You could probably do some damage with Meteor Swarm, sure, but it's really not the mass devastation it's made out to be.
The 75% chance is not what matters. It's the underlying assumptions that matter. Yes, it's very open-ended, but it's the assumptions that go along with it that matter, not the details. Here are the design assumptions that go along with the 75% chance:
1) Magic items are available for purchase. There is a market of some sort for a broad array of magic items.
2) If you have enough money and you're in a big enough town, you can probably buy what you want if it costs less than a few thousand gold.
3) Rarity is based on price. The more expensive something is, the harder it is to find. The less expensive, the easier.
Those are what the design assumptions boil down to. These are the assumptions I'm talking about. When you deviate from these assumptions, you have to take into account the effect they have on the game.
You are free to make scrolls dramatically rarer, certainly, but a scroll for even a ninth-level spell still costs less than a quarter the price of even a lowly +3 sword, and it's a very specific jab against the Wizard that affects game balance and goes against the design assumptions.
Your third design assumption, I believe, is not entirely supported. Rarity is partly based on price because a price that's too high for the community in question is probably not available at all. That will set part of its rarity. But that's not the only factor a DM should take into consideration.
A 9th level scroll may be fairly inexpensive in the grand scheme of things, under the gp limit of small cities, nearly within the limit of a large town. But who's supplying the scroll? What's the local market for them? When you consider that the highest level wizard is probably 10th level, there isn't a supplier or market. This is ultimately why Amish dinner tables are less common than houses. They're cheaper, yes, but there just aren't as many of them made.
There are all sorts of places in the rules where quick and dirty guidelines exist. The GP limit of a community is one of them. It's meant to estimate what could be available, but common sense must prevail. A city with a 15000 gp limit should be a suitable source for a sailing ship based just on the assumption that most items under that value should be available. Put that city in the middle of a desert and common sense tells you something different.
In the case of magic equipment, we not only have the GP limit as a guideline but also the section a few pages later in the 3.5 DMG about Magic in Your Campaign. That's where you'll find more design assumptions about the availablility of magic for sale and any other restrictions that may be placed on it above and beyond what's considered in balanced class design.
How all of this will appear in PF, we'll have to see. The PF core rule book doesn't include quite as much world-building information as the 3.5 rules had, but upcoming volumes appear to deal with the topic in much more detail. Until then, since the PF design assumptions are based on 3.5's, the ones for 3.5 provide some pretty good illumination into the game.
Am I the only one who finds it sad that the 9th level 'premier direct damage spell' pales in comparison to a relatively simple TO trick using, what, a 2nd level spell?
What trick? (I looked back a ways, but I'm not seeing what you mean.)
I do agree that it seems a little sad that Evocation in general is lackluster in 3.5/Pathfinder.
Not a great example, fighter is damaging a single target versus a rather large number of targets with meteor swarm. Kind of a completely different target. Maybe compare to maximized disintegrate if you want to compare single target ranged damage. I know not really your example but...For a more meaningful comparison, then, if you shot your meteor at a stone wall, most of the damage would be cut in half because you're using fire damage against stone, and hardness would be applied four times, once for each meteor, meaning you're not doing a lot of damage to that stone wall. Assuming 112 damage split between four meteors, That comes out to 112/2-8*4=24 damage to the wall, total, and stone has 15 HP per inch. Which means the meteor swarm enough damage to blast away an inch and a half of stone at the point of impact, less over its area of effect, which is only 40' per burst.
Hey I wasn't arguing with the conclusion, just saying it was a poor example. If I were to try and devastate a city with meteor swarm though, most cities have plenty of softer targets than the stone walls ;)
Really though... meteor swarm? Maybe the worst use of a 9th level spell slot ever.
Am I the only one who finds it sad that the 9th level 'premier direct damage spell' pales in comparison to a relatively simple TO trick using, what, a 2nd level spell?What trick? (I looked back a ways, but I'm not seeing what you mean.)
I do agree that it seems a little sad that Evocation in general is lackluster in 3.5/Pathfinder.
