And it's been suggest Phil. Problem is, EVERYthing has been suggested, and likely none of it is going to be acted on. So we're just entertaining ourselves.
Well, at least it's a decent coffee party... with selfmade pie. I hope it is without wizard beans. I don't wanna have weight and balance problems.
@topic: I suggest making full attack a standard action but leaving the last iterative attack. Instead make this attack only occur as an additional use of move action: If you haven't moved in your turn (except for a 5 ft. step) you use your move action for an additional attack. It uses your full BAB -5. (Last part is to be changed I think).
Finally increasing casting time seems quite fine to me.
|
ive seen casters notice that the melee types are not approaching, assume that they are readying for the spellcaster to cast a spell (readying has to be pretty specific as per the rules) and either whip out a wand, drink a potion, use a mundane weapon to attack from afar. (crossbow the fighter in the face, its a weak attack for sure but the melee character COMPLETELY LOST HIS ACTION) and to tell you the truth, i think the spellcaster was crazy not to just suck the attack, make the spellcraft check and cast his spell ( your hypothetical situation was for 1st level characters? you are not touting anything with a match up such as that, at early levels its a battle of whoevers luckier, its the mid and high levels i would like you to compare)
note: i believe you can cast from prone fine. okay your tripped, you then make your casting on the defensive roll where you at first level should have a 66% chance of success, then cast color spray at the leering fighter over you. and he as probably close to a 66% chance to FAIL. and that my friend is the spellcaster at the most screwed he could be in that match up, and that is 1st level characters!
if your games seem to have balanced class gameplay, thats great! and i dont want to take that from you. but the wizard in the above example should be at the point of begging for mercy with a Trained killer with a blade standing over him. not having the odds in his favor to WIN the encounter.
Longer casting times seem like they might make a good house rule.
In fact, it seems like the rationale and the actual rule could be described succinctly enough to be a good sidebar (unlike most of the good house rules I see here which take up a great deal of space).
I don't think it should be a canonical change, but a sidebar that says: "If you'd like spellcasters to be interrupted more often, use one full round in place of standard action casting times..." well, that probably won't ruin the book. Or take much space.
|
I don't think it should be a canonical change, but a sidebar that says: "If you'd like spellcasters to be interrupted more often, use one full round in place of standard action casting times..." well, that probably won't ruin the book. Or take much space.
Another rules option for the 'Paths Not Taken' Pathfinder version of Unearthed Arcana, it seems. :)
I had house ruled from the very start of 3.0 that you add 2*level of the spell to the concentration DC.
It has worked very well, because DC raise as the same rate of concentration skill, which is not the case in standard rules. With this, spellcasters need to roll at least 13 with their higher level spell on their D20 with max concentration, before feat and ability modifier.
|
|
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.
F##@ YEAH!!!!!
Who needs Pathfinder?
It's a no-brainer to buy Tumble in 3.5, even at 2-for-1!
"Go, go, go to Lazytown,
It's the start of a brand new da-a-ay.
Things are upside down in Lazytown,
Pleasure's just a moment away..."
Try to catch me, you slow, clumsy bastards!
Sorry, I meant slow, dead bastards.
"Oh, what a fee-li-ing, to be dancin' on the cei-li-ing,
Oooh, what a fee-li-ing..."
So, how many players in previous editions DID follow the rules with respect to casting times and interruptions?
I remember one DM mastering 1st edition AD&D who had his very own view on the spell casting interruption rules: since one round was 1 minute, and one segment was 6 seconds, i.e. quite a long time, a fighter standing in front of a caster trying to cast a spell with a CT of 5 segments had 5 free hits... casting in the middle of melee was a sure way to get yourself killed.
|
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. Therefore 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.
Oh, don't get us wrong, there are a LOT of improvements in 3.0/3.5.
Describing the monsters in the same terms as the PCs, so the DM isn't plucking a goblin's Str score out of thin air when you try to push it off a cliff...
Clarified bonus types, so you see immediately what stacks and what doesn't.
Save types being self-explanatory, rather than the heirarchy of 2E (OK, it's a wand of paralysation, so is that a save vs wands, or vs paralysis...).
Third Edition was leaps and bounds ahead in terms of the clarity of the writing. Earlier rules were written in a more conversational style, which led to misunderstandings over terms being used inappropriately ('Enchantment' being a prime example; it could refer to a charm-type spell, an embedded property of a magic item, or just 'magic' in general). I don't want to go back to debating muddy rules.
It's now clear WHAT the rules say; but it's not clear to us if 'what the rules say' is quite what the writers INTENDED to say.
It would be nice if we could collar one of the writers and ask "Did you really intend for wizards to have such a free ride, and if so, why?"
