Actually I believe it was the 2nd level 20 stat that was off: 17 +5 + 6 = 28
That was off too, but it didn't change the bonus :)
>> 20: Level check bonus = +5
Should be +6 (5 mod, 1 level)
Chance for success on 1st level spells:
15: 35%
17: 40%
20: 45%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
I think that's exactly what DM_Blake was saying, in design it's meant to hurt high level casters. In practice, it hurts low level casters even more and is not a big deal for high level casters.
I initially had 3 concerns about the change to Casting Defensively.
1. Ridiculously high fail chance. Reviewing the math, it's only moderately high, so I'm much less concerned about this now.
But my other two concerns are still, IMO, very valid.
2. Low-level vs. High-level casters. I think just about everyone wanted to see high-level casters taken down a notch or three. What we wanted varied, but I think there were very few voices on this forum or any other that said casters in their mid- to upper- teens were underpowered, or even on par with non-casters. This has been a point that almost everyone agreed on.
Furthermore, I think many/most of us agreed that, especially in 3.x, the life of the very-low-level casters was more about crossbow bolts than it was about spellcasting, and that low-level casters have a difficult time, and that low-level casters are generally less effective than non-casters (much of the time).
But the new CD mechanic affects low-level casters far more than high-level csters.
This is true in two ways:
a. The math is harder for low-level casters to succeed on a CD roll than it is for high-levels.
b. High-level casters can choose to cast lower spell levels, but low-level casters don't have lower spell levels to fall back on.
This change to CD has, therefore, done the opposite of what most of us seem to have wanted: it has reined in the low-level casters far more than it has reined in the high-level casters.
3. Post after post on this thread seems to be focuesed on the players. People say things like "This is good because now we need to bring melee types along" or "We used to be able to make all caster groups but now we can't) and other such things.
Which is all true.
And in my opinion, that is all good.
Everyone saying that kind of stuff is more or less exactly right, and for that, I like this change to Casting Defensively.
But what almost nobody (else) is really talking about is the impact to NPC spellcasters.
NPC spellcasters almost always have to fight alone. They may start out with minions, but sometime before the end of the fight, they are fighting alone.
This change to CD will hurt the NPCs far more than it hurts the PCs.
If the PC cleric loses her one and only remaining Cure Critical Wounds, well, next round she'll just channel energy, or cast a Cure Serious Wounds. The poor cleric lost an action, but the rest of us get to act, so our side in the battle lost only 20% of our actions. After the fight, we can go camp if we need to. It's annoying, but we'll live.
But if the *solo* bad guy NPC caster loses his one and only Cure Critical Wounds (or anything else), he's wasted 100% of the actions his side had this round. Further, he's lost his best spell, a spell that could have extended his life a couple more rounds. So instead of gaining a couple more rounds, he loses one. And he won't go camp after we kill him.
This kind of thing can turn a scary encounter with a tough spellcaster into a trivial fight, all hinged on one CD roll.
Worse, DMs will begin to feel encouraged to beef these encounters up so one bad CD roll will still make for a challenging encounter, but then when they succeed on the CD roll, the encounter is harder because the DM beefed it up.
This makes the whole concept of applyg CRs and ECLs to encounters with spellcasters much more difficult.
It will make combat much more swingy (for the NPCs at least).
It will make each encounter swing more wildly from potentially trivial to potentially devastating (character death or even TPK kind of devastating).
****************************************************************
Summary:
For these two reasons, I'm still concerned about the change to Casting Defensively:
1. Punishing low-level casters way too much but punishing high-level casters nowhere nearly enough.
2. Trivializing (and then consequently increasing the risk) of encounters against enemy spellcasters.
The only problem I see with the new mechanic is that it doesn't close the high level caster vs. non-caster gap enough. Of course we are looking at it by itself.
Perhaps there are new assumptions for the PFRPG? We are taking the mechanic and applying it to how 3.5 works.
Just musing here but, there was a post by JB during the playtest, where he stated the rulebook would/may have commentary on handling magic items (which is what breaks the current system… +6 items that is).
