Here are some of the spells from the Pathfinder RPG Beta Playtest Book that my gaming group believes need to be modified. We'd like you to take a look at them and see how these rules work in your own games. We'll be looking at the downloadable content and the entire Illusion school in future posts as time permits. Many of these spells just need to have their descriptions changed to clarify how the spells work in order to either bring them into line with similar effects or to eliminate old mechanics that are no longer valid under the existing system (such as making opposed CHA checks instead of making skill checks with the appropriate social or performance skills). There are some spells that we feel might need to be changed, but we haven't come to a consensus amongst ourselves on how to fix them, and I have excluded them here.
My gaming group and I have also been discussing how to best address the lack of game balance between spellcasters and non-spellcasters at the higher levels of gameplay (levels 10+) in the Pathfinder RPG. We do not believe that additional revisions to the class abilities of the non-spellcasting classes are the solution to this problem. We also do not believe that the introduction of Feats that grant re-rolls on Saving Throws are sufficient to resolve the issue. We believe that the only mechanic that can help resolve this issue is...
Recovery Saves have been discussed in a quite a few threads on this Forum, and we feel it is absolutely essential to reducing the amount of battlefiend control and overall power that spellcasters currently wield with their "Save-Or-Suck" spells. As it stands right now, it is very easy to take characters out of combat for the entire duration of an encounter by using a "Save-Or-Suck" spell of the proper type against a character. Giving these characters the chance to eventually recover from these "Save-Or-Suck" spells helps mitigate the "all-or-nothing" nature of these effects and gives them the chance to eventually rejoin the combat. It may take some time for a character to accomplish this if they are attempting to make Recovery Saves against one of their weak Saving Throws, but it is a preferable alternative to simply writing off a character as being disabled for the remainder of the encounter. We also believe that it is a better mechanic then modifying the existing Saving Throw progressions of the base Pathfinder RPG classes (as it does not allow characters to multi-class to stack their saving throws as easily), and it reduces the overall reliance on the Big Six magical items.
Therefore, we suggest adding an additional value for spell descriptions under the Saving Throws field called Recovery. If a spell is flagged with the Recovery tag in the Saving Throw field of its description, this means that on every round after the first that the spell is in effect, the target is allowed to make another Saving Throw against the spell at the beginning of their turn to end the effect. Making this Recovery Save is a free action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
I address other mechanic changes in the text of some of these spells - we simply felt that since Recovery Saves need to be introduced in so many spells, it's best to just explain the concept and implementation up front and note the spells to be changed accordingly.
Without further ado, here are the spells that we believe need to be changed. I've divided them up with spoiler tags to keep you from being slammed by the Wall of Text.
Animal Trance
Fascination: A Fascination spell causes all those affected by it to become fascinated with either the caster or an illusionary sensory effect created by the caster. The affected creatures remain where they are for the duration of the spell and do not attack or flee. However, they are not helpless and will defend themselves normally if attacked. Any threatening actions taken towards the affected creatures immediately ends the spell.
This spell should therefore be marked as an Enchantment (Fascination) [mind-affecting, sonic] effect.
Antilife Shell
Any creature that is vulnerable to being hedged out by the Antilife Shell that is enclosed within or attempts to enter the Antilife Shell must make a Saving Throw against the effect. If the creature fails its Saving Throw, it is unable to move towards you for that round. Affected creatures may only make one Saving Throw per round to resist this effect. However, their actions are not otherwise restricted, and they can fight other creatures, cast spells, and freely attack you from range. If you move closer to an affected creature, the creature is not forced back. The creature is free to make melee attacks against you if you come within reach.
These changes bring the spell closer into line with the Repulsion spell and clear up some of the issues regarding its deployment whenever you use it whenever you're adjacent to creatures that would otherwise be hedged out by the effect.
Antiplant Shell
Any plant creature or animated plant that is vulnerable to being hedged out by the Antiplant Shell that is enclosed within or attempts to enter the Antiplant Shell must make a Saving Throw against the effect. If the creature fails its Saving Throw, it is unable to move towards you for that round. Affected creatures may only make one Saving Throw per round to resist this effect. However, their actions are not otherwise restricted, and they can fight other creatures, cast spells, and freely attack you from range. If you move closer to an affected creature, the creature is not forced back. The creature is free to make melee attacks against you if you come within reach.
These changes bring the spell closer into line with the Repulsion spell and clear up some of the issues regarding its deployment whenever you use it whenever you're adjacent to creatures that would otherwise be hedged out by the effect.
Baleful Polymorph
Bestow Curse
Blindness/Deafness
Cause Fear
Creatures that successfully make their Recovery Save and are no longer Frightened are still Shaken for the remaining duration of the spell.
Charm Person
This spell shifts a humanoid creature's attitude towards you to Friendly just as if you made a successful Diplomacy check to improve their attitude towards you. Targets that are currently being threatened by the caster or his apparent allies automatically make their saving throws to resist the spell. You cannot use Diplomacy to further improve the creature's attitude towards you while they are under the influence of this spell. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person immediately breaks the spell.
Color Spray
2 HD or less: The creature is blinded and stunned for 2D4 rounds.
3 or 4 HD: The creature is stunned for 1D4 rounds.
5 or more HD: The creature is stunned for 1 round.
Command, Greater
Command Undead
When cast upon an undead creature, this spell shifts its attitude towards you to Friendly just as if you made a successful Diplomacy check to improve their attitude towards you. Targets that are currently being threatened by the caster or his apparent allies automatically make their saving throws to resist the spell. You cannot use Diplomacy to further improve the creature's attitude towards you while they are under the influence of this spell.
Skeletons and Zombies do not receive a saving throw against this spell. You can issue basic orders to Skeletons and Zombies such as "Come Here", "Go There", "Fight", "Stand Still" and so on. They will not resist suicidal or obviously suicidal orders. Your commands are not telepathic - you must verbally give these creatures orders.
Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens a commanded undead creature immediately breaks the spell.
Comprehend Languages
Confusion
Contingency
The spell to be brough into effect by the contingency must be one that affects your person and be a spell level no higher then one-fourth your caster level (rounded down, maximum 5th level).
No more Contingency Heals!
Control Undead
Darkness
Deep Slumber
Deeper Darkness
Demand
Dominate Animal
You control the actions of an animal through a telepathic link that you establish with the subject's mind.
You can only direct it with simple commands such as "Come Here", "Go There", "Fight", and "Stand Still". You know what the subject is experiencing, but you do not receive direct sensory input from it, nor can it communicate with you telepathically.
Once you have given a dominated animal a command, it continues to attempt to carry out the command to the exclusion of all other activities. Because of this limited range of activity, a Sense Motive check against DC 15 (rather then DC 25) can determine that the subject's behavior is being influenced by an enchantment effect (see the Sense Motive spell description).
By concentrating fully on the spell (a standard action), you can receive full sensory input as interpreted by the mind of the subject. It still cannot communicate with you. You cannot see through the subject's eyes, so it's not as good as being there yourself, but you still get a good idea of what's going on.
Subjects resist this control, and suicidal or self-destructive commands (including an order to attack a creature two or more size categories larger then the dominated animal) are simply ignored. Once control is established, the range at which it can be exercised is unlimited as long as you and the subject are on the same plane. You need not see the creature to control it.
The language regarding Protection From Evil temporarily suspending the efficacy of Domination effects should be removed.
Dominate Monster
Dominate Person
You control the actions of a humanoid creature through a telepathic link that you establish with the subject's mind.
If you and the subject share a common language, you can generally force the subject to perform as you desire within the limits of its abilities. If no common language exists, you can only direct it with simple commands such as "Come Here", "Go There", "Fight", and "Stand Still". You know what the subject is experiencing, but you do not receive direct sensory input from it, nor can it communicate with you telepathically.
Once you have given a dominated humanoid a command, it continues to attempt to carry out the command to the exclusion of all other activities. Because of this limited range of activity, a Sense Motive check against DC 15 (rather then DC 25) can determine that the subject's behavior is being influenced by an enchantment effect (see the Sense Motive spell description).
By concentrating fully on the spell (a standard action), you can receive full sensory input as interpreted by the mind of the subject. It still cannot communicate with you. You cannot see through the subject's eyes, so it's not as good as being there yourself, but you still get a good idea of what's going on.
