Dude, don't forget Glitterdust! The best invisibility nuke in the whole game, if you ask me.
Yes i forgot glitterdust.... The making creature visible is a very nice side effect... The fact that it Blinds creatures, is what really makes it a very nice spell, with no spell Resistance. The saving throw each round, has dulled the effect some what.
Great spell, because you can use it to blind creatures normal (reason to have it memorized), and if you have invisible melee attacking, you can make them visible for the fight.
...............
Which is why i wish Faerie Fire still had at least a +1 to hit. So the effect would be useful vs visible creatures. That way if would be worth the 1st level spell slot at low levels.
|
Remember that the saving throw is only vs. blindness. There is no saving throw vs. visibility - any creature affected by Glitterdust has a -40 to hide until the spell runs out. No spell resistance. No saving throw against this effect. You just have to hit the right square.
So... yeah. Faerie fire ought to be something like glitterdust junior. But it's really more like glitterdust junior's red-headed step-child. Or that kid's dog. Or the flea on that dog.
I kinda hate Wail of the Banshee, too, now that I look at it. Sure, it does great damage to lots of targets. It's just too bad that it's almost definitely going to hit every single one of your friends. And the fact that fortitude negates it is just ridiculous - your 9th-level spell doesn't even get partial credit on a failed save. So I guess my complaint is three-fold:
1) Not friendly splash damage (likely to hit allies).
2) Short range (more likely to hit allies).
3) Fortitude negates (fairly likely to not hurt enemies).
It just seems like you're more likely to kill all your friends and cohorts and followers than your enemies.
(And I was wrong about the SR. Still! Try to find a way to nuke concealment for most any other class.)Wizard/Sorcerer = See Invisibility 2nd level = (duration 10 min per level) Range: Ling of Sight (No spell resistance).
Bard = See invisibility 3rd level = See above.
Cleric = Invisibility Purge 3rd level = (duration 1 min per level), