Thanks Jason for all that you have done. I am impressed. I know that I could not have done what you did with the rules! Keep up the good work!
I was too brief.Heh, I haven't found you have this problem very often.
^5
I find Blake is the only one who blows me out of the water for long-windedness. It's nice (usually) :)
300 posts in 24 hours.. whew. I kept track at work all day long and my "new post counter" still ran out of juice. Is that limited to 100 Gary?
concentration check break-down
This looks like an improvement to me. I never liked how spell level in 3.5e played such a small part in the DC calculation. It was even worse for the DC to cast after taking damage, where high-level damage made spell level insignificant by comparison. I hope to see the same skew wherever spell level challenges the caster.
|
One of my fears related to the Beta-PFRPG was that the new option-rich iteration of the 3.X rules also meant an higher power level, both in upfront modifiers/stats/whatnots and in less obvious implications of the rules.
Also, I'm one of the group who thought that spellcasting in 3.5 was a bit too easy in difficult/dangerous conditions.
So, the PFRPG offer of melee interference (so to speak) against unprotected casters - or casters with poorly thought tacticts - is both a relief and a breath of fresh air.
The very possible removal of heavy armors from the cleric list of proficiencies is another good thing in my book. Armored casters, fine; divine tanks, a bit too much.
Regarding the fireball issue, while I like the mix&match design, I also think that arcane casters should keep an edge with their signature spells, so I'll probably houserule the damage progression for divine casters (unless it's already accounted in the PFRPG rules, that is).
Also, it's a bit sad that the Beta concept of divine domains had to be cut, but it makes sense for a better compatibility.
Light/darkness, remove curse (ailments), all good. Still think that the new channelling mechanic has potential for abuse, but I'd like a field test before - an adventure, not a purpose built lab test.
|
|
I'm liking a lot of what I've seen in the previews. I think the changes made from the beta make sense and agree they will make the game more interesting, if not tactical. Spellcasters running up in battle need to be kept in check and it also gives reason for making sure they are defended when needed.
Clerics having to choose between how to handle the channel energy definitely gives them more tactical uses as mentioned. I'm hoping that the feat selection will help shape that even more beyond what was offered in the beta.
|
I like the changes so far but will have to see how they play out with my players. I suspect they will also like them.
The changes to the Domains have me more interested than the other mechanics at the moment, as I'm curious about when and where the special abilities are gained and how many you get over 20 levels?
As it looks like they aren't granted on a set pattern with one coming at 6th and one at 8th as well as the initial two at 1st.
I'm really bummed out about the spellcaster changes. Not because of the extra spells, but because the at-will level 1 power being level/day again.
During beta playtesting, I had a druid running around with the Air domain who could, at will and as a standard action, throw a lighting arc that dealt 1d6+1/2 druid level damage. It was not great, but it helped her do useful things since she was not a melee druid. It would help her conserve spells for big fights while still being useful in smaller fights.
Now, with the new rules, spellcasters are not only downgraded again, but they have additional bookkeeping.
But I'll wait until the final version hits the shelves, and I'll probably houserule a few beta rules into the new product, such as the at-will powers...
I just hope that many of the cool new rules will stay in the final version.
Extra note: I have no problem with the cleric having to choose between healing or damaging with the Channel Energy ability, but the feat Turn Undead is incredibly lame. It should, at least, be changed that the cleric does damage AND fears the undead, if any player would opt for fearing undead and having to chase them. It would be better to make it a warding effect disabling the undead to come near the caster (10 or 15 ft. or so) or to effectively disable them, as a cowering effect, without damaging them since disabling them is pretty powerful.
|
Contributor
|
I'm okay with the new cleric, as well as the changes to concentration, but it took me a night to sleep on it and figure that out. To be honest, my initial reaction was "yuck!".
After thinking about it, and reading the great feedback from Jason, I realized that my initial reaction was more due to the fact that I was really psyched up by the first three previews. By comparison, #5 was a bit of a let-down.
Valeros and Harsk made me look at fighters and rangers in a completely different way and I was excited. I already loved the Beta sorcerer and the changes made for the final rules didn't change my perception of the class.
Preview #5 just isn't as "sexy" as the other previews (sorry, Kyra, but you're not Seoni by a long stretch)...and its focus is a little different.
The first three iconic previews basically said, "Look at the cool new stuff you can do!" Everyone who read those previews, whether they were 3.5e devotees or had already shifted to the Beta playtest rules, got to see something "new and improved" in the fighter, sorcerer, and ranger classes.
Preview #5 basically said, "We've changed how casting defensively works and changed some stuff about the cleric to enhance compatibility with 3.5e." The unspoken addendum to the cleric changes is that if you've never tried Pathfinder clerics, you'll get some cool new powers. If you were part of the playtest and grew to love the Beta cleric, then you'll have to get used to some changes.
Ultimately, I think the final changes to domains will go down as the right decision. While the community support on the boards is awesome and I love the creativity that many folks put into converting domains from other sources, it sounds like the final rules version will make it easier for me to convert domains from any source out there. (I realize that the number is finite, since no one is producing 3.5e anymore, but I imagine there are still quite a few domains beyond the ones in the core book.)
The bottom line for me is, while the information in review #5 is helpful, it really didn't get me excited. I don't dislike the cleric at all. I'm just not as stoked about the changes as I was about the first three classes presented. I don't see that as a bad thing, just something I had to acknowledge after stepping back from my initial, emotional reaction.