In response:
Again, the problem is starting around level 8 and certainly *after* level 12, Wizards dominate spotlight time, making anyone who didn't pick a spell-caster not have fun in combat. This is a problem that should be addressed.
1) Spells per day does *not* address the problem. By those levels, casters have plenty of spells per combat. Combats go fast, and it is not the DM's job to constantly create situations where players can't rest to make the game fair.
What's the end result in this situation? You have a combat where all your spell casters sit around not having any fun because you didn't let them rest to get their spells? The idea is to come up with a solution so that players don't feel punished or marginalized for picking a melee class.
I apologize for bringing rope trick up. Clearly there are ways of dealing with this problem. Beholders for instance, clearly the solution for a level 2 spell. (Note sarcasm. :-) Seriously, it can be addressed, I know.
2) Kirth Gersen: Thank you.
3) Beckett: Your example doesn't seem relevant to the issue we're talking about here. Take a level 15 caster. Is he going to fail his defensive casting check? Again, look at the problem *after* level 10.
4) Peter Stewart: Of *course* I still play 1e/hackmaster. that's a silly question. I play 3e also, because it's easier to teach. I wouldn't have nearly as many women in my games if *all* I played was Hackmaster. Just because I'd like to correct a problem in 3e, doesn't mean there aren't other positives.
5) This seriously needs to be addressed in the core rules.
Instead of giving a bunch of special cases about this or that back and forth, how about we come up with a list of solutions. Here. I'll start.
1) Rework the initiative system to use weapon speeds, casting times, etc.
Pro: Works like a charm in hackmaster.
Con: Ain't gonna happen.
2) Make some spells full-round actions.
Pro:Addresses the problem, lets fighters interrupt without wasting action.
Con:Not cool for the Wizard *player* Who's always finishing what he started last turn.
3) Add casting times to spells.
Pro: Well, we have this counting initiative system. It could be something as simple as 'spell level x 2'. It doesn't change your initiative. You start with the highest initative like normal and count down. If the wizard goes at 10, he goes at 10 and casts a second level spell. The spell takes effect at init 6, and on the next turn the wizard goes at 10 again. This allows fighters to delay instead of ready, and doesn't seem to take much work. Simple, solves a lot of problems.
Con: Clunky. New Rule. Breaks initiative precedents (When you delay your action you get your new initiative)
4) Nerfs to the Wizard. Make it easier to disrupt spells, make defensive casting impossible or much more difficult. Don't allow spellcasting/tumbling in the same round.
Pro: Some of the difficulties on these things are too low.
Con: BOOOOO! Seriously this options sucks. Ideally if you correct the combat flow the wizards spells should be more powerful, he shouldn't become weaker.
5) Buffs to the fighter. Allow the fighter to make all his attacks and his full movement. Allow the fighter to trade attacks for more damage. Allow the fighter to trade attacks for AoO free movement. Allow the fighter to 'lock' someone into combat with him.
Pro: This will tend to equalize out the damage. You could make it a feat or class feature of non spell casting warrior classes. (barbarian/fighter). Also 3.p already does some of these things. :-)
Con: Might get out of hand, only really acceptable past level 12 or so.
Any other ideas to correct the problem?
(For clarity the issues is that wizards get to make their move and do there full damage, while fighters do only a few dice with if the get a move. This makes spell casters far superior to fighters after level 10 (in general). Also: it is difficult to disrupt spellcasting and becomes more so as the wizard levels.
|
3) Beckett: Your example doesn't seem relevant to the issue we're talking about here. Take a level 15 caster. Is he going to fail his defensive casting check? Again, look at the problem *after* level 10.
I say this with experience, a resounding yes. Not only that, he also may have some trouble not dying on the spot from massive damage from all the magic weapon properties that 15th level fighter has on their weapon. Your just not thinking of all the nasty things a Fighter can do. Cleave of the Familiar they just massacred into the Wizard, Sunder the Spellbook.
Go completely defensive, readying an action every round to basically move out of the area/range of oncomming spells until the Wizard is out of some damaging spells. Ready an action to pinpoint the fireball in the Wizards hand.
Cleave of the Familiar they just massacred into the Wizard, Sunder the Spellbook.
Are we playing the same game? No 15th level PC wizard know of keeps a spellbook in hand (secret chest), nor uses a spell component pouch (Eschew Materials). And in the Pathfinder rules, who wants a familiar when you can have a bonded item (like a ring, so it can't be sundered)?
readying an action every round to basically move out of the area/range of oncomming spells
I'd like it if he could do that -- it would be excellent to have a set of houserules to allow it -- but as written, short range is 25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels. At 15th level, that's 60 ft. of range. So the fighter has a speed of 70 ft., and all encounters happen outdoors? And then how does he get back over to the wizard to attack (or does he fire arrows)?
