You get at first level, if you are lucky, 2 spells,
If you are lucky....I didn't realize wizards were lucky if they had a 12 int. Also at first level besides cantrips you can always use your crossbow with as good a chance to hit as any class with the 3/4 BAB. You put points in other stats than int didn't you.
I always play a specialist. I like having the extra spells. People may think I am crazy but I alway gave up necromancy so I have had little chance to use RoE. But necromancy never felt like a school of magic that would work RP wise for the few wizards I play. Other than that maybe illusion or enchantment. I did play an enchanter once that gave up evocation and I had to keep telling the party no I can not cast the light spell. Kept hitting on girls under the affects of my charm spell...fun times.
Conjuration as a prohibited school? Really? No Grease, Glitterdust, Web, Stinking Cloud, Black Tentacles, Solid Fog, Cloudkill, Teleport, Acid Fog, Incendiary Cloud, Maze, Gate or Teleportation Circle? Really?
Conjuration as a prohibited school? Really? No Grease, Glitterdust, Web, Stinking Cloud, Black Tentacles, Solid Fog, Cloudkill, Teleport, Acid Fog, Incendiary Cloud, Maze, Gate or Teleportation Circle? Really?
Sure. There's not really any spell in the game that a wizard *needs* to have memorized always. The closest might be Mage Armor, which actually is Conjuration, but it's not that vital.
I've actually only seen 5 of those spells cast by a PC in 3rd edition - grease, glitterdust, teleport, maze, and gate. And Gate was used on a human who was avoiding an interview (by traveling to the elemental plane of air first, then gating him in).
What spell would you not give up to have *two* spells of the same level for? Now look at Pathfinder and realize you don't have to give it up.
|
I just joined an 8th level game, I've got a focused specialist enchanter.
Focused specialist is from the complete mage, you choose an additional school as a prohibited school and loose one spell slot per spell level but gain two additional spells of your focused school.
I chose conjuration, evocation, and necromancy as my opposed school. Yeah I wanted to play something non-traditional.
Normally I would go universalist. Even the new universalist. I hate having to ignore some schools.
Spell choice is what defines each arcane caster, and there is no spell that is completely indispensable, although there are many good choices. The closest would probably be magic missile, which doesn't really do that much damage. If the evoker's special ability is a force attack, that is very powerful indeed.
I was glad about the changes to the universalist in the Beta, and here in the final version. Generalist mages are a reasonable choice.
The sor/wiz balance has always been that sorcerers have more spells per day, while wizards have quicker spell progression. The specialist bonus, an extra prepared spell per day per level, so effectively compensated for the wizard's weakness relative to the sorcerer that specialist wizards were all anyone played.
Of course, our campaigns were fast-paced with little downtime for spell research or item creation, and with very regular and lethal encounters with undead and constructs. Illusion, enchantment, and necromancy were weak, while extra transmutation, conjuration, or evocation spells were worth the price.
Free metamagic is a great ability. The only time any of us have ever taken a metamagic feat is if the DM allowed "Sudden Extend" or the like. The universalist, having access to similar abilities without splatbooks, will likely start making regular appearances... while specialists will probably be the mainstay of casters.
Spell choice is what defines each arcane caster, and there is no spell that is completely indispensable, although there are many good choices.
Well stated.
2. They did get scaled back a bit. I think if you check the playtest logs, most folks agreed that they were way too good. They had a lot of versatility and none of the drawbacks of a specialist. To top it off, their powers were better than most of the specialist powers. Now things are a bit more balanced. Once you get a chance to play with all of them, I am confident that you will change your mind."Most folks" didn't know what they were talking about frankly, not realizing how little specialists gave up by memorizing prohibited spells. The rest (including myself) were almost all refering just to the rather high power of metamagic and 20th level ability (+ Hand).
That all depends. The Beta Rules completely contradicted themselves. On Page 194 the Beta rules state you could memorize a Forbidden School Spell with the penalty of losing your School Power. On page 166 you couldn't learn a Forbidden Spell at all. So it depends what interpretation was being used.