Subjects resist this control, and suicidal or self-destructive commands are simply ignored. Once control is established, the range at which it can be exercised is unlimited as long as you and the subject are on the same plane. You need not see the creature to control it.
The language regarding Protection From Evil temporarily suspending the efficacy of Domination effects should be removed.
Enthrall
If you have the attention of a group of creatures, you can use this spell to hold them spellbound. To cast the spell, you must use a Perform skill without interruption for one full round. Thereafter, those affected give you their undivided attention, ignoring their surroundings. They are considered to have an attitude of Friendly while under the effect of the spell. Targets that are currently being threatened by the caster or his apparent allies automatically make their saving throws to resist the spell.
The first sentence of the third paragraph should read as follows:
The effect lasts for as long as you continue your performance, to a maximum of one hour.
The fourth paragraph should read as follows:
If those not enthralled have unfriendly or hostile attitudes toward you, they can collectively make an opposed Perform check to try and end the spell by either jeering and heckling or drawing away attention from your performance. For this check, use the skill roll of the creature with the highest skill bonus in the group; others may make skill checks to use the Aid Another action to assist this creature. The heckling only ends the spell if their Perform check is higher then your Perform skill check result. Only one opposed skill check is allowed per use of this spell.
The final paragraph should read as follows:
The affected creatures remain where they are for the duration of the spell and do not attack or flee. However, they are not helpless and will defend themselves normally if attacked. Any threatening actions taken towards the affected creatures immediately ends the spell. The previously enthralled creatures immediately become unfriendly towards you and your apparent allies. Each creature with 4 or more HD or with a Wisdom score of 16 or higher becomes hostile.
Eyebite
If the target has 10 or more HD, they are sickened. If they have less then then 10 HD, they are sickened and panicked.
Remove the table for variable effects from the spell. Change the second sentence of the description of the Sickened effect as follows:
A creature affected by this spell remains sickened for 1 minute per caster level.
Change the description of the Panicked effect as follows:
The subject becomes panicked for 1d4 rounds. The subject may make a Will Recovery Save every round to end this effect. After the panic ends, the creature remains shaken for 1 minute per caster level. If the affected creature comes within sight of the caster after the panic ends, it must make another Recovery Will save to avoid becoming panicked again for another 1d4 rounds, during which time they may make a Will Recovery Save every round to end the effect.
Faerie Fire
Outlined creatures take a -40 penalty on Stealth checks.
Fear
Feeblemind
Floating Disk
Forcecage
Geas, Lesser
The subject of this spell may make a Will save every day to end the effect.
Glibness
Hide From Animals
Hide From Undead
Hold Person
Hold Person, Mass
Hypnotic Pattern
Hypnotism
Imprisonment
Insanity
Maze
The subject may make take a full-round action to make a Will Recovery Save to try and escape the labyrinth. If the subject doesn't escape the maze spell by the time the spell's duration expires, the subject is ejected from the labyrinth.
Nondetection
[spoiler]The first sentence of the spell should be changed as follows:
The warded creature or object becomes impossible to detect via the following spells: [i]clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and detect spells.[/i]
This spell is also an excellent example regarding why the caster level of Paladins and Rangers should be (class level - 3) instead of (class level / 2). A Ranger casting this spell has very little chance of evading scrying of any sort under the current formular for determining caster level - they would at least have a slim chance of evading scrying effects for a time if you changed their caster level to (class level -3).
Get rid of the 50 gp component. Even after making the changes to the spell that I have suggested, the spell isn't good enough to warrant it.
Phantasmal Killer
If that save fails, the phantasm touches the subject, and the subject must succeed on a Fortitude save or take 12d6 points of damage + 1 point per level of the caster.
Plane Shift
You move yourself or some other willing creature to another plane of existence or alternate dimension.
Power Word, Stun
75 or less - 4d4 rounds
76 - 150 - 2d4 rounds
151 - 200 - 1d4 rounds
Prismatic Sphere
Confused, as per Confusion spell (Will negates, Will Recovery)
Prismatic Spray
Confused, as per Confusion spell (Will negates, Will Recovery)
Protection From Evil
In actuality, we should probably be relying upon spells such as Dispel Evil, Dispel Magic, and Break Enchantment to end these effects. Our suggestion: remove the absolute protection against Domination effects. Give characters with this buff a +2 to their Saving Throws against Enchantment [Charm] and Enchantment [Compulsion] effects. Remove the 3rd paragraph and give characters with this buff an additional +2 AC bonus against Evil summoned creatures.
Ray Of Enfeeblement
A coruscating ray springs from your hand. You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to strike a target. The subject takes a -2 penalty to hit and damage rolls plus an additional -1 penalty for every three caster levels you have (maximum -5).
Reincarnate
A reincarnated creature recalls the majority of its former life and form. It retains any class abilities, feats, or skill ranks it formerly possessed. Its class, base attack bonus, base save bonuses, and base hit points remain unchanged. The subject loses all of the Racial Traits and ability score adjustments of its old race (since it is no longer part of its previous race) and gains the Racial Traits and ability score adjustments of the subject's new race. The subject’s level (or Hit Dice) is reduced by 1. If the subject was 1st level, its new Constitution score is reduced by 2. (If this reduction would put its Con at 0 or lower, it can’t be reincarnated). This level/HD loss or Constitution loss cannot be repaired by any means.
This rule change means that a Reincarnated character not only loses all of its existing racial ability score adjustments, but it loses ALL of the other Racial Traits that currently carry over in the existing rules while simultaneously gaining the Racial Traits of the character's new race. So you don't have to worry about Humans being Reincarnated as Half-Orcs running around with extra skill points and a Bonus Feat, or Dwarves being reincarnated as Humans while still retaining their Stonecunning and their Defensive Training.
Furthermore, I believe that Bugbears, Gnolls, Lizardfolk, and Troglodytes should be removed from the Incarnation Table and replaced with the following races (assuming they will be balanced or are already balanced for a +0 Level Adjustment): Aasimar, Tiefling, Hobgoblin and Gensai. The "Other" listing should be removed entirely. Other LA +0 races that are released in future releases should be flagged in their Bestiary as such for possible addition to the Incarnation Table by GMs.
Finally, we would like the fifth paragraph to read as follows:
For a humanoid creature, the new incarnation is determined using the following tables. The player can either choose to be reincarnated as a member of the race that they rolled or one of the races adjacent to that result on the incarnation table.
So if you have a player that rolls "Half-Elf" on the Incarnation Table, they could also choose to come back as either a Goblin or a Half-Orc.
Repulsion
An invisible, mobile field surrounds you and prevent creatures from approaching you. You decide how big the field is at the time of casting (to the limit that your level allows).
Any creature that is enclosed within or attempts to enter the repulsion field must make a Saving Throw against the effect. If the creature fails its Saving Throw, it is unable to move towards you for that round. Affected creatures may only make one Saving Throw per round to resist this effect. However, their actions are not otherwise restricted, and they can attack other creatures, cast spells, and freely attack you from range. If you move closer to an affected creature, the creature is not forced back. The creature is free to make melee attacks against you if you come within reach.
Rope Trick
Scare
Scintillating Pattern
12 or less: Stunned for 1d4 rounds, then confused for 1d4 rounds.
13 or more: Confused for 1d4 rounds.
Sculpt Sound
You can change the sounds that creatures or objects make. You can transform sounds into other sounds, but you cannot reduce or increase the volume of the sound that you are sculptuing, nor can you create sounds where none exists or deaden or remove the sounds that the target makes.
Silence
Sleep
Song Of Discord
Sound Burst
Sound Burst may be used to counter or dispel any Silence spell.
Spider Climb
The subject gains a climb speed of 20 feet and a +8 bonus to Climb checks; furthermore, it need not make Climb checks to traverse a vertical or horizontal surface (even upside down).
Suggestion
Targets that are currently being threatened or engaged in combat by the caster or his apparent allies should automatically make their saving throws to resist the spell.
