|
So the standard Wizard is God thread is rolling along, with all the players shouting at each other when suddenly we all come to these two new meta-magic feats in the APG...
And we all seem to be in agreement.
Over powered, open for exploit.
So...has this played out as true in your game and if so what can be done to correct it.
For reference.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/metamagic-feats/persistent-spell-metamagic
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/metamagic-feats/bouncing-spell-metamagic
Is a power level bump enough, or are these feats just broken when combined with SoS spells.
Or am I overstating the issue?
|
I don't think they're as overpowered as an evocation blaster wizard with the Admixture Subschool, who also takes Preferred Spell.
Admixture School
Associated School: Evocation.
Versatile Evocation (Su): When you cast an evocation
spell that does acid, cold, electricity, or fire damage, you
may change the damage dealt to one of the other four
energy types. This changes the descriptor of the spell to
match the new energy type. Any non-damaging effects
remain unchanged unless the new energy type invalidates
them (an ice storm that deals fire damage might still provide
a penalty on Perception checks due to smoke, but it would
not create difficult terrain). Such effects are subject to GM
discretion. You can use this ability a number of times per
day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier.
Preferred Spell
You find it very easy to cast one particular spell.
Prerequisites: Spellcraft 5 ranks, Heighten Spell.
Benefit: Choose one spell which you have the ability to
cast. You can cast that spell spontaneously by sacrificing
a prepared spell or spell slot of equal or higher level. You
can apply any metamagic feats you possess to this spell
when you cast it. This increases the minimum level of the
prepared spell or spell slot you must sacrifice in order to
cast it but does not affect the casting time.
I was DMing a 15th level game and there was a wizard built like this in the party. Fireball was his Preferred Spell. So no matter what he was doing on his turn, he would also be casting a quickened fireball(or ice ball, or lightning ball, or acid ball). Many of his turns consisted of him casting a heightened fireball, before the quickened one.
|
|
I don't think they're as overpowered as an evocation blaster wizard with the Admixture Subschool, who also takes Preferred Spell.
Admixture School** spoiler omitted **
Preferred Spell** spoiler omitted **I was DMing a 15th level game and there was a wizard built like this in the party. Fireball was his Preferred Spell. So no matter what he was doing on his turn, he would also be casting a quickened fireball(or ice ball, or lightning ball, or acid ball). Many of his turns consisted of him casting a heightened fireball, before the quickened one.
Well...I mean it does add an additional 35 points of damage (10d6 max fireball) by sacrificing another spell. At 15th that is nice, but not to bad considering the spell loss penalty.
The above spells basically make you (or in the case of bouncing someone else) re-roll a SoS spell if they make it the first time, when SoS spells are already spells that work more than 50% of the time.
I don't understand
Everyone goes on and on about how Sod or Sos spells are terrible because when they don't work it just wastes the caster's time and resources.
These feats fix that by giving you a second kick at the can.
So.. uh, I guess that puts me in the "Yay" camp.
|
|
I don't understand
Everyone goes on and on about how Sod or Sos spells are terrible because when they don't work it just wastes the caster's time and resources.
These feats fix that by giving you a second kick at the can.
So.. uh, I guess that puts me in the "Yay" camp.
See in other threads others are arguing that SoS spells are what makes wizards Gods.
I generally take the "Just right" side of things, as best cast they generally fail 1 in 4 times even when used optimally, so most of the time you are awesome, but it is not uncommon that your spell does nothing.
These spells greatly increase the odds that even low level spells will work.
Imagine something like dismissal on BBEG who has a 50/50 to make the save, makes it, then because they have normal meta magic rod he has to roll again if he make the save if they have a persistent rod.
As it stands, Dismissal is very powerful. Add this and I think it gets gamebreaking.
I don't mind bouncing -- it isn't a two for one special -- just if you have another target in range (30 feet by the way which could be too close in some cases) gives you a chance to not waste a spell slot and action.
Persistent hurts a bit more since it does give you two chances on one target -- but instead of casting wail of the banshee, imprisonment, mage's disjunction, dominate monster, or time stop you are casting... Insanity, forcecage, control undead, finger of death, or reverse gravity.
At lower level it's persistent stinking cloud -- or dominate monster/cloudkill/baleful polymorph: Persistent dominate monster/cloudkill/baleful polymorph or Finger of Death/forcecage/control undead/ reverse gravity.