As for saying people didn't know what they were talking about, in reference to how 'little' specialists allegedly were 'not' giving up, I think you're projecting. Just because you didn't see it as a loss, doesn't mean everyone should agree with you.
A Conjurer would give up a AC bonus, so that at 1st level they have a +2 to AC, +3 at 5th level, and +4 at 10th level.. I think that's pretty nice, especially as an Armor Bonus (not a deflection bonus), that you don't have to think about, is on all the time, and requires no spell slot. At 10th level that's permanent Mage Armor.
In the same spirit of 'just grousing' I'm not trying to put you down or be unpleasant. But I think there are grounds to disagree with you.
2. They did get scaled back a bit. I think if you check the playtest logs, most folks agreed that they were way too good. They had a lot of versatility and none of the drawbacks of a specialist. To top it off, their powers were better than most of the specialist powers. Now things are a bit more balanced. Once you get a chance to play with all of them, I am confident that you will change your mind."Most folks" didn't know what they were talking about frankly, not realizing how little specialists gave up by memorizing prohibited spells. The rest (including myself) were almost all refering just to the rather high power of metamagic and 20th level ability (+ Hand).
For my part, I was well aware of just how little specialists sacrificed in the beta. I just thought it was lame to lose your specialist power in order to prep the other spells. Spell prep didn't need to be even more like doing your taxes. I was among those who insisted that specialists should have a difficult time casting some schools, but they shouldn't have massive blindspots in the landscape of magic.
In the Beta, even the small penalty that specialists had in the beta was not on par with universalists, who had better school powers, better bonus per-day power selection, and no need to choose between their power and preparing certain spells. They were better on all three counts. At least in 3.5, they didn't get the bonus spells.
So I will say: during the beta, both specialists and universalists were flawed. It appears they have both now been fixed.
I personally would have liked to see more to encourage specialization, but they didn't go quite that far. I wish they had gone with their first impulse and made schools just like domains, and abandoned prohibited schools altogether. That way, people who had played univeralists before would be in the position that sorcerers are now: they could pick a new power and enjoy it! Ah well.
It's still better than it was in 3.5 and MUCH better that the beta.
Except, that as a player character wizard you do not have complete control over all the spells you get.
As I understand it you do have control. When you prepare spells from a prohibited school it only takes up two slots instead of one.
Not picking on you here... but have we seen what exactly the specialist has gained/ lost between the beta and the final? I must have missed that.[...]what we know is a little about necromancer's core power and that they can now prepare prohibited spells by using 2 slots instead of 1. Jason also let slip that Evokers get a little bonus damage...
?? So how do you (and apparently everyone else on this thread other than me) know what the specialist has gained/ lost? I guess we are all just assuming the specialists keep their bonus spells like they had in 3.5? Or do they have bonus spells like in the Beta?... Erm or something?
Good points. Yes. True I assuming stuff.
That all depends. The Beta Rules completely contradicted themselves. On Page 194 the Beta rules state you could memorize a Forbidden School Spell with the penalty of losing your School Power. On page 166 you couldn't learn a Forbidden Spell at all. So it depends what interpretation was being used."Most folks" didn't know what they were talking about frankly, not realizing how little specialists gave up by memorizing prohibited spells. The rest (including myself) were almost all refering just to the rather high power of metamagic and 20th level ability (+ Hand).
Funny enough, the rules in and of themselves were not contradictory. Page 166 says if you're a specialist, you can't learn spells that you cannot cast. Since you *can* cast them... well, it's silly, and was a small carryover it seems. Perhaps not so small to all though.
As for saying people didn't know what they were talking about, in reference to how 'little' specialists allegedly were 'not' giving up, I think you're projecting. Just because you didn't see it as a loss, doesn't mean everyone should agree with you.
Quite true, however I did mean the many posts that had carryover assumptions from 3.5.
In the same spirit of 'just grousing' I'm not trying to put you down or be unpleasant. But I think there are grounds to disagree with you.