I'm a little sad to hear that some people are hanging their decision about the entire PFRPG rules system on a single class or rule decision, but I also know that RPGs are an area where strong personalities form strong opinions.
I hope that more of us who had that strong negative reaction at first will take some time before making a final decision on the rules. So many in the community here have great ideas and contribute so much that I'd hate to lose their participation because of one or two things they don't like (okay...REALLY don't like), when it appears there will be so many great things to LIKE about the new rules.
I'm glad to see the new changes regarding domains. The powers were a good idea, and it's nice to see them kept and backwards compatability maintained as well.
Though for channel energy...well.. if your've seen any of the channel energy threads around here you'll already know how I feel about it.
|
|
Extra note: I have no problem with the cleric having to choose between healing or damaging with the Channel Energy ability, but the feat Turn Undead is incredibly lame. It should, at least, be changed that the cleric does damage AND fears the undead, if any player would opt for fearing undead and having to chase them. It would be better to make it a warding effect disabling the undead to come near the caster (10 or 15 ft. or so) or to effectively disable them, as a cowering effect, without damaging them since disabling them is pretty powerful.
I'm hoping that once the book comes out and we can read the full rules for the feat that lower monsters might not get to save against your turn, i.e. if you are 4+ levels higher you auto turn or something like that. If not perhaps there will be more advanced feats, such as improved turn undead or greater turn undead that will simulate previous incarnations and allow for dusting of undead and auto turning. If not it really doesn't bother me too much or can be easily house ruled.
some really good stuff
Nice post. I like the fireball / Lesser Flame Strike angle. Me, I like the fireball but for thouse who don't your angle is helpful.
Last time I checked it was 2 pages now it's 7 or 8.
And a lot of people are just complaining so it was nice to read something balanced. I myself to don't love everything but I'm happy anyway. I will buy the book/books and we might or might not some houserules.
To me none of the nerfs in the Preview really upset me.
What made me disapointed was the major nerf of Divine Power and Heroes feast. Both spells needed a major nerf but they more or less got slaughtered, so it will be interesting to so how they turned out in the book. Anyway. I would be childish if I asumed Jason, James and the other would create a game that run exactly the way I want to. They didn't because I'm not the only player on earth. They did a fine job. Some stuff I like, some stuff I don't. But in the end I agree with you:
"My realistic hope was for Pathfinder to be something better than it's predecessor. Based on the previews I am hardly expecting disappointment."
I hope they fixed the bard (and the monk).
I hope the Paladin and the rogue are at least as good as they where in the betaI hope the druid got som new tricks.
I hope they nerfed the Wizard universal scoll
I hope they killed the animated shiled.
....but if not. Hey, it will still be much better than it's predecessor and there are houserules.
Extra note: I have no problem with the cleric having to choose between healing or damaging with the Channel Energy ability, but the feat Turn Undead is incredibly lame. It should, at least, be changed that the cleric does damage AND fears the undead, if any player would opt for fearing undead and having to chase them. It would be better to make it a warding effect disabling the undead to come near the caster (10 or 15 ft. or so) or to effectively disable them, as a cowering effect, without damaging them since disabling them is pretty powerful.I'm hoping that once the book comes out and we can read the full rules for the feat that lower monsters might not get to save against your turn, i.e. if you are 4+ levels higher you auto turn or something like that. If not perhaps there will be more advanced feats, such as improved turn undead or greater turn undead that will simulate previous incarnations and allow for dusting of undead and auto turning. If not it really doesn't bother me too much or can be easily house ruled.
Agree with you. We won't really know untill we got the book.
In my previous posts I complained about the new channeling rules, but I hear now you will be able to crit undeads and constructs. So I guess the channeling nerf is needed. And Shisumo made a very good point
[...]if there are half a dozen 1 HD skeletons around you and a vampire Big Bad behind them, you don't lose 6 HD of turning against the skeletons and then have your remaining 6 HD of turning splash harmlessly off of the vampire's turn resistance. This way, everyone takes damage, period, even if there is a save for half - the turning doesn't get wasted on the meaningless minions in front alone.
So the channeling is still a good thing
|
|
I really like what I see.
But I only compare the Final PFRPG to the 3.5 rules and not to the Beta rules.
I like that the tons of 3rd ed stuff that I have won't be invalid and I will be able to fast-fix domains to match PF rules.
I am player and DM and it always annoyed me how easy casting on the defense was. Therefore I like this fix very much.
Great Work there!
I think many of the arguments against the new CotD rules are valid but a little bit contrived.
How often is the Caster surrouned by enemies?
Mostly if he is surprised or made unsound move decisions.
In both situations, even if he botches the Concenteration check, he can still cast the spell because the AoO(s) might actually miss him!
So the chances that the caster gets his spell off are even higher than stated by Jason earlier. At least 5%^number of enemies surrounding him.
So with Kyra being attacked by Harsk (who is 3 levels higher than she is) in dual combat and trying to get of a 4th level spell:
55% to make the con Check + 15% that Harsk might miss (AB +15 vs. AC 19 = 1-3 miss) = 70%
even against Valeros (who is 6 levels higher than she is) she has a
55% to make the con Check + 5% that Valeros might miss (AB +23 vs. AC 19 = 1 miss) = 60%
If fact, even against a great old wyrm she has a 60% chance to get her spell of.
Which is a pretty good chance IMHO.