Summon Monster
We felt that there were only two ways to remedy this situation: to either reduce the power of the summoned creatures and create a new table for summoning monsters, or to limit the number of summons that a spell caster can bring into play. In order to ensure backwards compatability, we are opting for the latter option. We believe that the following language needs to be added to the first paragraph of the description of the Summoning subschool:
A spellcaster can only have one Summoning effect active at any given time. If a spellcaster has a Summoning effect in play and casts a Summoning spell of equal or higher level then the one used to generate the current effect, the caster may choose to either end the current effect and summon forth a new monster (or monsters), or they may elect to extend the duration of the current spell for one round per level of the caster.
Summon Nature's Ally
We felt that there were only two ways to remedy this situation: to either reduce the power of the summoned creatures and create a new table for summoning monsters, or to limit the number of summons that a spell caster can bring into play. In order to ensure backwards compatability, we are opting for the latter option. We believe that the following language needs to be added to the first paragraph of the description of the Summoning subschool:
A spellcaster can only have one Summoning effect active at any given time. If a spellcaster has a Summoning effect in play and casts a Summoning spell of equal or higher level then the one used to generate the current effect, the caster may choose to either end the current effect and summon forth a new monster (or monsters), or they may elect to extend the duration of the current spell for one round per level of the caster.
Temporal Stasis
Time Stop
A spellcaster that casts a second Time Stop spell while already under the effect of a Time Stop spell extends the duration of the active spell by another 1d4+1 rounds.
Touch of Idiocy
Wall Of Force
Weird
If a subjects fail their Fortitude saves, they take 10 points of damage per caster level of the person casting the spell.
Wind Wall
Any normal ranged weapon passing through the wall has a 30% miss chance.
We believe that arrows and bolts should be able to get through the Wind Wall, albeit with a miss chance.
Zone of Silence
Sueki Suezo said,
Temporal Stasis
Spoiler:
Given the severity of the penalties that are imposed by this spell and the long-term nature of the effects, the casting time for Temporal Stasis should be increased to 10 minutes. We are also debating if the Saving Throw should be changed to none. This will allow spellcasters to imprison targets that are restrained or helpless, but they will not be able to do so in the middle of combat. Needless to say, this spell should not be able to be affected by the Quicken Spell feat.
I strongly agree that all spells that are still effectively instant death should be taken out of regular combat use. For the record that means any spell that permanently takes a character out of combat without the aid of allies. Once you remove it form active combat the fact that it's a noncombat spell and is 8th level means a save is no longer necessary. Oh, and BTW Quicken Spell can only be used with spells whose casting time is 1 full-round action or less so once you take it out of active combat status it is automatically out of Quickens reach.
Good lord that's a lot of work.. I've got to come back and read this at my leisure. Can't skim this one.
Wow. That's a lot of changes without any really explanation of the justification.
Changing saving throws for illusion spells from will to reflex seems entirely counter to the point of an illusion (color spray).
Adding an entirely new mechanic that will make a HUGE number of non-core spells completely off balance by comparison (all the non-core spells won't have this mechanic, so they will be more powerful. There are already a lot of non-core powerhouses out there, so you are simply reducing the power of core spells).
Going back to KnightErreantJR's well thought out argument (or rant), if the purpose of Pathfinder is to provide a continuation of 3.5, while fixing some things that are _obviously_ broken, and tweaking a few other things, while maintaining interoperability with 90% of the 3.5 source material, this is really pushing things.
It's ok, Suezo is a one man fighter crew out to take out all spell chuckers... ;D (Suezo I'm just messing around man, I respect what you are trying for, I just disagree where the line should be)
I respect what you are trying for, I just disagree where the line should be)
I am in the same boat, I respect the work you put in, but hate many of the ideals you came up with the "fix" the issue. Most come off as nerfs just to be nerfing man
Wow. That's a lot of changes without any really explanation of the justification.
I think my opening statement explained my justification fairly well.
Changing saving throws for illusion spells from will to reflex seems entirely counter to the point of an illusion (color spray).
It always seemed to me that the best way to avoid the effects of Color Spray would be to close your eyes. It's less like a typical illusion and more like throwing sparklers in someone's face. So close your eyes, and maybe you won't be blinded or stunned. :)
Adding an entirely new mechanic that will make a HUGE number of non-core spells completely off balance by comparison (all the non-core spells won't have this mechanic, so they will be more powerful. There are already a lot of non-core powerhouses out there, so you are simply reducing the power of core spells).
Nevertheless, I think this mechanic is the only thing that will tone down the power level of the Tier 1 spellcasters and bring them into line with everyone else in the game. Save or Die spells have almost been entirely fixed - once the Save or Suck spells have been fixed, we'll be looking at a much more balanced game at higher levels.
And frankly, it's not really a big deal to say "hey, this non-core spell should have a Recovery Save". It's not like you don't have enough precedents listed here to point you in the right direction.
Going back to KnightErreantJR's well thought out argument (or rant), if the purpose of Pathfinder is to provide a continuation of 3.5, while fixing some things that are _obviously_ broken, and tweaking a few other things, while maintaining interoperability with 90% of the 3.5 source material, this is really pushing things.
Continuing 3.5 is fine and dandy, but unless we fix the spells (which are broken), it doesn't matter what we do or don't fix - non-spellcasters are still going to be dead meat at higher levels unless their DMs pull their punches.
I respect what you are trying for, I just disagree where the line should be)I am in the same boat, I respect the work you put in, but hate many of the ideals you came up with the "fix" the issue. Most come off as nerfs just to be nerfing man
I'm sorry you feel that way, but my gaming group and I really do feel that the power of spells in this game is what's making or breaking the balance of everything else in the game at higher levels. We don't see any other way to bring the power of spellcasters down to a reasonable level without minimizing the sheer power of their ability to either instantly disable or kill characters with minimal effort.
Also keep in mind that some of these are not even nerfs, but clarifications of existing rules (such as the Charm spells, Antilife Shell, Antiplant Shell, Enthrall) or changes made to improve the viability of certain spells in Pathfinder (such as Power Word, Stun).
It's ok, Suezo is a one man fighter crew out to take out all spell chuckers...
My post is the result of the collective efforts of my gaming group - I can't claim that this work is mine alone, especially since some of the ideas and spells that are listed in this compliation were made in other posts by other posters (see Jason Nelson's Rope Trick spell).
Adding an entirely new mechanic that will make a HUGE number of non-core spells completely off balance by comparison (all the non-core spells won't have this mechanic, so they will be more powerful. There are already a lot of non-core powerhouses out there, so you are simply reducing the power of core spells).
One last note - given the utter lack of balance in most non-core (and indeed, in some core material) material, you really probably shouldn't be looking at bringing in this kind of material without heavy modifications to begin with. It must also be noted that there are already a number of fundamental mechanics in Pathfinder that have changed greatly from 3.X (such as the grapple rules, the use of XP costs, and the skill system, for example) that are going to force you to make some changes to your adventures anyways. But keep in mind: it may take some effort to make your old adventures work, but it can be done with a little (and I do mean a little) time and effort.
1st off: WOW, i'm impressed.
2nd: I haven't had a chance to read many of these, but I'm definitely liking the idea of a recovery system. Do you plan on moving on to create a documentation of your idea and changes such as a PDF?
Thank you! I have considered making a PDF of all of these changes once everything is said and done. My group and I still have a good bit more work to do...
Adding an entirely new mechanic that will make a HUGE number of non-core spells completely off balance by comparison (all the non-core spells won't have this mechanic, so they will be more powerful. There are already a lot of non-core powerhouses out there, so you are simply reducing the power of core spells).One last note - given the utter lack of balance in most non-core (and indeed, in some core material) material, you really probably shouldn't be looking at bringing in this kind of material without heavy modifications to begin with. It must also be noted that there are already a number of fundamental mechanics in Pathfinder that have changed greatly from 3.X (such as the grapple rules, the use of XP costs, and the skill system, for example) that are going to force you to make some changes to your adventures anyways. But keep in mind: it may take some effort to make your old adventures work, but it can be done with a little (and I do mean a little) time and effort.
I think that if this is your argument, than the question of whether or not the core spells need major changes is tied heavily to what the goal of Pathfinder is. Is it 1) an entirely separate d20 system or is it 2) D&D 3.75 tweaking the rules for 3.5, and meant to allow the inclusion of all the stuff already written.
The reason that Pathfinder appeals to me is that I think of it as the latter, and hate the idea of throwing away hundreds of dollars in source books.