There are always grounds - they're just usually small and soggy ;)
In the Beta, even the small penalty that specialists had in the beta was not on par with universalists, who had better school powers, better bonus per-day power selection, and no need to choose between their power and preparing certain spells. They were better on all three counts. At least in 3.5, they didn't get the bonus spells.
Complete agreement here.
I just feel that the bonus spells, plus generic, on-par school powers (minus the one the specialists lost when memorizing opposed school spells) made for equal choices. Most specialist powers are by default better than a generic power, because most wizards *do* specialize - even universalists take Spell Focus. Narrow strong bonuses that stack in power are in general better than broad weaker bonuses. [Note: Again, this is/was not the case, the Universalist Beta powers were distinctly superior, though most of the powers could be killer in specific situations.]
So taking the general 'could-have-been' case, a specialist who ignored the prohibition would have everything a universalist would have, except full choice on the bonus spell. But the focus of their abilities would probably overridden that. This argument sounds pretty silly without an example, so... let's say Universalists would have gotten +1 to all DCs, but Specialists got +2 to the DC of their specialty. Plenty of your optimizer-type people would go for the specialist, easily.
Thanks for the discussion guys, I think I was mostly busy the weeks of the Sor/Wiz design focus, and didn't get a broad perspective on this topic.
|
Again, why did the at will level 1 abilities need to be limited? What were they breaking? Do the changes to Hand of the Apprentice apply to all level 1 school abilities? If so, what impact does that have on level 1 Sorcerer abilities or level 1 Domain abilities? Does Seoni only get her familiar for 3 + Cha modifier rounds per day?
Since a lot of casters only remember they have a familiar for a few rounds per day (see Order of the Stick), I can't see much difference.
|
|
Except, that as a player character wizard you do not have complete control over all the spells you get.
As I understand it you do have control. When you prepare spells from a prohibited school it only takes up two slots instead of one.
I believe he means the player does not have full control over the spells his PC has in his spellbook.
Apart from the two free spells that are assumed to have been researched every level, everything else has to be found in-game, so is at the whim of the DM.Not that that is much of a problem, since the standard game assumes the PCs can order whatever scrolls they like from the local MagicMart.
|
|
It only moved 15' a round, which takes a move action for the wizardThis I never knew, thanks. I thought the ability was just slightly iffy - if I'd known this I'd have been satisfied. I don't have a problem with the #/day though.
One my sadnesses relates to my feeling that a pretty interesting power got canned through not being explained properly in the Beta book. That one or two posts one thread in the forum didn't seem to get read by all that many people, understandably enough. When you do add in the restrictions Jason was talking about and the rulings he gave, it didn't seem to me, in theory or in fact and more importantly in practice, to be overpowered at all (some might feel that it was overcomplicated, but in practice we have found it not to be too unwieldy).
My objection to the #/day is that I like a long adventuring day and some of the changes in PFRPG encourage that. The low-level wizard passenger is unfun and the daily restrictions on school (and domain, as well) powers seem to me to be a significant mistake because they didn't unbalance anything -- they become pretty much irrelevant at the levels where wizards and clerics are stomping arse -- and they made the lower-level game more fun. Now the powers are just like an extension of the existing Vancian magic system; that's not bad because the Vancian magic system is bad -- it's one of the things I like about D&D -- it's just bad because it lessens potential fun.
Of course, as I said earlier, I am going to have them (domain and school powers) unlimited uses/day as in Beta and also use the Beta HotA. I just think that it's a shame for the published, official ruleset to have taken that course. Maybe they'll mention the option of reversion to the other system in some future Unearthed Arcane-type book for PFRPG.
Director of Game Design
|
So... couple of points here this morning.
1. As for the universalist issue, I would say more but I think many of the folks in this thread have clued in to our design thoughts on the issue and explained them quite well. The universalist in the Beta had it better than all the specialists. The school powers were better and the versatility in bonus spells was a large step up. Now, they keep their versatility, which is a big bump, and some of their interesting school powers, but they are quite a bit more balanced. The sheer fact that folks are arguing both sides means that is it pretty close. You might disagree, and it is your game, so feel free to change it, but I would recommend that you give it a try with the final rules to find out for yourself.
2. As for the number of times per day issue with school powers, I think you will find that the number provided allows for liberal use of the abilities without making cantrips (which can still be cast at will) a weak class feature. This was a big balancing act for us, but in the end, it is still quite viable. I have been playing a sorcerer with a limited use ability for some time now and I do not think I have used up all of my daily uses of that ability even once.
3. Ray of Enfeeblement. For those that think it got too hard of a nerf, remember that this spell can still knock a minimum of 3 (maximum of 11) off of a creature's Strength at its highest level. Compare that to Bull's Strength, which is a level higher and you can see why we altered it. You may not agree, as I am sure this was some folks bread and butter spell for 1st level, but it was just too good. I have used the spell now and it feels just about right.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
The old? Meaning what 2nd edition? In 3.0 and 3.5 as well as Beta PF it has been 1d6 +1/2 levels STR penalty.
Which translates more or less into 1d3 + 1/4lv penalty to attack and damage. Because for every 2 points of damage to Str, you get -1 to attack and damage. More or less.
Saying it's 1d4 +1/3 to attack and damage would be like (1d4+1/3)x2 str penalty.
And yeah attack/dmg penalties ARE twice as bad, which is why the cap is half as much.So you don't hit people 12 times, but a dozen times? Rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Offense is defense. Defense is offense. Being too weak to lift that big hammer means the priest can saunter up to you and cast his touch spells right next to you, since you cannot properly hit him for it. It also means you cannot kill the other fast enough before he kills you.
But using a spell to reduce an opponent's attack and damage seems more defensive than offensive, it will never kill an enemy or reduce his ability to defend himself.
Well either you don't understand my argument or you are purposely ignoring it. Either way, please explain why reducing a single creature's attack and damage by a maximum of 5, with a ranged touch attack, after bypassing SR, is so completely amazing that it absolutely cannot be allowed.
[...]Ray of Enfeeblement. For those that think it got too hard of a nerf, remember that this spell can still knock a minimum of 3 (maximum of 11) [...]
There was a heated discussion during the beta playtest about RoE and Empower Spell.
A) can RoE + Empower Spell be used?B) how do you calculate the result?
If I got it right the maximum is the result of (1d6 x 1,5) + 5 = 14
So the maximum would be 9 + 5 = 14.
So what's your answer? If you don't want to answer now will this be cleared in the final?
Similar debate about Magic missile. 1d4 x 1,5 + 1 or (1d4+1) x 1,5
|
Director of Game Design
|
[...]Ray of Enfeeblement. For those that think it got too hard of a nerf, remember that this spell can still knock a minimum of 3 (maximum of 11) [...]
There was a heated discussion during the beta playtest about RoE and Empower Spell.
A) can RoE + Empower Spell be used?
B) how do you calculate the result?
If I got it right the maximum is the result of (1d6 x 1,5) + 5 = 14
So the maximum would be 9 + 5 = 14.
So what's your answer? If you don't want to answer now will this be cleared in the final?
Similar debate about Magic missile. 1d4 x 1,5 + 1 or (1d4+1) x 1,5
It would be (1d6x1.5) +5
1d6 is the variable potion, and it is the only part that gets increased. The bonus from 1/2 your level is not increased by Empower Spell. Same goes for Magic Missile.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
[...]Ray of Enfeeblement. For those that think it got too hard of a nerf, remember that this spell can still knock a minimum of 3 (maximum of 11) [...]
There was a heated discussion during the beta playtest about RoE and Empower Spell.
A) can RoE + Empower Spell be used?
B) how do you calculate the result?
If I got it right the maximum is the result of (1d6 x 1,5) + 5 = 14
So the maximum would be 9 + 5 = 14.
So what's your answer? If you don't want to answer now will this be cleared in the final?
