Perhaps the biggest difference in power between the classes was that between the non casters and the casters.
Without going into prestige classes and so forth I think without a doubt everyone can agree that spell casters had the most powerful ability in casting spells.
The biggest problem I think perhaps was not that spell caster cast spells but at a certain point they spiral out of control.
I am not talking about double wand wielding spell casters of doom, I am talking about straight wizard with with sixth level spells not seventh or higher just sixth then things are silly.
But perhaps one of the biggest things we have not seen them saying perhaps because they want to keep it under raps but I can see it being huge, is a massive revision on spells.
Just imagine all of the spells redone so that the spell caster is outclassing everyone at the table it would be interesting no.
But like I am saying just speculation from me at this point but perhaps some others have some more well thought out ideas.
I am not talking about errors in spells I am talking about revision of spells.
Such as revising the whole spell system and making it balanced compared to how once you get to sixth level spells your guy just casts one and all of sudden bad things happen to good people.
I am talking about them changing the power level of spells.
Edit: NVM i didn't notice you were the publisher... *face in hand*
Yeah i saw another post not the poster...
Feel slightly silly (understatement)
I don't know any particular combos or spells in question but I think it would be fool hardy to say that spell casters are on the same playing field as other players.
So have you guys revised allot of spells?
Well, Paladins are the only class inherently "Good", but since they gain access to the "Light" spell at 1st level, casters are pretty much guaranteed to outshine non-Casters.
Just imagine all of the spells redone so that the spell caster is outclassing everyone at the table it would be interesting no.
Isn't that pretty much how it works now? How D&D has been since the beginning?
Spellcasters have always been "outclassing everyone at the table"
Just imagine all of the spells redone so that the spell caster is outclassing everyone at the table it would be interesting no.
Isn't that pretty much how it works now? How D&D has been since the beginning?
Spellcasters have always been "outclassing everyone at the table"
To reinforce DM_Blake's comments with an analogy; in warfare, artillery is the biggest killer on the battlefield. Wizards are artillery. But I would not want to be an artillery battery being hit by enemy artillery or a tank (read heavily armored fighter) or a bunch of light infantry (read rogue). Wizards are very vulnerable on their own whereas fighter can hold their own. Everyone serves a purpose in combat.
p.s. Is artillery still the biggest killer on the battlefield? Has land mines replaced it? These low intensity conflicts have outdated my military training.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
So have you guys revised allot of spells?
With the general understanding that "a lot" is highly relative, yeah, I think there are "a lot" of changes to spells.
In many cases these changes are to make them somewhat easier to use (dispel magic comes immediately to mind) or simplify some frankly confusing language.
In some cases aspects of the spell related to power level were changes, such as many save or die spells getting nerfed.
Many melee-based classes got significant new abilities or modifications (or, in some cases, "anything") at higher levels to help them keep pace with spellcasters, who generally did not receive that significant an increase in raw power.
There are also a lot of pretty brutal new combat-oriented feats that help non-casters hold up their end of the bargain as well.
Many melee-based classes got significant new abilities or modifications (or, in some cases, "anything") at higher levels to help them keep pace with spellcasters, who generally did not receive that significant an increase in raw power.
It's not about raw power but the options available. Fighter is good at fighting, rogue is good at sneaking, wizard (or cleric) is good at everything.
For example, who needs a rogue when you have Invisibility, Silence, Find Traps, Detect Magic, etc. Who needs a fighter when you have a bunch of summoned or raised minions, or you can fly and bombard the enemy from above. Who needs social characters when you have Charm Person, divination magic, or Zone of Truth. I could keep this up for ages.
The point is, spells can do anything. Wizards and clerics have (essentially) every single spell available. Thus, wizards and clerics can do anything. And most of the time they do it better than the so-called specialists.
I'm pretty sure you're aware of this problem. I just wanted to make sure that everyone agrees on what we're dealing with here.
For example, who needs a rogue when you have Invisibility, Silence, Find Traps, Detect Magic, etc.
Well, I do.
Invisibility isn't inaudibility, and if the enemy has an ability to notice invisible creatures (tremorsense, blindsense, blindsight, see invisible, true seeing - remember, especially at higher levels, there are critters who always get that)
Silence isn't for wizards at all (bard and cleric only), and kinda gives itself away because it is too silent.
Detect magic is no replacement for a proper rogue, either.
And all those spells have the problem that they aren't active all day. The rogue is. The spells must be prepared and cast, ideally before it's too late. The rogue was born ready.
Who needs a fighter when you have a bunch of summoned or raised minions,
That would be those who wants someone who can do more than block the enemy for a round or two. Summoned stuff is no real substitute for a real fighter.
or you can fly and bombard the enemy from above.
And then you're dispelled and find yourself among enemies you're not prepared to deal with up close. Or they open fire. Or they fly themselves.
Who needs social characters when you have Charm Person, divination magic, or Zone of Truth.
Those who don't want to risk their mission, or even their lives, on the chance that the enemy might make his save against the charm spell and might react cranky.
I could keep this up for ages.
So could I.
The point is, spells can do anything. Wizards and clerics have (essentially) every single spell available. Thus, wizards and clerics can do anything. And most of the time they do it better than the so-called specialists.I'm pretty sure you're aware of this problem. I just wanted to make sure that everyone agrees on what we're dealing with here.