I don't think the grapple rules, the XP costs or the skill system are major changes. Grapple is now a bit harder, XP always had a cash equivalent of 5gp/XP, and the skills are translatable at Old rank -3. I don't think any of them necessitate throwing away all of what is currently written.
|
I think that if this is your argument, than the question of whether or not the core spells need major changes is tied heavily to what the goal of Pathfinder is. Is it 1) an entirely separate d20 system or is it 2) D&D 3.75 tweaking the rules for 3.5, and meant to allow the inclusion of all the stuff already written.The reason that Pathfinder appeals to me is that I think of it as the latter, and hate the idea of throwing away hundreds of dollars in source books.
I don't think the grapple rules, the XP costs or the skill system are major changes. Grapple is now a bit harder, XP always had a cash equivalent of 5gp/XP, and the skills are translatable at Old rank -3. I don't think any of them necessitate throwing away all of what is currently written.
I'm gonna disagree here. This doesn't seem like that major a tweak at all. Most of the spells that will need to be changed are going to be incredibly apparent already. This doesn't throw away anything that has been written, but it does go a long way toward solving many of the issues with those same sources.
|
|
I like the changes so far (note that the Weird spoiler doesn't work).
Feeblemind: I like the changes here. This spell was never fun if you got hit with it.
Force Cage and Wall of Force: Also good changes. They were far more powerful than the other wall spells that could be cast and seemed like they were an excuse spell to clobber every other class. I'm not sure I like the HP total, I might tone it down to 5 per CL.
Geas, Lesser: I always hated this spell. You could walk into a room in older editions ready to bash in some skulls, and if you failed the save you could find yourself on your way to digging mushrooms out of a black dragon's horde across the continent. Lame... I'd prefer to just get rid of Geas' entirely.
Phantasmal Killer and the SoD spells: Damage seems like the best way to actually kill someone :p. These spells make more sense in this context than otherwise. HP's are abstract, afterall.
Sleep: If we're gonna give a recovery every round and a lesser duration, then I suggest removing the level cap.
Summon Spells: I like the explicit limitation on Summon Spells. As a GM they are a huge pain, and as a player they make waiting for your turn a nightmare. Limitation at least rectifies many of my concerns with these spells.
I haven't noted many of the other changes made yet, but this is my initial impression.
Well... While a lot of work into this, it sounds like 4th Edition is the game for the testing group.
I'm not trying to be funny, or sarcastic, or even snippy.
I am flat out serious.
It is clear that 3.5/Pathfinder just isn't the right fit.
If these changes are even seriously considered for official inclusion (as opposed to "house rules" for those that like them to use) then there needs to be more to the changes.
If durations are being reduced, AND a recovery save is being added, then the save DC needs to be increased or the average Saving Throw bonus reduced.
If that isn't added as well, then your are reducing non-blasters down to blaster level (or lower) and we all know how much people complain that the blasters are too weak compared to the melee types. (Even if you don't agree with them)
Well... While a lot of work into this, it sounds like 4th Edition is the game for the testing group.
I'm not trying to be funny, or sarcastic, or even snippy.
I am flat out serious.
It is clear that 3.5/Pathfinder just isn't the right fit.
If these changes are even seriously considered for official inclusion (as opposed to "house rules" for those that like them to use) then there needs to be more to the changes.
If durations are being reduced, AND a recovery save is being added, then the save DC needs to be increased or the average Saving Throw bonus reduced.
If that isn't added as well, then your are reducing non-blasters down to blaster level (or lower) and we all know how much people complain that the blasters are too weak compared to the melee types. (Even if you don't agree with them)
This is how I saw this as well, I like spells to be powerful enough to put people out of business for a long time. Nerfing the so called "save or suck" spells will make them really sub par compared to spells that deal pure damage.
This seems a lot like what they have done for 4th edition, and while that may work for a "tactical miniature game disguised as a role-playing game", I don't think it's the way to go for Pathfinder, and I really hope they don't do something this drastic.
I sat down to try to go through the proposed changes one by one, but it looks like they all come down to a few themes.
1) Long duration spells shouldn't be of long duration (and especially not permanent), they should last 1 round per level and the affected character should get a save every round to end the affect.
This is very 4th edition, where characters get a saving throw at the end of every turn and saves fix everything. And if that's not enough, then they can get extra saves from other party members.
In 3.5, permanent spells (baleful ones) are _meant_ to seriously screw somebody over. Make them Blind, Cursed, a Toad, something. Something that they have to seek to fix. In 4E, nothing lasts beyond the end of the encounter. You can just sit down and be assumed to take a short rest and make all the saves you want until whatever effect goes away. In 3.5/Pathfinder, you have adventures where things happen, and they need to be fixed. Sometimes the fix isn't close at hand and you need to seek out a solution. Sometimes you are just screwed and the character retires or dies. That's the nature of the encounter. If the DM is intentionally trying to screw the characters unfairly, then they need a new DM. If the players are beating up the monsters and npc's too badly, then the DM needs to pit the party against stronger monsters.
2) Charm effects should all end if someone pulls out a knife.
I don't know what the justification for this is. Weak willed creatures get dominated. It pissed me off the first time my uber fighter was pwned by a charm spell. Then I realized that min-maxing a fighter and ignoring will saves is just stupid. Dominate [person/animal/monster] is a powerful spell. If you don't want your character to get pwned by it, then either stay in the castle, or take precautions, or take a similarly high level wizard/cleric with you to fix the problem (dispel magic generally works to fix such effects)
3) Summoners shouldn't be able to summon an army to control the battlefield.
The focus of these points seemed to me to say that magic users should support, but not hinder sword swingers, and that those with a sword should never have to worry about being brought down by a ray or touch. It has a 4th edition feel to it in that magic is not meant to do more than be a ranged attack of instantaneous or very short duration, no better or worse than a fighter or ranger's attacks.
I think the case hasn't been made for why these changes are necessary (beyond the statement that wizards of high level are powerful).
lots of good stuff
I am with him, if spells are not deadly whats the point, caster work right at high level. If the other classes can not keep up then they are the issue. Nerfing the casters does not fix anything, it nerfs the casters
It does seem as if the group is playing the wrong system. I do not want a spell system in which spells are minor inconveniences
I want deadly, scary spells. Not just damage and speed bumps
|
lots of good stuffIt does seem as if the group is playing the wrong system. I do not want a spell system in which spells are minor inconveniences
I want deadly, scary spells. Not just damage and speed bumps
Again, agreed.
This very schism has appeared over many threads.
My personal feeling is that a disintegrate spell should do just that, not cause d6's of damage. However, we do seem to have equal numbers of people in each camp.
However, we do seem to have equal numbers of people in each camp.
Okay, here's the deal. My position is that if one wants to change the status quo, then a compelling argument should be made for the need.
If Paizo, Jazon, James, et al. want to make Pathfinder into a low-power magic system, that is their prerogative. I'll play within whatever framework, and enjoy myself. On that level, I don't so much care _what_ the rules are, I just want to know the rules, and I'll play within them. What I abhor is a shifting rule set, and a DM that will arbitrarily say "I don't like that rule, it doesn't exist in my world" without giving me a list of all of the rules he dislikes so that I know how the world works. (Give me the list of house rules so that I know them. Don't change them without good cause and good notice).
That being said, it was my understanding that PATHFINDER was to be backward compatible with 3.5 with as little or less changes than were required for 3.5 to be backward compatible with 3.0 There was a conversion document that spelled out the changes, and once known, players could continue to use Savage Species or Tome and Blood or whatever 3.0 material they wished. I'd like to continue to be able to use the 3.5 source material that I spent so much money on. (That 4E completely obsoleted, including their entire Forgotten Realms setting.) If I am misunderstanding the design goal of the Paizo team, then (well, I don't think I am, but) so be it. If some are trying to co-opt that goal to mean "Rewrite everything you don't like about 3.5 into the game you like." then I personally believe that they are wrong.
I think that the proposed changes would make a fine "house rules" list for their game. I think the downstream changes it implies are so broad that it would entirely change the ability to use outside source material.
|
|
However, we do seem to have equal numbers of people in each camp.Okay, here's the deal. My position is that if one wants to change the status quo, then a compelling argument should be made for the need.