Similar debate about Magic missile. 1d4 x 1,5 + 1 or (1d4+1) x 1,5IIt would be (1d6x1.5) +5
1d6 is the variable potion, and it is the only part that gets increased. The bonus from 1/2 your level is not increased by Empower Spell. Same goes for Magic Missile.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Would this also mean more missiles? (doubtful but hoping)
I know I've had Empowered Heal veto'd before, on account that the caster level is not a variable. So you couldn't do CL x 10 x 1.5.
It would be (1d6+5) x1.5.1d6+1/2 caster level is the variable effect portion of this spell, hence all of it is increased. Same goes for Magic Missile. Direct pluses (and minuses) are multiplied along with their random variable.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo PublishingHi, Jason.
If the Wizards D&D 3.5 FAQ are to be believed, this is a rules change from 3.5.
I'm not so sure. I'd have to ask which FAQ are you talking about because I searched the one from 3/27 and I can't find a question about that aspect of empower. Plus, the text in the PH regarding Empower Spell is pretty explicit for magic missile. You roll 1d4+1 and multiply by 1.5. Whether or not that +1 per missile is analogous to the +level of those spells in the example or not is another question. I can see the argument either way.
With respect to Empower being better than Maximize, it may be for some spells and not for others. Spells with a high modifier, low random variable do well with Empower. Spells with a low modifier, which includes most multi-dice spells, do better with Maximize (though with a 10die fireball, the difference is small).
Even if we didn't multiply a level bonus by Empower, the fire shield does merely 2 points less, on average than the maximized version and does as well or better half the time.
I'd suggest tacking "random" onto "variable" in empowered spells then.
Or just say "dice" and be done with it, lest we beg arguments over what qualifies as "random".
It would be (1d6x1.5) +5
1d6 is the variable potion, and it is the only part that gets increased. The bonus from 1/2 your level is not increased by Empower Spell. Same goes for Magic Missile.
Oh no - need a whole new thread for this one. Personally I think you were right the first time (per the PHB example of "Roll 1d4+1 and and multiply the result by 1-1/2 for each missile").
I'd say better to leave to DM discretion, but it could impact Society play.
|
Are you saying you can't empoer a heal spell? It is both variable and numeric, so sound like a house rule.
I'm not overly impressed with this preview. I still get the impression that to make casters less fun in favor of fighters and rogues.
Actually, for the attack rolls meaning no save, both sides are partially correct. The rule is that if a spell has an attack roll, it doesn't allow a Reflex save. That was done so that the attacker might crit, and the defender might still ignor it with Evasion, (with its complete contradiction). It does not apply to Fort or Will saves, and WotC themselves even ignored this rule after the core books, with spells like Cometfall and the elemental ball spells in Complete Arcane.
It would be (1d6x1.5) +5
1d6 is the variable potion, and it is the only part that gets increased. The bonus from 1/2 your level is not increased by Empower Spell. Same goes for Magic Missile.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Good morning Sir (06:35 in Sweden right now). Thanks for the answer.
I always thaught the rules was clear, but some people obviously didn't.
Are you saying you can't empoer a heal spell? It is both variable and numeric, so sound like a house rule.
Quote Empower Spell: Saving throws and opposed rolls are not affected, nor are spells without random variables
|
Director of Game Design
|
Hey there folks,
Just one quick note. Lets not bog down this preview thread in a rules discussion at the moment. There will be plenty of time to work it out once the game is released. Until we get an FAQ, or something similar, up and running, I would prefer to keep things light.
For those society players out there, I doubt that Josh would consider this thread a source of official rulings. We need something more concrete than that...
Anyway.. I am going to need to look at this particular issue a bit more closely, so just hang in there. We are now less than two weeks to release.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Are you saying you can't empoer a heal spell? It is both variable and numeric, so sound like a house rule.
No, it sounds like the correct interpretation of the rule.
So you say you empower fireball like this:
10d6 -> empowered is 15d6. Then you roll, and multiply by 1.5?
Empowered is supposed to increase everything you roll.
Caster level isn't variable in the sense you get a different one each time you roll.
I'm not overly impressed with this preview. I still get the impression that to make casters less fun in favor of fighters and rogues.
Exactly. If by "fun" you mean "powerful". Because those casters were too "fun".
