Power attack is the same kind of problem.
This weekend, I had to explain to a new Pathfinder player (old 3.5 player) that you Power Attack is at cross purposes with Cleave, even though the one is a pre-req for the other.
I still don't agree with the idea that Power Attack and Cleave are at cross purposes. Is this a mathematical claim or just a conceptual one?
Take the mountain climbing example. Unless the caster has a wand of spider climb they are only going to be able to put spider climb on a few people. this becomes its own sort of challenge.
Of course I realize this and you realize this but the point is that some one actually brought that up as that specific spell ruining his challenge.
As long as magic is a finite resource, things will be reasonably balanced. This is why the change to 0 level spells was a big deal, it made a finite resource infinite. I think the change was a good idea overall, but it does require quite a bit of rethinking on how to handle certain types of encounters.
Indeed it did. There was a change to the metagame, but a rather minor one. The spells are still extremely simple with extremely simple uses. Creating arbitrary challenges without taking into account the new metagame then getting mad that your simple challenges were solved by simple spells is counterproductive and lashing out on that basis is tyrannical and unfair. Not only that, but larger and larger challenges will become increasingly easily solved by a utility mage. The metagame may be changed, but it only manages to focus the beam of attention from higher levels to lower levels.
I still don't agree with the idea that Power Attack and Cleave are at cross purposes. Is this a mathematical claim or just a conceptual one?Redacted. One does not automatically lead to the other as in 3.5. So the one being a requirement for the other sends the wrong signal.
I think I must be misreading you. Power Attack isn't a standard action; Power Attack is a feat you can "turn on" or "turn off" each turn. You can gain the benefits of Power Attack for a Cleave action.
And most of the time, if it would be optimal to Power Attack an enemy, it would still be optimal to Power Attack that enemy when Cleaving into an identical adjacent enemy. I crunched some numbers on a spreadsheet and the additional expected damage from the Cleave very rarely changes the result.
I still don't agree with the idea that Power Attack and Cleave are at cross purposes. Is this a mathematical claim or just a conceptual one?Redacted. One does not automatically lead to the other as in 3.5. So the one being a requirement for the other sends the wrong signal.I think I must be misreading you. Power Attack isn't a standard action; Power Attack is a feat you can "turn on" or "turn off" each turn. You can gain the benefits of Power Attack for a Cleave action.
And most of the time, if it would be optimal to Power Attack an enemy, it would still be optimal to Power Attack that enemy when Cleaving into an identical adjacent enemy. I crunched some numbers on a spreadsheet and the additional expected damage from the Cleave very rarely changes the result.
The exception being that if power attacks causes you to miss your first attack, you lose the second attack. This changes the optimal damage point a little bit as a result.
|
I think I must be misreading you. Power Attack isn't a standard action;I still don't agree with the idea that Power Attack and Cleave are at cross purposes. Is this a mathematical claim or just a conceptual one?Redacted. One does not automatically lead to the other as in 3.5. So the one being a requirement for the other sends the wrong signal.
Hence why that section is in OOC with the word Redacted. I corrected myself. I knew I didn't make that clear. Apologies.
And most of the time, if it would be optimal to Power Attack an enemy, it would still be optimal to Power Attack that enemy when Cleaving into an identical adjacent enemy. I crunched some numbers on a spreadsheet and the additional expected damage from the Cleave very rarely changes the result.
It's just more of a legacy problem.
'I PA it!'
"He dies."
'Sweet, Cleave!'
"Not in PF."
'Then why is it a requirement for it?'
The exception being that if power attacks causes you to miss your first attack, you lose the second attack. This changes the optimal damage point a little bit as a result.
This is true. However, in an EV calculation, you're squaring your to-hit probability when factoring in the damage for the second attack. The result of this is that Cleave only makes a difference in PA when the benefit to PA was already very marginal to begin with. In many, many circumstances, PA is greatly beneficial along with Cleave as it makes both your attacks hit a lot harder.
EDIT: I'm having a lot of fun crunching numbers in response to specific comparisons/issues on this forum. Just in case that wasn't clear. :-)
The way you make such a scenario palatable to the players is to make the metaphysics make sense and to have a believable upside to go along with the downside.
Let's say we've got a desert. We don't want every cleric and druid to become a walking oasis able to produce endless quantities of potable water via endless cantrips. It ruins suspension of disbelief for our medium-magic desert region and moreover keeps it from being a challenge when the characters do run low on water.