Check out some of the other "Classes suck" or "Classes are awesome" threads and you'll see that there is a problem that many members of the community see. Many of the arguments presented are based off of circumstances, but almost all of those circumstances arise from spells that are problematic in nature and just not fun to have to deal with.
SoD spells are the biggest part of the problem. They can remove someone from the game for the duration of a session as they build a new character, they can ruin the best laid plans of a dungeon master forcing him to have to fudge if we wants things different, and they are a pain to deal with.
3.0 saw Disintigrate as the spell to end all spells. Why did they nerf it going to 3.5? Its because it was too powerful. It made resurrection hard. However, that hardness only came down to the expense of regenerating the corpse before the resurrection or casting a true resurrection. Why didn't the other spells that just outright kill you recieve a nerf then? Probably because the edition change saw a change in the maximum DC you could generate reliably, and they didn't think the argument would come up as often.
All that the change did however, was make these spells utterly black and white. If it succeeds its absolutely deadly, but if it fails it was a near total waste of a turn. Changing the indicated way in which these spells works is necessary because no other set of spells is this way nor are there a set of spells that cause this many problems or arguments.
If Paizo, Jazon, James, et al. want to make Pathfinder into a low-power magic system, that is their prerogative. I'll play within whatever framework, and enjoy myself. On that level, I don't so much care _what_ the rules are, I just want to know the rules, and I'll play within them. What I abhor is a shifting rule set, and a DM that will arbitrarily say "I don't like that rule, it doesn't exist in my world" without giving me a list of all of the rules he dislikes so that I know how the world works. (Give me the list of house rules so that I know them. Don't change them without good cause and good notice).
Good DMs do this kind of thing. I do it. Its part of being responsible toward your players.
That being said, it was my understanding that PATHFINDER was to be backward compatible with 3.5 with as little or less changes than were required for 3.5 to be backward compatible with 3.0 There was a conversion document that spelled out the changes, and once known, players could continue to use Savage Species or Tome and Blood or whatever 3.0 material they wished. I'd like to continue to be able to use the 3.5 source material that I spent so much money on. (That 4E completely obsoleted, including their entire Forgotten Realms setting.) If I am misunderstanding the design goal of the Paizo team, then (well, I don't think I am, but) so be it. If some are trying to co-opt that goal to mean "Rewrite everything you don't like about 3.5 into the game you like." then I personally believe that they are wrong.
I don't think that this kind of change is a total rewrite of the rules. In fact, part of the goal of Pathfinder was to eliminate things that were broken and to fix the power curve the game has managed. This has to start with the core books, which is why PFRPG takes the form it does. The abuses and problems there should be dealt with first, or the whole system will start off shaky. Do we want to end up with a game that fixed none of the problems? If we do, then I suggest that Pathfinder isn't for you and you should stick with plain old 3.x. Those rules won't be changing any time soon.
I think that the proposed changes would make a fine "house rules" list for their game. I think the downstream changes it implies are so broad that it would entirely change the ability to use outside source material.
I don't see the same problem you do. In fact, with just a bit of forethought, this could very well help to alleviate some of the problems that plagued later splatbooks. All it takes, and this was always the best advice, is a GM willing to decide what is best for his game.
Even if the OP doesn't end up with this system in place he has revealed that there is something wrong with the system. We can't leave this problem in place.
Well... While a lot of work into this, it sounds like 4th Edition is the game for the testing group.
I'm not trying to be funny, or sarcastic, or even snippy.
I am flat out serious.
It is clear that 3.5/Pathfinder just isn't the right fit.
Thank you for your boilerplate "if you don't like SoS or SoD spells, you should be playing 4E". Much obliged!
Regrettably, I must disagree with you - we believe that Recovery Spells make a great fit with Pathfinder. Hence why I made this post.
Now that we have that out of the way, let's continue.
If durations are being reduced, AND a recovery save is being added, then the save DC needs to be increased or the average Saving Throw bonus reduced.
Save DCs against spells are already quite high, and they escalate even further as you gain levels, take Feats to increase your DCs, and pick up items to increase your "casting ability score". And given the fact that the Pathfinder Beta makes obtaining items that boost your casting ability scores even easier, I don't think that this situation is going to change anytime soon. Poor Saves vs. SoS spell + maxed casting stat + (+6 casting stat enchancement item) = boned character.
And keep in mind that we're talking about status effect spells that many characters don't have a snowball's chance in hell of making their initial saves against in the first place. If you're a Fighter with only a 15% chance of saving against a Dominate effect (at best), chances are pretty good that even with Recovery Saves, it's going to take you a while for you to shrug off the effects of the enchantment and get back into the game. But they do keep you from being completely cut out of the game for the rest of the combat - even if you're just rolling Recovery Saves, at least you're doing SOMETHING besides reading gamebooks while everyone else carries on with combat.
If that isn't added as well, then your are reducing non-blasters down to blaster level (or lower) and we all know how much people complain that the blasters are too weak compared to the melee types. (Even if you don't agree with them)
I think the issue with blasters is that they feel like they suck compared to both non-spellcasters and SoS Wizards, but for different reasons. The non-spellcasters can do more damage then blasters can against single targets (which they should), but the SoS Wizards have a distinct advantage because they can just lock people down and tear them to pieces at their leisure. I think if you reduce the "all-or-nothing" status effects that SoS spells bring to the table right now and up their damage a little more, blasters, SoS Wizards, and non-spellcasters will be relatively balanced against one another.
Why do you think that Hide from Animals and Hide from Undead must be destroyed that way? They'd become completely useless.
Here's the problem - they not only hide the caster from sight of these creatures, but they also hide the caster from all of their other senses as well. It's a very potent effect, especially for a 1st level spell, and these spells can be Heightened and deployed against creatures with higher CRs then the spell was originally designed to deal with (it being a hold-over from 2nd Edition and all). Invisibility is a 2nd level spell, and it only hides you from sight - you can still be detected by a variety of other means from the creatures that you wish to conceal yourself from. Even with the narrow scope of creatures affected by this spell, it's still not very balanced.
I think that the duration of the spell could be increased to 1 round per level and we could even drop the Will save if we turned these spells into "invisibility spells" with very narrow scopes of affected creatures, but if these spells are to stand as they are, both the duration needs to be reduced and their effectiveness needs to be mitigated by additional saving throws. That's our take on the situation, at any rate.
Suezo,
I agree with the concept of recovery in the "save or suck" spells. However, the saves should be a lot harder to make in the recovery phase to keep the spells relevant. Essentially, it would keep the disabled martial characters "potentially dangerous" throughout the encounter, even after their initial spell failures.
The only problem that I have with this suggested mechanic is that you basically end up with characters that fall prey to these effects - characters that only had maybe a 5% to 15% chance of saving against these spells in the first place - that are unable to escape these effects, despite having Recovery Saves available. So a high-level Fighter that gets Dominated by a high-level Wizard with the same level of gear has little to no chance of breaking out of the effect - which basically means that there wouldn't be much point in putting in this mechanic in the first place.
As my suggested rules changes currently stand, the Fighter will still get a chance to break free of the effects, but it will still take some time for him to do so. Indeed, even with Recovery Saves, he still may not be able to shake off the effects of the spell before the combat is over. But it will at least keep him from being enslaved for 1 day per level of the caster.
On a topic slightly related, Druid animal companions, in combination with summoning and disabling spells, make mid to high level Druids about twice as effective as martial characters in most encounters. Druids need big time nerf. >:)
I'm not so sure about that. I haven't played a Druid with an Animal Companion yet, so I can't directly comment on the matter. But the fact that I see posts on this forum saying that Druids are too weak and then some that say that they are too strong would indicate to me that this isn't an issue that is very clear at this point in time, and that perhaps the Druid needs a bit more tweaking before the class is ready for prime time.
Thank you for your boilerplate "if you don't like SoS or SoD spells, you should be playing 4E".Well... While a lot of work into this, it sounds like 4th Edition is the game for the testing group.
I'm not trying to be funny, or sarcastic, or even snippy.
I am flat out serious.
It is clear that 3.5/Pathfinder just isn't the right fit.
Exactly.
You don't like one of the things about 3.5 that fixing was a selling point for 4th Edition.
