The PRPG answered many problems I had with 3rd edition. It condensed the skills down into something that made more sense to me mechanically. It gave me new rules for grappling and tripping that made such things not only viable in combat but easier to manage. It improved upon most of the melee classes (though I still think the Barbarian is grossly underpowered compared to the other warrior classes).
It is not without it's flaws however, at least not in my eyes.
Apparently there was a consensus amongst the community that spellcasters were too powerful. I could kind of see that but felt that they needed a trim but what they got seemed closer to castration. Sure they got some niftiness with the bloodlines and the domains but ultimately it didn't make up for what happened to their bread and butter: their spells got nerfed to near uselessness.
There are some who do not think so, well... a lot, these changes couldn't have occurred in the RPG unless there was a substantial mindset that said spells were too powerful. If you are of that mindset: this thread is not for you.
I agree that some spells were a little too powerful, some, not the vast majority that seemed to be fall under the axe. Those that I felt merited a little weakening instead of being trimmed the %10 they needed got cut down to half their potency and rendered nearly useless. Practically making battlefield control magic pointless and forcing one to focus on combative of defensive spells seeing as enchantment and illusion have always been flawed schools.
By way of example:
Solid Fog.
One of the mid range spells at 4th level. The level where you seem to lack a lot of the good offensive spells. A level that is not exactly meant for throw away spells. Let's take a look at the 3.5...
Verbal, Somatic and Material components. A wizard isn't going to be stealthily casting this spell if he's in sight of anyone. The components seem easy enough to come by.
Duration of 1 minute a level. More or less guaranteeing it will last a combat session. Perfectly reasonable.
It acts like the 2nd level Fog Cloud so it only covers a 20ft radius, that's 40x40ft square and 20ft high. Not a lot of ground.
It hampers movement reducing it to 5ft a round. Can't really see in or out. Those withing suffer -2 attack and damage penalty and falling objects are slowed. This doesn't seem over powered for a 4th level spell to me. It's good for battlefield control, keeping that onrush of minions from getting at you until you've dealt with some of the heavier hitters (or vice versa) or maybe letting the BBEG slow the PC's down so he can either cast a fireball or buff himself or heal himself. Or the PC's could use those same tactics, all in all a reasonable trade off.
Now let's look at the PRPG version...
Virtually the same as far as components duration and area of effect go. In fact it's virtually the same save for one glaring difference: It's considered difficult terrain rather than hampering movement to 5ft a round across the board.
I could see that working for a second maybe third level spell but not 4th. It'll only really effect any enemies for what, two rounds at most and that's if you caught someone smack dab in the middle. A 4th level non-damaging spell that only hampers it's victims for a round, maybe two. I could see it work out if the AoE increased some. Maybe to 40ft radius, but it doesn't.
I can kind of see the reasoning. What happens if you use Solid Fog on someone with a higher movement rate, is it fair that he's slowed just as much as everyone else? Maybe, maybe not, but rather than think out how to balance it for such a case, trim it down to the %80 percent it probably needed they took the cheap way out and cut it down to near uselessness.
And it's not just that spell. This is done with many spells that got hacked up and spit out sad shadows of their former selves. Game balance is well and good but it seemed they went to far with this. I could go on as to how the Druids shapeshift abilities just aren't worth it in comparison. I could see how the 3.5 version could be abused but did you need to render it pointless now? Now the druid can shapeshift into the weakest brown bear in the woods.
So this long winded rant brings me to my request of the community. I have two players who love playing spell casters. Unfortunately the game just isn't fun for them any more since the spells got neutered. I want to try and make it fun for them again by making spells worthwhile but not going back to 3.5 spells completely.
Do you guys have any suggestions for handling this so that I only need the PRPG book and don't have to carry a 3.5 PH around to reference it's spells? Should I go through them and adjust them on a case by case basis? One player recommended I create wands that act as the 4th edition implements and serve to enhance the PC's spells rather than store charges of spells themselves?
How would you have edited the wizard spells that got nerfed?
How would you have handled the Druids shape changing ability?
One of my PC's is quickly losing interest as he realizes glitterdust is virtually useless now and that web might as well never grace his spellbook, he's basically reverting to what he hates: a blaster and it's because the utility and battlefield control spells have been chewed up and spit out in a manner that made the great 3.0->3.5 nerfing look like a power up.
Any help or suggestions would be appreciated.
Glitterdust is useless because it doesn't end the encounter anymore?