And the DC for the spell is going to be lower than your best too -- generally you drop 10% off of your success rate (which hovers around 55~65% depending on target and level when optimized with your best spells).
So you are looking at two chances with a 45% success rate each (giving a total success rate of about 70% with a lower level spell using a higher level slot -- and when you consider that casting that spell with persistent spell came with a feat cost in addition to the spell slot cost (and action cost) I would expect a little more "umpf" than a normal spell.
Spell perfection is the feat that allows you to apply metamagic withou increase spell level, and is limited to one spell, with a spell level total of no higher than 9, while being unavailable before level 15.
Now when greater metamagic rods become readily available this does become something more of an issue -- but again it's a limited number of times a day effect -- in the end no worse that a fully optimized fighter dropping a CR equal opponent in a single turn.
|
|
I don't think they're as overpowered as an evocation blaster wizard with the Admixture Subschool, who also takes Preferred Spell.
Admixture School** spoiler omitted **
Preferred Spell** spoiler omitted **I was DMing a 15th level game and there was a wizard built like this in the party. Fireball was his Preferred Spell. So no matter what he was doing on his turn, he would also be casting a quickened fireball(or ice ball, or lightning ball, or acid ball). Many of his turns consisted of him casting a heightened fireball, before the quickened one.
Well...I mean it does add an additional 35 points of damage (10d6 max fireball) by sacrificing another spell. At 15th that is nice, but not to bad considering the spell loss penalty.
The above spells basically make you (or in the case of bouncing someone else) re-roll a SoS spell if they make it the first time, when SoS spells are already spells that work more than 50% of the time.
It's more damage than that. It's 10d6+8, for the evoker wizard's Intense Spell. Not to mention all that it could hit any number of creatures in the blast. Also skirting any resistances to energy types, while taking advantage of energy weaknesses.
You can modify a spell to become more tenacious when its targets resist its effect.
Benefit: Whenever a creature targeted by a persistent spell or within its area succeeds on its saving throw against the spell, it must make another saving throw against the effect. If a creature fails this second saving throw, it suffers the full effects of the spell, as if it had failed its first saving throw.
Level Increase: +2 (a persistent spell uses up a spell slot two levels higher than the spell’s actual level.)
Bouncing SpellYou can direct a failed spell against a different target.
Benefit: Whenever a bouncing spell targeting a single creature has no effect on its intended target (whether due to spell resistance or a successful saving throw) you may, as a swift action, redirect it to target another eligible creature within range. The redirected spell behaves in all ways as if its new target were the original target for the spell. Spells that affect a target in any way (including a lesser effect from a successful saving throw) may not be redirected in this manner.
Level Increase: +1 (a bouncing spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell’s actual level.)
Bouncing spell is a bit uncontrollable, but Persistent goes exactly where you pointed it. I think the level increases on both are appropriate, but the metamagic rods are pretty outstanding.
|
|
I don't mind bouncing -- it isn't a two for one special -- just if you have another target in range (30 feet by the way which could be too close in some cases) gives you a chance to not waste a spell slot and action.
Persistent hurts a bit more since it does give you two chances on one target -- but instead of casting wail of the banshee, imprisonment, mage's disjunction, dominate monster, or time stop you are casting... Insanity, forcecage, control undead, finger of death, or reverse gravity.
At lower level it's persistent stinking cloud -- or dominate monster/cloudkill/baleful polymorph: Persistent dominate monster/cloudkill/baleful polymorph or Finger of Death/forcecage/control undead/ reverse gravity.
And the DC for the spell is going to be lower than your best too -- generally you drop 10% off of your success rate (which hovers around 55~65% depending on target and level when optimized with your best spells).
So you are looking at two chances with a 45% success rate each (giving a total success rate of about 70% with a lower level spell using a higher level slot -- and when you consider that casting that spell with persistent spell came with a feat cost in addition to the spell slot cost (and action cost) I would expect a little more "umpf" than a normal spell.
Spell perfection is the feat that allows you to apply metamagic withou increase spell level, and is limited to one spell, with a spell level total of no higher than 9, while being unavailable before level 15.
Now when greater metamagic rods become readily available this does become something more of an issue -- but again it's a limited number of times a day effect -- in the end no worse that a fully optimized fighter dropping a CR equal opponent in a single turn.
For the record, even when we don't agree I always like your analysis.
I agree bouncing isn't as bad, but I would still give both a level bump up. I think persistent is just as good as maximize if not better at this point, and that is a +3.