I've followed your posts.
You've told us you love pizza crust.
You've told us you love tomato sauce.
You've told us you love cheese.
You've told us you love pepperoni.
And, you tell us you really don't want the pepperoni pizza, you want our macaroni and cheese instead. Well... If we made it more like pepperoni pizza.
What you don't like for 3.5 is what has been fixed in 4th Edition.
Not to mention, I still remember where you stood in the 4th Edition forums after the announcement.
At least I can rest assured these changes won't become official.
Even if the OP doesn't end up with this system in place he has revealed that there is something wrong with the system. We can't leave this problem in place.
I've been trying to avoid these baiting posts... But I can't anymore.
That is a load of crap.
You claim that most of the "X Class Sucks" threads is based on certain combinations of spells. While the basic premise is true, the reality is that the problem is the players.
Yes I said it.
Every "big" problem posted about comes down to one basic thing.
Some players suck.
They try to "win" the game, and prove how cool they are to those around them, and the rest of us have to cave in and accept "fixes" to keep these crappy players from doing this.
B~*+!%$+.
People suck.
Get over it.
Just because some people suffered an inconsiderate, maladjusted, piece of s!+~, the rest of us have to suffer the "fixes."
When there are many of us who have been able to play with these "broken" rules and many other systems worth of "broken" rules (not just D&D) and don't suffer any problems. Why? Not because we don't see them, but because we are responsible. We play 3.0 Clerics that don't steal the show from the Fighter, unless the Fighter is having a problem for some reason. We can play 3.5 Druids and not steal the show.
In short, we don't s!+% on each other.
But because we live in a world where it is better to be passive aggressive and change the game rather than change the way we socialize, or how we let others socialize around us we have to hear about all these major problems that need to be fixed.
No, the players need to be fixed. Want the perfect 3.5? Get rid of all the players.
I am just glad Jason has a firm vision of what the Pathfinder RPG should be, and if he should stray from that I still have the Beta rules in PDF and print. I can live off of that.
|
|
Every "big" problem posted about comes down to one basic thing.
Some players suck.
They try to "win" the game, and prove how cool they are to those around them, and the rest of us have to cave in and accept "fixes" to keep these crappy players from doing this.
Hear, hear!
It was mentioned above that the problem with SoD/SoS spells is that the DCs are astronomical. It's not always true. One of my characters is a 25th level (mostly)Wizard. 19 INT and no other bonuses to DC. Casting disintegrate on a powerful opponent is a real gamble as it is pretty much 50/50 as to whether it will work. He still does because it's kind of a signature spell for him...
The point is that an Epic character organically adventured to that level and who doesn't have access to a Magic-Mart stocking everything in the DMG and who hasn't crafted his own items (not his 'thing') isn't the showstopper that the OP seems to think.
Since Jason has stated that Pathfinder will be a mid-level magic game if 3.5 can be considered high-magic, I think that it is important to keep the higher level spells being truly dangerous, when they work.
I personally have never had a problem with my character getting nuked in a session, nor with players one-shot killing the BBEG. A good player or DM can cope with either of these.
I hope that Pathfinder steers a course close to 3.5 and just fixes whatever is essential to fix. Then, hopefully the OP can make some beer money selling PDF rulesets with the changes they like for their kind of game.
|
|
Even if the OP doesn't end up with this system in place he has revealed that there is something wrong with the system. We can't leave this problem in place.I've been trying to avoid these baiting posts... But I can't anymore.
That is a load of crap.
Baiting? I'm saying that I see a problem, one that the OP sees as well. How is that baiting? "If you like these changes, you should play 4e..." That's baiting.
You claim that most of the "X Class Sucks" threads is based on certain combinations of spells. While the basic premise is true, the reality is that the problem is the players.
Yes I said it.
Every "big" problem posted about comes down to one basic thing.
Some players suck.
This isn't baiting either? huh sure seems like it.
Don't get me wrong either. I see plenty of problems around here caused by exploitive players, under-prepared GMs, and newbie players getting into trouble. However, SoD spells even wail on experienced players. They are a major problem in my opinion, as well as my players opinions, and apparently other groups opinions (including SS group).
They try to "win" the game, and prove how cool they are to those around them, and the rest of us have to cave in and accept "fixes" to keep these crappy players from doing this.
b#&@*&!!.
People suck.
Get over it.
What is your definition of baiting?! I don't have a single person in my group trying to win the game. All they are there to do is have fun, and a great number of spells just kill the fun if they're successful. SoD spells in particular are the "You can no longer play because I said so" spells. Who wants to just sit around and watch? I know I don't, and that's what these spells make you do.
Just because some people suffered an inconsiderate, maladjusted, piece of s!#%, the rest of us have to suffer the "fixes."
When there are many of us who have been able to play with these "broken" rules and many other systems worth of "broken" rules (not just D&D) and don't suffer any problems. Why? Not because we don't see them, but because we are responsible. We play 3.0 Clerics that don't steal the show from the Fighter, unless the Fighter is having a problem for some reason. We can play 3.5 Druids and not steal the show.In short, we don't s!#% on each other.
I'm not one of those responsible players huh? I've said the same thing in many other threads through out the course of the playtest, on WotC, and other places. I am saying this as a person who plays the cleric who doesn't steal the fighters show, as the druid who doesn't have to use a buffalo and polymorph into a Huge Elemental.
Please, don't force your prejudice down my throat. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't make me a jerk.
But because we live in a world where it is better to be passive aggressive and change the game rather than change the way we socialize, or how we let others socialize around us we have to hear about all these major problems that need to be fixed.
No, the players need to be fixed. Want the perfect 3.5? Get rid of all the players.
I am just glad Jason has a firm vision of what the Pathfinder RPG should be, and if he should stray from that I still have the Beta rules in PDF and print. I can live off of that.
Oi, its a game. Not a job. The idea is that anybody should be able to have fun, but the status quo makes it so that many people find it being drained because of a select few spells.
I would hope the designers remember that a game should be fun. It sounds like you'd rather not have any players at all, so I wonder if the designers like not getting players. Now that is baiting!
:p
|
|
Don't get me wrong either. I see plenty of problems around here caused by exploitive players, under-prepared GMs, and newbie players getting into trouble. However, SoD spells even wail on experienced players. They are a major problem in my opinion, as well as my players opinions, and apparently other groups opinions (including SS group).
SoD are supposed to be dangerous. They are in the game to force the characters to have to take other precautions and use other tactics than direct assault. People complain that they turn the game into 'rocket-tag'. Turning them into bucket of d6 spells just turns the game into HP tag instead. Adding extra saves is similarly disruptive to suspension of disbelief. These are powerful spells and their effects should be feared.
To counter : these spells have caused no problems with my group, with any other group in which I have played, etc.
When I've died as the result of a SoD, I've either spent the rest of the game playing a backup character that I brought along (fun), bobbing along as a ghost (good fun), or running monsters for the DM (loads of fun). I've either been happy that the character died bravely or conspired with the DM to bring him back believably in the next session.
I do see the point that people are trying to make : that for some people it is important to have an equal share in every single round of gameplay, even if only rerolling saves. I've just never met someone like that in real life.
Perhaps it's important to note here that of 6 hours of my gaming, perhaps an hour is spent counting time in rounds? Combats tend to take up very little game time for us - more time is spent talking in character and coming up with solutions to situations that don't require direct assault. Could this be the difference between the two camps?
|
|
Let me say you this: this is a team-oriented RPG, not a PVP-oriented videogame. There's no point in trying to find a perfect balance. That would only kill all the fun.
A perfectly balanced game would be taking turns to flip a coin to find out who wins each combat - no fun for anyone.
More importantly - it is not possible to 'balance' the game without reducing it to that. I don't mean 'hard' I mean 'not possible'. There are indeed 'broken' bits of 3.5 that Jason is doing an excellent job of identifying and fixing. However we should not be striving to have all characters getting equal shares of the action all of the time or being equally useful all of the time - that way mediocrity and homogeneity lie.
It's like I'd want to play in Cyberpunk with a guy without a single cybernetic implant and with only edge weapons, and pretend to be as capable as a guy with cybernetic-enhanced senses, reflexes and muscles wielding a pulse rifle and plasma grenades.