In 3.5, did you ever put your party up against two spellcasters using the spells you're talking about? You should try it sometime. I did extensive NPC testing using reasonable builds and casualties were always much higher in those teams, even when neither spellcaster had more than one attack spell prepped.
Ever seen a group of four 8th level PCs buried knee-deep in mud, being grabbed by tentacles, stung by wasps and punched by phantasmal hands while two casters one level lower than them cackle madly and high five? I have. Anti-caster spells and one surprise spell from the druid. I had them take prisoners like idiots and basically let the PCs win their stuff back before they were sold into slavery.
If you weren't playing the same game I completely understand but seriously casters don't get the short end of the stick in Pathfinder. And if they do, I'm fine with it because the Fighter gets to do something now besides get hit in the head. The caster in 3.5 always did battlefield control and party buff. They do the same thing now, but it's not as tide turning because that's stupid. I quit 3.5 because of this crap.
Spell analysis for 4th level:
Black Tentacles: Needs no intro. Doesn't cut off movement like Solid Fog but oh wait it does one better and STOPS SPELLCASTERS DEAD. You are grappled. Say goodnight. This one actually got a bit better since there's less chance to whiff on a touch attack against thieves and the like.
Wall of Fire: Is it the way it guarantees a bunch of damage with no save? Is it the tactical possibilities? No, it's the fact that you can do both by making an inwardly projecting ring around something you don't want to leave, like Mr Grapple-happy the Monk (Or Fred the Fighter)! He runs through the wall? Average of 16 damage at the spell's introductory level to an otherwise had to pin target. Oh wait, my bad and also 2d4 the first turn for 5 more. 21 damage without having to roll. Oh baby, I think I'm in love. Do a sheet (Not implying drug use I swear) and watch the spellcasters and thieves MAGICALLY stay on one side of the wall while the fighters and whatnot rush through to your side. Once divvied up like so your next area spell can easily be determined to be a reflex save/will save for the fighters and then a nice fortitude save for the casters/rouges (Or maybe then Solid Fog to prevent peppering with spells).
Solid Fog: This is a good getaway spell. But that's all it ever was. Maybe it's good in your book to give the melee guys a hard time but the last time I did that to the melee guys they just gave me the death glare and I had memories of being canned by them in wizard's school all over again. Eh-hem moving on this spell is very silly. You do this so you can ignore a problem. The old solid fog was broke to hell, though, so I guess then maybe you could buff up but here's the question.
Why would the foes want to leave this thing?
You have literally provided an advantage for everything that's hiding in there unless you're a Druid or an "Evoker".
Especially at 5 feet of movement a round (!) as a melee guy i want to stay in there. Why? You're a spellcaster. Assuming this is 3.5 you have no ranks in listen and spot checks are impossible. You've given me a happy playground of wizard touch spell no worky and ranger bow no worky. Unless you make this undesirable I will just set up my +2 folding chair of lounging and ready some potions for drinking or, hell, talk at you. That is the best case scenario. For you. For me, I now take less damage as a melee fighter, meaning I am much more survivable. I can just drink a few brewskis of Enlarge Person, Shield of Faith, Buff Spell number 3 here etc. In a lot of cases you can't outbuff the fighter at all if you're going to play the waiting game. You want to shower them with spells? Well they can do the same to you. If they're a Fighter they would have been completely shut down by the spell in 3.5. In PF you have effectively lost an action to a spellcaster. That's how it was in 3.5 as well. If I tried that cloud crap on my players they would laugh in my face and nuke the area the caster was standing in until nothing was left but a pair of boots. If there's a Bard in there? Expect to be Faerie Fired and then shot with whatever rays the party has.
For getaway? Fog Cloud has no equal. Black Tentacles is a chump comparatively. And for sheer utility it can't be beaten. Neutralize a drop with this baby. But in general even Wall of Ice is a much better spell for long-term lockdown provided you're not level 7 when casting the dome.
Really wizards have so much going for them that I think it's time they started playing the same game as everyone else.
I would've given the Druid stat increases dependent on animals and skill bonuses though. Just so we don't have Eagles with low perception checks.
I think you are in the wrong thread sir.
You clearly think the spells are just fine, I do not and this request for help is for those who either share or understand that view point.
I'm glad you are happy with the spells. I wish I could be unfortunately I like spells to be useful and have witnessed the decay of that usefulness grow steadily since 3.0 Some changes I view as understandable, others not so much, most of the changes from 3.5 to PRPG I thought were a little excessive and am asking those that feel the same for advice short of going back to the 3.5 way of doing things.
You don't need to argue, your side already won, I made my arguments during the playtest period and things turned out against me. I'm asking those who feel the same way how they would handle things differently or their advice for adjusting the spells to something more bearable for me and mine. If the way we want to play our game offends you: too bad.
Have a good day.
|
I know how you feel. I don't really have any advice, except that it really forces casters to powergame to be as effective. I feel the same way about Clerics. It seems like they slightly hurt the super min/max playstyles but really punished the more generic ones with the changes. Balance for balance's sake is bad, in my opinion, and I also believe that there are a lot of areas the PF went too far. Spells and Casters are on the top of that list, I think.
That is not to say the PF didn't bring a lot of goodness, though. It did. But it is also centered around two things moreso than others. The PFS organized play and a certain group of game styles that want Fighters to be steal center stage and Rogues to be always rolling a lot of dice.
Feats like Step Up make casters prime targets with no real defense against the almighty zerg attack.
Do you guys have any suggestions for handling this so that I only need the PRPG book and don't have to carry a 3.5 PH around to reference it's spells? Should I go through them and adjust them on a case by case basis? One player recommended I create wands that act as the 4th edition implements and serve to enhance the PC's spells rather than store charges of spells themselves?
How would you have edited the wizard spells that got nerfed?
How would you have handled the Druids shape changing ability?
Adjusting on a case-by-case basis is what I would do. Frankly, I like the change to Glitterdust (if you want a super-blinding spell, you can always go for Pyrotechnics instead, but it has its own drawbacks), but I don't like the change to Solid Fog (although I didn't really like the 3.5 version either).
My suggestions:
- Solid Fog - as 3.5 Solid Fog, but a successful Str check allows you to move through it faster as per Wall of Thorns
- Death spells - reduce you to -9 and dying instead of doing damage
Let me see if I can think of some more changes...
|
|
What they mean is that in 3., creatures on an Alignment registered as such regardless of their HD. 10 or less registered as a Faint Aura of Evil.
In PF, only creatures with 5HD or more do now. (not including Outsiders, Undead, or Clerics).
Personally, I like to use Detect Alignment spells a bit differently. First, they are one spell. What they do is paint targets in degrees of alignment along one axis. Actions, Aligned magic items, intentions, and things like that do play apart as well as the actual alignment and class features. This is also somewhat true for the actualy alignment, meaning someone might become evil for a day by doing things that are not good. You will not lose class features for it, unless you do it often, but you may be very surprized when certain spells hit you hard.
Bck to the Detect Alignment spells, though, I think it gives a better view of an overall character while leaving room for interpretation and RP. Why is that LG Cleric not registering as Good? They are still doing good acts, casting good spells, so they haven't fallen yet, but are they on that path? Or maybe having a bad day? It becomes more investigative without being deceptive (in the GM vs players sense).
I think you are in the wrong thread sir.
You clearly think the spells are just fine, I do not and this request for help is for those who either share or understand that view point.
I'm glad you are happy with the spells. I wish I could be unfortunately I like spells to be useful and have witnessed the decay of that usefulness grow steadily since 3.0 Some changes I view as understandable, others not so much, most of the changes from 3.5 to PRPG I thought were a little excessive and am asking those that feel the same for advice short of going back to the 3.5 way of doing things.
You don't need to argue, your side already won, I made my arguments during the playtest period and things turned out against me. I'm asking those who feel the same way how they would handle things differently or their advice for adjusting the spells to something more bearable for me and mine. If the way we want to play our game offends you: too bad.
Have a good day.
It doesn't offend me, I'm just saying spells that win an encounter with no save are broken, end of discussion. It'd be like if fighters got to use a vorpal weapon for a few rounds a day and teleport next to you before using it.
I have no problem with the caster being useful. But there is a line in my encounters that got crossed in 3.5 too many times, and that line is when I have to set up anti-magic bubbles so my archers can do 1d8 worth of damage to 5th level characters without fear of getting one-shot or shut down by a caster.
Spells like, say, Touch of Idiocy were pretty much too powerful for their level. Putting that spell at 3rd level and adding points based on caster level to the ability score damage. Hell, make chill touch deal d4's up to 5d4 and up to 5 points of strength damage dependent on caster level. That's very useful and it's balanced.
Haste and Slow still exist in PF, and those will win the encounter by themselves. Slow turns enemy casters into fighter-bait, and makes enemy fighters useless. There's a save for them, but that's what heighten spell is for.
I would also suggest making stuff like Glitterdust set up an area, because that's what I thought it did. Then again I also thought Blind affected something besides direct targeting for casters, so foo on me. Maybe have Hold Person work like a poison, they don't take the effect of "Paralyzed for one round" if they make the save, and the have to make two or three saves to shake it completely.
For solid fog, here's something that would let it keep the pea soup effect and still remain fairly balanced:
blah blah blah don't change any of this stuff up here
"...Creatures moving through Solid Fog must make a Strength Check (DC equal to save of the spell) or only move five feet per round. If they succeed on this check they may move at half speed through the fog."
Much like the pea soup grandma used to make, I guess this solid fog is a bit chunky.
I can understand your pain. I used to DM a lot though, and in no rolling stats games everyone would play a caster. My last 3.5 group had two wizards, a warlock, a cleric, a sorcerer, a rouge and a barbarian switching out form week to week. Team Caster was nigh untouchable unless I threw golems at them, and the cleric had UMD and Druid scrolls to deanimate them. After that game I was just done with 3.5. I like to challenge my players, but I hate rolling up a caster for every NPC. If I wanted to play a game revolving around people (Non-casters) watching casters fight I would play Mechton Zeta. Instead, giving a bit of extra power in PF to spells that are literally just sitting there unused and making them all have an appeal should be in keeping with the spirit of things.
It doesn't offend me, I'm just saying spells that win an encounter with no save are broken, end of discussion. It'd be like if fighters got to use a vorpal weapon for a few rounds a day and teleport next to you before using it.I have no problem with the caster being useful. But there is a line in my encounters that got crossed in 3.5 too many times, and that line is when I have to set up anti-magic bubbles so my archers can do 1d8 worth of damage to 5th level characters without fear of getting one-shot or shut down by a caster.
Spells like, say, Touch of Idiocy were pretty much too powerful for their level. Putting that spell at 3rd level and adding points based on caster level to the ability score damage. Hell, make chill touch deal d4's up to 5d4 and up to 5 points of strength damage dependent on caster level. That's very useful and it's balanced.
Haste and Slow still exist in PF, and those will win the encounter by themselves. Slow turns enemy casters into fighter-bait, and makes enemy fighters useless. There's a save for...
I guess that is where I have to disagree with you. I've never viewed these spells as winning an encounter. They might force me or the PC's to re-evaluate their tactics but all in all if the PC's wipe the walls with their enemies because they were clever doesn't mean they should be punished by decapitating their spells. A wizard who casts Ray of enfeeblement on a lone charging ogre helps the party keep adventuring that day. A wizard casting ray of enfeeblement on a charging ogre in a group combat just made himself a target for his ogrekin minions. There's give and take.
One of my most memorable sessions involved the PC's investigating a renegade wizard from a Thayan enclave in a Forgotten Realms adventure. The PC's were first level and after tracking the foe down to his lair in an abandoned warehouse and dealing with his imp familiar they stalked up the stairs to where he was waiting for them. He had prepared as best he could, the PC's were down one due to the fear caused by the imp, all in all they were prepared for a gritty battle.
Combat was joined, the PC's wizard won the initiative and cast 'sleep' rather than 'magic missile'. The wicked wizard failed his save and collapsed to the floor while the rogue blinked then chuckled and moved forward for the coup de grace.
Sure the battle was a little anti-climactic but the guy was no arch villain and it gave the PC's a boost of confidence knowing that they took on the big bad evil guy before the end of the first round of combat. That made the life and death battle with a total of four orcs in the next adventure a humbling experience for said PC's.
It comes down to perception and what people consider fun. So no, not the end of discussion, I'm of the mindset that magic that can turn a lengthy encounter shorter or hell, even win the day quite quickly does not make them broken in my opinion.
On other topics: I like that solid fog idea, a strength check to reduce the effect to difficult terrain effectively.
|
|
One thing I had suggested way back in the Beta about spells is to make all spells have a much greater minimume affect, but a lesser total affect. So many spells are either hit or miss, a save making the spell have no effect at all. The only way to get around this, (to keep spells useful) is to max out the casting stat to get DC's as high as possible, which is part of the isue with magic. It i very strong against the right targets, which may have little way to defend.
However, what if the Sleep spell automatically stunned, Dazed, or something like that for one round, and if the targets failed the save also, then they fell asleep, too.
Maybe a better example would be Glitterdust, which might auto blind creatures for one round, and if the target fails, then the spell has it's normal affect a well. (it sould still make it ard to hide and the like).
For the Save or Dies, maybe the spells do something along the lines of the spell, (Phantasmal Killer might make a target scarred), deal damage on a failed save, and if you fail the save by 5 or more (10 or more), you die, too?
For magic in general, I am sort of torn. I think that they did go to far. I understand some spells needed it, but not many that they did. I think that the cases where a caster does win an encounter should be encouraged, but in my experience is rare. I see Fighters and Rogues in the combat spotlight often, and I think dropping the right spell at the right moment can be fun as heck. I'm also from the group that understands whatever a player can do, so can a DM, and my experiences (in a lot of different groups) shows me that the issue is (usually) not casters or spells as much as noncasters wanting to have the results of a great spell without needing to put in all the effort, risk, or planning that casters do, or wanting casters to sit back stage and just buff them so that they can have ll the fun nd not worry about things like HP or disease.
It doesn't offend me, I'm just saying spells that win an encounter with no save are broken, end of discussion. It'd be like if fighters got to use a vorpal weapon for a few rounds a day and teleport next to you before using it.I have no problem with the caster being useful. But there is a line in my encounters that got crossed in 3.5 too many times, and that line is when I have to set up anti-magic bubbles so my archers can do 1d8 worth of damage to 5th level characters without fear of getting one-shot or shut down by a caster.
Spells like, say, Touch of Idiocy were pretty much too powerful for their level. Putting that spell at 3rd level and adding points based on caster level to the ability score damage. Hell, make chill touch deal d4's up to 5d4 and up to 5 points of strength damage dependent on caster level. That's very useful and it's balanced.
Haste and Slow still exist in PF, and those will win the encounter by themselves. Slow turns enemy casters into fighter-bait, and makes enemy fighters useless. There's a save for...
I guess that is where I have to disagree with you. I've never viewed these spells as winning an encounter. They might force me or the PC's to re-evaluate their tactics but all in all if the PC's wipe the walls with their enemies because they were clever doesn't mean they should be punished by decapitating their spells. A wizard who casts Ray of enfeeblement on a lone charging ogre helps the party keep adventuring that day. A wizard casting ray of enfeeblement on a charging ogre in a group combat just made himself a target for his ogrekin minions. There's give and take.
One of my most memorable sessions involved the PC's investigating a renegade wizard from a Thayan enclave in a Forgotten Realms adventure. The PC's were first level and after tracking the foe down to his lair in an abandoned warehouse and dealing with his imp familiar they stalked up the stairs to where he was waiting for them. He had prepared as best he could, the PC's...
My question to you is: What can the rogue do that stops an encounter cold? Can he use Sneak attack for this? Nope. Can he use Stealth for this? Unlikely, considering how badly written stealth is. Can he use a re-written stealth for this? Still nope.
The Wizard on the other hand, wins initiative and locks the Fighter in a force cage, then pelts him with projectiles, or uses any other such spell at low level to do the same thing. This is hardly creative and requires less brain power than even "Charge and then full attack".
I have no problem with the wizard being powerful. But powerful enough that, basically, to run my encounters I have to deal with him first is not acceptable. I assure you, I've played as a PC against NPC casters quite a lot. I try to be fair, but all it comes down to are scrolls of anti-magic field and grapple checks. I don't want to be that cheap. It'd be like if the DM for a high level combat sent out characters built only to counter your characters. I want to have fun, make the caster guess what I'm going to do by readying an action. I don't want to turn this into non-magical WCW. If the casters are so powerful that this is the only way to beat them, then I am going to have a lot of dead casters on my hands next session. If they didn't get de-powered I can already tell you my gnolls are going to move past the fighter to get to the caster and beat the crap out of him until he is dead, dead, dead, due to casters being infamous for using Bigby's Interposing Hand the second they get a turn.
Once again I ask you have you ever used these spells ON PCs? I assure you they would beg for a spell nerf if you had. I regularly pulled evil wizards on the party, and at high level Druids with Hurricane would crush spellcasters into dust, even one caster who had taken Combat Casting AND Skill focus Concentration. Trust me, I know how it must look from your end, but expecting a TPK every time two or more casters are put up against the characters. I used a Druid in a battle a few months back and it didn't kill everyone by itself, even though it was three levels above the party. I played him pulling no punches too, and with minions, and they still won. Do you see what I'm saying? In 3.5 if I did that I would have a pile of character sheets I might as well have just snatched up and burnt. In AD&D Magic Users could be powerful as hell but they gained experience very slowly. That was balanced via that factor. In 3.0 and 3.5 they got all the advantages of a static experience system without losing ANYTHING. That's why the Fighter got the shaft. He was the lowest experience guy in AD&D, and he got the worst and worst disadvantages of both in 3.5. PF is branching more towards the idea of a static experience system. I think powering up spells is fine, in fact I think more spells should've gotten attention than just the powerful ones, but I also think you should understand (Agreeing with it is not necessary) the philosophy behind 3.5 and why it was so screwed up in the caster's favor. Otherwise I would not feel bad in the slightest about making anti-magic field grapple golems with 60 ft movement speed, compared to casters they are pretty balanced.
My question to you is: What can the rogue do that stops an encounter cold? Can he use Sneak attack for this? Nope. Can he use Stealth for this? Unlikely, considering how badly written stealth is. Can he use a re-written stealth for this? Still nope.
The Wizard on the other hand, wins initiative and locks the Fighter in a force cage, then pelts him with projectiles, or uses any other such spell at low level to do the same thing. This is hardly creative and requires less brain power than even "Charge and then full attack".
I have no problem with the wizard being powerful. But powerful enough that, basically, to run my encounters I have to deal with him first is not acceptable. I assure you, I've played as a PC against NPC casters quite a lot. I try to be fair, but all it comes down to are scrolls of anti-magic field and grapple checks. I don't want to be that cheap. It'd be like if the DM for a high level combat sent out characters built only to counter your characters. I want to have fun, make the caster guess what I'm going to do by readying an action. I don't want to turn this into non-magical WCW. If the casters are so powerful that this is the only way to beat them, then I am going to have a lot of dead casters on my hands next session. If they didn't get de-powered I can already tell you my gnolls are going to move past the fighter to get to the caster and beat the crap out of him until he is dead, dead, dead, due to casters being infamous for using Bigby's Interposing Hand the second they get a turn.
Once again I ask you have you ever used these spells ON PCs? I assure you they would beg for a spell nerf if you had. I regularly pulled evil wizards on the party, and at high level Druids with Hurricane would crush spellcasters into dust, even one caster who had taken Combat Casting AND Skill focus Concentration. Trust me, I know how it must look from your end, but expecting a TPK every time two or more casters are put up against the characters. I used a Druid in a battle a few months back and it didn't kill everyone by itself, even though it was three levels above the party. I played him pulling no punches too, and with minions, and they still won. Do you see what I'm saying? In 3.5 if I did that I would have a pile of character sheets I might as well have just snatched up and burnt. In AD&D Magic Users could be powerful as hell but they gained experience very slowly. That was balanced via that factor. In 3.0 and 3.5 they got all the advantages of a static experience system without losing ANYTHING. That's why the Fighter got the shaft. He was the lowest experience guy in AD&D, and he got the worst and worst disadvantages of both in 3.5. PF is branching more towards the idea of a static experience system. I think powering up spells is fine, in fact I think more spells should've gotten attention than just the powerful ones, but I also think you should understand (Agreeing with it is not necessary) the philosophy behind 3.5 and why it was so screwed up in the caster's favor. Otherwise I would not feel bad in the slightest about making anti-magic field grapple golems with 60 ft movement speed, compared to casters they are pretty balanced.
*Sigh* This is the point I'm trying to make. There is no universal truth, there is no debate, what works for you doesn't work for me and vise versa. You can argue until your fingers turn blue and you won't change it kind of like one can't convince a hard core 4e fan that the PRPG is the superior game, people have their own tastes and desires and opinions.
I have used these tactics on my PC's. There was no crying or begging. They like that their characters may live or die and rest assured, if the PC's can pull off a tactic so can the enemy. We game how we game and you will not be able to change that.
I have indeed seen a rogue stop a combat cold, or at least as much as a caster can, per the new rules as long as the enemy is flatfooted the rogue gets sneak attack. Stealth up to a wizard or use a potion of invisibility and lay waste with three sneak attacks and you have a dead wizard who can't cast that force cage on the fighter.