To bounce a spell requires a swift action, so you can bounce a spell or cast a second quickened spell, but not both. Is bouncing spell as good as casting two spells? I can see the benfit of using up a spell slot 1 level higher vs 4 levels higher, but is the "action economy" better? I would like to see some hard numbers before I make a decision.
Persistant spell is two levels higher, so the target has to make 2 saves vs a lower DC than if the caster just prepared a spell of the same level. Most spells require you to make a new save every round, so they will be making that save at 2 lower than if the caster used a spell of the appropriate level. Is that "optimal"? I dont know.
You mentioned Banishment, but how many spells are abusable? I think this might be the case of figuring out how to "break the game" as it were.
Bah, too long typing. Seems Mr. Spalding beat me to the punch.
|
|
It's more damage than that. It's 10d6+8, for the evoker wizard's Intense Spell. Not to mention all that it could hit any number of creatures in the blast. Also skirting any resistances to energy types, while taking advantage of energy weaknesses.I don't think they're as overpowered as an evocation blaster wizard with the Admixture Subschool, who also takes Preferred Spell.
Admixture School** spoiler omitted **
Preferred Spell** spoiler omitted **I was DMing a 15th level game and there was a wizard built like this in the party. Fireball was his Preferred Spell. So no matter what he was doing on his turn, he would also be casting a quickened fireball(or ice ball, or lightning ball, or acid ball). Many of his turns consisted of him casting a heightened fireball, before the quickened one.
Well...I mean it does add an additional 35 points of damage (10d6 max fireball) by sacrificing another spell. At 15th that is nice, but not to bad considering the spell loss penalty.
The above spells basically make you (or in the case of bouncing someone else) re-roll a SoS spell if they make it the first time, when SoS spells are already spells that work more than 50% of the time.
But at level 15 the average CR 15 monster has 220 hit points. 43 is something, particularly with the change of elements, but considering also gets reflex for half it doesn't bother me that much on that specific spell, considering you still have to burn a spell to use it.
If you look at what other schools get, it is comparable if not lesser. The Divination Initiative boost is huge for example.
|
|
** spoiler omitted **
Bouncing spell is a bit uncontrollable, but Persistent goes exactly where you pointed it. I think the level increases on both are appropriate, but the metamagic rods are pretty outstanding.
The persistent rod is what scares me, as it basically functions as a do over if anyone makes a save without having to actually have the spell in the higher slot.
If it is in the higher slot, you use it regardless. With the rod you only use it in case of spell failure...or would you have to call the use when you use the spell?
Well I think people are completely overlooking a really good feat while jumping on the obvious ones:
Focused spell. While not up to persistent spell's power (understandable it's a lower level effect) when used on an AoE spell it gives you +2 DC for +1 spell level against a single target.
That's a great trade when you know you want to get a specific target in a group.
Also I wouldn't disagree with persistent spell going up another level I wouldn't bother at all with bouncing if it did -- after all my chances aren't really better since I probably targeted the creature I'm most likely to affect with the spell in the first place -- any other target is probably at a better chance of succeeding on the spell I cast -- and I'm giving up the ability to apply a better effect instead at higher DC to have my second chance with bouncing spell.
At the end of the day I would almost rather play a witch and get the ability to do this as a standard action to each opponent I face as a supernatural ability with misfortune.
Honestly high level witches are the best SoD/SoS spell casters due to the nasty combination of either Evil Eye (-6 on the saves at 14th level = +30% chance) or Misfortune (roll twice take the worse) and quickened spells (generally via metamagic rods).
In my opinion the metamagic rods are where the trouble really is -- they allow you to do things that you have no right to do with spells and they cost less than a +5 speeding keen ghost touch weapon?
That is just not right.
A greater metamagic rod of quicken spell should simply not exist and if it must be there it should cost at least 250,000 gp.
|
|
Well I think people are completely overlooking a really good feat while jumping on the obvious ones:
Focused spell. While not up to persistent spell's power (understandable it's a lower level effect) when used on an AoE spell it gives you +2 DC for +1 spell level against a single target.
That's a great trade when you know you want to get a specific target in a group.
Also I wouldn't disagree with persistent spell going up another level I wouldn't bother at all with bouncing if it did -- after all my chances aren't really better since I probably targeted the creature I'm most likely to affect with the spell in the first place -- any other target is probably at a better chance of succeeding on the spell I cast -- and I'm giving up the ability to apply a better effect instead at higher DC to have my second chance with bouncing spell.