Again, I'd like the written rules to reflect the types of ideas that people are imagining. But they don't, unless massive DM intervention and wholesale houseruling occurs.
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?"
Oh i agree, i liked the speed factor to init thing. definately
|
|
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'll count myself in that minority with you. In fact, we have always rolled initiative every round, and we have always used weapon speed factors in 3.x. We used to use the exact charts for wsf, but we've simplified it a bit to be 2 segments for a light weapon, 3 segments for a one-handed weapon, 4 seconds for a two-handed weapon or missile weapon. Add two segments for every size category above medium. (Oh, unarmed attacks are 1 segment). 1-Action spells take their level in segments to cast, and other spells with oddball casting times take that time (ie. Feather Fall, Dim Door). Iterative attacks are delayed by the final wsf (base + size mod). For example, an init of 15, medium creature using a longsword (wsf 3) attacks on 12, 9, 6, 3 (assuming four attacks). We could never accept the entirety of a round's actions occurring instantaneously on someone's initiative. We like it, it works for us. :)
By way of example for how this could work for interrupting casters... let's say the wizard DOES win initiative at 16, then starts casting a 7th level spell - it will go off on 9 (and will go before the fighter's attack on 9... spells, missile, melee just like the old days :). HOWEVER, on 12, the fighter gets his attack off in the middle of casting causing a roll to be required by the wizard based on the damage taken. Since the fighter lost initiative, he can decide to power attack and hope to do lots of damage on that first attack, making the roll even harder.
|
|
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.
It's always a dangerous assumption that just because a few people on the messageboards agree that there is any kind of "majority".
This subject comes up every once in a while, and I suspect it just as likely that the people who generally offer the other side of the story have not bothered this time since the situation seems to be totally unnoticed or commented upon by the designers.
|
|
Longer casting times seem like they might make a good house rule.
In fact, it seems like the rationale and the actual rule could be described succinctly enough to be a good sidebar (unlike most of the good house rules I see here which take up a great deal of space).
I don't think it should be a canonical change, but a sidebar that says: "If you'd like spellcasters to be interrupted more often, use one full round in place of standard action casting times..." well, that probably won't ruin the book. Or take much space.
I quite like the idea of sidebar optional rules. As you said, it wouldn't take up much space and it's an easy thing to change (in fact, we have always used spell casting times in 3.x - see my post above).
Are we playing the same game? No 15th level PC wizard know of keeps a spellbook in hand (secret chest), nor uses a spell component pouch (Eschew Materials). And in the Pathfinder rules, who wants a familiar when you can have a bonded item (like a ring, so it can't be sundered)?
I was going to say the same thing. I just don't get how some people miss these things. They must be playing a different game, or under massive house rules that they think are core or something.
|
|
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.
It's always a dangerous assumption that just because a few people on the messageboards agree that there is any kind of "majority".
This subject comes up every once in a while, and I suspect it just as likely that the people who generally offer the other side of the story have not bothered this time since the situation seems to be totally unnoticed or commented upon by the designers.
conservative gamers and prefresh gamers are going to reject any concept that messes with spellcaster mastery ( its the game they love to play ) I just wish those people would take a step back and realize that it will be a much better game with better balanced higher levels. there is a resounding number of people who will fully agree that spellcasters are not balanced with nonspellcasters, its so one sided we could almost call it a fact. the designers prolly think its to late in the game to be toying with higher level class balance, and out of fear of losing more conservative players. its may just be easier to bank that all us nonspellcaster supporters will follow along even if higher level gameplay isnt improved. I also imagine that the groups that think nothings wrong with higher level game play are more likely to abandon ship and stick with 3.5 material (or jump ship to 4th ed) if changes are made
they are probably right in their assumptions.
as for right now all im looking for is some solid variant to fix the leaky system that is high level 3.5/3.P.
As a side note if you all are so happy with the way 2E did things why did you swap over to 3.x?
Because 3.x is in virtually every way a far better system. Its better in so many ways its hard to imagine going back. Can you not accept though that there are certain things that MIGHT have been better in prior editions? In my opinion there were a distinct few items that were handled better in earlier editions, and for that matter even in older editions. For example, I greatly prefer the 4E Death and Dying rules and so I have stolen them and back-ported them into my PF game. It would be nice if that was the official rule but I can only ask for so much and it seems like fixing the spellcaster/non-spellcaster power balance is a bigger and more important subject to address in core than the death and dying rules, especially since that's so easily house-ruled in anyway.
