Why is applying a Spell Failure Chance unacceptable to the community?


General Discussion (Prerelease)

201 to 250 of 322 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

DM_Blake wrote:

Does this mean that casters who choose crappy spells should be more upset with being unable to cast them because some game mechanic made the caster lose the crappy spells?

And a caster who choses excellent spells should be more agreeable with being unable to cast them?

Am I reading this right?

Actually yes. I believe that an intelligent caster is more than just the sum of their spell slots.

DM_Blake wrote:
Edit: It's your arguments like this one that results in me becoming more and more convinced this is just a brilliant trolling effort and I am playing the patsy by responding so much. Chances are, you were convinced I am right 20 posts ago and now you're just provoking and sitting back laughing in trollish glee.

Please rest assured that I am unequivocally, undeniably and utterly unconvinced (Points for alliteration?) that you are correct in almost anything that you have posted in this thread :)

In all seriousness, the idea here was to draw people other than you and I into the discussion; after all we could have just continued to go back and forth on the Fear thread. I feel that this thread has done a relatively good job of that. There have been a lot of interesting posts by *shock* people other than you or I. I was especially pleased to see Pax's recount of adventures he has had in the passed and his personal play experience. I wanted a discussion, and as a quick Re: to Abe, we have gotten to four pages because in amongst the jabs a real discussion is taking place.


Quick Aside:

I want to thank people like DM_Blake and houstonderek (in another thread). I haven't thought this much about casters in a long long time and as a result I am actually excited about the prospect of playing a Wizard in my upcoming game; something I haven't considered since the days of 2e when my old DM soured me on them for what I thought would be forever.

In all seriousness, thank you.


Pathfinder Card Game, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Is anyone clear on how the concentration check when hit with damage is going to operate? Is it going to be a flat check each time your hit or will damage being taken into consideration?


Matt Rathbun wrote:
The problem with your argument is that you assume that the loss of a spell, especially their most potent spell, leaves the caster so much weaker than their non-caster counterparts that it is unfair and an unbalanced mechanic.

It does. It absolutely does.

A fighter who misses with his favorite sword doesn't lose the sword until tomorrow. But a caster who fails with his best spell loses it until tomorrow. I think that's a huge difference between casters and their non-caster counterparts. But I'm sure you already know this.

Matt Rathbun wrote:
The point I was making is that your assumption regarding caster power is false. My example makes the argument that at low levels casters are just as potent as non-casters despite the fact that they may only have two spell slots to work with and will face more than 2 rounds that day.

Not likely. If the caster draws his sword (or staff) and jumps into the fray next to the fighter, is he going to be as effective? Do the same damage, hit just as often, kill things as fast and deflect as much damage with his armor? No, to all of that.

Matt Rathbun wrote:
In your low level example the Wizard gets to Fire 1! Fire 2! and then crossbow; somehow also implying that resorting to the crossbow is useless.

Compared to a mage with spells? Fairly useless.

Compared to a fighter with a sword? Fairly useless.
Compared to a ranger with a bow? Fairly useless.

The mage is not built for it, lacking the DEX, STR, etc., that the classes built for non-spell combat have. Also lacking the BAB. Also lacking feats that enhance non-spell combat. Combined, that means he will hit less often for less damage. Fairly useless

Matt Rathbun wrote:
In my low level example the tactical Wizard uses their first spell to enlarge the party Fighter making quick work of the encounter and still taking the time to lob a few acid orbs or ray's of frost or if he is lucky enough to be a Conjurer acid darts into the fray for good fun - most likely with a better chance to hit than the rest of the party. Then in the second encounter disabling most of the enemies with a color spray letting non-casters cleanup what little is left.

What if, in the first round of the second encounter, an enemy hits him with an effect that makes him lose his Color Spray? Now what. Insead of wiping out the encounter and leaving the non-casters to soak up what's left, those non-casters now have to carry the brunt of the fighting while the fairly useless mage bounces a few crossbow bolts off of the enemies' armor.

This is why I don't think the game needs any new mechanics to lose spells.

Matt Rathbun wrote:
Note how in my example the Wizard doesn't have to rely just on casting spells and certainly isn't relying on just their highest slots? Tactics matter,

Yes, tactics matter and can reduce the times a spell is lost. I've never disagreed with this.

Matt Rathbun wrote:
spell selection matters,

Not a whit. If you lose a spell, for whatever reason, than all the history books will tell of this battle was that the caster tried something and it never happened - what you had prepared in that slot becomes meaningless the moment it evaporates, unfulfilled, from your mind.

Matt Rathbun wrote:
with them the Wizard can be more than the sum of their slots.

Sure he can. But more slots means a bigger sum. Fewer slots means a smaller sum.

Matt Rathbun wrote:
Even if either of the spells in my example gets disrupted the Wizard still has a lot of effective options and that is just at level 1.

You mean he has a lot of less effective actions, right? Unless you're implying that he can accomplish with one crossbow bolt what he otherwise could accomplish with his Color Spray?

Matt Rathbun wrote:
Not to mention that the Fighter really isn't that much more effective than a Wizard who decides to simply use their crossbow and not bother with the whole casting thing that day

Sure, at first level. My point didn't stop there. I only brought first level into it to demonstrate how losing a spell means the first level caster suddenly has lost half of his best ability this day, and now must resort to weaker options for the rest of the day.

Your point that fighter are little more effective than a wizard with a crossbow is eggregiously erroneous at all but the extremely lowest levels.

Matt Rathbun wrote:
At higher levels the balance only tips in the Wizard's favor.

And yet, losing a Gate, or Prismatic Sphere, or Meteor Swarm, or whatever, means losing one of their best spells for the day. Chances are, a canny wizard doesn't waste those spells on a simple mook fight. So if he's whipping such a spell out, this fight must be a tough one. And now the spell is gone, cast with no effect or nullified by some game mechanic before he even casts it. That's a big blow to the mage. I still don't see the fighter over there losing his sword for the day when he misses.

Matt Rathbun wrote:
There are spells at all levels that when used tactically can dramatically shift the outcome of an encounter. As in Pax's post, canny players don't need all of their highest spell slots available for each encounter in order to be effective.

You mean "in order to be less effective" right? Surely you're not implying that the spells of a caster's highest level are no more powerful than spells of lower level, are you? Would you be willing to bump Gate down to, say 5th level? No? Probably because it's really powerful? So, if a choice between casting Gate or casting something in a 5th level slot, it's safe to assume the Gate is the more powerful choice?

So how can we not say "canny players don't need all of their highest spell slots available for each encounter in order to be somewhat, but clearly less, effective"?

Matt Rathbun wrote:
At 17th level the Wizard has so many things to choose from it is hard to see how they aren't at least balanced against non-casters even if the Wizard does lose a few spells here and there.

It's hard to see how you believe that.

A 17th wizard isn't likely to lose his 9th level Gate spell when he's fighting mooks. He can safely just fireball them and then sit back and plunk away with his toy crossbow.

If he's casting Gate, it's because he needs Gate. If he needs Gate, it's because this fight is an all-or-nothing fight, death is on the line. If this spell is lost to him for any reason, it's a big blow. Huge. Worse, he can't just try again next round, and the round after that, until he gets it - once it's lost, it's lost for this whole encounter - the very encounter when he needs it the most.

Matt Rathbun wrote:
My point was that any party will experience only a certain number of combat rounds per day.

Not true. If all goes the way the party plans, they will blow away the encounters, mowing them down with all-powerful spells, crits, and death-dealing magic items. If all goes the way the BBEG plans, the encounters will take forever and drain the party so badly that the BBEG can just walk in and defeat them with his bare hands. Clearly the second case will result in more combat rounds this day.

If a mage can mop up his current encounter this round with a well placed Cone of Cold, but he fizzles it, the encounter might go on for a nother handful of rounds. We just went from 1 round to finish the encounter to needing several rounds. The loss of that spell, for whatever reason, extended the number of rounds this group will fight this day.

Matt Rathbun wrote:
Losing a spell doesn't make you run out of spells any faster than usual, it just means the spell didn't work. You are ultimately limited by the number of spells you can cast in a round multiplied by the number of rounds you will experience in a day. There is no mechanical way to accelerate the use of those spell slots.

Now, this is true. But, if you put every spell to good use, you defeat the encounters faster, needing fewer rounds (and therefore fewer additional spells) to defeat each encounter.

On the other hand, if you waste every spell you have, then each encounter will take much longer, your party will take more damage and consume more healing resources, and the number of rounds you'll fight this day is extended. You may even die.

Each spell you lose for any reason tips the balance from the former case to the latter case.

Matt Rathbun wrote:
Parties and encounters should be balanced so that casters do not have to nuke/nova every round of every day in order to succeed. If that were the case why would anyone play anything other than a caster?

This is one of the few things you've said (more than once in fact) with which I have agreed. We totally agree on this point. And so do the game designers, who have said that the casters should use up roughly 20-25% of their resources in each fight.

You propose that it's OK for them to use up more than that, against the game balance and against simple logic.

I propose that if they do, then when that 4th encounter comes around today, they'll be considerably less prepared for it than the game designers wished and their performance will be below the ECL at which they should be performing and against which the encounter is balanced.

You contend that this is OK, spellcasters won't mind, especially the smart ones, because they're pretty good with crossbows.

I contend otherwise.

I guess we're not going to see eye to eye on this one.


Matt Rathbun wrote:

Quick Aside:

I want to thank people like DM_Blake and houstonderek (in another thread). I haven't thought this much about casters in a long long time and as a result I am actually excited about the prospect of playing a Wizard in my upcoming game; something I haven't considered since the days of 2e when my old DM soured me on them for what I thought would be forever.