So we say that the desert is aspected to the Plane of Fire and consequently Create Water and all other Water and Ice spells are raised by one level. This means that Create Water is no longer a cantrip but a 1st level spell, and while it is still highly useful and something folk in a desert culture would pray for, it can't be auto-spammed. Ditto Ray of Frost, though that's more for thematic sense than balance issues.
In place of Create Water, the gods and nature spirits offer the clerics and druids the next best thing, the Locate Water cantrip, which will point them in the direction of the nearest well or oasis. But wait, there's more! All Fire spells are reduced in level by one, meaning that Produce Flame and Burning Hands are now cantrips. All sorcerers will immediately gain knowledge of Burning Hands while they're in the desert, and wizards who already have it in their spellbooks can memorize it as a cantrip. Druids will also be great at Produce Flame, but the only clerics who get it are those who worship gods with Fire in their portfolio.
There. Nice and neat and metaphysically sound. It also gives a reason why a Decanter of Endless Water doesn't function very well in a desert. It still produces water, but only reasonable amounts, and not enough to found a city and irrigate date groves.
Now, does this change things? Yes, you'll have a lot more fire spells being cast in deserts, but you'll also have more perils from heat as well.
Again.
POWER ATTACK HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS THREAD.
AT ALL.
Let's say we've got a desert. We don't want every cleric and druid to become a walking oasis able to produce endless quantities of potable water via endless cantrips. It ruins suspension of disbelief for our medium-magic desert region
I assume there was some sort of unofficial poll to come to this conclusion.
and moreover keeps it from being a challenge when the characters do run low on water.
*Face palm*
I am quite convinced you haven't read one word of any argument I have put forward. My point - my repeated point - is that that is not a challenge because the cantrip automatically solves the problem. You are making a perfect example of some one refusing to accept the change in the metagame or, at least, refusing to accept that spells solve a very basic problem when creating the problem to be solved. PCs getting water in a desert is not a challenge because of the Create Water spell itself. That is undoubtedly one of the main reasons the spell even exists. Your challenge wasn't a challenge before you even decided to think it up.On the change in metagame: it really isn't even all that different since any Cleric or Druid could previously create 2 gallons of water with a single 0th level spells. And you would have 3 of them. Is there any doubt that a Cleric or Druid would not make sure to memorize this spell when knowing they are going to be traipsing around a desert? Not memorizing the spell that would help with the "challenge" should be penalized, not the solving of the "challenge" by using the spell designed to solve it and a subsequent Rule-0 for all spells to obfuscate your opposition to a simple spell solving a simple challenge in a game world where magic is commonplace for the PCs.
POWER ATTACKS the desert with his Decanter of Endless Water
POWER ATTACKS the desert with his Decanter of Endless Water
You do no damage because the water magically disappears.
POWER ATTACKS the desert with his Decanter of Endless WaterYou do no damage because the water magically disappears.
... but you hit, so you Cleave into the next desert.
sadly its not adjecent to the original desert. It makes a five foot step and smites you!
Checks alignment, sees "evil", checks race, sees "undead", checks errata, groans at taking double damage but happy to only do it once.
Power Attacks TriOmegaZero
You realize I hate you all right.
I am just glad I stayed clear of arguing in this thread.
Just don't hate me all wrong, cuz that sounds perverted.
*Face palm*
I am quite convinced you haven't read one word of any argument I have put forward. My point - my repeated point - is that that is not a challenge because the cantrip automatically solves the problem. You are making a perfect example of some one refusing to accept the change in the metagame or, at least, refusing to accept that spells solve a very basic problem when creating the problem to be solved. PCs getting water in a desert is not a challenge because of the Create Water spell itself. That is undoubtedly one of the main reasons the spell even exists. Your challenge wasn't a challenge before you even decided to think it up.
I disagree with it not being a challenge.
It's a challenge for all the nomads that roam the desert. It's a challenge for most critters that are waiting for PCs to provide a decent encounter. Its a challenge for any group of adventurer that isn't counting on a druid or a cleric.
It is a challenge that can very easily be thwarted with divine magic, but the fact that most groups of adventurers can count upon a druid or a cleric doesn't mean that it isn't a challenge. It is a challenging reality that those who want to brave the desert have to deal with. If it wasn't a challenge, the desert would be populated, full of crops and well, not a desert at all...
Whether it is wise to expect the lack of water in a desert to be challenge worthy of your group of adventurer is a whole different matter, but in a desert, the heat, the lack of water, the lack of landmarks are challenging realities nevertheless.
'findel
I am just glad I stayed clear of arguing in this thread.