Please, if you have nothing to contribute to this thread go elsewhere, I'm not here to debate or convert, I'm here to get advice from those who share my line of thinking. You obviously do not and have not offered up any of the advice I requested. To further argue is a waste of time and ultimately a futile effort as me and mine enjoy what we enjoy.
Have a good day.
P.S. I have indeed seen a rogue stop a combat cold, or at least as much as a caster can, per the new rules as long as the enemy is flatfooted the rogue gets sneak attack. Stealth up to a wizard or use a potion of invisibility and lay waste with three sneak attacks and you have a dead wizard who can't cast that force cage on the fighter.
I've seen a fighter one shot a druid. I've also seen a paladin take down two glabrezu's virtually on his own while the wizard was pretty much useless having not memorized the appropriate spells. There is a checks and balances in the game that I consider to be the major balancing factor.
|
One thing I had suggested way back in the Beta about spells is to make all spells have a much greater minimume affect, but a lesser total affect.
That would be a neat idea. Hold Person might be 'too good' for the full duration, but if it had the round by round saves, and then slowed the subject for the rest of the duration, once they'd saved, it could be pretty spiffy.
Glitterdust could blind only briefly, and the targets would treat all others as having partial cover (due to blurry vision), or just be Dazzled, for the remaining duration.
Even a successful save vs. the Slow spell could have a lesser result, forcing the afflicted to spend double movement, but not limiting them to a single move or standard action.
Many of the powers in Mutants & Masterminds work kind of like this. A Paralyze attack Slows the target, unless they fail their save by 5 or more, in which case they are fully Paralyzed. A Nauseate attack only Sickens the target, unless they fail their save by 5 or more.
To reduce your own house rule load, I would leave the spells as they are and jack up the schools a little bit. One popular suggestion is to improve blasting by adding features to the evocation school — either evocation ignores SR (by magically creating non-magic energy), or elemental spells have secondary effects (Fire ignites, acid endures, sonic deafens, cold slows, electricity stuns, force pushes), or both.
That's just one example, but it makes evocations much more tactical and enjoyable, and as long as the effects scale with level it isn't overpowered (unless you think it is, and "this thread is not for you").
With a little effort, you could cook up similar school-based rules for the other spells. That way, at most you have to worry about 8 rules instead of who-knows-how-many individual spell rules.
Some of these school based things could be de-fact repeals of other decisions. Maybe all Necromancy save-or-die spells actually kill instead of deal lots of damage? That would make sense to me.
Wait, you mean I didn't address any of these questions?
Should I go through them and adjust them on a case by case basis? One player recommended I create wands that act as the 4th edition implements and serve to enhance the PC's spells rather than store charges of spells themselves?
How would you have edited the wizard spells that got nerfed?
How would you have handled the Druids shape changing ability?
It is to laugh, good sir.
Try almost the entirety of my second post:
Spells like, say, Touch of Idiocy were pretty much too powerful for their level. Putting that spell at 3rd level and adding points based on caster level to the ability score damage. Hell, make chill touch deal d4's up to 5d4 and up to 5 points of strength damage dependent on caster level. That's very useful and it's balanced.
Haste and Slow still exist in PF, and those will win the encounter by themselves. Slow turns enemy casters into fighter-bait, and makes enemy fighters useless. There's a save for them, but that's what heighten spell is for.
I would also suggest making stuff like Glitterdust set up an area, because that's what I thought it did. Then again I also thought Blind affected something besides direct targeting for casters, so foo on me. Maybe have Hold Person work like a poison, they don't take the effect of "Paralyzed for one round" if they make the save, and the have to make two or three saves to shake it completely.
For solid fog, here's something that would let it keep the pea soup effect and still remain fairly balanced:
blah blah blah don't change any of this stuff up here
"...Creatures moving through Solid Fog must make a Strength Check (DC equal to save of the spell) or only move five feet per round. If they succeed on this check they may move at half speed through the fog."
...giving a bit of extra power in PF to spells that are literally just sitting there unused and making them all have an appeal should be in keeping with the spirit of things.
How can you attempt to re-convert something if you don't understand why it was converted is my main inquiry. Otherwise you might as well just make a new set of spells and balance those off of themselves, maybe introduce them into the main line at a later point.
The solid fog thing was touched on prior to that but it's a good suggestion and I'll probably incorporate it.
Touch of idiocy wasn't changed between editions so it won't be altered. It requires a touch attack which means it would be rather dangerous for a wizard to use anyway.
Glitterdust I see no reason for it to remain as it was in 3.5 It was merely a second level spell which means most creatures and their dogs will save against it at mid to high levels.