If you like the system you have you don't have to swap. I like 3.X, I don't like 4.0. Therefore 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.
Then why are you posting on the Pathfinder boards?
Pathfinder is a tweak/clean-up of 3.x. Pathfinder is NOT 3.0, nor is it 3.5, it is Pathfinder, which is BASED on the 3.x ruleset, but with many tweaks and fixes overlaid.
If you like 3.x so much why are you not still just playing 3.5? Is there something in Pathfinder that you like or are you happy just sticking with 3.5? Because if you are so happy with 3.5, why are you (assumedly) playing Pathfinder? I'm confused I think.
|
|
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.
This assumes that the (usually) most intelligent member of the game just stands there and hopes the fighter doesn't attack as he casts. Anyone with an intelligence high enough to cast spells will step away from the fighter (at least 5') and cast.
Also I'm not convinced that a readied melee attack to respond to an action that would normally provoke an AOO wouldn't be susceptible the normal casting defensively rules (DC15+spell level concentration check) to avoid the attack. Distracting Spellcasters: You can ready an attack against a spellcaster with the trigger “if she starts casting a spell.” If you damage the spellcaster, she may lose the spell she was trying to cast (as determined by her Concentration check result). from the SRD....It doesn't really spell out what would happen if the Caster is casting defensively, and a readied melee attack and the standard AOO that a caster draws doesn't seem like two totally different actions.I mean, a fighter standing there waiting for the caster to cast means that the caster could in theory draw out a wand and fire and the fighter wouldn't be able to use his readied action. He could AoO the caster for that but then he isn't readied although either way the results are the same. Casting a spell draws an AoO from any threatening persons. Why would the fighter's readied action to attack be any different from the AoO that presents itself when the caster begins waggling fingers and speaking magick? As a caster I would kinda be defensive about any attacks directed at me while I am casting.
I could be wrong, it has happened before, but that is how I see it.
We used to use the exact charts for wsf, but we've simplified it a bit to be 2 segments for a light weapon, 3 segments for a one-handed weapon, 4 seconds for a two-handed weapon or missile weapon. Add two segments for every size category above medium. (Oh, unarmed attacks are 1 segment). 1-Action spells take their level in segments to cast, and other spells with oddball casting times take that time (ie. Feather Fall, Dim Door). Iterative attacks are delayed by the final wsf (base + size mod). For example, an init of 15, medium creature using a longsword (wsf 3) attacks on 12, 9, 6, 3 (assuming four attacks). We could never accept the entirety of a round's actions occurring instantaneously on someone's initiative. We like it, it works for us. :)
Sheer genius I say...
By way of example for how this could work for interrupting casters... let's say the wizard DOES win initiative at 16, then starts casting a 7th level spell - it will go off on 9 (and will go before the fighter's attack on 9... spells, missile, melee just like the old days :). HOWEVER, on 12, the fighter gets his attack off in the middle of casting causing a roll to be required by the wizard based on the damage taken. Since the fighter lost initiative, he can decide to power attack and hope to do lots of damage on that first attack, making the roll even harder.
Consider this.... STOLEN!
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.
I'm all for empowering melee classes, too bad it's not something likely to happen this late in the beta. You know, it's funny how even Paizo people keep saying "Melee classes need more" but keep shying out and beating around the bush regarding just that, MORE: Give us back former Power Attack and Expertise, enhance Vital Strike to make it actually attractive, is it that hard?
Same with spellcasters, if they do that much damage to the point of making melee classes superfluous in second half of the game then just downgrade Evocation spells' damage, make Fireball and Lightning Bolt do only 1 die every 3 caster levels. Return Defensive Casting DC to 15+ spell level... this should be even easier, then again I know it's not gonna happen, and what will happen instead is a nerf of yet another school that isn't Evocation (my bet is on either Divination or Necromancy, Transmutation is already F.U.B.A.Red and Conjuration has never been that much of a problem with Summon Monster only lasting in rounds and monsters always being substandar).
Anyway, just how many times has this same thing been discussed already?
|
|
It is this change of timing that leads to the example people use of "pew! pew!" casters.
Personally, my usage of "pew,pew,lazors!" refers to the current trend toward 'infinite spells/day', spearheaded by the 3.5 warlock, made core for the 4.0 casters, and imitated in the schools and domains of PFRPG.
Why this was ever deemed necessary, I do not know, since the ease of creating, or simply buying, scrolls, wands and potions already negated the need for much tactical resource-management in 3.5.
|
Because the bookkeeping of all the the scrolls and potions is a pain in the butt, it's more interesting to be out adventuring than crafting, and in general complexity<>entertainment.
Sigh. I hate to say it, but the more I look at Pathfinder, the more I'm liking 4e. The problems we're complaining about have solutions in that game, and finding solutions to those problems with a 3.5 foundation is proving tough at best.
I don't see how trading a couple of classes that go "pew, pew, pew" with EVERY class going "pew, pew, pew" is necessarily a "solution"...
3x has its problems, but with a few gentle houserules, they disappear.
To get back to the original premise of the thread, the reason casters weren't overpowered in 1E/2E (in my experience): because it took so long to even reach level 9, let alone higher levels!
Also I'm not convinced that a readied melee attack to respond to an action that would normally provoke an AOO wouldn't be susceptible the normal casting defensively rules (DC15+spell level concentration check) to avoid the attack. . . . I mean, a fighter standing there waiting for the caster to cast means that the caster could in theory draw out a wand and fire and the fighter wouldn't be able to use his readied action.
Also: and this is important, I don't think it's fun for the fighter, or fair, that he possibly *waste* his action.
New Suggestion:
N) Revise the delayed/readied action rules so that even if the trigger doesn't happen, high level non-spellcasters don't lose their action or their initiative value. Perhaps a feat or a class feature would go a long way to resolving this.
I'm hoping other people come up with solutions.
-Campbell
Same with spellcasters, if they do that much damage to the point of making melee classes superfluous in second half of the game then just downgrade Evocation spells' damage, make Fireball and Lightning Bolt do only 1 die every 3 caster levels.
I'd recommend otherwise; evocation is already a lost cause, because hit points are high enough at high levels of 3.X that direct-damage is just a waste of time... because monsters fight just as well at 1 hp as they do at 200 hp, so that 199 points of damage you inflicted are meaningless. Save-or-die/save-or-out-of-the-fight spells are a much better use of your round -- they come in different varieties, which target different weak saves -- and even if a monster makes a lucky 1st save, it's unlikely to save again. They represent a 2-round kill, instead of blasting away for 4 or 5 rounds -- you save time, save damage against the party, save spells.
Give us back former Power Attack and Expertise, enhance Vital Strike to make it actually attractive, is it that hard?
I'd just like to say some of the things Pathfinder have done *already* go a long way towards mitigating the problem. I think vital attack is attractive as it is, it resolves one of the major issues with fighters. I will *gladly* take two extra dice of damage at level 11. It helps resolve the hit/chancy/miss/miss issue with high level fighters. props.
More needs to be done, but just credit where credit is due. Things are already much improved.
-Campbell
|
|
OK I'd like to reinforce some of the things that have been said here and to offer my suggestions.
[soap box]
In 2nd Ed, time per round was different--one round was one minute--as opposed to 3.X where one round is 6 seconds. In my trusty, dusty 2nd Ed PHB, most spells could be cast the same round they were initiated, though they had an initiative modifier like a weapon speed factor. Most "casting time" factors increase with the level of the spell, thus slowing down casting in 2nd Ed. This disappeared in 3.X altogether. It is this change of timing that leads to the example people use of "pew! pew!" casters. (NOTE: This doesn't even take into account Quicken spells at all.) The remedy to these issues that I would suggest is to:This would replicate increased casting times to some extent without completely going back to the “old ways.”
- make a round equal 10 seconds
- and make most higher-end spells a full-round action as opposed to a standard action.
Changing the length of the round is useless - it's all relative. Make a round 48 minutes and 16.4 seconds, and it won't matter - what matters is what actions can take place in one round. The only reason the actual length of the round matters is because some durations are stated in minutes/hours and, honestly, having a defined amount of time per round causes problems with people complaining about realism.
Make higher-level spells a full-round action... Look, there was a general outcry when the initial Combat feats all were standard actions. That is what you're asking this to become - you're making the specialty of the class be something that they apparently aren't very good at.
This is just another call to nerf the casters.
Next casting could be very easily disrupted in 2nd Ed. It states . . .
Once again... we are working with 3.x here. I'm glad you enjoyed the 2e system so much, but I for one don't want to go back there. Neither do a whole lot of people who like 3.x enough to spurn WotC in their efforts with 4e and who make Paizo Pathfinder RPG possible. I am very confident in being able to say that this is not supposed to be an opportunity to roll the rules backwards 10 years. There is an assumption that the core concepts of the rules are sound and that building on those can make a better system that still feels and plays like 3.x.
Screwing the wizard isn't part of that, I hope.
|
|
Sigh. I hate to say it, but the more I look at Pathfinder, the more I'm liking 4e. The problems we're complaining about have solutions in that game, and finding solutions to those problems with a 3.5 foundation is proving tough at best.