To me, that sounds like a fun character to play, but I certainly wouldn't complain when I turned into a dark shadow on a wall - that would have been the point of playing a deliberately out-of-theme character in that world.
Likewise, I wouldn't complain if my Paladin was blown to ashes by a single spell from an evil Necromancer while charging in to cover the retreat of a party who had been ambushed by him - he's a hurler of dark and potent magic for pities sake, of course he should be able to slay you with a single word! At least I'd bought the party a round of running.
|
|
Let me say you this: this is a team-oriented RPG, not a PVP-oriented videogame. There's no point in trying to find a perfect balance. That would only kill all the fun.A perfectly balanced game would be taking turns to flip a coin to find out who wins each combat - no fun for anyone.
More importantly - it is not possible to 'balance' the game without reducing it to that. I don't mean 'hard' I mean 'not possible'. There are indeed 'broken' bits of 3.5 that Jason is doing an excellent job of identifying and fixing. However we should not be striving to have all characters getting equal shares of the action all of the time or being equally useful all of the time - that way mediocrity and homogeneity lie.
It's like I'd want to play in Cyberpunk with a guy without a single cybernetic implant and with only edge weapons, and pretend to be as capable as a guy with cybernetic-enhanced senses, reflexes and muscles wielding a pulse rifle and plasma grenades.To me, that sounds like a fun character to play, but I certainly wouldn't complain when I turned into a dark shadow on a wall - that would have been the point of playing a deliberately out-of-theme character in that world.
Likewise, I wouldn't complain if my Paladin was blown to ashes by a single spell from an evil Necromancer while charging in to cover the retreat of a party who had been ambushed by him - he's a hurler of dark and potent magic for pities sake, of course he should be able to slay you with a single word! At least I'd bought the party a round of running.
I agree with you Brock,
Here is how I see it,4th Ed. harshly leveled the playing field and turned Dungeons & Dragons into A "no child left behind" game. Everyone plays an equal part, with clearly defined & inflexible roles. So common are their abilities that they pretty much do the same damage/actions/effects with colorful descriptions added in to give the illusion of individuality to their "click powers".
That is why I don’t play it.
And, some folks may like that.
However, everyone should have fun when they sit down to play & hopefully the DM chooses to include house rules that tailor the flavor of the game to suit his player’s & his or her own tastes & style.
I feel that trying to turn magic from a force to be reckoned with into a “minor inconvenience” which I feel the above listed changes & recovery save mechanics will do. This could in my opinion fundamentally damage the game.
Spellcasters are fundamentally dangerous unless you can reach them. That’s why they died so easy in 2nd Ed.
|
|
SoD are supposed to be dangerous. They are in the game to force the characters to have to take other precautions and use other tactics than direct assault. People complain that they turn the game into 'rocket-tag'. Turning them into bucket of d6 spells just turns the game into HP tag instead. Adding extra saves is similarly disruptive to suspension of disbelief. These are powerful spells and their effects should be feared.
As opposed to fearing any other kinds of spells? Its funny that magic doesn't evoke the same kinds of responses even between levels. I'd much rather have a maximized chain lightning directed at me (exceptionally deadly) than an SoD, but the SoDs are problematic way before the BoD6 spells get to the point that they are fatal. A difference of 4 spell levels or eight character levels really shows the issue here. They're overpowerful for their level, and not fun at high levels either.
To counter : these spells have caused no problems with my group, with any other group in which I have played, etc.
When I've died as the result of a SoD, I've either spent the rest of the game playing a backup character that I brought along (fun), bobbing along as a ghost (good fun), or running monsters for the DM (loads of fun). I've either been happy that the character died bravely or conspired with the DM to bring him back believably in the next session.
Why do you get to be a ghost or run monsters eh? DM fiat. When you die in the dungeon and suddenly a new character shows up to join your group, does that suspend believability? I'm sorry, but this doesn't cut it for me as a GM or player. They're simple excuses to keep you in the game when in reality these spells are taking you out of it.
I do see the point that people are trying to make : that for some people it is important to have an equal share in every single round of gameplay, even if only rerolling saves. I've just never met someone like that in real life.
My point is that people should be having fun. Equal and Fair are second to that, and even if the save or die spells are fair they're not fun. No one wants to be hit with them, no GM wants to see the boss he's spent hours (if not days) wasted in a single turn. Surely no one wants to prepare for a giant fight only to have a wizard or cleric cast a spell and end it before they get an opportunity to do anything.
I've seen it happen, it stinks. Unless the villain spent all of his time getting trinkets to stop this from happening, which suspends believability in many circumstances, then he can be hosed with a little bad luck. Then others sit out. I even have a problem with things such as the Assassin's Death Attack and other insta-kills.
Perhaps it's important to note here that of 6 hours of my gaming, perhaps an hour is spent counting time in rounds? Combats tend to take up very little game time for us - more time is spent talking in character and coming up with solutions to situations that don't require direct assault. Could this be the difference between the two camps?
No, its about right. On an average night we might have an encounter or two, but not much beyond that. The problem is multi-session scenarios that remove characters from play during that time. Its one thing to be killed in combat while trying to defend yourself and your allies. Its another for someone to say "Roll Fort/Ref/Will... You're dead."
We still utilize dungeons, not all the same but usually two sessioners. It takes a session to discover the dungeon and enter it and the next session to clear and return. This means that if a character is killed in the first session they have to sit out the remainder of that session and then a good portion of the next. I've had it happen to me, i've seen it happen to others. No one is happy then and it drains a large level of fun from the game.
I've seen the responses as well. Anger, sadness, jealousy, aloofness. No matter what SoD's kills the mood, so to speak. :p
I would like to be clear here as well. I'm not against SoS spells at all, only SoDs. You can suck all you want, or you can suck however much your unlucky. You still get to play.
-;-;-;-;-;-
On a side note: I so want to use SBD instead of SoD. Silent but deadly!
|
|
Why do you get to be a ghost or run monsters eh? DM fiat. When you die in the dungeon and suddenly a new character shows up to join your group, does that suspend believability? I'm sorry, but this doesn't cut it for me as a GM or player. They're simple excuses to keep you in the game when in reality these spells are taking you out of it.
A fair point. However a character can get killed for many reasons. My point was to show that character death doesn't need to be avoided because its 'not fun'.
My point is that people should be having fun. Equal and Fair are second to that, and even if the save or die spells are fair they're not fun. No one wants to be hit with them, no GM wants to see the boss he's spent hours (if not days) wasted in a single turn. Surely no one wants to prepare for a giant fight only to have a wizard or cleric cast a spell and end it before they get an opportunity to do anything.I've seen it happen, it stinks. Unless the villain spent all of his time getting trinkets to stop this from happening, which suspends believability in many circumstances, then he can be hosed with a little bad luck.
I've not seen this. I actually enjoy the tension when I'm rolling that one dice to see if I just got disintegrated. Normally, when my players vaporize a dragon in the first round of combat the result is elation. Mind you, I rarely spend hours in prep, let alone days. This is one area where 3.x falls down compared to older editions. If I want extra flavour over the stock monsters then I tend to wing it rather than crunching templates.
We still utilize dungeons, not all the same but usually two sessioners. It takes a session to discover the dungeon and enter it and the next session to clear and return. This means that if a character is killed in the first session they have to sit out the remainder of that session and then a good portion of the next. I've had it happen to me, i've seen it happen to others. No one is happy then and it drains a large level of fun from the game.I've seen the responses as well. Anger, sadness, jealousy, aloofness. No matter what SoD's kills the mood, so to speak. :p
The only thing I take issue with here is 'have to sit out'. I do see your point even though I've never had it happen in 25 years of gaming. I'd suggest that your group discuss in advance what to do if a character dies in the first session and how to keep it fun. There are a bucket load of believable ways to bring in a new character during a dungeon crawl.
One thing I've suggested in other threads is to take the final effect out of the spell description and replace it with something like a condition, say for Flesh to Stone the text would say "a failed save causes the target to turn to stone, becoming petrified, see table 1". Table 1 would then have a number of columns for different styles of game. Possible entries for Petrified would be:
- Effect is permanent until reversed.