Smites Blazej with a desert water power attack
I disagree with it not being a challenge.It's a challenge for all the nomads that roam the desert. It's a challenge for most critters that are waiting for PCs to provide a decent encounter. Its a challenge for any group of adventurer that isn't counting on a druid or a cleric.
Indeed it is, but it is not a challenge for a group with a Cleric or Druid. Which is my point.
It is a challenge that can very easily be thwarted with divine magic, but the fact that most groups of adventurers can count upon a druid or a cleric doesn't mean that it isn't a challenge. It is a challenging reality that those who want to brave the desert have to deal with. If it wasn't a challenge, the desert would be populated, full of crops and well, not a desert at all...
I find it ironic that you are both missing the substance of my argument but on two entirely different angles.
Whether it is wise to expect the lack of water in a desert to be challenge worthy of your group of adventurer is a whole different matter,
That "whole different matter" being the very point of this thread.
but in a desert, the heat, the lack of water, the lack of landmarks are challenging realities nevertheless.
...but not for PCs with magic designed specifically to counter those things.
Indeed it is, but it is not a challenge for a group with a Cleric or Druid.
I disagree with it not being a challenge.It's a challenge for all the nomads that roam the desert. It's a challenge for most critters that are waiting for PCs to provide a decent encounter. Its a challenge for any group of adventurer that isn't counting on a druid or a cleric.
... or it can be, if your GM is as creative as Kevin -- a plausible and fun way to adapt the "desert setting" concept to a Pathfinder world.
I find it ironic that you are both missing the substance of my argument but on two entirely different angles.
Beware the angles! There dwell the Hounds of Tindalos!
... or it can be, if your GM is as creative as Kevin -- a plausible and fun way to adapt the "desert setting" concept to a Pathfinder world.
You didn't seem to read my retort. I don't accept his cleverness as such. He wants a specific challenge to exist, but does not want to accept a simple solution exists, so he is going to Rule-0 a number of other things for this specific case in order to make it look like some grand scheme rather than an attempt to cover up his opposition to a challenge being solved by a simple spell.
Rule 0's the angles to protect himself from the hounds
Um, or he thought it out ahead of time and came up with a very system-plausable way for things to run. We put up with it for decades from Judges Guild. It's present all over modules from Paizo. What's the big deal?
My complaint primarily stems from the direction of the solution. I am ok with the changes in magic based on location, but I am not ok with these changes being made up to 'solve' the 'problem' of Create Water making it easy to get water in the desert.
...
I think you realized that, but just in case... I wasn't presenting a perfect solution, just a few points from which you can approach the thing.
That thing about unattended liquids and body fluids for example comes from the ability of the blue dragon to ruin water.
Dessication could be gradual, even lessening the yeald of the Create water could at very least slow down the party significantly, especially if they need pack animals (if they speed-up travel magically, they are already spending resources :) ). Another solution would be that the few creatures in the desert can be adapted in a way the heroes can use themselves. Traveling by night and staying burried by day is an old trick, so the only problem could be holding enough water for the travel, if you can avoid overheat this way. Protective mucus of desert frogs that could be alchemicaly treated into a protective balm combined with snake skins to make a water-tight outfit may help to overcome this challenge.
Just musing about the possibilities.
That thing about unattended liquids and body fluids for example comes from the ability of the blue dragon to ruin water.
Hmm, Desert Thirst. Interesting ability. Nice point.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
It is a challenge that can very easily be thwarted with divine magic, but the fact that most groups of adventurers can count upon a druid or a cleric doesn't mean that it isn't a challenge. It is a challenging reality that those who want to brave the desert have to deal with. If it wasn't a challenge, the desert would be populated, full of crops and well, not a desert at all...
Part of me wonders why deserts wouldn't be populated and full of crops in the D&Dverse given that a 1st level druid or cleric can produce such a vast quantity of water through repeated castings. At the moment, I plug my ears and look away just like I do for most other instances where magic would be so disruptive of society, but I do like Kevin's suggestion above. Psionichamster's got a good point too about having the rules be friendly to the small tactical based nature of D&D and acknowledging they aren't intended to be used (and shouldn't be used) at a larger scale - that's a very practical approach.
I've never been a fan of spells that create without a cost because they always manage to damage (slightly) my suspension of disbelief. I like an Ars Magica type system, where creation magic of any type requires an outside magic resource, effectively making it finite.
(...) If it wasn't a challenge, the desert would be populated, full of crops and well, not a desert at all...I find it ironic that you are both missing the substance of my argument but on two entirely different angles.
(?) I guess I am. sorry.