NPC end-boss casters tend to be 2+ levels higher than the PCs fighting them. And of the one's I've seen, in published adventures by Paizo (mostly Savage Tide and AoW) it's often been difficult for non-casters to get close enough and get through their defenses to even threaten a Concentration check. The problem of these guys potentially losing a spell diminishes as the adventures go up in level.
|
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.
Gah!
Just read the D20 srd.Apologies, you are right and I played this wrong for 9 years...
|
Ya know what folks ... I have an observation.
While I do consider the Den crowd to be a bunch of t#$%s, I think they were on to something with "Paizo fans are caster lovers, they don't give a damn about melee class changes because they don't play them anyway".
Now, we had Valeros and Harsk previews. Aside from the Will save debacle, they raised here on Paizo forum relatively little discussion in comprasion to craptacular threads on RPG.net and Enworld.
Then comes the cleric preview (which I, for one, love to bits) and suddenly the other forums are quiet (or even making a grudging nods of approval to concentration change) while the Paizo forum explodes with cleric lovers who yell doom and gloom because the domains got reverted, there is now a considerable chance of actually failing that spell in combat and zomg wtf bbq, Fire domain cleric can cast a Fireball now !
I really begin to understand that the metagame over here is somewhat specific, with a considerable bunch of folks who have a wholly different approach to relative class power.
...[spoiler]
Actually, my personal formula makes it slightly easier at 1st level, and harder at 20th level:
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.
Yes I like that to. That's what I meant by
"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."
while the Paizo forum explodes with cleric lovers who yell doom and gloom
Please point out the yelling of doom and gloom.
This change to CD will hurt the NPCs far more than it hurts the PCs.
If the PC cleric loses her one and only remaining Cure Critical Wounds, well, next round she'll just channel energy, or cast a Cure Serious Wounds. The poor cleric lost an action, but the rest of us get to act, so our side in the battle lost only 20% of our actions. After the fight, we can go camp if we need to. It's annoying, but we'll live.
But if the *solo* bad guy NPC caster loses his one and only Cure Critical Wounds (or anything else), he's wasted 100% of the actions his side had this round. Further, he's lost his best spell, a spell that could have extended his life a couple more rounds. So instead of gaining a couple more rounds, he loses one. And he won't go camp after we kill him.
This kind of thing can turn a scary encounter with a tough spellcaster into a trivial fight, all hinged on one CD roll.
In fights against single NPC casters (who don't make liberal use of quick spell options), the imbalance of number of actions is always a major thorn for the lone NPC anyway. This doesn't make it significantly worse. If he can't find a way to get out of reach (or become invulnerable) that he can apply quickly, he's in deep trouble, but he was in deep trouble anyway even with 3.5 defensive casting. The NPC caster's best defense has pretty much always been to stay out of reach. This doesn't change that, though it may make it a little more of an imperative.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
while the Paizo forum explodes with cleric lovers who yell doom and gloomPlease point out the yelling of doom and gloom.
Now now, please don't let facts get in the way of a good rant. ;-)
The Concentration change requires new tactics. New tactics are good.
The mage having d6 HP (figure 7 at first level) means he can risk an AoO if he's crazy/unfortunate enough to get himself backed into a corner where he can't 5' step. Assuming a 16 in the casting stat, it's a 40/60 shot (1 (level) +3 (stat mod) = +4 vs DC 17) to get that magic missile off. It's a 50/50 chance to get a cantrip off.
Assuming Combat Casting adds +4, it's now 60/40 or 30/70 for a cantrip. Still risky, but not a death knell.
As to the 'move and draw an AoO' That AoO won't disrupt your spell.
Now if you're backed into a corner, by a falchion wielding 1st level half orc barbarian, yeah you're screwed. OTOH, if you can't rely on your buddies to save you, it's likely a TPK in progress.
Something else to consider. I was one of the biggest champions of Concentration-and-Autohypnosis-rolled-into-one-skill. I like this new mechanic. By emulating the formula (caster level + stat mod) it can be slid into any caster/manifester/binder/initiator formula.
and hey, it's not like it's 4th edition or anything ;-)
Director of Games
|
except that she's 8th level and can use the ability 8 times, so it definitely isn't 1/day/2 levels.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.