In all seriousness, thank you.

You're welcome.


SuperSheep wrote:
Is anyone clear on how the concentration check when hit with damage is going to operate? Is it going to be a flat check each time your hit or will damage being taken into consideration?

I'm just reading what Paizo has said so far, but I would say yes.

Jason said: "The Concentration skill was removed from the game in one of the early versions and there have been a number of systems proposed to replace it. In the final game, whenever a spellcaster is called upon to make such a check, he adds his caster level and whatever ability score is used to determine his spell DCs. To avoid confusion, we kept the old name, calling it a concentration check".

This sounds to me like they replaced "Concentration Check" in the book with the new "Concentration Check" - new mechanic, same name.

And Jason specifically said "whenever a spellcaster is called upon to make such a check" which seems to say this is the one and only mechanic to be used whenever a spellcaster needs a concentration check.

However, there is room for misinterpreting this, since the BETA rules specifically say: "If you take damage from an attack of opportunity,
you must make a Spellcraft check"

Since they say "spellcraft check" rather than "concentration check", and since Jason said they are replacing the "concentration check" mechanic, there is wiggle room here to expect that the check to prevent losing a spell because of damage might remain a "spellcraft check".

However, I don't think that is what they intend.

Liberty's Edge

Matt Rathbun wrote:

Quick Aside:

I want to thank people like DM_Blake and houstonderek (in another thread). I haven't thought this much about casters in a long long time and as a result I am actually excited about the prospect of playing a Wizard in my upcoming game; something I haven't considered since the days of 2e when my old DM soured me on them for what I thought would be forever.

In all seriousness, thank you.

:)

Which thread were you speaking of?

And, a spoiler for those interested, regarding fighters, wizards, spell nerfs and SoS and SoD spells (amongst other things):

Spoiler:

Look, I LOVE wizards (magic users). I just feel (and this is my only huge beef with 3x) that the action/move round dynamic, iterative attacks (as opposed to more attacks at the same Hit Bonus) and concentration/casting defensively made wizards more powerful, but slowed fighters down and took away one of their old school roles: keeping the wizards safe so he could bring down the rain.

I hate, hate, HATE spell nerfs. Period. Magic is supposed to be freaking MAGICAL. Do crazy stuff. It just should be a bit harder to cast in combat (those somatic components are intricate, in my mind) and take longer for the seriously killer stuff. Nerfing spells, imo, is the worst way to achieve balance. And I'm saying this as someone who primarily plays fighters.

And combat casting/casting defensively/concentration checks took some of the fighter's role away, making it nice that they're there to run interference, but not necessary, like in 1e. An M/U in 1e without a meat shield was toast, 99% of the time. Now, they're less dependent on the meat shield, sometimes completely non-dependent (yeah, I know, they'll always need the meathead for handling golems...), depending on how well the player can run the wiz.

So, I do agree with the spirit of the OP, that casting in combat should be harder, and I have no problem with wizards (or clerics, sorcerers, and druids) losing a spell. Bards maybe should get some love in combat, as they're supposed to be the vagabond minstrel type always getting into situations...

But, to go back, if that spell does go off, amazing things should happen...

Anyway, I hope that might clear up some of the "houstonderek obviously hates wizards" thoughts that may be going through some heads.

Thanks.


houstonderek wrote:
Matt Rathbun wrote:

Quick Aside:

I want to thank people like DM_Blake and houstonderek (in another thread). I haven't thought this much about casters in a long long time and as a result I am actually excited about the prospect of playing a Wizard in my upcoming game; something I haven't considered since the days of 2e when my old DM soured me on them for what I thought would be forever.

In all seriousness, thank you.

:)

Which thread were you speaking of?

And, a spoiler for those interested, regarding fighters, wizards, spell nerfs and SoS and SoD spells (amongst other things):

The "How are melee classes at higher levels?" thread.

For the record, I never assumed you hated mages, or casters in general, but I did find you to have some interesting arguments about game balance and those got me thinking. Also for the record, I still disagree with the idea that non-casters are completely useless in a high level, balanced encounter, game; but that is neither here nor there nor part of this discussion :)

Liberty's Edge

Matt Rathbun wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Matt Rathbun wrote:

Quick Aside:

I want to thank people like DM_Blake and houstonderek (in another thread). I haven't thought this much about casters in a long long time and as a result I am actually excited about the prospect of playing a Wizard in my upcoming game; something I haven't considered since the days of 2e when my old DM soured me on them for what I thought would be forever.

In all seriousness, thank you.

:)

Which thread were you speaking of?

And, a spoiler for those interested, regarding fighters, wizards, spell nerfs and SoS and SoD spells (amongst other things):

The "How are melee classes at higher levels?" thread.

For the record, I never assumed you hated mages, or casters in general, but I did find you to have some interesting arguments about game balance and those got me thinking. Also for the record, I still disagree with the idea that non-casters are completely useless in a high level, balanced encounter, game; but that is neither here nor there nor part of this discussion :)

Off topic:

Spoiler:
Not "completely useless" (golems!), but not really needed. You can play a high level game with just clerics and wizards (and maybe a rogue for comic relief) and hardly ever miss the fighter (or ranger or barbarian), but you cannot succeed at high levels without the mage or cleric...

That's all I'm saying. There's no room in 3x for the "Conan and his rogue buddy robbing the temple" game unless you eliminate 90% of the CR 10+ critters and have no NPC casters...


Matt Rathbun wrote:
Kuma wrote:

Sorry Toyrobots, if I'm reading you correctly you're addressing something that was never the intent of the thread.

Basically someone was suggesting a house rule that made casters roll a check every time they cast, and failing it cost them the spell (at a rather high rate of failure, from what people have suggested). No one minds SR.

Kuma,

No one ever suggested a check for each spell cast.

*shrug*


houstonderek wrote:
words

Sure there is.

Basically that whole thread is just a couple people making specious claims based on anecdotal evidence and a bunch of other people saying "nuh uh" based on the same.

It's got some interesting points from both sides, but it's probably best to leave the back and forth there.


Abraham spalding wrote:


Yes, these are considered valid normal parts of the game that deserve to be part of the game and are indeed needed.

So with both of these answered, I have a new question: Why do we even have this thread (nevermind the fact it has gone on for 4 pages now)?

Shh... it's been a perfect distraction... You'll ruin it for everyone!


Matt Rathbun wrote:


2) That "while he(sic) is alive" bit is the killer - pun possibly intended. My point was that any party will experience only a certain number of combat rounds per day. Theoretically never enough for a higher level caster to run out of spell slots and hopefully not enough for the non-caster to run out of hit points. Since the number of rounds played is roughly fixed, the loss of any one round even including the loss of a spell isn't any more damaging than any other character's loss of any one round. The idea that a non-caster's primary ability is unlimited is a fallacy. It is limited by the number of opportunities they will have to use it that day which will always work out to be roughly the number of times the casters in their party will be able to cast a spell. Thus losing a spell for any reason is no worse than losing an action for any reason.

3) Losing a spell doesn't make you run out of spells any faster than usual, it just means the spell didn't work. You are ultimately limited by the number of spells you can cast in a round multiplied by the number of rounds you will experience in a day. There is no mechanical way to accelerate the use of those spell slots.

4) Parties and encounters should be balanced so that casters do not have to nuke/nova every round of every day in order to succeed. If that were the case why would anyone play anything other than a caster?

PS: I am not suggesting that spell loss should be common. I am not suggesting that it does not carry a significant impact that must be considered when balancing a mechanic. I am saying it should at least be on the table when discussing a new mechanic, as a way to balance casters vs non-casters.

2) Your theories about a high level caster's spells per day seem to be in the minority. The loss of a spell isn't any more damaging than another character's loss... of what? Non-caster abilities are limited, that's true, but they are not on par with the small number of times your average caster lets fly with a spell. Even a rogue, with the occasionally difficult task of setting someone up to be flat-footed; has the potential to use their main ability half a dozen times in a single round. As do rangers, fighters and monks; and more easily. Barbarians are pretty much guaranteed their main ability in every round of combat; unless things are dragging on. Casters don't typically cast every round, precisely because they have to conserve. Even if the fighter whiffs, the rogue gets no sneak, the barbarian doesn't have the instantaneous rage feat, and the ranger is fighting something he doesn't specialize in; none of them lose the ability to do those things again that day. Up to infinity times, if need be. (With the notable exception of the barbarian, but the rage ability is always good for multiple rounds when used and never has a chance to fail) The caster already has a limit, and multiple ways to lose his ability beyond that limit. Adding more new ways to screw him over is probably not a good idea.

"It is limited by the number of opportunities they will have to use it that day which will always work out to be roughly the number of times the casters in their party will be able to cast a spell."

I don't know how else to say this except: That is not true.

3) No mechanical way to increase how fast you use spells? I suppose if you disallow Twin Spell, Quicken Spell, Time Stop, etc... And if you're using metamagic, you're losing higher level slots on top of it. Not to mention the fact that you're not just losing slots, you're losing them with no benefit whatsoever. Once again, anyone can swing a sword, miss, and gain no benefit. But no one really minds so much because that's not one of the 10 swings they get that day. To say that a fighter who DOES only get 10 swings a day needs more ways to fail would make people sweat pretty hard; and telling them that he could always swing a handaxe instead is cold comfort. Hopefully that metaphor makes some sense, but I've got a head cold so...

4) They are. Proof? Not everyone plays a caster, and most people are perfectly happy. Further proof? Despite the nonsense I see people spout about high level play not needing non-casters; I can look through every page of every 3.x or PFRPG book and find every monster/trap/encounter, and not one of them will be completely insurmountable to a fighter or rogue or what have you. I understand the urge to "fix" stuff, but a wizard's spells per day aren't broken. (Unless we start resting to regain them every 8 hours, but YOU are the one arguing for that. So it seems to me that the problem you perceive is one you've created)

You aren't intending to argue that spell loss should be common, I get that. But it's already fairly common, and you're suggesting that it should be "okay" to consider increasing the frequency at which spells are lost. Further, you're suggesting it to balance casters against non-casters; but that necessity is one that exists largely in your own mind. So my answer to your original question follows.

Increased spell failure is unacceptable to the community because it is:

A - Unnecessary. There is no reason to increase the rate at which spells are lost. It does not benefit non-casters or provide anything resembling balance. It is simply a method of punishing casters for no reason.

B - Damaging to everyone. As stated in one of your own examples, sometimes a caster can be most effective by increasing the abilities of his/her companions. An example of this is found in the Enlarge Person spell. However, if a spell is lost that spell is gone. Should a casting of Enlarge fail, not only does the caster lose that action and that slot; they lose that spell. Unless they have prepared another of the same type, the other party member will not receive the benefits (and not for at least a round, in any case); meaning that multiple players can suffer because of unnecessary restrictions placed on one. On a personal note, this is even more egregious to the players if it is the effect of a house rule, when game designers have already balanced spells adequately.

C - Poorly implemented. IIRC, this thread was originally started because of the discussion of fear mechanics. In particular, it was suggested that a roll be used to determine whether a caster could get a spell off while under the effects of fear. I don't recall the specifics, and can't be bothered to look them up; so feel free to argue this point at your leisure. But a straight percentile roll, unmodified by the character's stats, is a recipe for failure. Every gamer has known someone who rolls consistently poorly, and a game mechanic of this type would essentially tell such a player that they aren't allowed to play a caster; not if they want to have any effect whatsoever. This could be mocked as superstition, but it's a superstition that players often put a lot of stock in. And it would affect how people play the game. (Or if they play at all.)

D - Previously taken care of. Spell casters have already been neutered enough. The new concentration checks mean they can no longer sink a few skill points (not as easily, at least) and pass without rolling the dice. Spells have been adjusted, and in many cases weakened. Arguments about the power of the spell casting classes typically revolve around the "nova" effect, which doesn't actually happen very often. Regardless, a caster who chooses to nova is unable to do much else for the remainder of the day (or previous to going nova, if they were being patient about it) and so is internally balanced. If a party is allowing casters to nova and then set the pace for multiple rest stops to recharge, the party AS A WHOLE is colluding to break the balance of the game. This sort of thing is best prevented by the person sitting behind the screen using the multiple tools already provided, not by providing colorful new ways to punish the majority of rational players.


Kuma wrote:
Lots of good stuff!

I'm impressed! Well said! And with a head cold, too...

What's even more impressive, your post was longer than most of mine!

You, sir, despite being a plump and juicy and mouth-watering bear, shall receive a temporary pass from tarrasque chomping. For now.

drool


Matt Rathbun wrote:


3) Losing a spell doesn't make you run out of spells any faster than usual, .......

Actually it does. If my spells are not effective I have to keep using them until the battle is won. If they work as I intended them to the battle will be quicker which means I can save spells.


DM_Blake wrote:
Kuma wrote:
Lots of good stuff!

I'm impressed! Well said! And with a head cold, too...

What's even more impressive, your post was longer than most of mine!

You, sir, despite being a plump and juicy and mouth-watering bear, shall receive a temporary pass from tarrasque chomping. For now.

drool

Aw, thanks! That actually means a lot to me, you're something of a celebrity on these boards, at least to my eye.

I've been losing some weight, so I might be a bit stringy. Not to mention all the fuzz.


DM_Blake wrote:
Kuma wrote:
Lots of good stuff!

I'm impressed! Well said! And with a head cold, too...

What's even more impressive, your post was longer than most of mine!

You, sir, despite being a plump and juicy and mouth-watering bear, shall receive a temporary pass from tarrasque chomping. For now.

drool

I concurr! I think Kuma pretty succinctly summed up my feelings on this topic, point by point, and in an eloquent manner.

/3cheers


houstonderek wrote:


And, a spoiler for those interested, regarding fighters, wizards, spell nerfs and SoS and SoD spells (amongst other things): [...]

OK, houstonderek here is a reflection

Spoiler:
The more I read on the subject casters vs. melee characters the more I find the caster POV absurd. Some of the posters are sane and I simply don't agree with them, but some of them however seem to be either mad or stupid or both. And they sure seem spoiled, let's see.
The fighter Preview: no iterative attacks, no new abilities (stuff like rage powers or rogue talents), still only 2 skill points per level, PA and CE changed.
- Therad on subject 3 pages. remarks on made on fighters only getting 2 skill points = Hardly any.
- Thread basically a run down/sum up on what is new and what is not.
- nummer of thimes Paizo staff have to cool things down in the thread: 0
- post in thread indicating posters can't or won't read: 0
- number of posts of "I hate this and I won't play this but I will post again and again even though I won't play this or use this rules": 0

The cleric preview: Channeling still there, but somewhat nerfed. Domain spells back AND domain powers. 2 skill points per level. Casting on the deffensive now made a caster level check.
- thread on subject 12 pages. Remarks on made on clerics only getting 2 skill points = countless.
- Thread is not basically a sum up but 12 pages of complaints and argumenst on the subject "do casters now suck or not". The rest of the thread is filled with: A) "only 2 skill points per level - I hate it, I'll play 3.x now or somethinh else or I houserule or just go on posting I hate it it sucks". B) The class i broken. (Well I do think some cleric spells are broken but the class i hardly broken.)
- number of times Paizo staff have to cool things down in the thread: countless
- post in thread indicating posters can't or won't read: countless. I don't how many post there are in the thread about cleric not having heavy armor proficiency even though there are no proof of this and even though people again and again pointed out Paizo probably only wanted to match the iconics' equipment.
conclusion?
- number of posts of "I hate this and I won't play this but I will post again and again even though I won't play this or use this rules": countless

Liberty's Edge

Zark wrote:
houstonderek wrote:


And, a spoiler for those interested, regarding fighters, wizards, spell nerfs and SoS and SoD spells (amongst other things): [...]
spoiler omitted

Hmmm...

Spoiler:
Maybe it's because us fighter mavens have no problem house ruling some stuff? And spell caster mavens can't stand the thought of not dominating the game past level 12?

;)


houstonderek wrote:
Zark wrote:
houstonderek wrote:


And, a spoiler for those interested, regarding fighters, wizards, spell nerfs and SoS and SoD spells (amongst other things): [...]
spoiler omitted

Hmmm...

** spoiler omitted **

;)

Why must there be mavens at all?

Can't we just try to make a game that's balanced for everyone.

I swear, some times around here it's like Republicans and Democrats, everyone shouting "Gimme Gimme Gimme, but if you won't gimme, then make sure you take something away from the other guys!!!".

If everyone would just take off their blinders and stop campaigning for their maven-class, then maybe we could talk rationally about game balance for once.

Instead, we get some balance guys struggling to impose a little logic and reason into a swirling chaos of maven-hood. That can't be conducive to good game design.


Zark wrote:
?

I honestly don't bother with the previews. The game will be out soon, and we can all know for sure what's what rather than extrapolating from one PC.

I like playing fighters, and I loathe playing casters. Doesn't mean I'm going to agree with people who go on about "woe is me".

Liberty's Edge

@Dm_Blake

No, it isn't.

Spoiler:
But, if we are going to continue down the path laid out by 3x (which pretty much rejected a lot of the "balance" already built into the game), then what constitutes said "balance" is definitely up for debate.

Like I said earlier, I hate spell nerfs. Magic is supposed to be awesome at high levels. I just can't stand the way 3x turned spell casting assumptions on their ear. Now, you CAN move and cast a spell with somatic components. Now you CAN still get off a spell even though you took a bunch of damage. Now anyone using a weapon has to be VERY specific about readying an action (a necessity if one cares to actually have a chance at disrupting a spell), and if the contingency never occurs, an action is lost.

Fighters are just fine, if some of the old assumptions about spell casting are reinstated. If the status remains quo, not so much, at least not at high levels. The problem isn't with any of the class features, it is with the basic combat round action dynamic itself (oh, and casting defensively. Sorry, but in my mind, somatic components still need to be precise, not hastily approximated, and it really messes with my suspension of disbelief watching wizards run around like ninjas, casting spells).

Balance used to be about niche protection. With the 3x assumptions of play, that goes out the window. Limitless multi-classing and limitless options break the idea of archetypes too much for my grognard sensibilities. 4e, while entertaining, goes too far in the other direction with niche protection, however, and its version of "balance" is off putting to me for a fantasy game.

And, to get in the spirit of this thread, no, fighters and rogues can't do their thing "all day long". They can only do it as long as the wizard and cleric don't want to retreat. After the wizard and cleric player screw up the idea of resource management because they think they have to cast every round, it doesn't matter if the rogue and fighter can still go on, the wizard isn't going to push forward.