Let's see... Web is a good example of a spell I thought needed to be weakened but not as much as they did. What might be considered a good half way point?
As for Druids and their wildshape... that might be worth a new thread altogether but any ideas for something between what it was in 3.5 and what it is at present would be welcome.
Ray of enfeeblement. Perhaps as it was in 3.5 but 1d4 instead of 1d6.
I already use a house rule involving Neutralize Poison and Remove Disease permitting a Cleric to substitute the Caster Level check with a healing check instead (no bonus for healers kit).
Heh, it's looking like either going through and making slight adjustments here and there might be best. Or running it on a case by case basis.
To reduce your own house rule load, I would leave the spells as they are and jack up the schools a little bit. One popular suggestion is to improve blasting by adding features to the evocation school — either evocation ignores SR (by magically creating non-magic energy), or elemental spells have secondary effects (Fire ignites, acid endures, sonic deafens, cold slows, electricity stuns, force pushes), or both.
That's just one example, but it makes evocations much more tactical and enjoyable, and as long as the effects scale with level it isn't overpowered (unless you think it is, and "this thread is not for you").
With a little effort, you could cook up similar school-based rules for the other spells. That way, at most you have to worry about 8 rules instead of who-knows-how-many individual spell rules.
Some of these school based things could be de-fact repeals of other decisions. Maybe all Necromancy save-or-die spells actually kill instead of deal lots of damage? That would make sense to me.
Hmmm, that could work, I'll have to look into it and see what the PC's think. Though the main issue is with the spells that were altered, as far as I know most of the evocation spells weren't. I think most of the alterations were applied to save-or-die spells and save-or-suck spells. There were a lot of people who didn't like them so they tried to lessen them. I'm definitely not keen on the 'save every round' thing they have for spells like glitterdust as at later levels it's an achievement if the enemy or the PC fails their save at all... unless you're Valeros...
|
|
There were a lot of people who didn't like them so they tried to lessen them. I'm definitely not keen on the 'save every round' thing they have for spells like glitterdust as at later levels it's an achievement if the enemy or the PC fails their save at all... unless you're Valeros...
I am not a fan of this at all, either. I suggest making them so that a save does not negate the spell, but rather they get a harder D.C. after the first, (+2ish) and a saving throw only frees the target from the affect for 1 round. I hated when 3.5 changed Hold Person so that targets got a save every round to negate which basically made the spell either do nothing at all or paralyse for 1 round. Never seen it last longer than 2, even when fights last much longer.
There were a lot of people who didn't like them so they tried to lessen them. I'm definitely not keen on the 'save every round' thing they have for spells like glitterdust as at later levels it's an achievement if the enemy or the PC fails their save at all... unless you're Valeros...I am not a fan of this at all, either. I suggest making them so that a save does not negate the spell, but rather they get a harder D.C. after the first, (+2ish) and a saving throw only frees the target from the affect for 1 round. I hated when 3.5 changed Hold Person so that targets got a save every round to negate which basically made the spell either do nothing at all or paralyse for 1 round. Never seen it last longer than 2, even when fights last much longer.
Well my suggestion was basically that, they get hit with an effect that makes them save every round to avoid "Blindness for 1 round".
Yeah, evaluation on a case-by case basis is the best I've got for ya. But homebrewing is half the fun of D&D in my opinion. Friends who've been at it longer than me have tons of homebrew material from AD&D lying around.
Touch of Idiocy doesn't need to be touched (Ironic), but its real utility is in the hands of a rogue or a gish since there's no save.
With Web as a baseline... Hmm... We could start with a spell like Wall of Thorns that really needs fixing still. A wall that may or may not provide cover and takes an hour to hack through a 1 by 1 foot area... And a DC 25 strength check to move 5 feet as a full round action. Here's my recommendation for the fix.
- Keep the Strength check to move through, lower it to 15 to move 5 feet, and then add five per 5 scored over the 15.
-Keep the damage the same, it is fine.
-Wall provides cover.
-Each 5x5 foot square of wall has 40 hp (10x spell level).
This still keeps the sticking effect for the wall, and its getaway utility is only lessened by creatures so big that the old wall would've been eaten anyway.
If it's not crazy enough for your taste, increase the Strength check back up to 20, but have that let them move 5 feet instead of how the current one is written.
Think up one you don't like besides web (I got nadda on that one) and I'll give you my two cents.