Come on, everyone knows that the Bard should be the best at controlling undead.
|
I agree but do not come to the same conclusion. A cleric does not have to understand - he has faith. He does not have to know about undeath as he uses his faith to channel the power of his god to work his profane magic. When a cleric of Orcus creates undead he does not necessarily know about the intricacies of the magic and how it interfaces with the dead flesh he just has faith that Orcus can do these things and the power then manifests through him.Just because the necromancer knows these things and probably has to know these things in order to get the same results does not mean he should be better than it. The two are different routes to the same power. One through faith the other through knowledge.
There is a problem with this though. Undead are part of Knowledge Religion. Not Knowledge Arcana, not Spellcraft. Those are the things that Wizards primarily study. Even Arcane Necromancers. Sure, they can also develope Religion or Heal (anatomy and bodily function, torture are all easy to put unter this skill), but most don't focus in it as they do Arcana or even Spellcraft. Knowledge Arcana has nothing to do with undead, though it is arguable that it covers necromancy in general.
Come on, everyone knows that the Bard should be the best at controlling undead.
The necromantic bard's iconic spell would be... Animate Barber Shop Quartet!
There is a problem with this though. Undead are part of Knowledge Religion. Not Knowledge Arcana, not Spellcraft. Those are the things that Wizards primarily study.
I would have to argue that, in fact, Necromancers do focus on Knowledge Religion.
There is a problem with this though. Undead are part of Knowledge Religion. Not Knowledge Arcana, not Spellcraft. Those are the things that Wizards primarily study.
I'm confused by this logic. Do you mean that, if I have a Necromancer 11 with Int 18 and 11 ranks in Knowledge: religion (+15 bonus), he should be 150% better at creating/controlling undead than a Cleric 11 with Int 12 and 6 ranks in Knowledge: religion (+10 bonus)? And exactly as good as a Cleric 11 with Int 12 and 11 ranks (+15 bonus)? That would make perfect sense to me, but game mechanics unfortunately base undead creation/control solely on caster level and spells, and not at all on Knowledge ranks of any kind.
|
|
Possibly. But what I am saying is, knowledge about undead is represented in the game already. While it is both a Cleric and Wizard class skill, it is much more common that Clerics keep it ranked high than Wizards, even Necromancer Wizards. It is typically a choice that such a Wizard would have to make and give up other things, like Craft alchemy for, while most Clerics, obviously, default with it.
The other skill that would apply to your Wizard cutting up and studying undead bodies, (heal, though there is no official torture or disection skill) is hardly ever taken by Wizards or Necromancers.It is about as realistic and ruleistic to claim such a Necromancer is more studied about undead as it is to say all Monks do best fighting with a greatsword.
But what I am saying is, knowledge about undead is represented in the game already. While it is both a Cleric and Wizard class skill, it is much more common that Clerics keep it ranked high than Wizards, even Necromancer Wizards. It is typically a choice that such a Wizard would have to make and give up other things, like Craft alchemy for, while most Clerics, obviously, default with it.
Understood, and I agree. My problem is that the mechanics as written suck, because if you follow them, you can be untrained in Knowledge (religion) and still command far more undead (and be better at creating them) than someone with a +30 bonus. Which of course implies that the designers view this issue differently than you and I do.
|
|
My problem is that the mechanics as written suck, because if you follow them, you can be untrained in Knowledge (religion) and still command far more undead (and be better at creating them) than someone with a +30 bonus. Which of course implies that the designers view this issue differently than you and I do.
May I enter this debate? I'd like to say that knowledge of something does not mean you can make it, though this is a likely case. You can be a cleric with no ranks in Knowledge(religion) and still create undead and it is the same for a necromancer. Nothing in the rules state you must know anything about about religion or spellcraft to be a cleric or a wizard. My thoughts and you may choose to ignore them if you wish.
May I enter this debate? I'd like to say that knowledge of something does not mean you can make it, though this is a likely case. You can be a cleric with no ranks in Knowledge (religion) and still create undead and it is the same for a necromancer. Nothing in the rules state you must know anything about about religion or spellcraft to be a cleric or a wizard. My thoughts and you may choose to ignore them if you wish.