If fighters and rogues are so competent (throw barbarians, paladins, ranger and monks in here too), why does the caster player feel the need to cast in situations where the others can handle the situation with minimal resource usage? Oh, yeah, waiting for the moment they're REALLY needed isn't "fun". Maybe if more players understood the concept of resource management and letting the sword do what the magic doesn't need to do, and stopped crying because they blew their load three encounters in...


houstonderek wrote:
If fighters and rogues are so competent (throw barbarians, paladins, ranger and monks in here too), why does the caster player feel the need to cast in situations where the others can handle the situation with minimal resource usage? Oh, yeah, waiting for the moment they're REALLY needed isn't "fun". Maybe if more players understood the concept of resource management and letting the sword do what the magic doesn't need to do, and stopped crying because they blew their load three encounters in...

It sounds like you play with people who aren't any fun to play with. I'm sorry. I've never met a player who wastes spells when the melee folk can handle things.

First, when my blood is up and my hit points are full; I don't much care what the casters have to say, I'm kicking in another door. If they don't like it, they can stay in the hall and meditate or whatever it is they do.

Second, my group frequently forms parties with only one mage or healer or whatever, or none at all. We're well aware that while a dedicated caster is convenient, they're not necessary. This is true even in high level games. Rogues in our parties often sink gold into getting ahold of any necessary spells via scrolls/wands/staves. Virtually everyone has an emergency belt of healing and a reserve of potions. It really works out fine. Sometimes costs a lot of money, but we occasionally have a druid or bard who can pick up some healing slack. Neither of which ever simper about pressing on just because they're out of spells.


DM_Blake wrote:


It does. It absolutely does.

A fighter who misses with his favorite sword doesn't lose the sword until tomorrow. But a caster who fails with his best spell loses it until tomorrow. I think that's a huge difference between casters and their non-caster counterparts. But I'm sure you already know this.

Actually my point is that it really doesn't. You are correct, the fighter gets to swing their sword again next round, just like the caster gets to select from 43 other casting options in the next round.

Furthermore, the fighter's favorite sword most likely cost them a pretty penny whereas the Wizard is casting most spells virtually for free. If the Wizard is really concerned about running out of power while the fighter is still going strong perhaps they should sink some of their cash into those spell completion items designed for their class, you know, wands. Note to all of the people who don't like the defensive casting mechanic, the use of a wand does not provoke an AoO.

DM_Blake wrote:


Not likely. If the caster draws his sword (or staff) and jumps into the fray next to the fighter, is he going to be as effective? Do the same damage, hit just as often, kill things as fast and deflect as much damage with his armor? No, to all of that.

Using your example of level one, when the caster has the least number of spell slots in their career, a Wizard's BAB makes them only 5% less likely to hit than a Fighter. Let's assume that the Fighter was able to eek an additional +2 to attack rolls out of their stats and took weapon focus. Now the Wizard is 20% less likely to hit than the Fighter if the Wizard uses physical attacks. However, if the Wizard uses their school power or Sorc uses their bloodline power or either of them casts a level 0 spell they get to make touch attacks, meaning they are just as likely to hit anything in medium armor as the Fighter and more likely to hit anything in heavy armor than the Fighter.

If you would like to debate other levels we can discuss other spell selection options and other tactics, but at level 1 I don't agree that once their two spells are blown the Wizard has no other viable options. If that were the case how could the designers ever have expected them to participate in 4 encounters per day with only 2 spells?

DM_Blake wrote:


Compared to a mage with spells? Fairly useless.

Level 0 Spells? Bloodline or School Powers? Spell Trigger or Spell Completion Items?

DM_Blake wrote:

Compared to a fighter with a sword? Fairly useless.

Compared to a ranger with a bow? Fairly useless.

Touch based attacks?

DM_Blake wrote:
The mage is not built for it, lacking the DEX, STR, etc., that the classes built for non-spell combat have. Also lacking the BAB. Also lacking feats that enhance non-spell combat. Combined, that means he will hit less often for less damage. Fairly useless

I am not sure how you build Arcane Casters but I would put a decent stat into Dex and/or Str depending on whether I was planning to make more ranged or melee touch attacks. I won't get it to an 18 like a Fighter might, but considering I get to ignore armor bonuses I think it will probably work out.

As we discussed above at level 1 there is only a 5% difference between the BAB of Fighters and Wizards.

Finally, PfRPG grants a lot more feats than 3.x. A Wizard could fit in weapon focus ray for example.

DM_Blake wrote:

What if, in the first round of the second encounter, an enemy hits him with an effect that makes him lose his Color Spray? Now what. Insead of wiping out the encounter and leaving the non-casters to soak up what's left, those non-casters now have to carry the brunt of the fighting while the fairly useless mage bounces a few crossbow bolts off of the enemies' armor.

This is why I don't think the game needs any new mechanics to lose spells.

See paragraphs above; the Wizard is not useless even when they are left with just level 0 spells. I am not going to pack up and go home if the enemies pass their saves or I miss on a roll to overcome SR. Why would I give up if the encounter forces me to make a Concentration Check and I fail that roll? That means it is a more difficult encounter and will be a more satisfying challenge to overcome.

DM_Blake wrote:
Yes, tactics matter and can reduce the times a spell is lost. I've never disagreed with this.

Consensus. I like it.

DM_Blake wrote:
Not a whit. If you lose a spell, for whatever reason, than all the history books will tell of this battle was that the caster tried something and it never happened - what you had prepared in that slot becomes meaningless the moment it evaporates, unfulfilled, from your mind.

How is this different from "all the history books will tell of this battle was that the Fighter tried to Power Attack and whiffed"?

1) Lost actions suck for all classes. Casters and spells are not special.

2) If you have chosen your spells well you can a)employ tactics to make it less likely that you will be exposed to spell failure conditions and b)since you have chosen spells that affect entire encounters rather than single rounds the loss of any one spell isn't as big of deal because your other spells are still working and you have still contributed.

DM_Blake wrote:
Sure he can. But more slots means a bigger sum. Fewer slots means a smaller sum.

So you are saying a higher level caster is more powerful than a lower level caster? I think we have found another point of agreement.

DM_Blake wrote:
You mean he has a lot of less effective actions, right? Unless you're implying that he can accomplish with one crossbow bolt what he otherwise could accomplish with his Color Spray?

I have never advocated that physical attacks are as potentially powerful as spells with the exception that physical attacks always deal more damage. (Recall the greater rewards should carry greater risks debate) However, I don't have to prove that a caster is as effective in every round no matter what they are doing. I only have to show that casters are effective when not casting spells - the game isn't balanced with the assumption that they will cast in every round. If a caster can still be effective without casting in any given round then the loss of any one spell just isn't that big of deal. The caster doesn't have to pack up and go home, they can instead play creatively and find another way to sway the outcome of the encounter.

DM_Blake wrote:
Sure, at first level. My point didn't stop there. I only brought first level into it to demonstrate how losing a spell means the first level caster suddenly has lost half of his best ability this day, and now must resort to weaker options for the rest of the day.

You chose first level for your example. If you want to choose a different level then have at it. However, I think that I have shown that at first level a Wizard's abilities other than casting 1st level spells really aren't that much less effective than their regular spells - especially if that spell is a magic missile - and certainly aren't less effective than other classes level 1 abilities.

DM_Blake wrote:
Your point that fighter are little more effective than a wizard with a crossbow is eggregiously erroneous at all but the extremely lowest levels.

At higher levels the Wizard gets more spells so the impact of any one spell being lost is diminished. The Wizard's touch attacks discussed above don't fall too far behind until the full BAB classes get their second attack at level 6. At 6th level a Wizard reasonably has 15-16 spell slots to play with.

Moreover, at higher levels the Wizard can afford spell completion or spell trigger items - completely acceptable equipment for a caster; using just the suggested wealth increase from level 5 to level 6 a Wizard could buy a wand of a level 2 Wizard spell and have some change leftover for potions or scrolls - and as such can continue to sling magic even when their free spell slots have been depleted; or better yet when they are using some common sense and conserving their resources.

DM_Blake wrote:
And yet, losing a Gate, or Prismatic Sphere, or Meteor Swarm, or whatever, means losing one of their best spells for the day. Chances are, a canny wizard doesn't waste those spells on a simple mook fight. So if he's whipping such a spell out, this fight must be a tough one. And now the spell is gone, cast with no effect or nullified by some game mechanic before he even casts it. That's a big blow to the mage. I still don't see the fighter over there losing his sword for the day when he misses.

Where are you getting the idea that spells are ever nullified before they are cast? The caster always has the choice to risk the chance of failure, not to mention the ability to take feats that help to improve their odds. Even still, so what if I lose my Gate? Yes it would have been cool, but so would the Fighter hitting with a guaranteed critical using an x4 weapon and the Stunning Critical feat. The Fighter will try again next round - unless their hit points have been depleted - and I still have 40+ other tricks up my sleeve.

DM_Blake wrote:

You mean "in order to be less effective" right? Surely you're not implying that the spells of a caster's highest level are no more powerful than spells of lower level, are you? Would you be willing to bump Gate down to, say 5th level? No? Probably because it's really powerful? So, if a choice between casting Gate or casting something in a 5th level slot, it's safe to assume the Gate is the more powerful choice?

So how can we not say "canny players don't need all of their highest spell slots available for each encounter in order to be somewhat, but clearly less, effective"?

You'll have to ask Pax, not me. It appears that his players decided they didn't need for their casters to be coddled and only face encounters when they have that Gate spell ready yet somehow they still manged to win the day and they appear to have had more fun because of it. I guess, for some people, playing a hero means pulling out all the stops, not only showing up when you know the deck is stacked in your favor. In the end, they won, to me that says their tactics were definitively effective.

DM_Blake wrote:

It's hard to see how you believe that.