Well either you don't understand my argument or you are purposely ignoring it.
Cut that crap out.
Either way, please explain why reducing a single creature's attack and damage by a maximum of 5, with a ranged touch attack, after bypassing SR, is so completely amazing that it absolutely cannot be allowed.
Because it's too powerful for a 1st-level spell. There's a 2nd level spell - with a range of touch, that only gives you +2. A 1st-level spell that hexes you more than a 2nd-level spell can boost you is too good.
Anyway.. I am going to need to look at this particular issue a bit more closely, so just hang in there. We are now less than two weeks to release.
No, it is more like almost two whole weeks until release.
... the ... waiting ... is ... killing ... us.
It would be (1d6x1.5) +5
1d6 is the variable potion, and it is the only part that gets increased. The bonus from 1/2 your level is not increased by Empower Spell. Same goes for Magic Missile.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo PublishingGood morning Sir (06:35 in Sweden right now). Thanks for the answer.
I always thaught the rules was clear, but some people obviously didn't.
The rule was clear from 3.0: all pluses are multiplied. This is from SRD 3.0:
"All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by one-half. An empowered spell deals half again as much damage as normal, cures half again as many hit points, affects half again as many targets, etc., as appropriate. Saving throws and opposed rolls (such as the one the character makes when the character casts dispel magic) are not affected. Spells without random variables are not affected. An empowered spell uses up a spell slot two levels higher than the spell’s actual level. "Sad that this paragraph was cut in 3.5 SRD.
But the description of the feat, in 3.5, included it and also an example of an empowered Magic Missile, and the whole damage was multiplied by 1.5.
Of course, this doesn't mean that PF designers have to keep that version of the feat, but I assume that if something is not explicitly changed, it should be treated the old way.
Well either you don't understand my argument or you are purposely ignoring it.
Cut that crap out.
Because it's too powerful for a 1st-level spell. There's a 2nd level spell - with a range of touch, that only gives you +2. A 1st-level spell that hexes you more than a 2nd-level spell can boost you is too good.
Either way, please explain why reducing a single creature's attack and damage by a maximum of 5, with a ranged touch attack, after bypassing SR, is so completely amazing that it absolutely cannot be allowed.
Excuse me? Cut what crap? You still haven't addressed the points of my argument so...yeah.
So your argument is purely that Ray of Enfeeblement is too powerful, numerically, because it gives a larger penalty than a 2nd level spell can give as a bonus. There are a lot of very good 1st level spells, unfortunately not all of them can be represented numerically. Doesn't mean they're not more powerful than higher level spells in the right situation or against the right opponent. Color Spray can blind creatures just like Glitterdust can, one is a first and one is a second level spell, and Color Spray can also stun and knock them unconscious. Is Color Spray overpowered? Or since Color Spray can stun, and no one can remove stunning until Heal, then CS should be a 6th level spell right? But ok, sure, I'll bite. Make Ray of Enfeeblement 2nd level then, or make it a will save, or take away SR, because the new version is pretty weak.
But oh well, in the end it all works out. I'll play a specialist (since there's no reason not to) and take Necromancy as a prohibited school. I can always just get RoE wands!
So your argument is purely that Ray of Enfeeblement is too powerful, numerically, because it gives a larger penalty than a 2nd level spell can give as a bonus. There are a lot of very good 1st level spells, unfortunately not all of them can be represented numerically. Doesn't mean they're not more powerful than higher level spells in the right situation or against the right opponent.
Apples and oranges. You can argue that all day, and it's not a valid arguement. "Hey! The BBEG we fought has a weakness to cold! So Frost Ray is WAY better than color spray! Color Spray should be a cantrip!"
Situational advantages can't be used when determining if a spell is in the correct level, or too powerful or weak for it's assigned level. You have to remove ALL situational variables and then compare the two spells. It's sort of like saying that it's better to have a crate of MRE's than it is to have $200,000 dollars. It is, if you are shipwrecked on a desert island. That's the only time it's better though, and most people would honestly admit that.