I don't know the second level spell version, but if you stack the metamagic cost reducers of the Incantatrix, Arcane Thesis, and Practical Metamagic, then pile huge amounts of metamagic on a single damage spell to get off, say, an empowered enervating twin repeat fire-admixed maximized searing Orb of Cold with the cold damage substituted for fire followed up with a quickened version of the same you can deal enough fire damage to kill pretty much any god in Deities and Demigods (if you hit) in a single shot using a 5th and a 6th-level slot while ignoring fire resistance and treating fire immunity as merely halving the damage. Which is, of course, theoretical optimization.
Hey I wasn't arguing with the conclusion, just saying it was a poor example. If I were to try and devastate a city with meteor swarm though, most cities have plenty of softer targets than the stone walls ;)
Really though... meteor swarm? Maybe the worst use of a 9th level spell slot ever.
Oh, I know you weren't. I was just offering up a more suitable example.
Though if you want a real city wiper, Control Winds is where it's at, if it's not of extremely sturdy construction.
Yes, you can have fun with 1e. However, mind that you're coming from the background of one who has a vast amount of experience with 1e, who is used to its quirks, who knows how to work around its shortcomings, who is aware of and familiar with the gaps in its rules, who has fashioned his entire dynamic of play around that system. It's a game you like. It's a game you're accustomed to. It's a game that is very dead to you. It's a game that is to your tastes. That doesn't mean it's a game of exceptional quality on its own merits in comparison to modern games, even though it isn't a fair comparison, just as it isn't fair to compare the original Final Fantasy or Castlevania or Zelda to their SNES counterparts.
And do note that of course 1e doesn't have 80% of the issues 3.5 has, because it's a different system entirely. TriStat also doesn't have 80% of the issues 3.5 has either, because they're drawing on completely different sets of issues, and there's not a whole lot of overlap.
Most of my serious gaming has been done with 3.5. It is perhaps my favorite system. However, I have no doubt that 4e is the superior system. 4e achieves its design objectives gracefully and efficiently. It does precisely what it's designed to do, and it does it very well. However, what 4e is designed to do is not what I want out of a system, and I'm very familiar with 3.5 and its myriad design flaws. I know how to get 3.5 to do what I want, I can get what I want out of it, and I enjoy it. I know that 4e is the superior system, but 3.5 suits my tastes better.
I run a 1st edition game weekly and have played the system for years.
There is an *incredible* amount of information on the ways that 4e does in fact *not* meet it's design goals. This is not the place for this discussion. You are welcome to your opinion. Newer does not equate to better.
-Campbell
I was referring to the Locate City + Explosive Spell trick. There were several other metamagics and maybe one or two other spells involved but I don't remember them offhand.
Ahh ok, I've never seen someone trot that out. Silliness like this is why I cringe every time someone brings up a splat book from 3.5 (or even worse, 3.0).
I don't know the second level spell version, but if you stack the metamagic cost reducers of the Incantatrix, Arcane Thesis, and Practical Metamagic, then pile huge amounts of metamagic on... yada yada.. Which is, of course, theoretical optimization.
Another reason I dislike splat books, the horrid power creep, and the way they can introduce incredibly degenerate combos due to the authors of each book being unaware of (or just not caring about) the contents of the other's work.
Incorrect. Energy damage is halved against objects, and is subject to hardness which is calculated after the halving. So, rather than doing 84/90 of a wall's health, a meteor swarm will do 34/90, barely over a third.
...except when the GM determines the energy should be fully effective, such as fire against flammable objects. (It's ambiguous even in the more specific 3.5 SRD whether hardness still applies in such a case.) Granted, as previously commented, meter swarm doesn't actually catch things on fire so that's probably a no in this case even vs. dry wood. Phooey! Burning hands wins again. ;)
Ahh ok, I've never seen someone trot that out. Silliness like this is why I cringe every time someone brings up a splat book from 3.5 (or even worse, 3.0).