At the end of the day I would almost rather play a witch and get the ability to do this as a standard action to each opponent I face as a supernatural ability with misfortune.
Honestly high level witches are the best SoD/SoS spell casters due to the nasty combination of either Evil Eye (-6 on the saves at 14th level = +30% chance) or Misfortune (roll twice take the worse) and quickened spells (generally via metamagic rods).
In my opinion the metamagic rods are where the trouble really is -- they allow you to do things that you have no right to do with spells and they cost less than a +5 speeding keen ghost touch weapon?
That is just not right.
A greater metamagic rod of quicken spell should simply not exist and if it must be there it should cost at least 250,000 gp.
I agree with pretty much all of this.
See in other threads others are arguing that SoS spells are what makes wizards Gods.
For the Nth time (and not necessarily to you specifically), wizards = god in the Treantmonk sense is not wizard = god in the sense that you're taking it. I wish he'd chosen almost any other word.
That being said...
I think bouncing is actually pretty fair, overall. I have to really go out of my way to scheme up an encounter in which it seems unfair for its cost/kick. Maybe its rod could be a little more expensive.
Persistent I think a 3 level kick for would be pretty reasonable with its rod priced as maximize is. I'm playing a character with a lesser persistent rod in one game and it drastically changes the limits of what seems like a good idea. Fort save on a fightery monster? Sure, it still has a pretty good chance to land with persistent. Charm person in combat against someone with a weak will save? I like those odds. It turns what would have been longshot moves into pretty reasonable and pretty reasonable into almost a sure thing.
|
|
See in other threads others are arguing that SoS spells are what makes wizards Gods.
For the Nth time (and not necessarily to you specifically), wizards = god in the Treantmonk sense is not wizard = god in the sense that you're taking it. I wish he'd chosen almost any other word.
I think we both know I'm talking about CoDzilla.
Save or Suck spells are fine by me as long as they suck for the caster sometimes.
Rods in general are a bit ridiculous, a rod of persistence at that price is just crazy.
Rods in general are a bit ridiculous, a rod of persistence at that price is just crazy.
I'm not sure if I've already mentioned, but it's fairly obvious that the costs for bouncing rods and persist rods got transposed -- but it's still soooo worth that cost. You'd be crazy to not buy more than one even at the higher cost.
But then I think that about the Bead of Karma and it hasn't gone anywhere.
I'm not sure if I've already mentioned, but it's fairly obvious that the costs for bouncing rods and persist rods got transposed -- but it's still soooo worth that cost.
Actually I got it straight from one of the developers that this is a errata thing -- the persistent rod is priced for what the bouncing should be priced at and visa versa -- it will be fixed once they get semi-caught up again and get an errata out... again. ;D
|
So the standard Wizard is God thread is rolling along, with all the players shouting at each other when suddenly we all come to these two new meta-magic feats in the APG...
And we all seem to be in agreement.
Over powered, open for exploit.
So...has this played out as true in your game and if so what can be done to correct it.
For reference.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/metamagic-feats/persistent-spell-metamagic
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/metamagic-feats/bouncing-spell-metamagicIs a power level bump enough, or are these feats just broken when combined with SoS spells.
Or am I overstating the issue?
Bouncing isn't that bad. Persistent is pretty damn good. As usual metamagic rods make the feats better than they should be. I never liked rods because I felt they took too much of the weaknesses of metamagics away.
This is off-topic, so I don't want to derail too much. PF is relatively speaking more balanced because of years and years of data. Others and myself believe there is still a gap. I think Paizo themselves have great ideas, but aren't so good at balancing those ideas. APG stuff is really hit or miss, and it'll take a while before we'll know the full outcome. For the most part, I feel like most of it is like previous books that WotC put out. Mostly crap, some powerful stuff. Paizo has better ideas than WotC though, so I still like this book more than most of WotC. Those books truly felt more like money grabs than Paizo stuff.
Then rstrict access to the rods? One of my favorite things that changed in PF was rules were actually written up restricting the ability of PC's to buy items from a magic shop. Seriously. Theres a good chance that no one is gonna have one for sale, so the pc is going to have to take yet another feat to get his rod.
This is off-topic, so I don't want to derail too much. PF is relatively speaking more balanced because of years and years of data. Others and myself believe there is still a gap. I think Paizo themselves have great ideas, but aren't so good at balancing those ideas. APG stuff is really hit or miss, and it'll take a while before we'll know the full outcome. For the most part, I feel like most of it is like previous books that WotC put out. Mostly crap, some powerful stuff. Paizo has better ideas than WotC though, so I still like this book more than most of WotC. Those books truly felt more like money grabs than Paizo stuff.
I don't mind derailing the thread at this point, since the original discussion is over.
I agree that Paizo has progressed the game and improved balance in general. I don't think there are many balance issues in the APG after the errata are accounted for.
As to "mostly crap" I actually think they did quite a few good things from a flavor perspective, and while it's not a powergamer's paradise, all six new classes are playable, and a number of the core class options are very useful. The ratio of good/bad feats, magic items, and spells is similar to the ratio in the core material. Overall, a positive addition to the game.
|
|
Then rstrict access to the rods? One of my favorite things that changed in PF was rules were actually written up restricting the ability of PC's to buy items from a magic shop. Seriously. Theres a good chance that no one is gonna have one for sale, so the pc is going to have to take yet another feat to get his rod.
This is a good point. I don't think it fixed the issue, but it does give a way of keeping them out of the game unless you get it from a BBEG who is using them against you.
I'm still leaning toward houseruling it a +3 metamagic feat and upping the price of the metamagic rod accordingly. But even that may not be enough with SoS spells.
|
|
This is off-topic, so I don't want to derail too much. PF is relatively speaking more balanced because of years and years of data. Others and myself believe there is still a gap. I think Paizo themselves have great ideas, but aren't so good at balancing those ideas. APG stuff is really hit or miss, and it'll take a while before we'll know the full outcome. For the most part, I feel like most of it is like previous books that WotC put out. Mostly crap, some powerful stuff. Paizo has better ideas than WotC though, so I still like this book more than most of WotC. Those books truly felt more like money grabs than Paizo stuff.I don't mind derailing the thread at this point, since the original discussion is over.
I agree that Paizo has progressed the game and improved balance in general. I don't think there are many balance issues in the APG after the errata are accounted for.
As to "mostly crap" I actually think they did quite a few good things from a flavor perspective, and while it's not a powergamer's paradise, all six new classes are playable, and a number of the core class options are very useful. The ratio of good/bad feats, magic items, and spells is similar to the ratio in the core material. Overall, a positive addition to the game.
I agree it was mostly positive. But one of the things I like about Paizo is you can come to the boards and get feedback from developers that on occasion actually changes rules in the game, or at least clarifies them.
I agree with pretty much all of this.
I agree with pretty much all of this.
I agree it was mostly positive. But one of the things I like about Paizo is you can come to the boards and get feedback from developers that on occasion actually changes rules in the game, or at least clarifies them.
Yes, absolutely!
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Actually I got it straight from one of the developers that this is a errata thing -- the persistent rod is priced for what the bouncing should be priced at and visa versa -- it will be fixed once they get semi-caught up again and get an errata out... again. ;DI'm not sure if I've already mentioned, but it's fairly obvious that the costs for bouncing rods and persist rods got transposed -- but it's still soooo worth that cost.
That is correct.
|
|
This is off-topic, so I don't want to derail too much. PF is relatively speaking more balanced because of years and years of data. Others and myself believe there is still a gap. I think Paizo themselves have great ideas, but aren't so good at balancing those ideas. APG stuff is really hit or miss, and it'll take a while before we'll know the full outcome. For the most part, I feel like most of it is like previous books that WotC put out. Mostly crap, some powerful stuff. Paizo has better ideas than WotC though, so I still like this book more than most of WotC. Those books truly felt more like money grabs than Paizo stuff.I don't mind derailing the thread at this point, since the original discussion is over.
I agree that Paizo has progressed the game and improved balance in general. I don't think there are many balance issues in the APG after the errata are accounted for.
As to "mostly crap" I actually think they did quite a few good things from a flavor perspective, and while it's not a powergamer's paradise, all six new classes are playable, and a number of the core class options are very useful. The ratio of good/bad feats, magic items, and spells is similar to the ratio in the core material. Overall, a positive addition to the game.
I like their ideas, but I think they are too cautious in many things, and then slip up and let Persistent Spell in. Like original Summoner was pretty damn good, and final Summoner is kinda meh.
I was making a summoner last night, and I gave up on trying to do it with a gnome. I got quite angry that the druid is better in almost every way except for eidolons being better than animal companions. It angered me because the summoner is suppose to fight with the eidolon (since the lack of castings per day of spells and power of spells compared to other casters). I know a lot of people do not think so, but CHA for a summoner is not particularly important. Truly a 12 is enough, and stating it every 4 levels is enough to keep up. I actually liked this, since it allowed me to buy more CON and STR. But a gnome trying to fight along his eidolon just wasn't a serious enough threat. One of the reasons I wanted a gnome is for the favored class ability of adding extra HP to the eidolon. The lack of casting means I had to assume my eidolon would probably be killed often, so I had to be able to stand on my own. Summon Monster I didn't offer a lot of power, so I had to stand on my own. The STR penalty hurt a lot for doing damage, so I ended up doing a human for the extra feat, extra skills, the favored class ability, and more flexibility for ability scores. I also ended up using a quadruped instead of serpentine like I wanted. Serpentine seems terrible in almost every way. If I get into a game with more than 3 people, I'll try out the gnome summoner again, but it seems like a human one is significantly better from just a survival standpoint if the DM is playing intelligently.
And I hate Summoner's Call. It's such a silly restriction that forces a stupid pause in the game so the summoner can get a max powered eidolon. It's almost as if this feat would be way too broken if they just made it permanent (except it wouldn't have been).
/end rant.
I just think Paizo has good ideas, but I am unsure of their balancing ability. Partly because they have deadlines to meet, so I feel in the case of the summoner, they had to print the book, so they went with the incomplete version, and they'll "fix" it in Ultimate Magic by adding new features and forms. Plus with 10 years of 3 and 3.5, PF Core was a lot easier to balance.
First up, I think single target SoS/SoD are pretty weak. Even if your target has a 60% chance to fail their save, you still have a 40% chance to do nothing on your turn, and that is before you factor in that a lot of single targets you may want to cast on have other defenses against magic, like spell resistance.
Bouncing spell comes at a cost of +1 spell level(5% increase in save chance + weaker effects) and uses your swift action. Further, it can only be used on single target spells. That seems fairly balanced IMO. It means I can throw a spell at the Big Bad, and it it fails, I can bounce to a henchman. I didn't take out the guy I really wanted to, but at least my turn wasn't a total waste.
Now, AoE SoS/SoD spells are where a god wizard should be working. Take slow for example. So take a level 10 wiz/sorc. If I throw slow(int 22, SF + GSF = DC21) on a group of 4 Huge Air Elementals(CR 7) with weak will saves(+5 will save), odds are I am going to take 3 of them out of the fight.
Even against a group of Greater Barghest(CR7, will +10), I will most likely take 2 out of the fight.
Now if I heightened that slow to level 5, it really doesn't change things, but persistant slow will result in taking out all the air elementals, or getting 3 out of 4 of the Greater Barghest. Net result, for +2 spell levels, my AoE SoS/SoD will effect 33-50% more targets.
Now on single target SoD like say flesh to stone or baleful polymorph. Persistant Baleful Polymorph would be a level 7 spell. Reverse Gravity is level 7, allows no save, is AoE, and is effectively a SoD against any creature that can't fly. Persistant Flesh to Stone would be a level 8 spell. Irrestable Dance is a level 8 spell that is garanteed to last for at least 1 round minimum.
I just can't see that persistant makes these spells any better than other higher level spells.
Now if you want to argue that metamagic rods in general are too cheap, you might get some support from me on that front.
|
|
First up, I think single target SoS/SoD are pretty weak. Even if your target has a 60% chance to fail their save, you still have a 40% chance to do nothing on your turn, and that is before you factor in that a lot of single targets you may want to cast on have other defenses against magic, like spell resistance.
Bouncing spell comes at a cost of +1 spell level(5% increase in save chance + weaker effects) and uses your swift action. Further, it can only be used on single target spells. That seems fairly balanced IMO. It means I can throw a spell at the Big Bad, and it it fails, I can bounce to a henchman. I didn't take out the guy I really wanted to, but at least my turn wasn't a total waste.
Now, AoE SoS/SoD spells are where a god wizard should be working. Take slow for example. So take a level 10 wiz/sorc. If I throw slow(int 22, SF + GSF = DC21) on a group of 4 Huge Air Elementals(CR 7) with weak will saves(+5 will save), odds are I am going to take 3 of them out of the fight.
Even against a group of Greater Barghest(CR7, will +10), I will most likely take 2 out of the fight.