I agree that knowing about something doesn't confer the ability to make or control it. However, it seems unlikely that one could competently create and control undead without knowing anything at all about them -- which is the situation the RAW model. Maybe it would make more sense to offer free ranks in Knowledge (undead) to clerics with the Death domain and wizards specializing in Necromancy, but make others purchase ranks as normal?
Repeat from Monk thread:
well it is quite possible that the designers are closer in opinion than you think, but are simply slightly stymied by the need to be compatible.
"Hmm.... May I?"
Zalania pulls a massive book from her backpack.
"The infusion of necromantic energy into living flesh subscribes to the influence of arcane daemonorium - whatever that means - Necromantic energy can be infused more easily into dead flesh due to the lack of soul energy present in decaying tissue. There is no spiritual resistance to the influence of energy movements from outside the skin's barriers - whether they be holy, demonic, abyssal, or purely logical in their construction."
-The Nex Arcanorum
"The energies related to a thanatotraumatic experience are obscure and sometimes difficult to capture, unlike the energy of a flame or a bolt of lightning. Even the effects of force and arcane compulsion of molecular structures cannot naturally interfere with the experience of death. Thanatomancers, or Necromancers if you will, can tap that energy with the faintest of efforts, having a keen interest in the last vestige of will and breath."
-Apprentice's Guide to Thanatomancy
well it is quite possible that the designers are closer in opinion than you think, but are simply slightly stymied by the need to be compatible.
Yeah. To (somewhat loosely) quote Jemima Brown (The Eiger Sanction), "backwards compatibility really makes my ass drag."
|
|
Maybe it would make more sense to offer free ranks in Knowledge (undead) to clerics with the Death domain and wizards specializing in Necromancy, but make others purchase ranks as normal?
I mostly like this idea. My main problem is that there are other concepts that an undead master cleric can follow besides death. Evil & Law/Chaos, Domination, Destruction, Trickery, and more are also perfectly good domains for a priest to follow and still be an undead leader concept.
On the other side of that, there are many settings that have deities or groups that follow a philosophy that grants the Death domain, yet are against the idea of creating undead. Kelemvor from FR comes to mind, but also some aspects of Wee Jas in Greyhawk.
Possibly. But what I am saying is, knowledge about undead is represented in the game already. While it is both a Cleric and Wizard class skill, it is much more common that Clerics keep it ranked high than Wizards, even Necromancer Wizards.
Not true. No in my experience. I've seen more wizards with maxed out Knowledge(Religion) than Clerics.
There is a problem with this though. Undead are part of Knowledge Religion. Not Knowledge Arcana, not Spellcraft. Those are the things that Wizards primarily study.
Wizards primarily study Knowledge.
Wizards can focus on "their" ability score (intelligence) more than any other class (maybe even sorcerers, though they can be quite even), as they need so little else. That means that they have a really good intelligence.
That translates into many skill points.
They also have all knowledge skills as class skills.
In my experience, a lot of those skill points go into various Knowledge categories, religion among them. And because of their high intelligence, their bonus is better than a cleric's, even if the cleric has put maximum ranks in, too (because clerics have to spread out their abilities more than wizards - and intelligence is just about the lowest priority for a cleric).
Now it might be said that some wizards won't cover all the basics - but I can't conceive of a necromancer concept that doesn't max out Knowledge (religion)
If there's anyone who can challenge the wizard as master of undead lore, it's definetly not the cleric. A knowledge-focused bard might, because of bardic knowledge.
On the other side of that, there are many settings that have deities or groups that follow a philosophy that grants the Death domain, yet are against the idea of creating undead. Kelemvor from FR comes to mind, but also some aspects of Wee Jas in Greyhawk.
Which is why the repose domain was created.
|
Which is why the repose domain was created.
On the other side of that, there are many settings that have deities or groups that follow a philosophy that grants the Death domain, yet are against the idea of creating undead. Kelemvor from FR comes to mind, but also some aspects of Wee Jas in Greyhawk.