But it might say something like "This ability can be used a number of times per day equal to 3 + her Wisdom modifier."
I don't know.. it could say that... maybe.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
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 . . .
While this is true, it actually proves my point rather than against it. A caster must also make sure that they are eligible to cast a spell. And while sneak attack is generally a yes or no, spellcasting isn't always easy. The wrong spell can do nothing or even help an enemy in they are not what you thought. The majority of things you listed apply directly to spellcasters as well. If not all spells, certanly entire groups of them.
So so far rogues and melee have a distinct advantage. If they fail, nothing good or bad happens, they don't waste anything, and that may give a clue as to why. Casters, however, have to many reasons to speculate, but can actually be helping the enemy if they happen to be casting the wrong spell.
Casters still need to have all the requirements for the spell, components, the ability to move, speek, concentrate , being one with their beliefs, being at the right place, having the moneys to blow, whatever.
So the guestion stands. Does a sneak attack have a signifigant failure chance, AFTER ALL THAT IS ACCOUNTED FOR to simply fail? The more appropriate question is with the melee. Does their sword or whatever just spontaniously break, after all that like 60% of the time? Because than they actually take a hit for failure, and I promise it will be fun(ny) to everyone else.
This should have been a suggested sidebar rule, in my opinion. The preview reminds me solidly of one WotC thing. The complete divine. All of the other complete books were solid, but the complete divine, aside from a few bits even I think are broken, is just not great. Not up to par. Not epic and fun, just not great.
|
Director of Games
|
I want to take a few seconds to address an issue or two before I dive back into Paizocon prep.
1. High Lv vs. Low Lv. I don't buy this argument really for one second. Although the chance does decrease for high level casters, they are required to make these checks more frequently, due to highly mobile opponents with better reach and more dangerous attacks. Low level monster simply do not have these advantages. I did some very careful number crunching to look at this specific situation. It is just easier for lower level casters to get out of the fight to cast a spell. Getting away from a storm giant with a +4 spiked chain is another issue entirely.
2. No other class must deal with this. I am not sure I buy this either. While a rogue and a fighters attacks are limitless they spend plenty of rounds doing nothing because they failed to hit or needed to move into position. Meanwhile, casters were able to cast all of their spells at will, dealing damage every round without fail (unless SR comes into play... but that is another issue entirely, and there are plenty of ways around it). In any case, this is just a little sauce for the goose.
3. But you know all the rules! Yes.. yes I do, and I cannot share them all with your right at this instant. Trust me though, Combat Casting still exists... and works pretty much the same way it always did.
I am not claiming that this fixes every issue, but I do not believe it is a damning as folks think it is. I am pretty confident that if you give it a try, instead of just playing out hypothetical situations, you will come to agree.... maybe. If not.. change the DC.. it a rather insulated mechanic.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Ya know what folks ... I have an observation.
While I do consider the Den crowd to be a bunch of t%!#s, I think they were on to something with "Paizo fans are caster lovers, they don't give a damn about melee class changes because they don't play them anyway".
Not me. Fighter is my favored class, though now I'm playing a Paladin in our primary campaign. He has a smattering of spells, but really, they are just pre-combat buffs or after-combat heals. I'd hardly call him a caster.
Count me in the crowd who wanted to see clerics taken down a peg across almost all levels (except may the very lowest levels).
Count me in the crowd who wanted to see druids taken down a peg in the wildshape arena, then bumped up a peg in the spellcasting arena (druid spell selection really sucks).
Count me in the crowd who wanted to see high-level mages taken down a peg (no one class/archetype should rule the battlefield).
Then comes the cleric preview (which I, for one, love to bits) and suddenly the other forums are quiet (or even making a grudging nods of approval to concentration change) while the Paizo forum explodes with cleric lovers who yell doom and gloom because the domains got reverted, there is now a considerable chance of actually failing that spell in combat and zomg wtf bbq, Fire domain cleric can cast a Fireball now !
The domains were awkward for backward compatibility and greatly imbalanced. They needed fixing, and restoring some compatibility with 3.5 was a good thing.