Now if I heightened that slow to level 5, it really doesn't change things, but persistant slow will result in taking out all the air elementals, or getting 3 out of 4 of the Greater Barghest. Net result, for +2 spell levels, my AoE SoS/SoD will effect 33-50% more targets.
Now on single target SoD like say flesh to stone or baleful polymorph. Persistant Baleful Polymorph would be a level 7 spell. Reverse Gravity is level 7, allows no save, is AoE, and is effectively a SoD against any creature that can't fly. Persistant Flesh to Stone would be a level 8 spell. Irrestable Dance is a level 8 spell that is garanteed to last for at least 1 round minimum.
I just can't see that persistant makes these spells any better than other higher level spells.
Now if you want to argue that metamagic rods in general are too cheap, you might get some support from me on that front.
The more I look at it, the more I think metamagic rods are kind of broken, persistent in particular.
Bouncing I'm coming around to being ok with, but I still think persistent needs at least a level bump to +3 to make it comparable with maximize.
Bouncing I'm coming around to being ok with, but I still think persistent needs at least a level bump to +3 to make it comparable with maximize.
Another option that wouldn't be a terrible house rule as a first try would be to just price the persistent rod as though it were a +3 kick.
The more I think about it, the more I think deciding on the fly what to apply it to is a lot of what makes it a little too good. (And sure, the spontaneous casters can always do that, but without igniting another wizard vs. sorcerer thread, I'm pretty much okay with that.)
I'm not sure if I can pin down exactly why, but my feeling from playing with the feat is that it's not so good that you'd want to apply it to literally all of your save-and-nothing-happens spells, but you will come into some situation in a day in which you really, really want to force the two saves with one of the spells you've prepared.
|
|
Bouncing I'm coming around to being ok with, but I still think persistent needs at least a level bump to +3 to make it comparable with maximize.
Another option that wouldn't be a terrible house rule as a first try would be to just price the persistent rod as though it were a +3 kick.
The more I think about it, the more I think deciding on the fly what to apply it to is a lot of what makes it a little too good. (And sure, the spontaneous casters can always do that, but without igniting another wizard vs. sorcerer thread, I'm pretty much okay with that.)
I'm not sure if I can pin down exactly why, but my feeling from playing with the feat is that it's not so good that you'd want to apply it to literally all of your save-and-nothing-happens spells, but you will come into some situation in a day in which you really, really want to force the two saves with one of the spells you've prepared.
I agree. I am fine with having to prepare a spell a few slots up, as you are sacrificing a "better" spell for this one. But when you can just do it at random three times a day, that is a bit much.
|
|
I agree. I am fine with having to prepare a spell a few slots up, as you are sacrificing a "better" spell for this one. But when you can just do it at random three times a day, that is a bit much.
Bouncing I'm coming around to being ok with, but I still think persistent needs at least a level bump to +3 to make it comparable with maximize.
Another option that wouldn't be a terrible house rule as a first try would be to just price the persistent rod as though it were a +3 kick.
The more I think about it, the more I think deciding on the fly what to apply it to is a lot of what makes it a little too good. (And sure, the spontaneous casters can always do that, but without igniting another wizard vs. sorcerer thread, I'm pretty much okay with that.)
I'm not sure if I can pin down exactly why, but my feeling from playing with the feat is that it's not so good that you'd want to apply it to literally all of your save-and-nothing-happens spells, but you will come into some situation in a day in which you really, really want to force the two saves with one of the spells you've prepared.
This is nothing new. It's been happening since 3.x.
This is nothing new. It's been happening since 3.x.
Well, yes in the sense that we've had metamagic rods the whole way, but I don't think it's too hard to argue that some feats are better rod candidates than others.
I mean, yes, with an Extend rod you are choosing which spells to metamagic on the fly, but mostly it's the same spells you always Extend and you've spent some cash to avoid spending the higher slots. Even Empower and Maximize I pretty well know ahead of time what I'll apply to. Of the core metamagic feats, only Quicken, Widen, and maybe Enlarge (but who buys that?) are the ones that feel like they have extra spontaneous value. There isn't a Widen rod in core and Quicken, while awesome, is already really expensive.
|
|
This is nothing new. It's been happening since 3.x.Well, yes in the sense that we've had metamagic rods the whole way, but I don't think it's too hard to argue that some feats are better rod candidates than others.