Which is perfectly alright. If the style of game you play is more geared toward using the 4e rules (or the Ars Magica rules, or the GURPS rules) by all means use them. If you feel there is a fundamental problem with the rules of the 3.x system then you're never likely to be satisfied with anything that doesn't address those. Unfortunately for you (and others who feel the same way) the core assumptions of the system have to stay intact or they might as well totally abandon the existing 3.x and make a brand new system. That isn't going to happen, I suspect, so do what you must to make sure your game uses the rules that work best for your group. While this is an open beta, I think that some people have some very unrealistic expectations about how far this can really stretch.
Following the discussion I came to the following conclusion:
The core of the problem, the "broken" thing so to say, is "cast defensively", at least in my opinion.
As some previous post noted, "cast defensively" negates a threat to the caster, no matter how proficient the enemy causing the threat is; this just isn't right.
Remove it completely from the rules, and the problem is almost solved.
|
|
3x has its problems, but with a few gentle houserules, they disappear.
(Glances over at the very, very large Pathfinder rules set)
Uh-huh. Few gentle house rules. Right.
You realize, I'm sure, that (and I'm guestimating here) well over 95% of that book is just reprinted SRD information, and you're just being contrary for the fun of it.
That's what this was originally intended to be, I thought - some small adjustments to the system that would maintain full backward compatability with 3.x. Unfortunately some people (and I think even Jason got caught up in this a few times) took the opportunity to make some very serious changes which stretch the possibility of backward compatability to its limits. If we resort to 2e rules or take in 4e rules, we are no longer on target with the purpose of this 3.P version.
Unless that target has changed, of course, and I missed the memo. That's entirely possible, but I don't recall seeing anything from Paizo of that nature. :)
|
|
Following the discussion I came to the following conclusion:
The core of the problem, the "broken" thing so to say, is "cast defensively", at least in my opinion.
As some previous post noted, "cast defensively" negates a threat to the caster, no matter how proficient the enemy causing the threat is; this just isn't right.
Remove it completely from the rules, and the problem is almost solved.
Just like all the "Improved <manoeuvre>" feats do. Why shouldn't the caster have an equal opportunity to perform his primary function in the game without interruption if every other class has that privelege?
|
|
Also: and this is important, I don't think it's fun for the fighter, or fair, that he possibly *waste* his action.New Suggestion:
N) Revise the delayed/readied action rules so that even if the trigger doesn't happen, high level non-spellcasters don't lose their action or their initiative value. Perhaps a feat or a class feature would go a long way to resolving this.
I'm hoping other people come up with solutions.
-Campbell
I think it would be good to revise those actions - however, Ready is very powerful. It can be used to totally deprive an opponent of his actions if used well. If you allow a fighter to stand near/beside a wizard and ready an attack, that means it's all he's doing... waiting for the wizard to do something so he can counter it. How is the fighter going to know when the wizard just isn't going to do that? Sure, within the metagame construct of the initiative order we know because on his turn the wizard does something different. I would be all in favour of, perhaps, modifying Ready to say that on the turn the Ready was declared, if the Ready-er changes his mind then it counts as a Delay action instead and the fighter can take a standard action after ending the Ready (note that this might also include a different Ready action, I suppose). I think it would be unfair to allow the fighter to stand ready, waiting for a specific event, and then have him suddenly change his mind and have it like he never wasted that time at all (ie. no loss of actions or init position).
|
|
Same with spellcasters, if they do that much damage to the point of making melee classes superfluous in second half of the game then just downgrade Evocation spells' damage, make Fireball and Lightning Bolt do only 1 die every 3 caster levels.
I'd recommend otherwise; evocation is already a lost cause, because hit points are high enough at high levels of 3.X that direct-damage is just a waste of time... because monsters fight just as well at 1 hp as they do at 200 hp, so that 199 points of damage you inflicted are meaningless. Save-or-die/save-or-out-of-the-fight spells are a much better use of your round -- they come in different varieties, which target different weak saves -- and even if a monster makes a lucky 1st save, it's unlikely to save again. They represent a 2-round kill, instead of blasting away for 4 or 5 rounds -- you save time, save damage against the party, save spells.
I agree with Kirth - straight damage spells are rarely the way to go. They've become even weaker, relatively, in 3e since they do the same amount of damage as in 2e but 3e creatures have many, MANY more hit points (check out a dragon's hp in 2e, as compared to 3e... :)
Just like all the "Improved <manoeuvre>" feats do.
Yes, you are completely right about that.
Following the reasoning about "cast defensively" above, it would be nice to change the "Improved <maneuvre>" feats in a way that the maneuvre has additional/better effects when it succeeds, instead of completely negating the AaO no matter whether you try to Disarm a lowly peasant or a 20th-level fighter.