Link me to the source of that insight.
I don't have a link. It was somewhere here on the boards, and it was Jason who said it. I think. Someone from Paizo in any case.
maybe its just the fact that I don't really like the bonus spells... would had to see Glory (Glory and Sun are the domains I mostly use), maybe I just expected to see more domain powers isntead of going back to bonus spells...
I didn't like the part of the domains where you don't get anything for several levels at a time only to get two powers/abilities all at once: You get something on 1, 2, 4 (good enough so far), but then you'll have to wait till level 12(!) to get your next spell (and till 8 to get anything). And again till level 16 and 20.
All in all, the old style bonus lists are better for this. And we are getting extra powers.
I think might keep the 1st-level stuff as endless, and maybe the 1st-spell-level spell you get at 2nd-character-level as 1/2 level per day. Make the starting power something that can be useful all day. The large number of 1st-level spells won't be that much of a power boost, either, but it would be interesting.
In this point, I agree with Jason's decision in the end: The new domains were a nice idea, but the mechanics didn't work out that well, and the spell list mechanic is easier on backwards compatibility.
You can still use a houserule like "instead of bonus spells, you get to cast those spells spontaneously, just like you'd do cure/inflict spells"
DO i really need PF RPG?
I don't know. You have to find out for yourself. Peruse the book in a store, wait for the SRD, something like that.
So far is looks like CMD is 10 + str bonus + dex bonus + deflection bonus...and may include other things.I may be simplifying it to much, but really looks like CMD = CMB + Touch AC. At least thats how it works out on all the previews. Now what goes in to make the CMB may be a different story.
It was already said that CMD is 10 + CMB plus stuff like dex and deflection. So you'r ebasically right: CMB + touch AC. Great catch!
Well, as I see no reason for giving a suboptimal armor to dexterity challenged Kyra (unless to preserve some mobility?), it seems clerics are down to medium armor.
There is a reason: Kyra wears chainmail. Look at Rise of the Runelords and Legacy of Fire - or just at her picture. She waears chainmail.
In the Ranger preview they gave suboptimal weapons (hand crossbow) to the ranger.
Well, it was a storm giant's crossbow. Either that or a medium-sized light crossbow, what with it being called "light crossbow" in the preview, and the 1d8 damage ;-P
When asked about it, Paizo responded that they built him to match the artwork - optimization was not a salient consideration.
Which isn't right. He has a heavy crossbow. In SD, he's also said to have a heavy crossbow.
In that case, they probably did it so he could shoot more than once per round (and they either don't have Crossbow Mastery in the game or didn't want to show it or forgot it.)
Channeling...
I don't understand why the devs didn't just nerf the d6 down to a d4
d4s don't roll well.
does the cleric really needs fireball?
Wrong question.
The right one: Does the FIRE cleric really need FIREball?
A cleric who follows a god who has Fire as one of the cornerstones of his deific concept. Yeah, I think he needs fireball.
Nevermind before 3rd Edition, Casters couldn't even move >5' and Cast in the same round,
Not to mention the nightmare situation casting in melee was. Hit before your turn in init came up? Your spell is gone. Nevermind you're the Great Archamge God Spellalot and the other one pricked with your needle. Your feeble arcane might, who can wrestle reality itself to the ground, twist its arm behind its back and force it to say "you are right and I am wrong" cannot cope with the agonizing pain of a pinprick.
Admittidly I'm not too sure of the domain spells, being limited in what spells they can use is one of the major advantages arcane mages have over clerics, if clerics blur the line too much it could be a problem.
Though for that we'd really need to see the final thing to see if/how much of a problem it could be.
I'm okay with the new cleric, as well as the changes to concentration, but it took me a night to sleep on it and figure that out. To be honest, my initial reaction was "yuck!".
After thinking about it, and reading the great feedback from Jason, I realized that my initial reaction was more due to the fact that I was really psyched up by the first three previews. By comparison, #5 was a bit of a let-down. [...]
I agree on most of the stuff you say, but one. When I read the preview I loved the changes to concentration. Now after a night sleep In only think it's good. Why? Because they almost got it perfect. The problem still is, it is still a bit too hard at lower levels and a bit too easy at higher levels.
So here are some points.A) "he adds his caster level and whatever ability score is used to determine his spell DCs" - the adding of the bility score is a problem. At level 1 it will be 15 - 18 at higher levels it will be +26. I would rather have:
DC is equal to 10 (or 11 or 12) + double the spell's level
casting on the defensive, whenever a spellcaster is called upon to make such a check, he adds his caster level.
B) Caster level never max out, the spell's level do. Adding an opponent's BAB somehow to the check could have solved the problem, but they did't. So after lvl 17/18 spell casters just have less and less problem. I don't like high level games, so I don't care really. But pazio should add feats to fighters, Paladins, etc after lvl 17.
But this is still no big problem.
I will do as Jason said: cool down a bit and give it a try. And if we don't like it, it is easy enough to fix by simply adjusting the DCs.
Sure, it isn't exactly a good move to make less attractive a class that 8 out of 10 players already avoid like the plague
I think that steps were taken in beta to make sure that those 8 guys give the class a try.
At the same time, it was looked at why those 2 guys were playing it, and in the case of "the class has a really nasty possibility to be overpowered", they evened things out.