I mean, yes, with an Extend rod you are choosing which spells to metamagic on the fly, but mostly it's the same spells you always Extend and you've spent some cash to avoid spending the higher slots. Even Empower and Maximize I pretty well know ahead of time what I'll apply to. Of the core metamagic feats, only Quicken, Widen, and maybe Enlarge (but who buys that?) are the ones that feel like they have extra spontaneous value. There isn't a Widen rod in core and Quicken, while awesome, is already really expensive.
What else are you going to spend that money on? Arming the fighter? :)
What else are you going to spend that money on? Arming the fighter? :)
Don't be silly! You'll buy it of course, but you can't afford to buy it in bulk.
Whereas a sack full of persistent rods looks pretty good to me.
|
|
What else are you going to spend that money on? Arming the fighter? :)Don't be silly! You'll buy it of course, but you can't afford to buy it in bulk.
Whereas a sack full of persistent rods looks pretty good to me.
Well that's RAW.
RAW is balanced, didn't you know?
Helping?
Don't be a CoD. This may be a mistake, and it's a new book so it can be corrected in errata while the issue is still in it's infancy.
No one is perfect.
|
|
Then rstrict access to the rods? One of my favorite things that changed in PF was rules were actually written up restricting the ability of PC's to buy items from a magic shop. Seriously. Theres a good chance that no one is gonna have one for sale, so the pc is going to have to take yet another feat to get his rod.
+1. At some stage no matter how much the rules get an errata the DM is going to have to exercise a bit of regulation. I don't have problems with the meta-magic feats and after reading what people are saying these new 'two' don't look a game breaker. What I do have an issue with and have banned from my PF game is meta-magic rods. They just don't exist.
So +1 to those who have expressed an opinion that meta-magic rods make things a little too easy.
S.
|
|
What else are you going to spend that money on? Arming the fighter? :)Don't be silly! You'll buy it of course, but you can't afford to buy it in bulk.
Whereas a sack full of persistent rods looks pretty good to me.
Well that's RAW.
RAW is balanced, didn't you know?
Helping?
Don't be a CoD. This may be a mistake, and it's a new book so it can be corrected in errata while the issue is still in it's infancy.
No one is perfect.
I am helping. I'm pointing out problems in RAW. Others are ignoring it. You stated examples that are possible, but unlikely. You state SoDs are nerfed (and they are), but it doesn't change the fact 75% success is extremely good for immediately ending a threat. They get a save every round, but the first round is often enough. Between a druid, his pet, a cleric, a wizard, and...a gish maybe, that's enough actions that once a SoD hits, the other 3 characters should be able to move in and take care of the nerfed creature.
Persistent Spell is pretty damn good. It probably should be +3 levels. Except that once again, metamagic rods get past that problem. It's good that Quickened was 4, but Maximized at 3 is a joke. I don't understand why Paizo left it at 3 when they changed up other things in PF completely. Lots of spells got nerfed, but Maximized stayed the same. There was no reason for this.
At this point, the book is printed. Paizo may choose to errata it for sake of balance, but they do not need to do so, and probably will not do so. Although I like the idea of errata, it's a pain to look them up for a complicated game. This isn't like Magic the Gathering, where they can errata a single card, so it is easy to discover. Plus, that game is designed to be tournament style, unlike most RPGs which are not designed in the same fashion.
|
|
I am helping. I'm pointing out problems in RAW. Others are ignoring it. You stated examples that are possible, but unlikely. You state SoDs are nerfed (and they are), but it doesn't change the fact 75% success is extremely good for immediately ending a threat. They get a save every round, but the first round is often enough. Between a druid, his pet, a cleric, a wizard, and...a gish maybe, that's enough actions that once a SoD hits, the other 3 characters should be able to move in and take care of the nerfed creature.
Keep in mind it is 75% only if it is against the worst save, so we are talking best case. So best case the spell does nothing 25% of the time, not even discussing immunities. So 25% of the time while fighting exactly what the spell was designed for, you will add absolutely nothing during a round, while at the same time burning valuable spell resources. This is particularly difficult for Wizards who have to memorize every spell to a slot, so if you are memorizing spells for each save, you are going to run out of spell slots quickly. And if the ones you do have end up fizzled, that is a problem in extended encounter days.
This isn't to say any of the above is "bad". Most of the time the spells work and your contribution is great. But it isn't superman, because often your spell fizzles and it falls to the rest of the party.
I agree with the rest of your statement. The party group you gave is going to do fine. But the wizard is getting the support it needs in that grouping. That is the key.