingertips. not the unkillable reality alterer, who the f&*k isnt going to play that concept over super slow plate guy with a sharp pointy thing.
and we are only saying our side and looking to be swayed by some piece of information that we are apparently missing. we are not spamming the message board, we are instead hit the EUREKA moment and are excited by finding the problem that festers in so many of our games, plus getting ideas for how this can be fixed to better gameplay. you have said in the past that you have not had any of our problems in your games, many have however, and a majority of people agree that there is a problem with higher level 3rd ed balance.
note: i think 15+CMB is fine personally, our playtesting has shown it to work well. It may seem to be a hard number to hit, but it is sorta like a called shot so im okay with it being kinda hard.
The problem lies more with the speed of the spell casting, and the in ability to interupt it, rather than the magnitude of the damage the spells can do.
How many fireballs can that mage lob out,when the three next encounters also have giants in them (like the against the giants modules?)Are you finding this to be the case in your games? Because in my games, when the casters are out of spells, we rest. and then it's back to 8d6 a billion times. And no role playing reasons for not being able to rest. it's called rope trick and it's broken.
The problem with rope trick is it takes up a spell slot. If your PCs are constantly abusing it there is the possibility of desinging adventures that need those low level spells slots for other spells.
Or do like I do: That spells doesnt exist.
Simply because there is a spell in the rule book doesnt mean you can find a mentor in your world to teach it.
Idont allow mages magnificent mansion, or heroes feast either (I think they are dumb)
There are plenty of ways for the party to get rest when they need it if they roleplay and think.
More Often than not, if the party works together, they can barricade themselves in a room in the dungeon, or pull out of the dungeon if need be.
I find,more often than not that 1) my players need all their spells, in actual combat or combat support and dont have free spell slots, for things like rope trick (a free gimme all my spell slots back spell)
2) the pace of the adventure doesnt necessarily allow "let's rest now", some things have time limits on them.
What if the group has come upon a group of orcs who are about to sacrifice three villagers to the doofus god, but oh heck the spellcaster is running low on his best spells, well wewill just rest, but by the time we are done, those villagers will have been dead for seven hours.
If an encounter can only be won by the mages heavy duty spells, the team is in over their head anyway.
I have seen plenty encounters where the mage just held back and didnt do much at all, maybe shot a crossbow bolt, threw a dagger, tossed a minor spell and the encounter was over, simply so he could save spells where they were needed most. It's a tactical choice.
To heck with the nuke nuke nuke, rest scenario. I simply would stop running the game, or basically tell everyone else who was playing when the game was and ooops forget to call the power gaming wizard character to insisted on playing this way.
Of course, sometimes things will go in the wizards favor, and there will be these chances to rest frequently, but when do you rest and when do you press forward?
Its just not every fourth encounter.
Or do like I do: That spells doesnt exist.Simply because there is a spell in the rule book doesnt mean you can find a mentor in your world to teach it.
Yes. There are many ways to address the problem 'in game' You can always design every encounter, over and over again, to address the specific flaws within the combat system.
Or you could just correct the issue in the system that is causing the problem and then run the type of game you want.
Limited spells per day is not really a solution to the problem after about 10th level (8th through 12th. Earlier with a sorc, later with a mage depending on factors)
|
|
...the guy who said rope-trick is broken should look into being a more hard-core GM, the entrance to the rope-trick spell can be entered by anything capable of seeing invisibility (by my reading, if I'm mistaken then I owe my players some appologies... heh.) and while their resting expecting an easy night, its easy enough to launch an attack (one fun thing to do is dispel it while their all inside it, most rope-tricks are a fair height off the ground... splat.)
Yeah, Rope Trick is pretty bad idea, if there's a beholder about. It doesn't even have to suspect you're in the area, it just ejects you in a heap, by wandering past and looking in your general direction...LOL
|
|
I still rarely saw it ("it" being an actual disruption) even if we did use casting times + a couple points to determine when the spell went off.
I'm not saying it happened every combat, but the reason for that, is that all the players were aware of the rule, and therefore, invested heavily in Dex, and if a caster was encountered, out would come the shortswords (Speed Factor 3, as opposed to the Speed Factor 10 Greatswords).
The casters knew this too, and if they were cornered, they wouldn't risk a high-level slower spell, but try to shoot off a quick level 1 or 2 spell instead.
Actions were declared before initiative was rolled, so it became a game of bluff and nerve. "You might get that good spell off, if you roll well, and he rolls poorly...are you feeling lucky, punk? Well, are'ya?"
|
|
What kind of 3.0+ game are you playing that casters can't be interupted?