I will say that a cleric with the undead and repose domains should be the equivalent as a necromancer.
|
|
Which is why the repose domain was created.
On the other side of that, there are many settings that have deities or groups that follow a philosophy that grants the Death domain, yet are against the idea of creating undead. Kelemvor from FR comes to mind, but also some aspects of Wee Jas in Greyhawk.
Wee Jas doesn't offer the Repose domain, I don't think, and it actually predated Kelemvors change to Repose rather than Death. But your issing the point. I was responding to Clerics with death domain should be the ultimate undead master, and I am saying that there are clerics with the death domain that do not fit that concept at all, and also other clerics without that domain that would still fit the bill just as much, like Evil, Domination, or a few others.
|
|
Possibly. But what I am saying is, knowledge about undead is represented in the game already. While it is both a Cleric and Wizard class skill, it is much more common that Clerics keep it ranked high than Wizards, even Necromancer Wizards.Not true. No in my experience. I've seen more wizards with maxed out Knowledge(Religion) than Clerics.
While that is true, Wizards also have many more knowledge skills that they probably focus on as well. It is true that they have the advantage with the higher Int at starting levels, but that does not mean the same thing as keeping the ranks up. Wizards, in general, tend to put a rank in this knowledge, than next level a different knowledge, than back to the first again. They might have more aptitude for the skill, but that doens't mean that they keep up their studies.
Sure they can, and I have never said anything absolute. They tend not to.
Sure they can, and I have never said anything absolute. They tend not to.
Not in my experience. In my experience, they tend to keep it up.
Double for anyone who considers himself a necromancer.
Wee Jas doesn't offer the Repose domain, I don't think, and it actually predated Kelemvors change to Repose rather than Death. But your issing the point. I was responding to Clerics with death domain should be the ultimate undead master, and I am saying that there are clerics with the death domain that do not fit that concept at all, and also other clerics without that domain that would still fit the bill just as much, like Evil, Domination, or a few others.
Wait a second... Wasn't your point that clerics should be de facto better necromancers than necromancers? This feels vaguely contradictory, because it feels like you're arguing that not all clerics should be better necromancers than necromancers... In fact, it sounds like you're suggesting they should be only under particular circumstances.
Before I close things out on this preview, I wanted to point out a bit about Ezren's feats. Ezren has Combat Casting, which means that he has a total of +20 on his concentration checks, which means that he can defensively cast his 5th-level spells by rolling a 5 or higher on his checks.How is that +20 on "concentration checks" calculated? He has a +19 on spellcraft (the "new" concentration skill).
Also, the DC to defensively cast a 5th level spell is now 25, does this mean that the formula changed to 15 + 2*SL ?
I believe the formula for concentration checks is "caster level + spellcasting ability modifier." For Ezren that would be 10 + 6 (from Intelligence) = 16, with the last +4 coming from the feat "Combat Casting."
Also, I do believe that is the formula for DCs.
That's my recollection also. I believe it was announced in the cleric preview.
Before I close things out on this preview, I wanted to point out a bit about Ezren's feats. Ezren has Combat Casting, which means that he has a total of +20 on his concentration checks, which means that he can defensively cast his 5th-level spells by rolling a 5 or higher on his checks.How is that +20 on "concentration checks" calculated? He has a +19 on spellcraft (the "new" concentration skill).
Also, the DC to defensively cast a 5th level spell is now 25, does this mean that the formula changed to 15 + 2*SL ?
That's a thing of the past. Concentration is now a caster power check (i.e. caster level check with spellcasting attribute added in).