I even like to play the cleric with the new personal buff spells. They aren't as good as they were before, but they do allow strength items now, and you can buff up faster.
wait for the Wizard's preview, THEN you'll see the true meaning of nerf bat (not like PF's arcane magic can be any more sad anyway). ;)
I don't believe you. You could only know this if you were a diviner. But those are wizards, and as you say, useless. So you got nothing! ;-P
I would have liked to give it a try before final print was already to the presses.
The problem is that they can keep their ears open only for so long. At one point, you have to say "okay, the open playtest is over." A little later, you have to say "closed, the internal playtest is over, too." And then, one day, you have to say "well, this is what we'll do, this is set in stone now, off to the printers"
While I don't like the way channel works now (a logical inconsistency for the sake of balance - luckily one I can very easily ignore), I still like it a lot more than turning. They listened to that, and had some changes. They came to the conclusion that the beta version needed work, and probably didn't have the time to run that past everyone again.
Does the rogue have to make a class level check with a 60% at best chance of not sneak attacking?
Yes. It's called "make sure your attack is elegible for sneak attack" check. It's not a flat roll of the dice, but more a tactical consideration.
Actually, that's not it. I was wrong. Rogues don't get that check: If their tactics fail, they're screwed. There's no "make a class level check to deal sneak attack regardless of the fact that the enemy just doesn't qualify"
Spellcasters can use tactics to avoid having to make that check.
Maybe the beta playtest should have gotten a few more months (years?) testing.
The time couldn't have been upped by mere months - they want this ready for GenCon (which is perfectly understandable). So if you don't have it ready for this year, you need to wait till next year, anyway.
I think that would have been too long. It would have driven the price up - remember, they keep pouring man-hours into this, which cost money, and they need to make money of the result of those man-hours. So provided they wouldn't have gone bankrupt over this (admittedly, not that likely, but still a possibility), they would have been forced to increase the game's price to account for the extra months.
It's bad to put money into something without getting anything back. The longer that happens, the worse it gets.
I need to ask:
When did a difference of opinion automatically get dumped into the "ranting," or "whining" category?
I think somewhere between the day they announced 4e and the day Paizo announced PFRPG. Either that, or a long time ago during a similar time, and they stopped doing it (so much) for a while.
It's great: You can insult others for different opinions. Or you can feel all insulted that the other is so hard on you, and force the moderators to step in and shut him up. The more it happens, the less people criticise your favourite game.
I don't know how that can be good, except make you feel better about your "obviously superior choice" or something, but that's how it works.
This is the kind of thing that forms edition wars.
Exactly.
And people should have learned better. Especially here: PFRPG won't be perfect, but it will be a lot better than if Jason had hidden away in his cubicle/office and done it all by himself.
And those of you who don't want changes to Channel energy, come on. You have to admit that it was a tad over the top. I love Channel energy, but these changes just surprised me so little and certainly didn't hurt my feelings. It seems to be about right.
It's quite situational if you ask me. Half of its utility only shows up against undead (though there is the possibility to use it against special other creature types if you have the right feat).
That said, I like the fact that the "run away in fear" part is gone from standard channeling.
I like how you can alter channeling (if you have the feat) to affect the undead's "mind" and let them run away. I would welcome more feats like that, to make you do other things with channeling (maybe cure status like poisoned, cursed, ability damage).
I just don't like that channel energy, which was changed to work just like cure/inflict spells, doesn't work like cure/inflict spells any more (unless those have been changed to allow one or the other now. While that doesn't matter for normal spells unless you have undead in disguise, the mass cure and heal spells have some stock in this)
It seems like an entire play concept is now impossible.
To be honest: "dive into the fray and do really complicated stuff that demands your full attention without the horde around you cutting you to shreds and hoping to make it nine times out of ten" isn't necessarily a play concept that should be possible. Or at least not easy.
I can easily see entire sessions were casters do absolutely nothing as their cool spells i.e. the spells that are needed for an apropriate challenge of their level all fail.
Nah. They will learn and try to move away before attempting the big stuff.
I can also see, especially when it is needed most, the one spell or effect you need to survive getting wasted on pure chance.
It's not as if that never happened before. "I need to hit this critter or we're all dead" *natural 1*.
"You're the only one who can save us now, you cannot fail this save!" *fails the save*
"I'm low on HP, but I get a reflex save and I have evasion" *fails save"
It is far to easy to surround a spellcaster. And now a spellcaster being surrounded is a death sentence as far as wee can tell.
Depends. If the spellcaster - and his party as a whole - thinks instead of acting recklessly, they make it less likely to succeed.
What than? Are they just out of luck now, like it seems? Depressing. . .
They have to know their weaknesses and prepare for them: Get Combat Casting, make sure you have useful "get out of jail" spells of lower levels, have backup plans (like acrobatics) and so on.
Admitedly, I have not seen the preview...Are you serious? All your b@~@#ing and you haven't even seen the preview yet?!? Why don't you wait to inform yourself before going all "woe is me" on us?
As I and most here understand it...And stop being a jackhole and speaking for "most here". It's more like 3 guys, and apparently one of them hasn't even seen the preview yet.
And on that note, time to leave this thread for a while. All the angst is making me cranky. :P
Don't be like that. It's ugly. And it makes things even worse: People are upset and you're pouring fat on the fire by insulting them.
|
To the Paizo Crew *HUGS*
I, personally, am intrigued with the changes, am liking what I am seeing and being tantalized by in the previews, and can't wait to get the book in my hands come August.