A level 2 spell adds +2. A level 1 spell removes -2 to -4 at the same level (IE: Caster level 3). It's pretty obvious that the level 1 spell is too powerful. It's at least equal to the level 2 spell all the time and quite often more powerful.
Color Spray can blind creatures just like Glitterdust can, one is a first and one is a second level spell, and Color Spray can also stun and knock them unconscious. Is Color Spray overpowered? Or since Color Spray can stun, and no one can remove stunning until Heal, then CS should be a 6th level spell right? But ok, sure, I'll bite. Make Ray of Enfeeblement 2nd level then, or make it a will save, or take away SR, because the new version is pretty weak.
Let's look at your example :
Color Spray
School illusion (pattern) [mind-affecting]; Level sorcerer/wizard 1
Casting
casting Time 1 standard action
components V, S, M (red, yellow, and blue powder or colored sand)
Effect
range 15 ft.
Area cone-shaped burst
duration instantaneous; see text
Saving Throw Will negates; Spell resistance yes
Description
A vivid cone of clashing colors springs forth from your hand, causing
creatures to become stunned, perhaps also blinded, and possibly
knocking them unconscious. Each creature within the cone is affected
according to its Hit Dice.
2 HD or less: The creature is unconscious, blinded, and stunned for 2d4
rounds, then blinded and stunned for 1d4 rounds, and then stunned for 1
round. (Only living creatures are knocked unconscious.)
3 or 4 HD: The creature is blinded and stunned for 1d4 rounds, then
stunned for 1 round.
5 or more HD: The creature is stunned for 1 round.
Sightless creatures are not affected by color spray.
GLiTTErduST
School conjuration (creation); Level bard 2, sorcerer/wizard 2
cASTiNG
casting Time 1 standard action
components V, S, M (ground mica)
EFFEcT
range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Area creatures and objects within 10-ft.-radius spread
duration 1 round/level
Save Will negates (blinding only); Sr no
dEScriPTioN
A cloud of golden particles covers everyone and everything in the area,
causing creatures to become blinded and visibly outlining invisible
things for the duration of the spell. All within the area are covered
by the dust, which cannot be removed and continues to sparkle until
it fades. Each round at the end of their turn blinded creatures may
attempt new saving throws to end the blindness effect.
Any creature covered by the dust takes a –40 penalty on Stealth
checks.
Ok, let's compare. We're using Beta because we don't have the final version. The first level spell is a 15 ft range, which means you have to be in combat to use it. That's a big limitation for a wizard at 3rd level. Glitterdust is 130ft minimum, much more where the wizard/sorcer wants to be.
Color Spray get's spell resistence, which Glitterdust doesn't.
Color spray is a 15ft cone spread, while glitterdust is a 10-ft radius spread (more area).
Color spray get's some very nice effects against 2hd creatures, a few against 2-4hd creatures, and a little against anything higher. Glitterdust affects any target regardless of hd (if they fail the will save).
Glitterdust also keeps your target from sneaking off, and reveals invisible opponents. This kills things like rings of invisibility, invisibility spells, and other creature abilities for stealth.
Quite obviously glitterdust is, in general, more powerful than color spray. It's got a longer range, can blind any opponent who fails their will save (not just creatures of 4 hd or less), negates invisibility, and keeps enemies from sneaking off (-40 to stealth!).
In no way can you argue color spray is more powerful than glitterdust. on even an average usage (for blinding). Even removing the situational things (IE: Invisibility), glitterdust still has longer range, no spell resistence, and higher will save (being a higher spell), and keeps your oppenent from sneaking away if you're chasing him. Over all, a better spell.
Glitterdust can last longer too.
It would be (1d6x1.5) +5
1d6 is the variable potion, and it is the only part that gets increased. The bonus from 1/2 your level is not increased by Empower Spell. Same goes for Magic Missile.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo PublishingGood morning Sir (06:35 in Sweden right now). Thanks for the answer.
I always thaught the rules was clear, but some people obviously didn't.