The truth is that in 3.0+ a caster has usually invested maximum ranks in concentration and has combat casting to add an additional 4 to that number. A +9 or higher in concentrate at 1st level. It's really, REALLY hard to disrupt a caster after a couple of levels when they start having huge numbers in that skill and cast defensively.
...and if a caster was encountered, out would come the shortswords (Speed Factor 3, as opposed to the Speed Factor 10 Greatswords).
The casters knew this too, and if they were cornered, they wouldn't risk a high-level slower spell, but try to shoot off a quick level 1 or 2 spell instead.
Actions were declared before initiative was rolled, so it became a game of bluff and nerve.
I loved that about 1-2E. Tell me again why that was so hard and can't/shouldn't be done now? That by itself would go a long way to correcting the spellcaster vs. melee tilt that exists today.
Again, so we're clear, the people who are against fixing this tilt seem to think that those in favor of fixing it hate spellcasters and want to weaken them no matter what, when the truth is, we (or at least I) want to just restore the previous balance between the classes that existed in earlier editions. I would like spellcasters to do more damage in evocation spells AND I would like fighters to remain a viable and interesting class choice after mid-level. Changing the casting times of spells back to their earlier edition lengths might help accomplish that.
Yes. There are many ways to address the problem 'in game' You can always design every encounter, over and over again, to address the specific flaws within the combat system.
Or you could just correct the issue in the system that is causing the problem and then run the type of game you want.
Thank you!!! I was about to point this out, thinking the world had gone mad and I was the only one thinking this. The 3.5 rules contain elements that force all DMs to houserule on the fly to make those rules work. Pathfinder is a new set of rules. Why not institute those fixes in print, instead of forcing everyone to figure them out for themselves?
If you want certain spells to be rare, change the part that says "pick any 2 spells each level to add to your book" to "roll against the spell availability of any two spells to see if you have a chance of finding someone to teach them to you, as described below." If you always make the monsters attack the front-line fighters, instead of simply going around (or over) them, that's a houserule, too -- so why not change the combat rules now to extend lateral threat ranges, or allow blocking?
This is our chance to fix things so that every new DM isn't forced to re-invent the wheel. If the hobby is to grow, the rules can't be geared towards only the people who already know how to play, and already know which "secret fixes" are needed to make the rules work.
|
It is not an every fight thing, but it is enough of a threat to make sure that a caster avoids it. I have played many a time and lost a spell due to taking damage. Even bumping up the Skill as much as possible still leaves plenty of room for failure, even before damage is added. Not only that, the more times you are forced to try to not lose the spell, the better the chances that you will roll low and will automatically.
Based on 3.5 only . . .
Mr. Fighter charges Mr. Wizard. Mr. Wizards 5ft steps and casts his spell. Mr. Fighter readies to distract next turn. Now it's Mr. Wizards. He's already 5ft away, and not threatened. DId Mr. Fighter Ready the action? If so, is it to take a step and attack, or to move and get the AoO? Better cast defensively just in case. Mr. Wizard makes his Defensive roll, Mr. Fighter takes a 5ft Step, and makes a Trip Attack. Mr. Wizard makes the concentration check, falls prone, takes a hit from the Fighter, and now has to make another, or use the move action to get up. Either way though, that is at least one more Concentration check comming up, with a +8 (I'll be nice), to the d.c., and so far, Mr. Wizard has -8 H.P.. Now lets say Mr. Wizards is 5th has Max Concentration, is casting a 1st Level spell, has Combat Casting, and a godly Con for a Wizard (16). 8 skills + 3 Con + 4 (+15) Feat for the first check vs D.C. of 16. Second Check, is 8 + 3 (+11). The D.C. could either be 15 or 20 for violent motion. for a D.C. 15, thats a 1/4 failure, almost. For D.C. 20, that's a 1/2 failure. Now the third roll, for finally actually taking damage. 8 + 3 -8 (+3) vs the D.C. of 18. Without any circumstance penulty for being prone, or getting up, (again I'll be nice), that is a 3/4 chance of failure and Mr. Wizard not doing a thing but taking damage tat round.
Sure, it can go other ways. But that also works for the fighter, who could just as easily have used a Longspear or reach weapon, grappled, sundered the speel component pouch, power attacked, Tripped on the Charge and just full attacked, or a lot of little things.
Why doesn't Mr. Wizard, having made that 5-ft. step last round, take this round, move 30 ft. away, and then cast from where Mr. 20-ft.-move Fighter can't reach him?
Also, wizards' high Int gives 'em LOTS of skill points, and Pathfinder puts (a) no 1/2 cap on cross-class skills; (b) no limitations on what Int bonus skills can be used for; and (c) a VERY easy static tumble DC to avoid AoO. The Pathfinder rules sort of suggest that every wizard should also be an acrobat, just so he can tumble around at 30 ft./round, staying out of reach, without ever having to worry about casting defensively in the first place.