Jason B., thank you for all your hard work, and know that there are those out here that do like what you have done, and we also remember that a preview is not the whole magilla :) Trying to guess how everything is going to work from these previews is a guessing game and I have faith that this will work in the end!
Your attempts to spread goodwill and huggy feelings sicken me. I shall consume your pet in retaliation.
Pls 2 spies it up kthxbye.
does the cleric really needs fireball?
Wrong question.
The right one: Does the FIRE cleric really need FIREball?
A cleric who follows a god who has Fire as one of the cornerstones of his deific concept. Yeah, I think he needs fireball.
LOL. Let me quote Andrew Dice Clay: "You're an island of reality in an ocaen of diarrhoea". Thanx KaeYoss for saving me some time and for the amusement.
Does the rogue have to make a class level check with a 60% at best chance of not sneak attacking?Yes. It's called "make sure your attack is elegible for sneak attack" check. It's not a flat roll of the dice, but more a tactical consideration.
Actually, that's not it. I was wrong. Rogues don't...
Yes KaeYoss you right. And mosters /foes vs. rogues.
Rogues can't sneak attack:elementals or casters using elemental body 3 and 4.
High level rogues and barbarians
Oozes
some undead (whatever that mean)
Incorperals
those who have concealment
the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach.
etc.
....and you have to flank them.
And even if you are invisible mosters/foes may have invisibility purge, see invisibility, true seeing, termosense, the Blind-Fight feat, etc.
etc., etc., etc.
I think that would have been too long. It would have driven the price up - remember, they keep pouring man-hours into this, which cost money, and they need to make money of the result of those man-hours. So provided they wouldn't have gone bankrupt over this (admittedly, not that likely, but still a possibility), they would have been forced to increase the game's price to account for the extra months.
It's bad to put money into something without getting anything back. The longer that happens, the worse it gets.
This is sadly true.
It's called 'Duke Nukem Forever Syndrome' - a game who was expected to be the greatest FPS of 1997, took 12 years of development, and has been canceled just a month ago...
Or 'Chinese Democracy Syndrome' - a musical album from Guns N' Roses who took 9 years to be developed...
People do not wait forever (well, Duke fans like me perhaps do, but this is another story...). They wait. Then wait again. Then maybe start to feel a little tired of waiting. Finally, they leave - and you can't blame them.
If Paizo had waited too long, a lot of less people would have been interested in their work (some people object that they are already too late, because 4ED is starting its second year of publication). Perhaps 4ED would have become '4.5ED', corrected a lot of their errors (IMHO they are, but a lot of people would not agree, of course) - both in game and with the gamers community - and Pathfinder would have no space in the gamers' world. Or perhaps 5ED would have come out. Or another entirely different game (like Dragon Age ? I'm not well informed on how it would be).
Yes, perhaps after 10+ years of strenuous playtest - both open and internal - Pathfinder would have become PERFECT. But, what is the meaning of a perfect game, if there is nobody who plays it?
Just my 2c.
And always bet on Duke.
I guess I'll start off with the negative, because it's what's really bugging me. I'll move to the positive afterwards.
Concentration as a skill has uses beyond caster checks. And the "skill tax" claim? Now it's just a feat tax, since they'll have to take Combat Casting if they want to have a chance to succeed with any reliability. Are you going to let rogues use their level for stealth checks? Or Perception? or Disable Device? No? Why? It's a skill tax to force them to buy ranks in those skills. But they have plenty of skill points, so noone minds. Maybe if you'd just give classes a minimum of 4 skill points, there'd be less of an issue.
And it's not like extra skill points are that hard to come by in Pathfinder. Favored class, human bonus, elves with INT bonuses... PCs in PF have more skill points than their 3.5 compatriots if they're doing it right.
I really don't like this rule, and after all the petitioning and campaigning by people arguing for the return of Concentration and the removal of Spellcraft, we see Spellcraft still sticks around even though it might as well be part of the knowledges, and Concentration is gone. This hoses psionics (which I realize Paizo doesn't care much for, but still...), Tome of Battle Diamond Mind abilities, and several other options (picking locks during a battle, for example). It hurts multiclass characters as well. I've been very vocal about this, so it shouldn't come as any surprise, but I'm incredibly frustrated that I'm going to have to house rule the skills list to hell and gone right out of the gate just to maintain a level of backwards compatibility.
The change to Channel Energy is interesting. The reason I accepted the change originally was that it was a good idea, and it was thematically appropriate. You unleash a burst of positive energy, and it does what positive energy does - heal living creatures and hurt undead. Now, you've got a controllable burst of it, being able to selectively set off a positive energy explosion. It just doesn't quite make sense in the same way, though it is likely much more balanced. I am kind of liking that it might allow me to make my clerics work a bit more like I like them (In my campaign, not all gods care about undead, so not all clerics had Turn Undead - some of them had abilities to bolster allies or harm enemies utilizing a the same basic turn mechanics and I've been wracking my brain about how to fix the Channel ability to work for these other abilities). Not 100% sure how to do it, but I might have an easier time of it.
The return of domains is kind of nice, especially since I use a lot of domains from the Spell Compendium. It means I'll have a little easier time converting those, I suppose. It's not as innovative, but it is very interesting. Will there be guidelines for how to generate abilities for clerics that don't worship Golarion gods?
|
|
There's a whole lotta talk about Concentration checks, and it occurs to me, a player primarily of Clerics and Druids, that most of my characters skill lists have had entries like 'Concentration 0 (+2).'