A 17th wizard isn't likely to lose his 9th level Gate spell when he's fighting mooks. He can safely just fireball them and then sit back and plunk away with his toy crossbow.

If he's casting Gate, it's because he needs Gate. If he needs Gate, it's because this fight is an all-or-nothing fight, death is on the line. If this spell is lost to him for any reason, it's a big blow. Huge. Worse, he can't just try again next round, and the round after that, until he gets it - once it's lost, it's lost for this whole encounter - the very encounter when he needs it the most.

40+ other spells, backup scrolls, playing smarter than a one trick pony... I feel like we are starting to repeat ourselves within the same posts.

DM_Blake wrote:
Not true. If all goes the way the party plans, they will blow away the encounters, mowing them down with all-powerful spells, crits, and death-dealing magic items. If all goes the way the BBEG plans, the encounters will take forever and drain the party so badly that the BBEG can just walk in and defeat them with his bare hands. Clearly the second case will result in more combat rounds this day.

So in order for your argument that the loss of spells it too high of burden to be correct, your players have to be poor planners?

DM_Blake wrote:
If a mage can mop up his current encounter this round with a well placed Cone of Cold, but he fizzles it, the encounter might go on for a nother handful of rounds. We just went from 1 round to finish the encounter to needing several rounds. The loss of that spell, for whatever reason, extended the number of rounds this group will fight this day.

And the Fighter's dice going cold is any different how? My point is that fizzling a spell isn't any worse than the kind of obstacles that other classes face. Also, the availability of magic and hit points will ultimately limit the number of rounds any party can go in a day. As a result of that limit non-casters do in fact have limits placed on their abilities as they will never face as many rounds in a day as they could theoretically use their abilities. The idea that a Fighter can swing their sword all day is simply wrong and basing your play balance off of that assumption heavily skews the math in favor of casters.

DM_Blake wrote:

Now, this is true. But, if you put every spell to good use, you defeat the encounters faster, needing fewer rounds (and therefore fewer additional spells) to defeat each encounter.

On the other hand, if you waste every spell you have, then each encounter will take much longer, your party will take more damage and consume more healing resources, and the number of rounds you'll fight this day is extended. You may even die.

Each spell you lose for any reason tips the balance from the former case to the latter case.

The loss of the spell does not increase the rate at which you can continue to deplete your slots; only feats can do that. The caster is stuck with the same number of rounds per day as the non-caster. A loss of an action is just as bad for either of them but no worse for either of them.

DM_Blake wrote:

This is one of the few things you've said (more than once in fact) with which I have agreed. We totally agree on this point. And so do the game designers, who have said that the casters should use up roughly 20-25% of their resources in each fight.

You propose that it's OK for them to use up more than that, against the game balance and against simple logic.

I propose that if they do, then when that 4th encounter comes around today, they'll be considerably less prepared for it than the game designers wished and their performance will be below the ECL at which they should be performing and against which the encounter is balanced.

You contend that this is OK, spellcasters won't mind, especially the smart ones, because they're pretty good with crossbows.

I contend otherwise.

I guess we're not going to see eye to eye on this one.

Hooray for consensus.

It would seem we agree on the premise but come to different conclusions. Initially I think the above limited rounds per day analysis applies here as well. Also, I feel that if the game is balanced so that a caster is not supposed to cast spells in each round, that they instead have other effective actions to take, and that they are expected to take those other actions rather than go nova, that the loss of any one spell in any one round does not break the balance of the game. Spells are important, but not so important that a balanced mechanic can't at times and under specific conditions introduce the risk of them failing - probably with a resulting increase to the ECL.


houstonderek wrote:

And, to get in the spirit of this thread, no, fighters and rogues can't do their thing "all day long". They can only do it as long as the wizard and cleric don't want to retreat. After the wizard and cleric player screw up the idea of resource management because they think they have to cast every round, it doesn't matter if the rogue and fighter can still go on, the wizard isn't going to push forward.

If fighters and rogues are so competent (throw barbarians, paladins, ranger and monks in here too), why does the caster player feel the need to cast in situations where the others can handle the situation with minimal resource usage? Oh, yeah, waiting for the moment they're REALLY needed isn't "fun". Maybe if more players understood the concept of resource management and letting the sword do what the magic doesn't need to do, and stopped crying because they blew their load three encounters in...

This


Kuma wrote:


2) Your theories about a high level caster's spells per day seem to be in the minority. The loss of a spell isn't any more damaging than another character's loss... of what? Non-caster abilities are limited, that's true, but they are not on par with the small number of times your average caster lets fly with a spell. Even a rogue, with the occasionally difficult task of setting someone up to be flat-footed; has the potential to use their main ability half a dozen times in a single round. As do rangers, fighters and monks; and more easily. Barbarians are pretty much guaranteed their main ability in every round of combat; unless things are dragging on. Casters don't typically cast every round, precisely because they have to conserve. Even if the fighter whiffs, the rogue gets no sneak, the barbarian doesn't have the instantaneous rage feat, and the ranger is fighting something he doesn't specialize in; none of them lose the ability to do those things again that day. Up to infinity times, if need be. (With the notable exception of the barbarian, but the rage ability is always good for multiple rounds when used and never has a chance to fail) The caster already has a limit, and multiple ways to lose his ability beyond that limit. Adding more new ways to screw him over is probably not a good idea.
"It is limited by the number of opportunities they will have to use it that day which will always work out to be roughly the number of times the casters in their party will be able to cast a spell."

I don't know how else to say this except: That is not true.

The idea here is that a given party will only face a given number of rounds in a given adventuring day. That limit may change from day to day, but there is still a limit. This is important because the argument that the loss of a spell is more important than the loss of a round to a non-caster is based in the assumption that spells are limited while physical attacks are not. That assumption is false. The non-caster's ability to use their physical attacks is in fact limited by the number of rounds they will see in a given day, even more so by the number of rounds in which they will be able to apply their ability to a target.

Beware! Math inside...

Spoiler:

For simplicity lets pick level 10 and lets use the mechanic that was being discussed in the Fear thread, not as an advocacy of anything but rather just as a way to give us some numbers to help prove my point.

At level 10 a well built Wizard has about 29 spell slots per day to play with.

Based on a lot of the play test reports the average encounter around this level only lasts 3-4 rounds. For the sake of caution lets bump that up to 12 rounds - really any number can be plugged in here, if you think it should be something other than 12 feel free to re-run the calculation yourself. So in an average adventuring day our party will experience 48 rounds of combat (4 Encounters x 12 Rounds).

Since spells are usually standard actions and since spells are usually able to be cast at range, lets say that our caster uses up 5 rounds that day getting into position to cast. Melee types tend to have it worse, but being generous lets allow them to do full effect 38 times this day only losing 10 rounds to movement.

So we have 48 total rounds.

A caster is able to cast in 43 of those rounds, but they only have 29 spell slots so lets say they really only get to act 29 times.

A non-caster is able to take actions on targets 38 rounds and since they can use their abilities whenever a foe is in range they get to use all 38 rounds - also for simplicity lets assume the non-caster has some cool feats that allow them to do worthwhile things as standard actions as well and aren't totally reliant on full round actions.

Now lets impose the penalty. In the fear thread we were discussing scaling penalties rather than auto-flee conditions. Shaken = -2, Frightened = -4, and Panicked = -6. The penalty applied to attack rolls, armor class, and all ability checks. The fear status also required casters to succeed on a concentration check of 10 + 2x spell level with the appropriate penalty applied to their roll.

For the non-caster who hits on average 50% of the time (including iterative attacks) being panicked drops that success rate to 20% or imposes a 60% penalty.

For the caster the panicked condition imposes about a 30% chance of failing the concentration check for their highest level spell which decreases by 10% for every spell step you drop beneath that.

Time for the math, the non-caster has 38 chances to act but the panicked condition imposes a 60% penalty on their success chances resulting in the non-caster having really only 15.2 rounds where their chance of success was the same as if the condition did not apply.

The caster, however, is only suffering at most a 30% chance of failure with really much less than that since several spells will be 100% success rates even with the penalty. But again for simplicity I'll apply the penalty evenly which results in the caster getting 20.3 rounds in which they will be just as effective as if they weren't panicked.

To me that seems balanced if not perhaps a little too light on the caster. They are still getting more effective rounds than their non-caster counterparts even with the chance to lose a spell.

I hope that spoiler helped to demonstrate my argument regarding the fixed number of rounds per day and how to actually balance spell slots versus physical attacks. As it is time for lunch I will have to get to the rest of Kuma's post a little later.


Kuma wrote:
3) No mechanical way to increase how fast you use spells? I suppose if you disallow Twin Spell, Quicken Spell, Time Stop, etc... And if you're using metamagic, you're losing higher level slots on top of it. Not to mention the fact that you're not just losing slots, you're losing them with no benefit whatsoever. Once again, anyone can swing a sword, miss, and gain no benefit. But no one really minds so much because that's not one of the 10 swings they get that day. To say that a fighter who DOES only get 10 swings a day needs more ways to fail would make people sweat pretty hard; and telling them that he could always swing a handaxe instead is cold comfort. Hopefully that metaphor makes some sense, but I've got a head cold so...

You are correct, metamagic can be used to accelerate the use of spell slots. I thought it was obvious that I was discussing the fact that the spell loss mechanic can not increase the rate of spell slot usage since whether you lose the spell or not you are always bound by the rules of the game. I should have been more clear.

As for the Fighter they may not be limited to 10 swings but they are limited to some number of swings per day - see the level 10 example in the posting above. It is not fair to compare a spell to an unlimited number of swings. You should instead compare the actual number of rounds in an average day that a Fighter will be able to attempt to swing their sword versus the number of rounds the caster will be able to cast spells. Once you do that you can start putting some numbers around the relative impact of action loss for each class.