Whether it is wise to expect the lack of water in a desert to be challenge worthy of your group of adventurer is a whole different matter,
That "whole different matter" being the very point of this thread.
but in a desert, the heat, the lack of water, the lack of landmarks are challenging realities nevertheless.
...but not for PCs with magic designed specifically to counter those things.
Again I disagree. As you quoted in the OP, the challenges are there to be overcome. Magic brings additional resources to overcome the challenges that a DM puts his/her PCs through. But magic is sometimes so efficient that the challenge is allowed to be ignored. I say it invalidates the challenge, you say the challenge wasn't there in the first place. You don't like the direction of my solution, and that's fine; don't take it.
As for the rest, I'm not trying to be clever. You opened a discussion on the board, I participated and happened not to agree with you. That was all...
Of course, one could ask the question "how is the challenge invalidated?"
By being too good at solving the challenge? Then it is still a solution to the challenge presented. If a spell is so efficient that it 'invalidates' the challenge, then I say it should have been calculated into the planning of the challenge.
I note and find it interesting that all of the cantrips mentioned were, in some previous D&D editions, 1st level spells, which have always had limits on use. They were moved to the cantrips list as a game design decision, presumably because the designers at the time felt that they were underpowered for first level spells, or only gave marginal benefits. Underlying that game design decision, however, was the fact that they were still limited in use. I'm wondering if the second game design decision, to make them unlimited in use in PF, and to have all cantrips known to every caster of the appropriate class, calls into question the first one, to make these cantrips? Just thinking out loud.
Also, although this hasn't been a problem in my game, I can see why the use of cantrips in the ways described can irritate GMs. Because these minor spells are unlimited and don't have to be memorized, less thought needs to go into preparing for the adventure by the players. I always enjoyed rewarding the caster player who had the foresight to memorize the right spell for the right situation. Some of that is taken away now.
Well, I heard another fine (for the purposes of desert fun) explanation of the create water spell. It drains water from about one mile around the area of casting. And when there is no water around...
|
I agree that the use of some of the "cantrips x infinity) can cause problems, but some of the subtle changes in the rules also lead to innovative solutions that simple did not exist in 3.5.
e.g. My party was stuck in with a bunch of nasty trolls. Normally, we would have had major problems with the encounter (lots of trolls!), but I suddenly realized that hold person would work on them now (they're humanoids with the giant subtype). While it didn't make the encounter a total cakewalk, using up a few 2nd level slots knocked it down to a fight the party actually had a chance of winning. TPK avoided. The DM was a little surpised at the tactic, but not displeased because it allowed him to rain more beatings down on us without us resorting to a 15 min adventuring day.
Yet you then complain that when the "spell so efficient that it 'invalidates' the challenge" is calculated into the planning of the challenge by adding additional conditions to the challenge to reduce or negate the spell's effectiveness at overcoming the challenge.
Because the problem is being assumed as the spell providing the solution and not the arbitrary challenge that the DM feels needs to exist regardless of any magical solution.
Because the problem is being assumed as the spell providing the solution and not the arbitrary challenge that the DM feels needs to exist regardless of any magical solution.
What??
Player: I have a 3pp spell that lets me kill any Giant, no save!
GM: That's totally not allowed! OP!
Player: Why? The problem is not that the spell is OP, it's the arbitrary challenge that you feel needs to exist regardless of any magical solution...
Were there a low-level spell that automatically kills any giant, that would be a valid example, and the player would still be correct.
It's the DM's job to challeneg the party.
It's the DM's job to challenge the party. In doing so he must take into account the basic capabilities of the party. If the DM's "challenge" is "invalidated" by a spell that is very "efficient" in the scenario of that "challenge" the DM/adventure writer was ill prepared and it is neither the player nor the spell's fault that the DM/adventure writer failed to take into account capabilities easily accessible to the players. They should be rewarded for overcoming the challenge.
|
|
Your example does not match his. An appropriate comparison to the subject is 'you use slay giant? This giant is immune to slay spells'. Because the dm is fudging the encounter because he felt it was overcome too easily by raw.
Edit: this was to mirror. Sorry for the confusion. Typing from my blackberry.
Your example does not match his. An appropriate comparison to the subject is 'you use slay giant? This giant is immune to slay spells'. Because the dm is fudging the encounter because he felt it was overcome too easily by raw.
And I disagree with that action as punishing the players.
|
|
You are still not matching his example. The dm prepared for the spells his party had so the challenge would not be trivial, while leaving them a chance to learn before and adjust tactics.
Cartigans example was:
'You're in a desert. You need water to survive this trip.'
'I'll have create water prepped.'
'I'm changing that spell so find a different way.'
'WTF?'