It always felt like a dead skill to me, to allow one to cast spells in a place that I shouldn't have been standing anyway, and there are so many other skills I'd rather be taking, that will be useful during the 95% of the game in which I'm not standing adjacent to a Bugbear and pinned and unable to take a 5 ft. step before casting.
Worse than a dead skill, really. More like a skill tax, and one I've usually avoided paying.
I'm glad it's dead! Glad, I tell you!
Now *if* Concentration had included the options under Autohypnosis from the SRD, and been more of a meditative / focus oriented skill, I'd have found it thematic and useful and worthy of inclusion (and about 1000x more flavorful and cool). But since it doesn't have any of that stuff, it's overspecialized and dull.
There's a whole lotta talk about Concentration checks, and it occurs to me, a player primarily of Clerics and Druids, that most of my characters skill lists have had entries like 'Concentration 0 (+2).'
It always felt like a dead skill to me, to allow one to cast spells in a place that I shouldn't have been standing anyway, and there are so many other skills I'd rather be taking, that will be useful during the 95% of the game in which I'm not standing adjacent to a Bugbear and pinned and unable to take a 5 ft. step before casting.
Worse than a dead skill, really. More like a skill tax, and one I've usually avoided paying.
I'm glad it's dead! Glad, I tell you!
It's funny, because most clerics and druids I know tend to be in the thick of fighting, because they have to administer healing or use short range spell effects, and also because they're most commonly something of a melee combatant.
I acutally see the change to casting defensively as giving the fighter more options. Bullrush will become much more useful.
Someone bases your wizard, bullrush him away. Don't have improved bullrush? Who cares, using up their AoO is almost as good as moving them (though combat reflexes would suck).
Or trip, or disarm, or sunder or grapple. These things become a lot more important now that your goal is creating space for you caster.
BTW, minor threadjack, am I the only one that thinks shields should help with bullrushing (maybe add their AC bonus to it)?
|
As I and most here understand it, this is no "notch or two". No "slight nerf". It seems like an entire play concept is now impossible.
Okay, I'm waiting for a single person to prove that. Yes casting your highest level spells in melee is harder now. But not your lower level spells those are practically autosuccesses. Also with one feat I've already shown the math that shows that the problem of casting even your highest level spells is remarkably simple. If a player wants to have a melee focused spellcaster then combat casting is required, but there are still lots of options for those who don't want it that make it possible even when the fighter does close with the spellcaster to cast those spells. A 40% chance of failure is not an impossibility, it's an I'm unlikely to risk it unless I'm desperate.
And once again, I can with core rules and the design of spellcasters make a melee focused spellcaster who could succeed on every single one of those concentration checks without failing (unless rolling a 1 is always an autofailure). So I'm waiting, someone prove to me what concept is impossible? Hmmmm? I'm waiting?
And once again, I can with core rules and the design of spellcasters make a melee focused spellcaster who could succeed on every single one of those concentration checks without failing (unless rolling a 1 is always an autofailure). [...]
hm, I hope it's in the rules. ...if rolling a 1 is an autofailure or not.
This may be a stupid question I am wondering if the Turn undead feat can be taken by other classes?
I would be sweet flavour wise - If A Bard of Shelyn or a druid of Erastil could pick it up.
Cool house rule otherwise.
|
|
okay so reading the last two pages I may have learned that I've been doing casting defensively wrong all along to begin with. When my players failed to cast defensively they merely provoked the AoO as normal, and then the AoO determined whether they lost their spell(with another concentration check), if the AoO missed the caster got the spell off. So I've been doing it wrong this whole time?
This may be a stupid question I am wondering if the Turn undead feat can be taken by other classes?
I would be sweet flavour wise - If A Bard of Shelyn or a druid of Erastil could pick it up.
Prerequisite almost certain to be "Channel Positive Energy". However, one level of cleric would give quite a few uses at quite a decent DC, given the high Cha of bards.
I think many of the arguments against the new CotD rules are valid but a little bit contrived. Agree
How often is the Caster surrounded by enemies? Agree
Mostly if he is surprised or made unsound move decisions. Agree
In both situations, even if he botches the Concentration check, he can still cast the spell because the AoO(s) might actually miss him!
So the chances that the caster gets his spell off are even higher than stated by Jason earlier. At least 5%^number of enemies surrounding him. no no no
When you make the choice to cast on the defensive, you are focusing on combat to *PREVENT* any AoO's. You then have to make the check to successfully cast the spell. If you fail, you lose the spell, but still no Attacks.
Edit: Heh, yep LKL
okay so reading the last two pages I may have learned that I've been doing casting defensively wrong all along to begin with. When my players failed to cast defensively they merely provoked the AoO as normal, and then the AoO determined whether they lost their spell(with another concentration check), if the AoO missed the caster got the spell off. So I've been doing it wrong this whole time?
Correct. And it's terribly easy to do, so don't feel bad. You can think of it like this: you don't fail the defense, you fail the cast.
The beauty of tabletop RPGs is that you can house rule things, of course... but I would ask that you try out a rule for a few sessions before you house rule it. Sometimes, the way a rule reads and the way a rule actually plays out can be quite different. If it really does change the game in a way you don't like, by all means change how it works in your game. I know that there's a few rules in the final PFRPG that I'll be houseruling (and in fact have ALREADY house ruled in my Sandpoint game). That's not a sign of a game's weakness. It's a sign of a game's strength that you can make it your own in that way.