In other words, make the penalty for AoO-worthy actions scale with the threat you are facing, and provide no 100% effective counters.
|
|
The problem with casting on the defensive, in my mind, is its static nature. The chances for success and failure are not based upon the threat, but are instead based upon the spell level. A wizard casting a 1st level spell on the defensive has the same Difficulty Class when threatened by an angry rat or a ticked off dragon. That makes absolutely no sense. Furthermore, there's no prohibition against a flanked spellcaster casting on the defensive. So the wizard's subject to sneak attack, and the flanking opponents gain a +2 attack roll bonus, but the wizard's ability to cast on the defensive is completely unaffected.
One possible solution to the disruption issue is to prohibit spellcasters from casting on rounds where they sustain damage. The argument could be made that the spellcaster began the spell at the beginning of the round, and his initiative order determined when he completed its casting. If he's hit before his initiative order, the spell is lost. Of course, you can also make the argument that the spell caster taking damage has distracted him enough that he is incapable of casting spell this round. (If a spellcaster is too distracted to cast spells while on the deck of a storm tossed ship, a sharp blow to the head isn't much less distracting.)
And an even better and more fair solution is to treat it the same way they have Acrobatics for avoiding AoOs when tumbling past/through opponents. Could even make it the same DCs as long as it is based on a skill that is keyed to the primary casting stat of the character (ie. leave it at spellcraft, but have spellcraft modified by the character's ability score modifier for whatever kind of caster he is: wizard adds INT, Cleric adds Wis, etc). Then it's consistent with other rules (Acrobatics, which is a great change over the static DCs of tumble for the same reasons you point out about Concentration/Spellcraft for casters). This would make it scale equally to Acrobatics which I think was universally accepted as a good change to the rules. This is almost exactly analogous to that situation, and I think would be a fair way to go about it. Make Casting on the Defensive DCs 15+BAB of opponent+spell level. Which gives us the following:
Lvl 1 wizard, 20 INT, max ranks in Spellcraft (1) + Class Skill (3) + INT (5) = 9 Spellcraft.
Casting a level 1 spell in an area threatened by a single attacker with BAB of +1 (say a first level fighter, or a small monster) that makes his DC 17 to cast his 1st level spell, meaning he needs to roll 8 or higher to successfully cast his spell (35% chance of failure).
At level 11, we have the same wizard with a 22 INT, a device of braininess that adds +4 INT, maxed spellcraft, and some feat that gives him a bonus of 2 to spellcraft. Total spellcraft skill = 24. he's facing his nemesis from 1st level who is now an 11th level fighter, making the DC to cast a 6th level spell 32. Wizard needs to roll a 8 or higher to successfully cast his spell (35% chance of failure).
At 20th level our wizard has traded in his +4 INT device for a +6 bandana of brilliance, has an int of 25 base because he's put all of his level ability adjustments into INT, plus he still has his feat. Total spellcraft skill = 20 (base) + 3 (class skill) + 2 (feat) + 7 (INT mod) + 3 (bandana) = 35. DC to cast a 9th level spell in a threatened area = 15+20+9 = 44, meaning he needs to roll a 9 or higher to succeed (40% chance of failure).
So... is somewhere between a 35% and 40% chance of failure close enough for people, or what? I think that's a pretty fair balance - any fighter of 20th level has a 40% chance to absolutely cancel a wizard's 9th level spell. Seems pretty powerful to me.
You could even amend it to say that the DC increases by +2 each time another combination of attacker BABs match the highest (that's kind of awkward to say... lemme use an example: attacker1 has a BAB of 12; his buddies each have BABs of 7; all three are threatening the caster; start with the highest threatening BAB of 12, then add another +2 to the Spellcraft DC for every other whole BAB of 12 that you can muster - which in this case would be an additional +2 since the other two attackers total to 14. Alternatively, if you had three attackers who were all of equal BAB then you would add +4 to the DC, or if you had one attacker at 12 with three more at +8 - for a total of +24 additional, which is 2x12, which means +4 to the DC for the Spellcraft check).
I'm not sure I personally like that whole mechanic (I still think that the caster should be able to ignore AoOs when casting in a threatened area by use of a feat just like fighters can do with all the special manoeuvres), but it is, perhaps, somewhere to start?
[EDIT: I had to fix the math... I was adding the INT bonus to the spellcraft check, not the associated increase in modifier, making the spellcraft too high... with the adjustment it makes the numbers even worse for the wizard...]
|
|
Which is the point, really - returning to the way it was back in 1E/2E, where spellcasters couldn't just step up into the middle of a melee and toss off spells left and right with impunity.