Another reason I dislike splat books, the horrid power creep, and the way they can introduce incredibly degenerate combos due to the authors of each book being unaware of (or just not caring about) the contents of the other's work.
It's not a splat issue, I assure you. You can do some pretty insane things in core. Infinite wish engines, belly flop Barbarians, PAO, Stone-to-Flesh-to-Zombie-Hoard.
The power creep's really something of a myth. If you want weird and ridiculous rules interactions, you can find 'em anywhere. It's not a creation of the splats.
The power creep's really something of a myth.
+1. Pun-pun is a famous example of power creep and the evilness of splat books, but in reality all Pun-pun did was ascend to Godhood as a level 1 commoner. Candles of invocation only cost 8,400 gold and grants you infinite wishes, and are completely core. A mid-4th level PC can afford a candle of invocation and ascend to Godhood with enough time and wishes.
The problem isn't with the rules, it's with the players. Players that want to break the game will break the game with any rule set you give them. Players that don't want to break the game, won't break the game, regardless of how much rope you give them to hang themselves with.
Candles of invocation only cost 8,400 gold and grants you infinite wishes, and are completely core. A mid-4th level PC can afford a candle of invocation and ascend to Godhood with enough time and wishes.
Just curious, how do you manage this at 4th level? Because:
If you choose to call a kind of creature instead of a known individual, you may call either a single creature or several creatures. In either case, their total HD cannot exceed twice your caster level. In the case of a single creature, you can control it if its HD does not exceed your caster level. A creature with more HD than your caster level can't be controlled.
Oddly, the candles don't grant you an increase caster level despite granting you higher-level spells; so that's a maximum of 8 HD if you can convince the creature to use a wish on your behalf; 4 HD otherwise. Do any 8 HD outsiders have wish?
(Note that I just double-checked: the candle specifically allows the owner to cast a gate spell. The candle doesn't cast it, so it's not at CL 17th.)
The candle uses its own caster level. Otherwise, you could never use that function. Caster levels are based on either A) the casting class/race ability, or B) the item causing the effect. Since the gate isn't being cast through a class or racial ability, there's no way to determine the caster level for the effect unless you use the candle's caster level. An easy example is a fighter burning the candle and using its "cast gate" function; what is the fighter's caster level?
An easy example is a fighter burning the candle and using its "cast gate" function; what is the fighter's caster level?
Zero.
What a badly written item. :)
The power creep's really something of a myth. If you want weird and ridiculous rules interactions, you can find 'em anywhere. It's not a creation of the splats.
While there are some iffy spells and abilities in the core books (3.5 or Pathfinder, whichever) and some really crazy tactics like trip madmen, nothing compares to the absolute "why in gods name did they ever print this without playtesting" nutbaggery that the various splat books brought to the game.
While ridiculous rules interactions may not be the sole province of the splat books, their relative lack of testing (and the way so many of the authors seemed to write as if none of the other splat books existed) ensured that the very worst examples were found therein.
The power creep's really something of a myth.+1. Pun-pun is a famous example of power creep and the evilness of splat books, but in reality all Pun-pun did was ascend to Godhood as a level 1 commoner. Candles of invocation only cost 8,400 gold and grants you infinite wishes, and are completely core. A mid-4th level PC can afford a candle of invocation and ascend to Godhood with enough time and wishes.
And the rules for ascension and divine ranks came from where again? Exactly. (Unless you're just referring to godhood in the sense of exploiting gate to get lots of crap, including more candles. And yes, I agree that's some serious cheez built right into core. As I said in my other post it's not -just- splat books, but splat books had some of the very worst examples.)
An easy example is a fighter burning the candle and using its "cast gate" function; what is the fighter's caster level?Zero.
What a badly written item. :)
I don't know, would be fun to see the expression on the players face when the djinn stuffs his fighter into a trunk and hauls him off to be a slave on his home plane.
And the rules for ascension and divine ranks came from where again? Exactly. (Unless you're just referring to godhood in the sense of exploiting gate to get lots of crap, including more candles. And yes, I agree that's some serious cheez built right into core. As I said in my other post it's not -just- splat books, but splat books had some of the very worst examples.)