- Effect wears off in 1min/CL
- Effect wears off after 3 successful recovery saves
- 2d6 of DEX damage; column 1 effect if resulting DEX is less than 1
I think that this may be the only way to please everyone, but does multiply Jasons work by the number of columns.
|
One thing I've suggested in other threads is to take the final effect out of the spell description and replace it with something like a condition, say for Flesh to Stone the text would say "a failed save causes the target to turn to stone, becoming petrified, see table 1". Table 1 would then have a number of columns for different styles of game. Possible entries for Petrified would be:
Effect is permanent until reversed.
Effect wears off in 1min/CL
Effect wears off after 3 successful recovery saves
2d6 of DEX damage; column 1 effect if resulting DEX is less than 1
I think that this may be the only way to please everyone, but does multiply Jasons work by the number of columns.
Possibly, but not necessarily. This could easily be a 3rd party add-on after the official rules come out in August. The status effects should all be listed, so I'd imagine it will only be a matter of time and effort for someone to create some sort of chart aid that lists varying degrees of danger for effects. That would make it easy for someone to adapt to a number of different gaming styles, from Hardcore Tomb of Horrors-Style Mass-Character Shredder to SoS-Free Attention Deficient Player Coddler.
One could even ramp up the effects so that the legit Pathfinder rules fall somewhere in the middle, so say Nauseous can only be cured with a spell rather than with rest, or Petrification has a negative to its DC for recovery, or the like.
Of course, I still hope that the SoD's stay in Pathfinder, regardless. I find they generally make the game more challenging, and our group does much as was suggested earlier-- have a secondary character, run a monster, or be a ghost for the duration of the combat, and have fun while your cohorts are killing or being killed. I never even heard of the SoD/SoS issue till 4E came out. We always just dealt with it. And 4E's attempted 'fix' of that was one of the major points that led to me NOT picking it up. To each their own, I guess.
|
|
@ Brock
How long do your campaigns usually last? I'd really like to know to get an idea of your perspective here.
You see I typically have campaigns that will run for up to years. The shackled city game I refer to many times has been going for over two years now. It took almost a year to get to the point where SoD spells could even be cast. That's a years investment in a single character who all of a sudden is just gone. Happened to our druid first round of combat in one fight. You can tell why the player would be disgusted.
The same thing happened in another game I played for almost a year and a half where the wizard ran afoul of a Slay Living.
I ran Red Hand of Doom and toward the end of the campaign (not right before the end mind you but very close) another player's character was SoD'd in the very last dungeon at the beginning of it. There was no turning back, and all he could do was sit. This is where I started hating SoDs. This same guy had lost a character earlier in the game, but when I talked to him about it he said it was different because his other character had died after a serious of bad fights he elicited. He felt his earlier death was fair, but that somehow he was cheated in the second death.
|
|
@ Brock
How long do your campaigns usually last? I'd really like to know to get an idea of your perspective here.
Back @ Studpuffin.
You see I typically have campaigns that will run for up to years. The shackled city game I refer to many times has been going for over two years now. It took almost a year to get to the point where SoD spells could even be cast. That's a years investment in a single character who all of a sudden is just gone. Happened to our druid first round of combat in one fight. You can tell why the player would be disgusted.
My main character has been in play for 16 years in the same campaign over 2nd and 3rd ed. That's a Forgotten Realms game played over 10 years of time in that world. The players round-robin as DM and often throw their own character in as an NPC or plot-hook. Particular adventures tend to pick up where the last one left off. For half of that time, I've had a 500 mile round-trip for whole weekend games. We now play via the internet.
My character has died 3 times, has been turned into a vampire, changed back at 50% chance of permanent destruction, and is now (irrevocably) a drow due to a curse.
The same thing happened in another game I played for almost a year and a half where the wizard ran afoul of a Slay Living.
Over the same period, I've played in more shorter games that I can remember. I've had a character slain by damage from a trap he tripped when the DM got ahead of herself and decided that he had gone up a flight of stairs and opened a door when I'd said no such thing. I actually have fond memories of that smoking halfling corpse bouncing back down the stairs - and that was by no means a fair death. I pulled out a spare character whom the party met 1/2 hour later after they had got back to town to bury the halfling. I'd guess I've buried a dozen other characters. Many more if you include Paranoia and Dark Matter games.
I ran Red Hand of Doom and toward the end of the campaign (not right before the end mind you but very close) another player's character was SoD'd in the very last dungeon at the beginning of it. There was no turning back, and all he could do was sit. This is where I started hating SoDs. This same guy had lost a character earlier in the game, but when I talked to him about it he said it was different because his other character had died after a serious of bad fights he elicited. He felt his earlier death was fair, but that somehow he was cheated in the second death.
I have to admit that I'd have probably fudged it in your shoes. If there was no easy way to get that player back in the game within an hour, or something else fun for him to do (like monster) then I'd probably have ruled it as a miss or as -1HP and dying.
I do accept that there is a problem for some games and some groups. My main reason for fighting the corner of SoD is that I think that they are a very important part of the flavour of DnD. Look at the fantasy literature that the game is based upon. Wizards can kill with a single word, and it takes exceptional luck, fortitude or a mcguffin (like an amulet) for the heroes to avoid that when they confront him.
What I'm hoping for is a game system that can please all styles of play and types of player. Unlikely to happen.
I'd be happy with most SoD's having the D replaced with 'dying' i.e. -1HP. The tricky one off-hand is Disintegrate, for which there is no half-way solution. Perhaps bump it upwards in levels, even to 9th, but if that spell hits you then you should be dust.
After a re-read, I guess that I can condense this down to : I want the spells to be deadly for the sake of the flavour of the game ; I reserve the right to fudge that as DM if needed to keep the game fun and moving.
|
|
I'd be happy with most SoD's having the D replaced with 'dying' i.e. -1HP.
See, that's not nearly as bad as they are now. I could even live with this kind of thing because there are ways to now solve the problem in combat or in dungeon or between cities... yada yada...
The tricky one off-hand is Disintegrate, for which there is no half-way solution. Perhaps bump it upwards in levels, even to 9th, but if that spell hits you then you should be dust.
I like disintegrate the way it was in 3.5. It always troubled me in 2nd and 3.0 because it didn't leave a corpse (like other spells of its level or higher). That made it more difficult to deal with in some situations (such as disintegrate on a windy day).
That reminds me of a story a friend was telling me about how an allied wizard fired a disintegrate at an air elemental they were fighting and how he got accidentally hit (after deviation) and his dust was blown away by the elemental.
That sounds pretty wonky to me, but this guy always told stories like that so I can't verify it. hmmph.
|
|
I like disintegrate the way it was in 3.5. It always troubled me in 2nd and 3.0 because it didn't leave a corpse (like other spells of its level or higher). That made it more difficult to deal with in some situations (such as disintegrate on a windy day).That reminds me of a story a friend was telling me about how an allied wizard fired a disintegrate at an air elemental they were fighting and how he got accidentally hit (after deviation) and his dust was blown away by the elemental.
That sounds pretty wonky to me, but this guy always told stories like that so I can't verify it. hmmph.
Ah the Order of the Stick : Disintegrate. Gust of Wind.
I always let the players have a way to get a deceased comrade back in the game somehow. I liked the fact that disintegrate didn't leave a corpse - it made it the spell that everyone was terrified of. To this day, my character always carries around a small archaeologists brush and a tiny dust-pan to attempt to collect enough of the remains of a disintegrated comrade to save them. Changing it to an uber-lighting bolt spoiled it for me.
|
|
Ah the Order of the Stick : Disintegrate. Gust of Wind.I always let the players have a way to get a deceased comrade back in the game somehow. I liked the fact that disintegrate didn't leave a corpse - it made it the spell that everyone was terrified of. To this day, my character always carries around a small archaeologists brush and a tiny dust-pan to attempt to collect enough of the remains of a disintegrated comrade to save them. Changing it to an uber-lighting bolt spoiled it for me.
I haven't read OotS in a long time. I basically stopped over a year ago and haven't gotten up to date since Roy was a chick and they reached that blue paladin's city.
I've heard that too from some other GMs, but it was okay for me either which way. Tons of HP being lost versus insta-death for what amounted to massive dessication wasn't that big a deal imo. eh...
What's the cost of a brush and dust pan? lol... :D