Kuma wrote:
4) They are. Proof? Not everyone plays a caster, and most people are perfectly happy. Further proof? Despite the nonsense I see people spout about high level play not needing non-casters; I can look through every page of every 3.x or PFRPG book and find every monster/trap/encounter, and not one of them will be completely insurmountable to a fighter or rogue or what have you. I understand the urge to "fix" stuff, but a wizard's spells per day aren't broken.

This supports rather than refutes my point.

Kuma wrote:
(Unless we start resting to regain them every 8 hours, but YOU are the one arguing for that. So it seems to me that the problem you perceive is one you've created)

I am no longer discussing that topic. Suffice it to say that it doesn't matter either way. Spells can be recovered after rest, or spells can be recovered when your water clock says so; ultimately it has no impact on whether or not a balanced mechanic could include a chance for spell loss.

Kuma wrote:
You aren't intending to argue that spell loss should be common, I get that. But it's already fairly common, and you're suggesting that it should be "okay" to consider increasing the frequency at which spells are lost. Further, you're suggesting it to balance casters against non-casters; but that necessity is one that exists largely in your own mind.

I am suggesting that when new mechanics are being discussed the mechanic needs to equitably effect both casters and non-casters and one possible way of doing that is allowing for, or increasing the chance of, spell loss.

I don't happen to believe that casters and non-casters are out of balance. I only believe that a spell loss mechanic is a legitimate balancing measure that should at least be available for discussion when designing or testing a new mechanic. That is all. Why do people like DM_Blake respond to any mention of a new spell loss mechanic as if it would cause the world to come to an end?

Kuma wrote:
A - Unnecessary. There is no reason to increase the rate at which spells are lost. It does not benefit non-casters or provide anything resembling balance. It is simply a method of punishing casters for no reason.

I am only suggesting it should be within the realm of consideration when non-casters are suffering from an equitable penalty.

Kuma wrote:
B - Damaging to everyone. As stated in one of your own examples, sometimes a caster can be most effective by increasing the abilities of his/her companions. An example of this is found in the Enlarge Person spell. However, if a spell is lost that spell is gone. Should a casting of Enlarge fail, not only does the caster lose that action and that slot; they lose that spell. Unless they have prepared another of the same type, the other party member will not receive the benefits (and not for at least a round, in any case); meaning that multiple players can suffer because of unnecessary restrictions placed on one. On a personal note, this is even more egregious to the players if it is the effect of a house rule, when game designers have already balanced spells adequately.

The non-caster who can't effectively hit their target also hurts the entire party. Why not impose a rule that allows the first attack of all non-casters to always succeed? That would benefit everyone. Not allowing such a rule hurts everyone.

I think the reason you don't let non-casters auto succeed is that it would make the game less fun and less exciting. The game is balanced in such a way that on average the non-caster will succeed enough times that they will overall be effective. If Paizo were to propose a new rule that under certain conditions would apply a penalty to the non-caster's ability to be effective then I think it would be reasonable to impose a check against casters so that they are equitably affected by the new mechanic.

Kuma wrote:
C - Poorly implemented. IIRC, this thread was originally started because of the discussion of fear mechanics. In particular, it was suggested that a roll be used to determine whether a caster could get a spell off while under the effects of fear. I don't recall the specifics, and can't be bothered to look them up; so feel free to argue this point at your leisure. But a straight percentile roll, unmodified by the character's stats, is a recipe for failure. Every gamer has known someone who rolls consistently poorly, and a game mechanic of this type would essentially tell such a player that they aren't allowed to play a caster; not if they want to have any effect whatsoever. This could be mocked as superstition, but it's a superstition that players often put a lot of stock in. And it would affect how people play the game. (Or if they play at all.)

The fear mechanic is really a separate discussion. However, the mechanic in play when the thread was last active was some form of concentration check with an applied penalty. How difficult the DC for the check should have been wasn't decided because we never could get to a point where anyone was willing to discuss the math and probabilities of spell loss chance in such a way that they could be balanced against the penalty being applied to non-casters.

DM_Blake's position was that no matter how low the chance of failure, any chance of spell loss was too high to be considered. The loss of one spell, of any level, outweighed a 60% penalty applied to all other classes.

I just don't understand why. Math and probabilities don't support that position. Why is it that spell slots deserve a sacred protection not offered to any other feature of any other class in the game?

Kuma wrote:
D - Previously taken care of. Spell casters have already been neutered enough. The new concentration checks mean they can no longer sink a few skill points (not as easily, at least) and pass without rolling the dice. Spells have been adjusted, and in many cases weakened. Arguments about the power of the spell casting classes typically revolve around the "nova" effect, which doesn't actually happen very often. Regardless, a caster who chooses to nova is unable to do much else for the remainder of the day (or previous to going nova, if they were being patient about it) and so is internally balanced. If a party is allowing casters to nova and then set the pace for multiple rest stops to recharge, the party AS A WHOLE is colluding to break the balance of the game. This sort of thing is best prevented by the person sitting behind the screen using the multiple tools already provided, not by providing colorful new ways to punish the majority of rational players.

Again, I am only suggesting that a spell loss mechanic should at least be in the realm of consideration as a way to balance casters and non-casters when a new, ie not currently in the Beta rules, mechanic that applies an equitable penalty to non-casters is being discussed.

Also, what is equitable is completely open for debate and interpretation. The only problem is we can never have that debate when people are unwilling to even consider the idea.


Sorry, but DM_Blake is totally right. Give up Matt.

Liberty's Edge

o_O


houstonderek wrote:
o_O

Some times EPIC internet battles end with a simple post it seems.


Thurgon wrote:
Some times EPIC internet battles end with a simple post it seems.

every village needs an idiot. just how the world works.


BD Houser wrote:
Thurgon wrote:
Some times EPIC internet battles end with a simple post it seems.

every village needs an idiot. just how the world works.

Or every time someone has lost an internet battle they turn to name calling. Very much how the world works.


@Matt
So if we're trying to be fair, why don't we implement a rule where all melee classes have to make a concentration check (based on their BAB) or their attack fails. Moreso their entire round of attacks fail. This check is made before the ACTUAL check (you know, attack roll) to see whether that attack succeeds.

This is what you want casters to go through. Casters, even at moderate levels with the right feats, are going to lose a fair percentage of their spell's power because of failing an SR check or a saving throw happening. And this is fine, it's part of the system. Casters have more chances for their spell to fail to do anything because the effects of their spells (especially at higher levels) tend to swing the battle in one fell swoop.

You want the mechanic to be on the table, fine it's on the table. Now that it's there I think most of the people in this thread tend to agree we can put it away because it's not needed.

That having been said I think the new Concentration mechanic that has been revealed is just FINE. Sure it's a little tougher than 3.x but we all knew that needed to happen. I just with that, overall, there were a better way to make arcane casters equally usefull from lvl 1-20 short of demolishing the entire game (read 4th edition).


OK here you go. A caster that must make a check before every spell.

Flux Mage

************************************************** ************************

HD: d4
BAB: Poor
Fort: Poor
Ref: Poor
Will: Good
Skill Points: 2 + INT Mod (x4 at first level)
Skills: Concentration, Craft, Knowledge(arcana), Profession, Spellcraft

************************************************** ************************

Level --- Ability
1 --- Flux Cast (0th level), Overcasting, Known Spells, Flux Counter
2 --- Magic Sense
3 --- Flux Cast (1st level)
4 ---
5 ---
6 --- Flux Cast (2nd level)
7
8
9 --- Flux Cast (3rd Level)
10
11
12 --- Flux Cast (4th level)
13 ---
14 ---
15 --- Flux Cast (5th level)
16 ---
17 ---
18 --- Flux Cast (6th level)
19 ---
20 ---

************************************************** ****************************************

Flux Casting --- Where most mages use spells with formulae to keep them safe from the risks of using magic a flux mage casts spells by pulling raw magical energy together and trying to shape it into the desired effect as he needs it. This method allows unparallel versatility, at the cost of spells sometimes not working or even backfiring. A flux mage may try to cast any spell that is of a spell level he can flux cast at. In order to do so the flux mage spends a full round action makes a caster level check modified as discribed below. If the flux mage succeeds then he casts the spell, if he fails the spell doesn't work. However if the flux mage fails by 5 points or more the spell backfires dealing d4 damage to the mage for each spell level of the attempted spell. In order to cast a spell a flux mage must have a wisdom score of 10 + the spell level or higher. The DC for any save throw from a spell cast by a flux mage is set by the flux mage's CHA mod. Each spell that a flux mage casts leaves a little residue. This residue makes futher spell casting for the flux mage more and more difficult unless the flux mage give the residue (called 'flux') time to disapate. A spell leaves flux equal to its spell level for a number of rounds equal to its spell level with a minium of 1 point flux for 1 round. Flux acclumilates in a special way, only the highest flux modifier is added to the DC of the flux mage's caster level check but each time another spell is cast before the flux dissapates the flux lasts another round. Flux builds even if a spell attempt is unsuccessful.

Overcasting --- A flux mage may try to cast spells beyond his ability to do so but this is always dangerous and painful. A flux mage may attempt to overcast a spell that has a spell level no higher than 3 levels higher than his maximum spell level (i.e. a first level flux mage may try a 3rd level spell). however the attempt itself does a point of damage per spell level of the spell in addition to the risks of damage from spell failure (i.e. the above flux mage automaticly takes 3 points of damage for trying to cast that 3rd level spell). In addition the spell is more difficult to cast and has a higher starting DC for the flux mage's caster level check.