However, Pun-Pun is not a problem because Pun-Pun is not usable. He is a theoretical exercise. No sane player would seriously bring Pun-Pun to the table, and no sane DM would allow it.
The ridiculous abuses are not a problem with the splats (after all, core has 'em, too, and has more of 'em than most of the individual splats), it's a problem with the players. It's the players who are actively setting out to break the game in the first place, and unless you have the most rigid and inflexible of systems, if you set out to break a game, you will, splats or no. The only distinction is how much style you can bring to bear when you do.
You could probably do some damage with Meteor Swarm, sure, but it's really not the mass devastation it's made out to be.
Which is why I house ruled that all damaging spells do +1 HP damage per die. Beefs it considerably in light of the hit point inflation that has gone on from 1st edition till now.
that sounds.. really boring to play in.. I guess we'll all make barbarians and power attackMind, I'm talking 3.5's expanded game for this policy. The original game had 11 base PC classes, and you really couldn't ban any of them without taking a serious hit, but the expanded game has 50 or more base classes. The core classes have no special status in the realm of the expanded game; if they're hideously overpowered (which three are), they ought to be banned or fixed just as swiftly as something overpowered from outside of core, and the remaining classes are still far more numerous than just Barbarian.
And again, this is a 3.5 policy. Expanded 3.5 has the material out there for banning the Big Five to actually work. Currently, Pathfinder without extensive 3.5 materials (which kinda defeats the purpose of using Pathfinder in the first place) does not; axe three classes and you've axed nearly a quarter of the classes in the game, with nothing to replace them. Thus, the bans aren't something I would do if I were running Pathfinder.
In the expanded game, there are upwards of a dozen classes that can take the place of Cleric, Wizard, or (with slightly more difficulty) Druid. You have Psions and Favored Souls and Warmages and Beguilers and Spirit Shamans. 3.5 games I run are just going to be Warblade/Psion/Favored Soul/Rogue rather than Fighter/Wizard/Cleric/Rogue, in the interest of balance, but all the characters'd be the same, just with different builds. Meaningful options and meaningful choices for everyone, with folks on a more similar levels of power.
How valid could VV's arugments be when clearly she plays in a campaign that contains none of the core classes as she's repeatedly stated in her inflammatory points on this board.I play in many campaigns with many different classes. I'm currently core-only games as well as expanded games. I play as and alongside all the core classes. But I have my preferences, garnered after extensive...
You banned wizards and clerics for being overpowered and allowed psions???
How are psions overpowered?They aren't lol. In 95% of cases their weaker than a pure caster, especially one of the preparation based ones. Pit a Psion vs a Sorcerer where they each have the same level of optimization put in (read, both have the same quality of powers/spells known, the same effectiveness level choices of gear, the same relative value feats) the sorcerer will outperform the psion at least 70% of the time.
Note: I pulled those percentiles out of my head, they don't have any official support behind them but they are decent approximations.
I've not played a psionic game, but it's my understanding that they get to use their powers based on a point system. I.E. never using weaker ones, just paying more points for high ones. Sort of like Mana in Diablo II. Noone uses the ice bolt once they get blizzard. I may be wrong on that but that is my understanding.
I.E. the wizard who doesn't have to prepare spells ahead of time
I've not played a psionic game, but it's my understanding that they get to use their powers based on a point system. I.E. never using weaker ones, just paying more points for high ones. Sort of like Mana in Diablo II. Noone uses the ice bolt once they get blizzard. I may be wrong on that but that is my understanding.I.E. the wizard who doesn't have to prepare spells ahead of time
So, in other words, you come in and complain about someone not banning an "overpowered" class, then admit that you know next to nothing about the class?
Incidentally, because they can spend more points to augment their powers, they can actually continue using low level powers and expect them to be moderately useful.
Not exactly, it would be more accurate to say that they must pay for the scaling that wizards and sorcerers get for free.