I haven't seen anyone too worried about the fireball, though a couple posts (might have been by just one person, I don't recall specifically) mentioned that it felt wrong to see it on the list. A couple posts hardly counts as doom and gloom. You've blown the fireball thing way out of proportion to the amount of comments it has received here.
As for casting defensively, I don't really mind casters having a harder time to cast defensively, and after reviewing the math today, 20% harder doesn't seem too bad. It's the other side effects, like trivializing some spellcaster encounters and huring low-level casters far more than high-level casters that still bother me.
I really begin to understand that the metagame over here is somewhat specific, with a considerable bunch of folks who have a wholly different approach to relative class power.
Metagame?
What metagame?
Are you referring to wanting a balanced, fun, and mechanically sound RPG to play? Is that the metagame over here?
Because if so, then I am not sure why you're knocking our metagame, unless you like unbalanced, unfun, or mechanically unsound RPGs.
For me, "relative class power" means each class is fun and useful to play. Some may be stronger than other classes in some niches, but are weaker than other classes in other niches. Some may solo well, some may work best with a team. Every class needs something useful to do that it can do as well or better than all other classes. Every class should also have some weakness, some Achille's Heel to worry about, hence desiring teamwork. And no class should be written off as worthless (I'm looking at you, monks and bards...).
That's my metagame.
except that she's 8th level and can use the ability 8 times, so it definitely isn't 1/day/2 levels.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.
But it might say something like "This ability can be used a number of times per day equal to 3 + her Wisdom modifier."
I don't know.. it could say that... maybe.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
LOL. Yes we asume too much. I just can't understand how you can be so patient with us ;-)
A caster must also make sure that they are eligible to cast a spell. And while sneak attack is generally a yes or no, spellcasting isn't always easy.
Making the attempt to sneak attack, is a yes/no issue. Succeeding is not since there's a chance the attack may miss - and it may be quite a large chance. Add in that there's always a chance for failure, while we don't know that for sure about casting defensively. Does it have an auto-fail, or is it administered like a skill? We don't know yet.
So the guestion stands. Does a sneak attack have a signifigant failure chance, AFTER ALL THAT IS ACCOUNTED FOR to simply fail? The more appropriate question is with the melee. Does their sword or whatever just spontaniously break, after all that like 60% of the time? Because than they actually take a hit for failure, and I promise it will be fun(ny) to everyone else.
The sneak attack does have a significant chance of failure, depending on the difference between the target's AC and the attacker's attack bonus. But does it cost them anything? That depends. Throwing a magic dagger at an enemy precariously balanced in the rigging of a ship comes with a significant chance of the dagger being lost. And he's not going to be getting that back tomorrow like the cleric who loses a spell to a failed concentration roll.
I want to take a few seconds to address an issue or two before I dive back into Paizocon prep.
1. High Lv vs. Low Lv. I don't buy this argument really for one second. Although the chance does decrease for high level casters, they are required to make these checks more frequently, due to highly mobile opponents with better reach and more dangerous attacks. Low level monster simply do not have these advantages. I did some very careful number crunching to look at this specific situation. It is just easier for lower level casters to get out of the fight to cast a spell. Getting away from a storm giant with a +4 spiked chain is another issue entirely.[...]
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Good Point.
|
But it might say something like "This ability can be used a number of times per day equal to 3 + her Wisdom modifier."
I don't know.. it could say that... maybe.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
sigh... so also there is the possibility of what is left of the domains power linked to wisdom instead of level?
ok nice for low level characters... soon enough pretty much uselless as th character grows...
|
Director of Games
|
But it might say something like "This ability can be used a number of times per day equal to 3 + her Wisdom modifier."
I don't know.. it could say that... maybe.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishingsigh... so also there is the possibility of what is left of the domains power linked to wisdom instead of level?
ok nice for low level characters... soon enough pretty much uselless as th character grows...
Montlave, I think you need to step back a bit here. I did not say that all abilities work this way. Only the one in question. Some abilities are tied to level... most of the ones you get after 1st level. Lets just try not to be so twitchy right now. There are enough frayed nerves in this thread already.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
except that she's 8th level and can use the ability 8 times, so it definitely isn't 1/day/2 levels.But it might say something like "This ability can be used a number of times per day equal to 3 + her Wisdom modifier."