Amen!
I've house ruled, in every edition (except 4E, because I played it once, but I see that the groups that are are doing it too).
That's the beauty of this game. It's not chess.
|
|
There is no such mechanic. Fighters are pylons, they don't protect anything. There is absolutely no reason at all for a monster to attack a fighter, except that the DM feels like it. Every combat can't be in a 5 foot wide hall, but it looks like it's going to have to be now. It's called tactics, I just wonder if that's enjoyable for everyone. I can't say it's enjoyable for me (as a DM), it's not epic, but players are going to do what they need to do to survive.
For a guy who tries to discourage metagaming from your players the above statement is awefully hypocritical on your part if you play it that way. Any non metagaming monster isn't going to ignore the thing hitting it with a pointy stick for damage, unless given a reason. Even an intelligent person, no reasonable person is going to say in most scenarios, Oh I'll just let this guy stab me so I can hit the guy 15 feet behind him, I know that he won't stab me fatally. If you're discouraging metagaming then fighters should be more powerful in your game since nobody is going to willingly accept being stabbed in order to get to the guy with the gun.
I can't think of a situation in real life where I see a guy with a sword and 15 feet behind him a guy with a gun and I think to myself, hmm, I'll just run past the guy with the sword cause even if he hits me with it he won't seriously hurt me, but that gun'll kill me.
So I think it's rediculously disingenuous to discount one persons points because you discourage metagaming and then have your own arguments be based on metagaming.
And what if everyone wants to play a caster. It seems like now you must have a tank or two, per caster, or not even bother.
You know just a day or two ago, it used to be the other way around. If you wanted to play all non-casters, it seemed like then you needed a caster or two, or why bother?
Teamwork is encouraged.
One thing that has occured to me - is so many of the creatures that cast "spell-like" abilities at a caster level of a given level - which are usually not commensurate of the challenge of the creature or APL of the party. This would seem to affect them significantly at first glance.
A challenge Rating 12 creature that casts spells 'as a 7th level sorcerer' will be quite hard pressed to pass a concentration check - having a lower spellcasting level, and usually not the min/maxed stat in the spellcasting stat that would be as high as a true NPC/PC would be for that level.
Yeah, this had occurred to me too.
I'm hoping in the new rules, Spell-like abilities don't require a check. The monsters just do them. It would be one way to differentiate SAs from actual spells.
|
One thing that has occured to me - is so many of the creatures that cast "spell-like" abilities at a caster level of a given level - which are usually not commensurate of the challenge of the creature or APL of the party. This would seem to affect them significantly at first glance.
A challenge Rating 12 creature that casts spells 'as a 7th level sorcerer' will be quite hard pressed to pass a concentration check - having a lower spellcasting level, and usually not the min/maxed stat in the spellcasting stat that would be as high as a true NPC/PC would be for that level.
Yeah, this had occurred to me too.
I'm hoping in the new rules, Spell-like abilities don't require a check. The monsters just do them. It would be one way to differentiate SAs from actual spells.
This is something in 3.5e that has always bothered me as a DM - spell-like abilities have no material, verbal, or somatic components, yet still provoke AO's. I can rationalize why they would provoke (they have to take a moment to concentrate), but for some reason it just seemed silly to me.
A creature can attack with its natural attacks without provoking; a spell-like ability (being a part of a creature's innate abilities) would seem to be an extension of that. Especially "at will" abilities since they're just a part of what makes monster X a monster X. I kinda hope AO's for spell-like abilities gets nuked in PFRPG.
-Skeld
|
|
This is something in 3.5e that has always bothered me as a DM - spell-like abilities have no material, verbal, or somatic components, yet still provoke AO's. I can rationalize why they would provoke (they have to take a moment to concentrate), but for some reason it just seemed silly to me.
A creature can attack with its natural attacks without provoking; a spell-like ability (being a part of a creature's innate abilities) would seem to be an extension of that. Especially "at will" abilities since they're just a part of what makes monster X a monster X. I kinda hope AO's for spell-like abilities gets nuked in PFRPG.
I always house ruled if there were no verbal components, the caster got a +4 to cast defensively, and if there were no somatic components, another +4, so SLAs in my game always got a +8 to cast defensively.
It also gave a small boost to silent or stilled spells...
|
|
1 / day / two levels is my guess, as per the other cleric powers listed in the Beta...Once per day per level I assume.Or you could assume it's 3 times / day or 5 times / day or 8 times / day or something else.
except that she's 8th level and can use the ability 8 times, so it definitely isn't 1/day/2 levels.
So let's break it down further:
1st score assumes standard point buy
2nd score assumes SPB w/ +2 racial bonus to primary ability
3rd score assumes maximum possible score if you roll for ability scores
Casting Defensively
1st level:
Starting Stat:
15: Level check bonus = +3
17: Level check bonus = +4
20: Level check bonus = +5
DC for 1st level spells: 17
Chance for success on 1st level spells:
15: 35%
17: 40%
20: 45%
20th level:
Starting Stat + 5 points added through leveling + +6 stat boost item:
26: Level check bonus = +28
28: Level check bonus = +29
31: Level check bonus = +30
DC for 9th level spells: 33
Chance for success on 9th level spells:
26: 80% –––> autosuccess for spell levels 1-7
29: 85% –––> autosuccess for spell levels 1-8
31: 90% –––> autosuccess for spell levels 1-8
Looks fine to me.