Now, the DM can say, "it's unrealistic for wizards to be acrobats," and housreule against it. But the core rules as written seem to sort of expect that's what people will do.
Are you finding this to be the case in your games? Because in my games, when the casters are out of spells, we rest. and then it's back to 8d6 a billion times. And no role playing reasons for not being able to rest. it's called rope trick and it's broken.
Any spell can be broken if you ignore the built-in tactical checks of the system.
There's this second-level spell called see invisibility. You know, same level as rope trick? By the time you're using rope trick for rests long enough to restore spells, it's utterly trivial for the opponents of the PCs to have access to a second level spell.Those using it see the 3×5 foot window mentioned in the rope trick spell. Then there are several choices for the people who detect the rope trick, all of which end with dead PCs littering the floor.
(You know what this game needs? A real Dungeon Master's Guide or Monster Manual, not a rulebook with that name. A compendium of actual tricks and tactics to guide the DM; a manual on how to use monsters. Seriously. If something as trivial as rope trick causes problems, the problem isn't the rules, it's a DM over his head.)
Seriously. If something as trivial as rope trick causes problems, the problem isn't the rules, it's a DM over his head.)
Ok that's just offensive.
Perhaps you run campaigns where every encounter includes monster and npc spellcasters. For some reason, in my campaigns, I have very many encounters with monsters of varying levels that do not include spellcasters or the ability to detect rope tricks. If I started skewing every encounter so that they DID include spellcasters or monsters with the ability to detect rope tricks I can assure you my players would quickly abandon my campaign because I am being completely unfair and heavy-handed in dealing with their tactics. Its just not reasonable for every encounter to have the perfect method to overcome everything the pcs do. Heck, its not even reasonable for it to happen 1 out of 4 encounters... unless of course you are running a campaign themed around spellcasters that is. In my campaigns the group of pcs go through various sub-adventures and some of those may NEVER involve spellcasters, just because it doesn't make sense for the storyline.
|
|
Why doesn't Mr. Wizard, having made that 5-ft. step last round, take this round, move 30 ft. away, and then cast from where Mr. 20-ft.-move Fighter can't reach him?
Because Mr. Wizard does not know what action is readied, (If Mr Fighter had readied to trip if Mr. Wizard attempted to move, it would actually leave the Wizard in an even worse spot, prone and without a move action to get up until next turn). I also didn't want to get into the possible billion different option that could happen if Mr Wizard went first, or Mr. Fighter is an archer, or whatever.
|
Yes, the usual brilliant rebuttal of, 'I don't have this problem, so you all must *suck* as DMs!' has begun. It's so terribly original, too! I've never heard that one before. :/
Well I have, so clearly you are wrong! See my clearly defined chart with pie graph and math! *posts picture of Pacman with 2+2=17*
Seriously. If something as trivial as rope trick causes problems, the problem isn't the rules, it's a DM over his head.)Ok that's just offensive.
Perhaps you run campaigns where every encounter includes monster and npc spellcasters. For some reason, in my campaigns, I have very many encounters with monsters of varying levels that do not include spellcasters or the ability to detect rope tricks. If I started skewing every encounter so that they DID include spellcasters or monsters with the ability to detect rope tricks I can assure you my players would quickly abandon my campaign because I am being completely unfair and heavy-handed in dealing with their tactics. Its just not reasonable for every encounter to have the perfect method to overcome everything the pcs do. Heck, its not even reasonable for it to happen 1 out of 4 encounters... unless of course you are running a campaign themed around spellcasters that is. In my campaigns the group of pcs go through various sub-adventures and some of those may NEVER involve spellcasters, just because it doesn't make sense for the storyline.
The thing is you don't need enemy spellcasters to counter the rope trick tactic... just give one of them a bag of holding and keep giving them more treasure then they can carry. You know how much 10,000 silver pieces weigh?
Put your PC's on a deadline so they can't rest every time the wizards Nova. If you are letting your PC's cast until they drop then hide in a rope trick to get more spells the game is going to favor them. Just like if my Pc's have 2 days to do something it's going to favor the fighter because the wizard can't rest after every encounter. At a certain point it becomes up to the DM to find the balance within the system.
As a side note if you all are so happy with the way 2E did things why did you swap over to 3.x? If you like the system you have you don't have to swap. I like 3.X, I don't like 4.0. Therefor I didn't swap over to 4.0 when it came out. I didn't go whine on the 4.0 forums trying to get them to turn 4.0 into 3.X.