Known Spells --- Over his career a flux mage tends to learn to do a few spell patterns better than others, these are his spells known. At level 1 a flux mage knows 1 0th level spell from any spell list plus 1 0th level spell for each point of Int Mod the flux mage has (i.e. a flux mage with Int 14 would know 3 0th level spell). These spells are easier to cast and have a lower starting DC than normal for the flux mage. Every level the flux mage may add 1 spell of any spell level he can cast up to his maximum level not including levels he can overcast (i.e. a 3nd level flux mage can't learn a 2nd level spell but could learn a 1st level or 0th level spell). Also a flux mage's spells known are the only spells on his spell list for the purposes of item creation or scroll usage.

Flux Counter --- A flux mage with a readied action can counter a spell even if he can't identify it. This is because flux mages are more adept at simply pulling the energy out of a spell and picking it apart mystically than other casters. The flux mage simply uses a standard action makes the caster level check as if casting a spell of the same level as the one to be countered and deteremines success from that caster level check. However if he fails this check by 5 or more (even if he 'succeeds' in overcoming his own DC for casting a spell of that level) he still takes backfire damage. Built up flux does not affect this ability becuase all that extra mess can actually help pull apart the other caster's spell.

The following is a chart for flux casting DC's.

Known Spell Base DC --- 10 + spell level
Unknown Spell Base DC --- 15 + spell level
Overcasting Spell Base DC --- 15 + (2 x spell level)
+ 1 DC for each spell level of perviously cast spells for a number of rounds equal to that spell's level.

Magic Sense --- Spell-like ability of detect magic at will with concentration as per the paladin's detect evil ability.


Abraham spalding wrote:

OK here you go. A caster that must make a check before every spell.

Flux Mage

************************************************** ************************

HD: d4
BAB: Poor
Fort: Poor
Ref: Poor
Will: Good
Skill Points: 2 + INT Mod (x4 at first level)
Skills: Concentration, Craft, Knowledge(arcana), Profession, Spellcraft

************************************************** ************************

Level --- Ability
1 --- Flux Cast (0th level), Overcasting, Known Spells, Flux Counter
2 --- Magic Sense
3 --- Flux Cast (1st level)
4 ---
5 ---
6 --- Flux Cast (2nd level)
7
8
9 --- Flux Cast (3rd Level)
10
11
12 --- Flux Cast (4th level)
13 ---
14 ---
15 --- Flux Cast (5th level)
16 ---
17 ---
18 --- Flux Cast (6th level)
19 ---
20 ---

************************************************** ****************************************

Flux Casting --- Where most mages use spells with formulae to keep them safe from the risks of using magic a flux mage casts spells by pulling raw magical energy together and trying to shape it into the desired effect as he needs it. This method allows unparallel versatility, at the cost of spells sometimes not working or even backfiring. A flux mage may try to cast any spell that is of a spell level he can flux cast at. In order to do so the flux mage spends a full round action makes a caster level check modified as discribed below. If the flux mage succeeds then he casts the spell, if he fails the spell doesn't work. However if the flux mage fails by 5 points or more the spell backfires dealing d4 damage to the mage for each spell level of the attempted spell. In order to cast a spell a flux mage must have a wisdom score of 10 + the spell level or higher. The DC for any save throw from a spell cast by a flux mage is set by the flux mage's CHA mod. Each spell that a flux mage casts leaves a little residue. This residue makes futher spell casting for the flux mage more and more difficult unless the flux mage give the residue (called 'flux') time to...

Interesting... but not really relevant for this discussion. Perhaps you might want to start your own thread for discussing new classes or add this to the "New Base Classes" thread.


It's relevant -- That would be a class I would not might having to make a check to cast a spell (indeed it is required), however that's because it has other limitations in place. It could technically get rid of the concept of a "15 min" adventuring day and losing spells is no longer a big deal because theoretically it has an infinite amount.

At the same time it is not a 4e cop out with everyone always doing the same thing.

With the current classes I don't want to see extra random ways to lose spells because those are limited use resources, that already have several large chances of failing in their own right.

***************************************************

Actually I'll repeat again this whole thread is irrelevant and based on a false premise, not to mention hasn't been "On Topic" since the first page.


BD Houser wrote:
Sorry, but DM_Blake is totally right. Give up Matt.

No he is not. IMHO.

Please do go on Matt, if you so like :-)


Zark wrote:
BD Houser wrote:
Sorry, but DM_Blake is totally right. Give up Matt.

No he is not. IMHO.

Please do go on Matt, if you so like :-)

I found Matt's argument more persuasive, as well.


Abraham spalding wrote:
[...] Actually I'll repeat again this whole thread is irrelevant and based on a false premise, [...]

Some would not agree. I for one don't agree.

Abraham spalding wrote:


[...], not to mention hasn't been "On Topic" since the first page.

True or not, it might still be relevant (to some).


It seems all of Matt's theories are based on bad and/or atypical playing experiences. Changing groups might help.


Well, either way, I'm done. Final post on this matter.

I've demonstrated how the one sentence in the FAQ was misconstrued and self-contradictory, but some people can't or won't see it.

I've explained why the Recent Casting Limit does not and cannot apply to spell slots that were cast before the spellcaster (any class) rested, because this rule only covers the most recent 8 hours which were used for resting.

I've pointed out the many frequent uses of the word "day" and its derivations, but all that did was devolve into a useless and pedantic derailment centered on the possibility that some people reading this thread are confused about what that simple little 3-letter word means.

I've given examples, but the opposition derailed the examples by touting the value of Color Spray as more valuable than Magic Missile, and that somehow a clever wizard would be happy to lose Color Spray while conceding the point that an unclever wizard may be unhappy to lose the much less worthy Magic Missile. I still don't get that reasoning...

I've argued for game balance. I haven't defended my favorite class (fighter) or fixated on any personal agenda. All I'm looking for is game balance amongst all the classes.

Others on the thread seem to have an agenda. Maybe their agenda is "nerfing" casters, maybe it's elevating fighters, maybe it's some other issue, and maybe it's just trolling to see how long the debate will rage. Whatever that agenda is, it seems to be getting in the way of rational discourse.

So I give up. You win. You all win. I can't prevail with mere reason, logic, and game balance. Such emotionless, rational concepts will never prevail against emotional defense of beloved belief systems, whatever those may be.

I'm glad I'm playing in my group of friends where well-reasoned evaluations of game balance are considered and discussed rationally, and generally result in improving the game rather than perpetrating our individual agendas, and I'm sorry I expected as much from a general internet community - I'm almost always disappointed when I do.

So, I finally see the light. I finally get it:

"Day" should mean whatever we want and be defined as however much time happens to elapse between our naps. Wizards should have at least 2x as many spells as everyone else. All casters should be robbed of their limited resources every chance we get, so we should make as many spell-depleting game mechanics as we can think of, and those casters should be grateful for it because they are just as effective with their crossbows as they are with their spells.

Heck, I'm so convinced, I just might rewrite all spellcasters to remove spellcasting as a class ability and just have them run around with crossbows - evidently, they will be just as effective and won't miss those spells at all.

For those keeping score on this thread:
Tarrasque: 0
Everyone else: 1 (or more if you score by post count).

I now go off to bite myself.

C H O M P !!!

Ow! I chipped an armored tooth on my armored hide, but I regenerated it, so I'm OK now...

Shadow Lodge

Hum, that does solve a question I have always wondered since hidding back here. . ."can the tarrasque bite himself so hard that even it can't regenerate it. . ." I guess not. Anyway, I'll be back here hidding and readying actions to counterspell wishes should anyone be brave enough.

I do think I found the problem though. You said that recent casting time did work as it only applied to spells done before resting. What I have been saying, is that a caster rest 8 hours, then cast a spell, after already resting. After all that, then they start studying spellbook again to regain spells. That specifically is what my FAQ was talking about. Trying to prevent a wizard from casting an all day buff, like mage armor, then getting all their spells back.

I think that is were the problem with logic on this side and logic on that side is comming to a head. We aren't argueing the same thing.


Beckett wrote:

Hum, that does solve a question I have always wondered since hidding back here. . ."can the tarrasque bite himself so hard that even it can't regenerate it. . ." I guess not. Anyway, I'll be back here hidding and readying actions to counterspell wishes should anyone be brave enough.

I do think I found the problem though. You said that recent casting time did work as it only applied to spells done before resting. What I have been saying, is that a caster rest 8 hours, then cast a spell, after already resting. After all that, then they start studying spellbook again to regain spells. That specifically is what my FAQ was talking about. Trying to prevent a wizard from casting an all day buff, like mage armor, then getting all their spells back.

I think that is were the problem with logic on this side and logic on that side is comming to a head. We aren't argueing the same thing.

(note: deliberately avoiding discussing anything I've already discussed here since it would be pointless after conceding the match).

I see where you're coming from, Beckett, and I agree that the rule in question prevents someone from trying that.

However, I think the general rule is that all casters who need to rest must do so between casting a slot and preparing that same slot or there would be no need to rest at all. If I could get up in the morning, well rested, and cast a spell in my head then immediately study my book and replace that spell in the same slot, then evidently resting played no role in preparing that spell. But we know resting does play a role - it's required for most classes.

For example, in the case of a wizard, it says "To prepare her daily spells, a wizard must first sleep for 8 hours." That statement alone means I can't rest, cast, then prepare the spell I just cast in the slot I just cast it from, so additional rules that say I cannot do so are redundant.