I think the concept of returning to 1E/2E is most definitely NOT the point, and I think that's a point that a lot of people are missing in these discussions. I might as well start arguing that "In GURPS the spells and skills work like this so we should do it that way." Anyone who was so enamoured with how it worked in 2e yet plays 3e has probably long-since house-ruled it to the way they want it to work for their group. Does that make it right for a core set of rules which is trying to be able to interoperate easily with the existing 3.x rules? Highly unlikely. These same people will, if they choose to play Pathfinder, keep their same house rules in place after the fact as well to continue to have wizards play whatever role their group envisions for the wizard. But if it's not compatible with the core assumptions about what the wizard can do in 3.x then it should not appear in Pathfinder, either.
|
|
Just like all the "Improved <manoeuvre>" feats do.
Yes, you are completely right about that.
Following the reasoning about "cast defensively" above, it would be nice to change the "Improved <maneuvre>" feats in a way that the maneuvre has additional/better effects when it succeeds, instead of completely negating the AaO no matter whether you try to Disarm a lowly peasant or a 20th-level fighter.
In other words, make the penalty for AoO-worthy actions scale with the threat you are facing, and provide no 100% effective counters.
And for making a more simulationist ruleset I would be highly in favour of that - it makes perfect sense that nothing could totally negate possible retribution for doing something that moves you out of position to adequately defend yourself. However, we're also trying to streamline things a bit, and for the sake of doing that we should probably keep those in so we can handwave things away when the appropriate feat is taken. If we keep those in then we should bring spellcasting in line with it to keep things consistent, and I think we have to keep those in if for no other reason than to just keep things moving along a little better without sacrificing too much to the "it's a fantasy world!" reasoning. :)
And an even better and more fair solution is to treat it the same way they have Acrobatics for avoiding AoOs when tumbling past/through opponents.
I like that idea very much, for me it seems like a good direction to explore.
Concerning the question whether a caster should be able to cast (= use his primary class ability) without risking an AoO from the fighter/monster nearby (notice: attacking is the primary class ability of a fighter / melee-oriented monster), I still think no.
[not serious]
Try to turn it around: should there be an option for the fighter, call it "attack antimagically", that makes him immune to any kind of magic in any round he attacks, as long as he makes DC 15 + something check not depending on the power of the magic unleashed on him?
(don't take this serious, I just like to look at things from a different angle...)
[/not serious]
|
|
And an even better and more fair solution is to treat it the same way they have Acrobatics for avoiding AoOs when tumbling past/through opponents.
I like that idea very much, for me it seems like a good direction to explore.
Concerning the question whether a caster should be able to cast (= use his primary class ability) without risking an AoO from the fighter/monster nearby (notice: attacking is the primary class ability of a fighter / melee-oriented monster), I still think no.
[not serious]
Try to turn it around: should there be an option for the fighter, call it "attack antimagically", that makes him immune to any kind of magic in any round he attacks, as long as he makes DC 15 + something check not depending on the power of the magic unleashed on him?
(don't take this serious, I just like to look at things from a different angle...)
[/not serious]
I know you weren't being serious, and looking at things from the different angle is a very important thing to do because it can point out inconsistencies that might not be apparent from only one side of the coin, as it were, but to be fair all we're talking about is an AoO and interrupting spellcasting. The fighter can still stand there and pound the living crap out of the wizard (using his Warhammer of Wizard Mutilation +4) when it's the fighter's turn. :)
|
|
Following the discussion I came to the following conclusion:
The core of the problem, the "broken" thing so to say, is "cast defensively", at least in my opinion.
As some previous post noted, "cast defensively" negates a threat to the caster, no matter how proficient the enemy causing the threat is; this just isn't right.
Remove it completely from the rules, and the problem is almost solved.
Or just rule the DC is equal to the potential attacker's attack roll with bonuses, with each potential attacker having a separate attack roll/DC for the caster to oppose.
|
|
Just like all the "Improved <manoeuvre>" feats do. Why shouldn't the caster have an equal opportunity to perform his primary function in the game without interruption if every other class has that privelege?Following the discussion I came to the following conclusion:
The core of the problem, the "broken" thing so to say, is "cast defensively", at least in my opinion.
As some previous post noted, "cast defensively" negates a threat to the caster, no matter how proficient the enemy causing the threat is; this just isn't right.
Remove it completely from the rules, and the problem is almost solved.
And let the caster take "Improved Defensive spellcasting" feat which allows all potential AoOs to be resolved with one roll against the one target's attack roll with bonuses with the caster gaining a +4 to his roll.
Casters and melee fighters aren't equal, so why should the rules governing their actions be.