The psion equivalent of most evocation spells does a set base damage (which is usually roughly equivalent to what a wizard would do with a similar level spell at the level they can first cast it). As they level though, the power doesn't scale, unless they pay additional power points.
It would be like fireball always doing just 5d6, unless you chose to use Heighten Spell to cast it from a higher level slot. On the flipside, some of their non-damaging spells do scale more effectively than the wizard/sorcerer equivalent, so it's all a wash in the end (In my opinion at least).
You banned wizards and clerics for being overpowered and allowed psions???
3.5 psionics are not 1e psionics.
3.5 psionics are not 2e psionics.
3.5 psionics are not 3e psionics.
The older versions of psionics were wonky and oftentimes broken. However, they have nothing to do with 3.5 psionics, which received a complete overhaul. The fact of the matter is, 3.5 psionics is the most balanced and elegant casting mechanic in all of 3.5.
I've not played a psionic game, but it's my understanding that they get to use their powers based on a point system. I.E. never using weaker ones, just paying more points for high ones. Sort of like Mana in Diablo II. Noone uses the ice bolt once they get blizzard. I may be wrong on that but that is my understanding.
I.E. the wizard who doesn't have to prepare spells ahead of time
Psionics is a system explicitly designed for spontaneous casting, rather than a spontaneous casting mechanic reverse-engineered from Vancian. Psionic characters are more comparable mechanically to a Sorcerer than a Wizard.
A Psion has a limited number of powers known, much like the Sorcerer, as opposed to the Wizard's ability to learn as many as she can get her hands on.
Psions cast from a pool of power points, comparable to mana, yes. And this pool, as well as the augment system, are one of the major balancing factors of a Psion as opposed to a Wizard. You see, if you have a level 7 Wizard cast Fireball, that Wizard is dealing seven die of damage, and expending a level 3 spell slot (the equivalent of five power points). If a Psion wanted to do the same thing with Energy Ball, the Psion would have to spend seven power points for the seven die of damage (the equivalent of a fourth-level spell slot). Two levels later, the Wizard is still only spending one third-level spell slot on a Fireball, but is now getting nine die of damage out of it, while a ninth-level Psion would still only get seven die of damage if she spent seven power points on her Energy Ball. To get more damage, she has to spend more power points; for nine die of damage, she needs to spend nine power points.
The augment system means that the Psion has to pay for the natural evolution of her abilities that normal casters get for free. And one of the most important rules in the entire book is that Psions are not allowed to spend more power points on a power than their manifester level (save a few abilities that can let you push a little bit farther). That means that a Psion with a hundred power points couldn't blow them all to pull off a hundred damage.
Also, yes, a Psion can go around all day blasting all their powers at full strength at all times. However, if they do, they'll be out of points in short order. They'd often be better off using more, smaller effects so that they actually have the power points to get through the day.
Most psionic effects are polished versions of spell effects, and the augment system means that spells don't become obsolete so easily; your first level Energy Ray will do as many die of damage as you spend power points on it. It's usable (if not optimal) from level 1 to 20, without forcing you to take five different spells that serve the purpose of an energy-damage-dealing ray attack.
So basically, they're sorcerers, only they're able to boost some of their spells without needing to take a feat to do so and they don't get any of the bloodline powers or weapon proficiencies? I don't see how this is overpowered.
Precisely.
Psionics get a bad rep due to older editions' psionics mechanics, failure to notice the build in limiters, as well as the myth that it's sci fi.
You banned wizards and clerics for being overpowered and allowed psions???3.5 psionics are not 1e psionics.
3.5 psionics are not 2e psionics.
3.5 psionics are not 3e psionics.
The older versions of psionics were wonky and oftentimes broken. However, they have nothing to do with 3.5 psionics, which received a complete overhaul. The fact of the matter is, 3.5 psionics is the most balanced and elegant casting mechanic in all of 3.5.