Preview #5 Kyra the Cleric: Last, but not least, it is time to talk about casting on the defensive. 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 really is the simplest solution that avoids a skill tax on all spellcasters and does not favor one class over another (due to the variable ability score modifier that is added). When casting on the defensive, the DC is equal to 15 + double the spell's level. This makes it a little harder to cast on the defensive than it was, but that works to help balance out the spellcasters a bit (especially when you consider new feats that allow enemies to move with you if you attempt to 5-foot step away to cast a s
If Ezren's Combat Casting gave him a Spellcraft check of +24 and the concentration DC to cast a 5th-level spell defensively was 25, he couldn't fail.
|
|
Wee Jas doesn't offer the Repose domain, I don't think, and it actually predated Kelemvors change to Repose rather than Death. But your missing the point. I was responding to Clerics with death domain should be the ultimate undead master, and I am saying that there are clerics with the death domain that do not fit that concept at all, and also other clerics without that domain that would still fit the bill just as much, like Evil, Domination, or a few others.Wait a second... Wasn't your point that clerics should be de facto better necromancers than necromancers? This feels vaguely contradictory, because it feels like you're arguing that not all clerics should be better necromancers than necromancers... In fact, it sounds like you're suggesting they should be only under particular circumstances.
Yes, and that is what I am still argueing. That a Cleric should not have to be a Cleric of Sun or Death to be able to destroy or control Undead. Actually, if a cleric wanted to play a concept that focuses on say, being a master undead controler, the Death domain should not be the first and only aspect to focus on. It should be just as acceptible to be a Cleric of Evil and Domination, or Domination and Destruction, Death and Evil, or some other domains I can't think off.
Now, I do think a Cleric that goes out of their way to have nothing to do with Undead should obviously not a better necromancer than a divine or arcane necromancer. I am really speaking as a generalization for a generic Wizard, Cleric, Necromancer, etc. . .
Derf! If Ezren had a Combat Casting feat that gave him an additional +4 to Spellcraft checks for defensive casting, he would have a +23 check. In the Beta, the DC for a 5th-level spell was 20; in the hardcover, it's 25.
Defensive casting is significantly more likely to fail for him.
Preview #5 Kyra the Cleric: Last, but not least, it is time to talk about casting on the defensive. 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 really is the simplest solution that avoids a skill tax on all spellcasters and does not favor one class over another (due to the variable ability score modifier that is added). When casting on the defensive, the DC is equal to 15 + double the spell's level. This makes it a little harder to cast on the defensive than it was, but that works to help balance out the spellcasters a bit (especially when you consider new feats that allow enemies to move with you if you attempt to 5-foot step away to cast a s
If Ezren's Combat Casting gave him a Spellcraft check of +24 and the concentration DC to cast a 5th-level spell defensively was 25, he couldn't fail.
Why are you saying Spellcraft? The thing that you quoted says, "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." It doesn't say Spellcraft at all.
Derf! If Ezren had a Combat Casting feat that gave him an additional +4 to Spellcraft checks for defensive casting, he would have a +23 check. In the Beta, the DC for a 5th-level spell was 20; in the hardcover, it's 25.
Defensive casting is significantly more likely to fail for him.
+23 check, vs. DC 20 or DC 25, has almost no difference in failure rates: 5% (a natural 1) vs. 10% (fail on a 1-2). Even at +20, he's hard-pressed to ever fail a check (25% for his highest-level spells, 15% for his 4th level spells, and 5% for everything else). Defensive casting is still absurdly easy.
+23 check, vs. DC 20 or DC 25, has almost no difference in failure rates: 5% (a natural 1) vs. 10% (fail on a 1-2). Even at +20, he's hard-pressed to ever fail a check (25% for his highest-level spells, 15% for his 4th level spells, and 5% for everything else). Defensive casting is still absurdly easy.Derf! If Ezren had a Combat Casting feat that gave him an additional +4 to Spellcraft checks for defensive casting, he would have a +23 check. In the Beta, the DC for a 5th-level spell was 20; in the hardcover, it's 25.
Defensive casting is significantly more likely to fail for him.
I believe that a caster check has no automatic failure on the roll of a natural 1 (and has no automatic success on a roll of a natural 20, either).
As far as I know, only saving throws, hit rolls and CMB maneuvers follow the 'natural 1, natural 20' rules.Skill checks for example have no automatic failures (except for Use Magic Device, but this is an exception to the rules and it's in fact specified).
So change that 5% failure to 0%; that just underlines how easy defensive casting was, and still is.
Yet remember the outraged howls of "Caster Nerf" when this was revealed...