I don't know.. it could say that... maybe.
I.. wuh.. You!...
:)
I shoulda known you'd do her right. ^5
It doesn't matter how many times you turn around. Your bottom will always be behind you and your nose will always be infront of you.
The game looks like it will be fun, and the previews are doing exactly what they should as they are generating a lot of buzz. All the classes so far have strengths and weaknesses and they appear to be a good evolution of "The world's most popular role playing game".
Thank you JB and Paizo for working with the community and explaining your final decisions. We post because we care. :)
|
I did some very careful number crunching to look at this specific situation.
We've secretly replaced all of Jason Bulmahn's detailed analysis with a straight-up 50/50 chance of success when casting defensively regardless of class level, ability, feats, skills, or other modifiers. Let's see if he notices...
-Skeld
PS Jason: Obviously, you should have gone with DC's based on the Root Mean Square of the spell level. Duh.
|
|
Montalve, I think you need to step back a bit here. I did not say that all abilities work this way. Only the one in question. Some abilities are tied to level... most of the ones you get after 1st level. Lets just try not to be so twitchy right now. There are enough frayed nerves in this thread already.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
ok, good point, I suppose we would have to see in september how they ended...
and yes, about frayed nerves... i am one of those :P, well was... taking it with more philosophy today... mostly :P
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.
That's the difference between a spell-like ability and a supernatural ability. Su's and Ex's don't provoke AOOs, Sp's do. Otherwise there's no real difference between Sp and Su abilities. You can have Su abilities that model spells exactly. You can have Sp abilities that don't model spells. The only difference is that Sp's provoke AOOs and Su's do not. Take away that distinction and suddenly creatures with many Sp's (particular powerful outsiders, who often have a laundry list of Sp's) are MUCH more powerful.
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.That's the difference between a spell-like ability and a supernatural ability. Su's and Ex's don't provoke AOOs, Sp's do. Otherwise there's no real difference between Sp and Su abilities. You can have Su abilities that model spells exactly. You can have Sp abilities that don't model spells. The only difference is that Sp's provoke AOOs and Su's do not.
Right
Take away that distinction and suddenly creatures with many Sp's (particular powerful outsiders, who often have a laundry list of Sp's) are MUCH more powerful.
Agree
The only difference is that Sp's provoke AOOs and Su's do not. Take away that distinction and suddenly creatures with many Sp's (particular powerful outsiders, who often have a laundry list of Sp's) are MUCH more powerful.
Hmm.. and with the change to Concentration checks have become... somewhat... less powerful.
The only difference is that Sp's provoke AOOs and Su's do not. Take away that distinction and suddenly creatures with many Sp's (particular powerful outsiders, who often have a laundry list of Sp's) are MUCH more powerful.Hmm.. and with the change to Concentration checks have become... somewhat... less powerful.
There might me new 'monster feats' and/or abilities that fix this problem. I guess even monsters get more feats now, 1, 3, 5, 7, etc. ;-)
|
|
That's the difference between a spell-like ability and a supernatural ability. Su's and Ex's don't provoke AOOs, Sp's do. Otherwise there's no real difference between Sp and Su abilities. You can have Su abilities that model spells exactly. You can have Sp abilities that don't model spells. The only difference is that Sp's provoke AOOs and Su's do not. Take away that distinction and suddenly creatures with many Sp's (particular powerful outsiders, who often have a laundry list of Sp's) are MUCH more powerful.
Excellent answer; I hadn't thought about it like that. Here's my rub with the 3.5 defensive casting mechanics: given the fact that most of those powerful outsiders you mention also had high enough Concentration modifiers to make those checks trivial, if not automatic, the AO's might as well not apply anyway. I realize of course that all creatures with Sp's are not going to necessarily have great Concentration checks, but an appreciable number will (I'm specifically thinking back to many of the demonic foes in STAP).
-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.That's the difference between a spell-like ability and a supernatural ability. Su's and Ex's don't provoke AOOs, Sp's do. Otherwise there's no real difference between Sp and Su abilities.