I know about the problem. I just don't agree. Especially in pathfinder, the specialists have received a number of serious boosts.
A fighter is a juggernaught of destruction. They deal tremendous amounts of damage - consistently, round after round - and are very hard to hit with physical attacks. Their weapon and armour training, combined with the sheer number of combat feats at their disposal (including a lot of feats other classes can't get), means that they have very high attack bonuses, really good damage bonuses (and other perks), and an AC without equal.
Sure, wizards can sometimes deal with enemies in other ways with spells that will incapacitate enemies, but that doesn't always work. Especially against golems, outsiders and dragons, wizards will have a problem. Even if they aren't outright immune to what your spells do to them, they have excellent saves.
It always depends on the circumstances.
You might get some answers if you post specific spells/combos/etc. that you found particularly egregious.
Gate. In particular the "summon and control a solar" use of Gate.
I much prefer the AD&D version of Gate where you couldn't be sure what would come through...
Gate. In particular the "summon and control a solar" use of Gate.
A.k.a. "make GM just handwave final battle"
Combo's (Low level )
I like "True Strike" followed by Scorching Ray, almost an 'auto-hit' as you could roll a 1.
I like
1. Enlarge Person
2. True Strike
3. Scorching Ray or the "enlarged" weapon.
(If the weapon is naturally a 2d4, then you don't have to worry about rolling '1' for the total damage, PLUS you get the Strength bonus.)
I know I may not be articulating the point very well but people do know what I am talking about.
I am not a minority case here.
People often see the spellslinger slot and healer slot surpass everyone else in a spectacular fashion.
True there are some spell combos that make things even better but thats not what this about this is about single spells clearing rooms and such.
I am very glad that pathfinder has done it's darnedist to make sure that not every single spellslinger in the world is a universal wizard.
I do not know how to articulate the point correctly nor can a point to specific incidents which people would be able to make as a point of referance.
Things like Pun-Pun or the most broken combos ever suggested are almost always magical related.
Where as something like the machine gun tripper is just a 'viable' build for a fighter.
I glad that other classes are now going to be given new powers to keep up, because despite analogies to warfare and artillery and suggestion of usefulness of other party members I want my players to feel that there role doesn't diminish with levels and they just become obsolete.
Many melee-based classes got significant new abilities or modifications (or, in some cases, "anything") at higher levels to help them keep pace with spellcasters, who generally did not receive that significant an increase in raw power.It's not about raw power but the options available. Fighter is good at fighting, rogue is good at sneaking, wizard (or cleric) is good at everything.
For example, who needs a rogue when you have Invisibility, Silence, Find Traps, Detect Magic, etc. Who needs a fighter when you have a bunch of summoned or raised minions, or you can fly and bombard the enemy from above. Who needs social characters when you have Charm Person, divination magic, or Zone of Truth. I could keep this up for ages.
The point is, spells can do anything. Wizards and clerics have (essentially) every single spell available. Thus, wizards and clerics can do anything. And most of the time they do it better than the so-called specialists.
I'm pretty sure you're aware of this problem. I just wanted to make sure that everyone agrees on what we're dealing with here.
To be fair a wizard who prepares spells to replace the rogue is doing so at the expense of being a good wizard. Sure the casters can for limited time be maybe even better than a rogue but eventually the spells run out.
A wizard is better off being a wizard. Leave the rogues stuff to the rogue, the wizard has better things to do. Let the fighter keep the distractions away. Then cast a away.
Back in the second edition day we experimented with an all caster party. Basically you had to be either wizard or priest. We found trying to fill the rolls of the no caster classes made you a much worse off caster compared to those that didn't do that.
Ok, here we go again.
I have heard this and said this on other boards along the same line of WAHH spell casters make fighters feel bad.
I have never played a spell caster of any class that can do 5d6 of damage at 4th lvl consistently without a crit and no magic. Yet in the hands of a experienced player that’s what the fighter in our group does ALL the time. Sure I can fireball and fly and all the other stuff for AoE's but he can do the same thing if their foolish enough to surround him, great cleave anyone.
My point is stop trying to make spell casters and everybody else so darned equal. Yes I have played casters that have leveled cities and the fighter was just sort of there but that was players fault not mine.
I look back at my old second edition players hand book and see what spell casters could really do and wonder how the game has gotten so politically correct as to be almost a shell of its former self.
The use of she as a default instead of the correct neutral he. The everybody has to do the exact same number of dice of damage so nobody feels left out mentality is out of control.
I enjoy PF and am looking forward to what new ideas are there but I miss the save or die spells.
I know that I am in the minority but their it is
This is the same old fight.
I'd love to see this threadjacked with actual conjecture on what spells might have changed... We'll probably need a teaser for that to happen.
This is the same old fight.
I'd love to see this threadjacked with actual conjecture on what spells might have changed... We'll probably need a teaser for that to happen.
If we could see how they changed the spell Gate (if at all), it would say volumes about the philosophy of how spells will be treated in Pathfinder (IMO).
If we could see how they changed the spell Gate (if at all), it would say volumes about the philosophy of how spells will be treated in Pathfinder (IMO).
Agreed.
Gate! Gate! Gate! Gate!