Personally, I think I will be adopting the house-rule of using CON as the relevant Ability modifier (more in line with D&D convention), instead of the overyly optimizable, single core Caster-Stat (INT/WIS/CHA). I think that will reach a good balance of outcome.
Either that, or make casting defensively a combat maneuver, to be performed against the people threatening you... then clerics and eldritch knights would be at an advantage compared to wizards, in any event.
O, I was just linking/citing the new rules in the cleric preview, and comparing them to how it would be handled in the Beta (with Spellcraft).
|
Personally, I think I will be adopting the house-rule of using CON as the relevant Ability modifier (more in line with D&D convention), instead of the overyly optimizable, single core Caster-Stat (INT/WIS/CHA). I think that will reach a good balance of outcome.
That's a perfectly servicable option, since it follows the old assumptions, and makes sense.
Con is the one stat that is relevant to every PC, across the board. No-one can claim to have been favoured or left out.
'Asthmatic' Alcazar shouldn't be ducking and weaving around, while trying to both chant, and use his inhaler.
Either that, or make casting defensively a combat maneuver, to be performed against the people threatening you... then clerics and eldritch knights would be at an advantage compared to wizards, in any event.
Or just get rid of it completely!
Either that, or make casting defensively a combat maneuver, to be performed against the people threatening you... then clerics and eldritch knights would be at an advantage compared to wizards, in any event.Or just get rid of it completely!
Sure as long as we also drop the "Casting provokes an AoO" part too.
Sure as long as we also drop the "Casting provokes an AoO" part too.
No, I like that part. Hey, there would still be 5' steps, wands, and just plain taking the hit, right?
No, I like that part. Hey, there would still be 5' steps, wands, and just plain taking the hit, right?
Sure as long as we also drop the "Casting provokes an AoO" part too.
Not so much. Here's my thought, if we lose the "Defensive casting" then the fighter loses the AoO. After all the general argument is "Defensive casting wasn't around before 3.x edition" so my response is "Neither was AoO". Now I'm willing to go back to the "If you are hit in the same round you are going to cast a spell then you need to make a concentration check" but otherwise I'm afraid I can't agree with your suggestion.
Casters end up in melee way too often to simply get hit just for using their defining class ability.
My other offer is that attacking provokes an AoO too, as does using bardic music, sneak attacking, or raging.
After all if you are distracted by casting a spell, then you are probably distracted while trying to play a flute in battle, or while trying to peg just the right spot, and you are certainly not trying to be all defensive when raging. Besides every attack leaves an opening any martial artist can tell you that.
** Also: General agreement with Beckett's last post. **
This is gonna sound odd coming from me, but I like the ability to cast defensively. I just wish it were a LOT more difficult, is all... and the final PF version isn't all that much harder. Using Con bonus instead of best spellcasting stat would be a good solution for reduceing success rates to a reasonable level. Making defensive casting a combat maneuver would make it harder still -- do-able with difficulty, but not auto-successful.
The only solutions that don't work for me are those that consist of logic like "casters should always be able to cast all their spells with no chance of disruption and no AoO, and non-casters should just suck it up because casters are supposed to be uber roxxor." So the Beckett/Spalding proposal, which if I understand it translates to "no more checks for casting defensively are needed because there shouldn't be AoO for casting in the first place" is something I'd never use under any circumstances.
Yeah I'm voting (and house ruling) the CON bonus. It is a slight nerf but as has been said everyone needs CON so it is fair throughout and doesn't negatively effect PCs who are like the E. Knight.... Their CHA or INT won't be as high as a Wiz/Sor but their CON will be similar, so they will be (on average) as good as the core classes at something they should be better due to their dual fighting and casting training.
HOUSE RULE #243,783 :-)
|
|
+23 check, vs. DC 20 or DC 25, has almost no difference in failure rates: 5% (a natural 1) vs. 10% (fail on a 1-2). Even at +20, he's hard-pressed to ever fail a check (25% for his highest-level spells, 15% for his 4th level spells, and 5% for everything else). Defensive casting is still absurdly easy.Derf! If Ezren had a Combat Casting feat that gave him an additional +4 to Spellcraft checks for defensive casting, he would have a +23 check. In the Beta, the DC for a 5th-level spell was 20; in the hardcover, it's 25.