There is also that Supernatural abilities aren't affected by Spell Resistance, and SLAs are.
Is quicken SLA an OGL feat?
I could see that being useful for a caster now.
According to d20srd it is.
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.
Good luck :) My Corgi bite back, and I'll bet on him any day ::chuckle::
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...
Yeah. A month ago. Didn't you want to say "they finally admitted that it's been a big hoax a month ago?" ;-)
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?
This is very one hand clapping. Maybe even tree falling in the forest. Quite philosophical. I think a perfect game is one that no one ever plays. No complaints. No flaws. Perfect!
Concentration as a skill has uses beyond caster checks.
It never was properly defined as such, though. But I'd have been perfectly happy with a concentration skill that could pull its own weight. It needs to kill autohypnosis and take its stuff (the good stuff, anyway).
And the "skill tax" claim? Now it's just a feat tax
That's quite insightful.
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.
Not quite. Not all rogues are about Perception, or Stealth, or Disable Device, or....
All spellcasters are about spellcasting, though.
I think the term "skill tax" applies if its something that is only useful to certain classes (and with "useful" I mean "can actually get something out of this" - 3e concentration is really only used for spellcasting, so it's something tied to being a spellcaster) and all of those classes practically need it.
To use a counter-example: Stealth. It's not just for rogues - everyone can sneak about. And rogues don't necessarily need it.
This hoses psionics (which I realize Paizo doesn't care much for, but still...)
It's easy enough to reinstate concentration. Or switch manifesters' abilities over to autohypnosis. Which is concentration with a psychy name, anyway.
It hurts multiclass characters as well.
Actually, it doesn't really. If you get levels in other classes, your spellcasting ability won't improve. So you don't need the extra concentration check boost for higher spells, since you don't get any higher spells.
On the other hand, you can get some of those nice rules that increase your caster level if you're multiclassed (Practised Spellcaster and so on) to get better...
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.
On this one, I'm totally with you! First, I think the change wasn't necessary - channel that affects the living and the unliving at the same time is situational, and not that powerful - and it its inconsistent with mass cure spells and positive/negative energy in general.
I'll houserule this one.
(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.
I muse about this from time to time. Create feats, like the new Turn Undead feat, that lets you transform the energy you channel into something else. Turn Undead transforms it into scary energy that chases away undead. Other feats might allow you to remove diseases, curses, and so on, or give you some boosts.
And then clerics get one of those feats at 1st as a bonus feat, depending on their deity (or what choices their deity allows).
Will there be guidelines for how to generate abilities for clerics that don't worship Golarion gods?
We haven't heard anything. I guess you'll just have to look at the existing domains and extrapolate for other domains.
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
Yeah, what is that cleric doing standing right next to the big enemy, casting that curative spell? Why didn't his ally drop somewhere else? ;-P
BTW, minor threadjack, am I the only one that thinks shields should help with bullrushing (maybe add their AC bonus to it)?
I also think that sword&board should have some unique tactical advantages (like the bullrush thing), rather than doing more damage than a two-weapon fighter, and better AC than anyone else to boot.
Ya know what folks ... I have an observation.
You're complaining that everything is upside down, including gravity?
Maybe you're hanging from the ceiling! Maybe the RPG.net people are the melee fanboys!
You said it yoruself: Craptacular threads about valeros and Harsk.
except that she's 8th level and can use the ability 8 times, so it definitely isn't 1/day/2 levels.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.
But it might say something like "This ability can be used a number of times per day equal to 3 + her Wisdom modifier."
I don't know.. it could say that... maybe.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
If teasing were a crime....
I also think that sword&board should have some unique tactical advantages (like the bullrush thing), rather than doing more damage than a two-weapon fighter, and better AC than anyone else to boot.
BTW, minor threadjack, am I the only one that thinks shields should help with bullrushing (maybe add their AC bonus to it)?
Well not the topic of this thread but
better AC than anyone else to boot? Animated shield. Works for TW-Fighters and those who swing the great sword....or archers. I hope they nerfred it big time ...or better removed it.
While this is true, it actually proves my point rather than against it.