But, it doesn't explicitly say that, and if this thread has taught me anything, it's that if the game designers don't spell it out (and by "it" I mean every rule they write) in plain simple English, it will be misunderstood. So it's probably a good thing they worded the Recent Casting Limit to preclude anyone from trying the situation you've described.


DM_Blake wrote:
Well, either way, I'm done. Final post.[...]


Matt Rathbun wrote:
Kuma wrote:
3) No mechanical way to increase how fast you use spells? I suppose if you disallow Twin Spell, Quicken Spell, Time Stop, etc... And if you're using metamagic, you're losing higher level slots on top of it. Not to mention the fact that you're not just losing slots, you're losing them with no benefit whatsoever. Once again, anyone can swing a sword, miss, and gain no benefit. But no one really minds so much because that's not one of the 10 swings they get that day. To say that a fighter who DOES only get 10 swings a day needs more ways to fail would make people sweat pretty hard; and telling them that he could always swing a handaxe instead is cold comfort. Hopefully that metaphor makes some sense, but I've got a head cold so...

You are correct, metamagic can be used to accelerate the use of spell slots. I thought it was obvious that I was discussing the fact that the spell loss mechanic can not increase the rate of spell slot usage since whether you lose the spell or not you are always bound by the rules of the game. I should have been more clear.

As for the Fighter they may not be limited to 10 swings but they are limited to some number of swings per day - see the level 10 example in the posting above. It is not fair to compare a spell to an unlimited number of swings. You should instead compare the actual number of rounds in an average day that a Fighter will be able to attempt to swing their sword versus the number of rounds the caster will be able to cast spells. Once you do that you can start putting some numbers around the relative impact of action loss for each class.

No, you should give up on the belief that you can calculate the number of rounds in a day's adventuring. It doesn't happen. Sometimes it's less than four encounters, most times it's more. Not all of a caster's spells are used in combat, which completely throws out your long theory on per round effectiveness. Most casters have 1/3 to 1/2 spells used for utility, and those spells are most often spent outside of combat. So they have substantially less combat application than you assume.

And I know I'm repeating, but your assumption about the number of rounds/encounters per day is ridiculous. DMs typically have more than four encounters, often lesser threats that add up to more. Frankly, most DMs are happy to just keep chucking foes at a party until they're exhausted. Regardless, saying that you "should" only see four encounters a day doesn't change the fact that you could see 40, and the non-casters have lost none of their abilities while the casters started sucking wind around encounter 6. Your assumption doesn't prove anything because I'm not going to carry it.


Matt Rathbun wrote:
Kuma wrote:
My words

You are correct, metamagic can be used to accelerate the use of spell slots. I thought it was obvious that I was discussing the fact that the spell loss mechanic can not increase the rate of spell slot usage since whether you lose the spell or not you are always bound by the rules of the game. I should have been more clear.

As for the Fighter they may not be limited to 10 swings but they are limited to some number of swings per day - see the level 10 example in the posting above. It is not fair to compare a spell to an unlimited number of swings. You should instead compare the actual number of rounds in an average day that a Fighter will be able to attempt to swing their sword versus the number of rounds the caster will be able to cast spells. Once you do that you can start putting some numbers around the relative impact of action loss for each class.

Just to reiterate, the melee PC is limited by what the party does and, chillingly, what the DM decides to throw at them. There's no such thing as the "average" adventuring day, just like there's no such thing as the average human being. I guarantee you, if you went to game designers and asked whether you should always have exactly four encounters, they'd have a good laugh.

Also, something I meant to mention before was that you were treating attacks in your math as being rounds of actions when you should have been counting each attack separately. Iterative attacks mean that even using your math; a fighter gets far more out of his/her base ability than a caster ever will.


Matt Rathbun wrote:


This supports rather than refutes my point.

Then you agree that casters are balanced already?

Matt Rathbun wrote:


I am no longer discussing that topic. Suffice it to say that it doesn't matter either way. Spells can be recovered after rest, or spells can be recovered when your water clock says so; ultimately it has no impact on whether or not a balanced mechanic could include a chance for spell loss.

It matters quite a bit actually, being able to get up at midnight, adventure for two hours, rest for 8 hours, adventure for 2, would STRONGLY support your belief that casters need additional nerfing. If you don't wish to discuss it further that's fine. I actually agreed with you that it seemed like the Sage said this was possible; although in the same sentence he basically said it shouldn't be allowed.

Matt Rathbun wrote:

...the mechanic needs to equitably effect both casters and non-casters and one possible way of doing that is allowing for, or increasing the chance of, spell loss.

Except that an equitable application would be the exact same penalties to actions, the negative modifiers to attacks, checks, etc. This would already increase spell failure chance by dinging concentration checks, so suggesting a percentile roll on top is hitting casters twice.

Matt Rathbun wrote:

I don't happen to believe that casters and non-casters are out of balance. I only believe that a spell loss mechanic is a legitimate balancing measure that should at least be available for discussion when designing or testing a new mechanic. That is all. Why do people like DM_Blake respond to any mention of a new spell loss mechanic as if it would cause the world to come to an end?

Oh. Well my apologies then, that wasn't the impression I had gathered. Can't really speak for Blake.

Matt Rathbun wrote:
I am only suggesting it should be within the realm of consideration when non-casters are suffering from an equitable penalty.

It's not equitable. Very few things would balance out with an increase in spell loss. It's a huge deal.

Matt Rathbun wrote:


The non-caster who can't effectively hit their target also hurts the entire party.

Which is why it's very rare to see a mechanic that involves a percentile for automatic failure to hit. Concealment is the only one I can think of, and that affects targeted spells as well.

Matt Rathbun wrote:
Other stuff.

I really don't remember most of this well enough to try and argue it. As for Blake's reasons, ask Blake.

Matt Rathbun wrote:
Last couple of paragraphs

Well, I'll give you this. I don't consider spell slots a sacred institution. You can lose them for a variety of reasons, Blake already mentioned half a dozen midway up the thread. But the loss of a spell really doesn't come anywhere close to a penalty to hit.


I think people are forgetting melee classes have a lot of chance to lose there attack as well. On top of that there are things that are continuous.

Each attack a melee character can make needs to hit this is equivalent to the saving throw for spells. In fact you can easily change the saving through to an attack against defense if you wanted to. The big difference here is quite often a failed save still preforms some effect. Some spells don't even allow saves at all. The fighter has to every attack. As well armor and feats are mundane and boost AC. It take levels, feats, stat boost or magic item to improves saves.

The there is DR which can be just a bad SR. The fighter on a hit has to do more damage than the DR or negate the DR. The Wizard just fires the spell off sees if they can get past SR and if they do all is good. Then they there may be a save or not then apply damage or conditions.

The there are other things the fighters have to deal with such a miss chance and parrying. Add in fast healing that can negate a weak damage roll. Creatures that can fly or get out of range of melee. Peons to kill eat up attacks too where the wizard just levels them all in one spell. The fighter still has to dedicate at least 1 attack against each the weakest of minions. The melee classes have lots of chances to miss their attacks too.

Take that as you will. Just pointing it out. I'm sure I missed others as well.


Kuma wrote:
Then you agree that casters are balanced already?

I do. I just think that spell loss could be considered, ie not used all of the time or blindly or without regard to the level of impact it entails, when contemplating the balance of a new game mechanic be that through beta testing or house rule consideration.

Kuma wrote:
It matters quite a bit actually, being able to get up at midnight, adventure for two hours, rest for 8 hours, adventure for 2, would STRONGLY support your belief that casters need additional nerfing. If you don't wish to discuss it further that's fine. I actually agreed with you that it seemed like the Sage said this was possible; although in the same sentence he basically said it shouldn't be allowed.

I don't think casters are out of balance. I don't think the rest cycle would affect that balance one way or the other. I just think the rules and the Sage say it is possible, even if it doesn't otherwise make sense.

Kuma wrote:
Except that an equitable application would be the exact same penalties to actions, the negative modifiers to attacks, checks, etc. This would already increase spell failure chance by dinging concentration checks, so suggesting a percentile roll on top is hitting casters twice.

I did not intend for this thread to talk about flat % chances, but rather any method through which a caster might lose a spell. In the thread that inspired me to OP this one we were discussing a concentration check mechanic and not a flat % chance like armor or deafness inflict.

Kuma wrote:
It's not equitable. Very few things would balance out with an increase in spell loss. It's a huge deal.

Here is where I think we begin to disagree. I think you can assign a value to a spell slot and I don't think that value is equal to an unlimited number of sword swings. We can disagree about what their relative values should be, but we should be able to come up with an on average ratio. Once that ratio is established you could use it to run probability analysis of any given mechanic to find the balance sweet spot.

Kuma wrote:
Well, I'll give you this. I don't consider spell slots a sacred institution. You can lose them for a variety of reasons, Blake already mentioned half a dozen midway up the thread. But the loss of a spell really doesn't come anywhere close to a penalty to hit.

The loss of a spell might be worth more than the loss of a round of non-magical combat. However, it is not worth the loss of an unlimited number of combat rounds. At some point the loss of combat rounds equals out to the loss of a spell; be that 2, 3, or 10 rounds per spell. At which point you can say that if a given penalty imposes X% chance that a non-caster will be ineffective then an (X/Y)% chance for a caster to lose a spell, where Y is equal to the number of rounds we have decided a spell is worth relative to a combat round, would properly maintain the balance of the game for all classes.

201 to 250 of 322 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / General Discussion (Prerelease) / Why is applying a Spell Failure Chance unacceptable to the community? All Messageboards