I've not played a psionic game, but it's my understanding that they get to use their powers based on a point system. I.E. never using weaker ones, just paying more points for high ones. Sort of like Mana in Diablo II. Noone uses the ice bolt once they get blizzard. I may be wrong on that but that is my understanding.
I.E. the wizard who doesn't have to prepare spells ahead of time
Psionics is a system explicitly designed for spontaneous casting, rather than a spontaneous casting mechanic reverse-engineered from Vancian. Psionic characters are more comparable mechanically to a Sorcerer than a Wizard.
A Psion has a limited number of powers known, much like the Sorcerer, as opposed to the Wizard's ability to learn as many as she can get her hands on.
Psions cast from a pool of power points, comparable to mana, yes. And this pool, as well as the augment system, are one of the major balancing factors of a Psion as opposed to a Wizard. You see, if you have a level 7 Wizard cast Fireball, that Wizard is dealing seven die of damage, and expending a level 3 spell slot (the equivalent of five power points). If a Psion wanted to do the same thing with Energy Ball, the Psion would have to spend seven power points for the seven die of damage (the equivalent of a fourth-level spell slot). Two levels later, the Wizard is still only spending one third-level spell slot on a Fireball, but is now getting nine die of damage out of it, while a ninth-level Psion would still only get seven die of damage if she spent...
Well thank you that's a really clear explanation. So basically they choose how much juice they want to put behind their power rather than just a set affect that the caster has little effect on. That doesn't seem nearly as bad as some threads I've read on this, which granted, could have been as you said older editions of these. Funny enough a guy I was playing with yesterday told us about his 1e almond flavored potions of fireball.
So, in other words, you come in and complain about someone not banning an "overpowered" class, then admit that you know next to nothing about the class?
Now you're going to hurt my feelings. Actually not having first hand knowledge or experience with something and knowing nothing about it are two separate things. For instance, do I have to personally have been shot with a shotgun at close range to know it's going to hurt? You don't have to answer that.. really.. don't..
Most of the "OMG PSIONS ARE OVERPOWERED!!" threads are based on the faulty assumption that the party can have a single encounter and then rest up for the next one.
Psions generally can go a whole lot harder than arcane casters and completely destroy one encounter, but if they do they're back to the crossbow for the rest of the day.
Is there any noticeable difference between spell points and Power Points?
Not as such.
The big difference between psions and arcane casters with spell points is that psions need to spend more points in order to get the scaling effects of spells.
|
Is there any noticeable difference between spell points and Power Points?Not as such.
The big difference between psions and arcane casters with spell points is that psions need to spend more points in order to get the scaling effects of spells.
So Power points requires more than 1 spell point per caster level?
So Power points requires more than 1 spell point per caster level?Is there any noticeable difference between spell points and Power Points?Not as such.
The big difference between psions and arcane casters with spell points is that psions need to spend more points in order to get the scaling effects of spells.
Scratch my last statement, I was forgetting the spell point section on damage and caster level.
NOVA
This is the big problem with Psions. Both in terms of balance and playability. Balance wise, they can overwhelm a lot of encounters just by blasting high PP powers for a single encounter. Wizards only have a few high level powers while psions can use all their power as their highest level. Playability wise for exactly the same reason. Less canny players will tend to burn up their psion's powers quickly and have nothing for the rest of the game.
Both of these issues exist with the wizard and sorcerer to some extent but not quite as bad. In particular when casters get quicken they can really burn through spells fast.
Between Quicken, and that absurdly broken splatfeat which lets you cast as a move action for +3 spell levels, Vancian arcane casters are just as capable of going nova through a couple of encounters.
Between Quicken, and that absurdly broken splatfeat which lets you cast as a move action for +3 spell levels, Vancian arcane casters are just as capable of going nova through a couple of encounters.
What feat is that?
I remember one that allows you to maintain concentration on a spell as a move action, but not one that allows you to actually cast a spell as a move action.
Yeah, if there's a cast-as-a-move-action feat, it's NOT from a WotC source (except perhaps Dragon magazine). Sounds like Mongoose to me...