No: If a rogue doesn't have his circumstances (i.e. effectively flanks the guy or can attack him without the benefit of dex to the AC), he's pretty much screwed. No soup for your! (and with soup, I mean sneak attack).
If the caster doesn't have this circumstances (not standing right next to an enemy), not all is lost. He can try to cast defensively. Or just hope for a miss (and magic can help with that).
So so far rogues and melee have a distinct advantage. If they fail, nothing good or bad happens, they don't waste anything
Oh yes they did! They wasted an action.
Casters still need to have all the requirements for the spell, components, the ability to move, speek, concentrate , being one with their beliefs, being at the right place, having the moneys to blow, whatever.
Those are minor considerations. The core rules assume that you have the components as long as you have a pouch. And even if not, you kinda know before you start casting... Of course, someone could steal them - along with the fighter's sword....
Ability to move is pretty much universal (except for psions).
Ability to speek is usually a given.
Concentration only necessary if you're between a rock and a hard place. And often you can go away.
Beliefs aren't an issue unless you've been playing antitribu.
Right place? Very rare. Like 1 spell in a hundred, or rarer.
Money to blow? Rarely. And you know beforehand. Most of the "free" spells are perfectly usable.
So the guestion stands. Does a sneak attack have a signifigant failure chance, AFTER ALL THAT IS ACCOUNTED FOR to simply fail?
The only real problem the spellcaster faces is the ability to cast without someone using his distraction to hit him with a stick. Everything else is window dressing at best. And that problem can be either avoided (i.e. positioning yourself tactically) or possibly ignored - if you make your check.
The big problem with sneak attack is that you need to have the right circumstances (flank or have the targets dex to AC denied), which is not that rare. Quite common, actually. And once you cannot position yourself tactically, you're screwed. You just don't sneak attack. No concentration check to do it anywa.
Animated shields
Repressed memory. I personally upped the price to +4 equivalent. Maybe change it so it works like dancing weapon (i.e. only stays up a couple of rounds)
It doesn't matter how many times you turn around. Your bottom will always be behind you and your nose will always be infront of you.
No.
One of the benefits of proteandom.
Not me. Fighter is my favored class,
That makes you a 3e dwarf.
[...]
So the guestion stands. Does a sneak attack have a signifigant failure chance, AFTER ALL THAT IS ACCOUNTED FOR to simply fail?The only real problem the spellcaster faces is the ability to cast without someone using his distraction to hit him with a stick. Everything else is window dressing at best. And that problem can be either avoided (i.e. positioning yourself tactically) or possibly ignored - if you make your check.
The big problem with sneak attack is that you need to have the right circumstances (flank or have the targets dex to AC denied), which is not that rare. Quite common, actually. And once you cannot position yourself tactically, you're screwed. You just don't sneak attack. No concentration check to do it anywa.
And....rogues and other "hit you with my stick characters" have the problem of no iterative attacks.
A spellcaster can move (take AoO) cast quicken spell and then cast the "kill em all" spell.Or quicken dimension door then cast the "kill em all" spell, etc. Those who hit you on the head can't use a full attack and move. Casters can.
The hit em on the head with a stick players didn't spend 8 pages on iterative attacks after the first preview. And I'm a little tired of the tone used by many. OK. We don't have to agree, but there are houserules. Both Jason and James have pointed out this. And we don't have all the facts yet.
Pray Tell, What "Kill them all" spell?
Pray Tell, What "Kill them all" spell?
Off topic:
After reading this, I couldn't help but think of a whole line of "kill" spells.
Level 1: kill none of them (but maybe hurt a few)
Level 2: kill one of them
Level 3: kill a couple of them
Level 4: kill a few of them
Level 5: kill many of them
Level 6: kill a lot of them
Level 7: kill most of them
Level 8: kill the vast majority of them
Level 9: KILL THEM ALL!!
Now back to your regularly scheduled cleric discussion...
This preview looks pretty cool.
However, I feel like the armor change may have a bigger ripple effect than most people realize.
Won't mithril chainmail be too good now with the change. There would be no reason to wear a mithril shirt except for maybe a few skill check penalties.