*Edit*
This doesn't take into account feats and other magical items, which more often than not will benefit the caster's chances.
Caster Level Check = 1d20 + Caster Level (no ability bonus)
DC = 10 + 2x spell level
The chances to succeed on your highest level spells remain the same throughout all levels of play.
And referencing my above post, it seems that solo casters (PCs & NPCs) at the higher levels really aren't gimped much at all by this change, if it's assumed that their abilities are par.
If anything this particular change doesn't change class equity all that much at the highest levels (16-20).
Alright.. lets break this down a bit...
Kyra has a +13 bonus on concentration checks. This means that for each level spell, she is looking at the following...
4th Level = DC 23, she needs to roll a 10 (55% chance)
3rd Level = DC 21, she needs to roll an 8 (65% chance)
2nd Level = DC 19, she needs to roll a 6 (75% chance)
1st Level = DC 17, she needs to roll a 4 (85% chance)
0 Level = DC 15, she needs to roll a 2 (95% chance)In 3.5, if Kyra put max ranks, she would have a +13 bonus on Concentration checks. This means that for each level spell, she is looking at the following...
4th Level = DC 19, she needs to roll a 6 (75% chance)
3rd Level = DC 18, she needs to roll a 5 (80% chance)
2nd Level = DC 17, she needs to roll a 4 (85% chance)
1st Level = DC 16, she needs to roll a 3 (90% chance)
0 Level = DC 15, she needs to roll a 2 (95% chance)Now, I will agree that there is a significant difference, but lets not pretend that a 20% increase at the worst case spells the end of spellcasters. It does mean that it is a bit more difficult, but it is not horribly worse than it was, especially when you consider that it required a spellcaster to dump skill ranks into it and invest in a high Constitution.
As long as we are breaking it down, let's take a moment to realize that you are posting from an unfair position of knowing what all of the final rules look like.
We can only work with, and react to, what we have been shown.
And what do we know?
Your breakdown doesn't include Skill Focus, or Combat Casting - neither of which we have the benefit of knowing exist in the PFRPG final.
So that 20% difference, has to be seen as a 55% difference - from what we know.
Can we speculate there are similar, if not exact, ways to boost concentration rolls in PFRPG? Sure, but you have the unfair advantage of knowing, and not sharing.
(I'm not even approaching upon the necessity of said change.)
Maybe, but only in the vacuum of player vs. player.
Which is where I think most of these class balance threads end up anwyay (not that many people actuall play PvP, or battle each other in arenas, but I think much of the class wars come from comparing a PC of one class to a PC of a different class).
Truth in a bucket.
Of course, when it comes right down to it, even if the group I play with switch to Pathfinder, we won't even feel the change in casting defensively. Much like Set, we needed to roll... Maybe 5 Casting checks in the past 3 years, and they were always by the DM.
And referencing my above post, it seems that solo casters (PCs & NPCs) at the higher levels really aren't gimped much at all by this change, if it's assumed that their abilities are par.
If anything this particular change doesn't change class equity all that much at the highest levels (16-20).
FYI on that post (which is some good number crunching goodness!), the 1st level 20 stat bonus is off by 1 (too low).
FYI on that post (which is some good number crunching goodness!), the 1st level 20 stat bonus is off by 1 (too low).And referencing my above post, it seems that solo casters (PCs & NPCs) at the higher levels really aren't gimped much at all by this change, if it's assumed that their abilities are par.
If anything this particular change doesn't change class equity all that much at the highest levels (16-20).
Fixed
Thanks Majuba
Actually I believe it was the 2nd level 20 stat that was off: 17 +5 + 6 = 28
Alright.. lets break this down a bit...
Kyra has a +13 bonus on concentration checks. This means that for each level spell, she is looking at the following...
4th Level = DC 23, she needs to roll a 10 (55% chance)
3rd Level = DC 21, she needs to roll an 8 (65% chance)
2nd Level = DC 19, she needs to roll a 6 (75% chance)
1st Level = DC 17, she needs to roll a 4 (85% chance)
0 Level = DC 15, she needs to roll a 2 (95% chance)In 3.5, if Kyra put max ranks, she would have a +13 bonus on Concentration checks. This means that for each level spell, she is looking at the following...
4th Level = DC 19, she needs to roll a 6 (75% chance)
3rd Level = DC 18, she needs to roll a 5 (80% chance)
2nd Level = DC 17, she needs to roll a 4 (85% chance)
1st Level = DC 16, she needs to roll a 3 (90% chance)
0 Level = DC 15, she needs to roll a 2 (95% chance)
Going from needing a 6 to needing a 10 means she will lose 66% more spells than before. That's still kinda big.
But I will admit, my first assessment involved comparing Kyra, who is not optimized, to clerics that I make, or clerics my players make when I DM.
I've never had an 8th level cleric who would fail 25% of the defensive castings. I've never seen a cleric like that in any game I've been in.
I've also never seen any mage who would fail that often.
Casting Defensively was always a joke in 3.5. An automatic, or nearly automatic success.
Then along comes this version of Kyra who only succeeds 55%.
In my mind, without running numbers, I was seeing characters going from automatic success to (roughly) a 50/50 chance.
That would be enormously huge. Colossal.
But, seeing the numbers makes it clearer.
Kyra just sucks. A little. :)
She needs some optimization help...
Given that, I can back down - a little.