Defensive casting is significantly more likely to fail for him.
Um, Ezren only has a +20 to his concentration check. Maybe I missed it, but where did the +23 come from?
10 (level) + 6 (intelligence) + 4 (combat casting) = 20
For his spells...
+20 vs. DC 17 (1st levels) - 100%
+20 vs. DC 19 (2nd levels) - 100%
+20 vs. DC 21 (3rd levels) - 100%
+20 vs. DC 23 (4th levels) - 90%
+20 vs. DC 25 (5th levels) - 80%
A bit different from what was posted above, but close. And Ezren is a Wizard, probably the best class to just go single-minded in an ability. Clerics and Druids will likely not have as high Wisdoms (usually focusing on the physical scores a tad more), and even Sorcerers might want something other than Charisma. But most Wizards I've seen just go crazy with the Intelligence.
Anyhow, it's still leaps and bounds better than what was in Pathfinder RPG Beta, or even 3.5. You could easily auto-succeed on all your checks by the time you were Ezren's level, even before. Now, even with the Combat Casting feat, Ezren still has a decent failure chance. Without that feat?
+16 vs. DC 17 (1st levels) - 100%
+16 vs. DC 19 (2nd levels) - 90%
+16 vs. DC 21 (3rd levels) - 80%
+16 vs. DC 23 (4th levels) - 70%
+16 vs. DC 25 (5th levels) - 60%
Even with 2nd levels he has a chance to fail. In 3.5? All he would need is a +19 Concentration (or Spellcraft, if the Beta) to auto-succeed on all his spells. Not all that hard to get. Especially in the Beta, guh. A wizard with +6 int and Skill Focus (Spellcraft)? At level 10, it's 10 ranks + 6 int + 6 (skill focus doubles at 10 ranks after all) for +22. Good luck failing any defensive casting check.
Now, even with the Combat Casting feat, Ezren still has a decent failure chance. Without that feat?
+16 vs. DC 17 (1st levels) - 100%
+16 vs. DC 19 (2nd levels) - 90%
+16 vs. DC 21 (3rd levels) - 80%
+16 vs. DC 23 (4th levels) - 70%
+16 vs. DC 25 (5th levels) - 60%
See -- he's got better than even odds in all cases, even for his most powerful spells. There's no way to disrupt spellcasting with any decent chance of success -- counterspelling still depends on you having the exact correct spell at hand and costs the whole round, defensive casting is too easy (even still, even for guys without Combat Casting, as you've shown), and readying an action fails when the caster sees you standing there waiting, and so uses the expedient of taking a 5-ft. step before casting, while laughing in your face.
See -- he's got better than even odds in all cases, even for his most powerful spells. There's no way to disrupt spellcasting with any decent chance of success -- counterspelling still depends on you having the exact correct spell at hand and costs the whole round, defensive casting is too easy (even still, even for guys without Combat Casting, as you've shown), and readying an action fails when the caster sees you standing there waiting, and so uses the expedient of taking a 5-ft. step before casting, while laughing in your face.Now, even with the Combat Casting feat, Ezren still has a decent failure chance. Without that feat?
+16 vs. DC 17 (1st levels) - 100%
+16 vs. DC 19 (2nd levels) - 90%
+16 vs. DC 21 (3rd levels) - 80%
+16 vs. DC 23 (4th levels) - 70%
+16 vs. DC 25 (5th levels) - 60%
Yes better than even, but if he fails he loses that spell for the day to no effect. That's a big loss, and there is a way to disrupt spellcasters: The latest prevent adds a feat that increases the DC by 4.
So if you are threatening the wizard and you have the feat and they don't have combat casting those odds become:
1st -- 80%
2nd -- 70%
3rd -- 60%
4th -- 50%
5th -- 40%
If the wizard has the combat casting feat it stays were it is as if he didn't.
A 40% failure rate for not doing anything other than standing beside the wizard is pretty darn good.