The rule was clear from 3.0: all pluses are multiplied. This is from SRD 3.0:
"All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by one-half. An empowered spell deals half again as much damage as normal, cures half again as many hit points, affects half again as many targets, etc., as appropriate. Saving throws and opposed rolls (such as the one the character makes when the character casts dispel magic) are not affected. Spells without random variables are not affected. An empowered spell uses up a spell slot two levels higher than the spell’s actual level. "
Sad that this paragraph was cut in 3.5 SRD.
But the description of the feat, in 3.5, included it and also an example of an empowered Magic Missile, and the whole damage was multiplied by 1.5.
Of course, this doesn't mean that PF designers have to keep that version of the feat, but I assume that if something is not explicitly changed, it should be treated the old way.
Ok, since Jason politely asked us not to derail this topic into a 'rules thread', I will be brief.
This thread almost derailed when we (including myself) started speaking of Empower Spell (coincidentally, Ray of Enfeeblement was the 'main theme').
This is my comment on the 3.0 rule mentioned above.
This is yet another thread dedicated to this specific argument which was made during the Beta Playtest.
These were my considerations regarding balance with Maximize Spell (a Metamagic feat which is supposedly more powerful, since it requires 3 spell levels higher - instead of two like Empower Spell).
And regarding Magic Missile: the formula says that a Magic Missile deals 1d4+1 per missile. It could also be read 2-5 per missile (a random value). Since we don't have d4 dices without a 1 and with a 5, the formula has to be written in this way (akin to a Fireball, which deals 1-6 per level, or a Horrid Wilting against a Water Elemental, which deals 1-8 per level). This is the reason why the '+1' portion f the Magic Missile formula is multiplied (while the '+ caster level, maximum +x' of spells like Cure Serious Wounds and Ray of Enfeeblement is not) - and the same reason why I said that Magic Missile was the worst example possible for the explanation of Empower Spell.
However, now we have the official answer by Jason himself - and I think that we can leave aside if this was the case also for 3.x or not.
OT end, let's go back speaking of Ezren, pretty please ?
OT end, let's go back speaking of Ezren, pretty please ?
Ezren hasn't even made an appearance in this thread. Wait, I may be confusing him with Joshua Frost. We discussed Ray of Frost and heard from Frostflame, but where's the star of the show? Should we talk about him when he's not here?
If only he would pass through long enough to do a fireworks show for all the little hobbits ...
If only he would pass through long enough to do a fireworks show for all the little hobbits ...
He'd probably use a sawed-off shotgun with dragon's breath rounds.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I'm still curious if shield and mage armour are sunderable now since Wall of Force can be hit (hardness 30 means damaged !=hit)
I'll confess to being enamoured at the idea of the fighter or barbarian pounding away on the shield, it flaring every time it gets hit, and small cracks starting to skitter across it.
Also wonder about the resiliant sphere...
Gah, two weeks!
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
He'd probably use a sawed-off shotgun with dragon's breath rounds.
If only he would pass through long enough to do a fireworks show for all the little hobbits ...
Why, is Ezren from Cheliax? :-)
*imagines higher level Ezren enchanting his walking stick into a staff of fire* "This is MY BOOMSTICK!"
ooh, one other rules question. If a bonded item is enchanted and it's lost/destroted/fed to a cranky silver dragon, does the new bonded item get all the properties of the previous item? Or do you have to enchant all over again? Basically a 'it's covered in the rules' would be enough for me.
He'd probably use a sawed-off shotgun with dragon's breath rounds.
If only he would pass through long enough to do a fireworks show for all the little hobbits ...
Why, is Ezren from Cheliax? :-)
Aren't we talking about Mr. Frosty?
Also wonder about the resiliant sphere...
Here's hoping. The spell is too good. Our RLPG (rules-lawyering power gamer) uses it all the time.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Here's hoping. The spell is too good. Our RLPG (rules-lawyering power gamer) uses it all the time.
Also wonder about the resiliant sphere...
Agreed.
Funny Resillant sphere story:
I know in 3.x it's a 'buffing bubble'
Would have been even more funny if he were bleeding or suffering from other ongoing effects, like con poison :D.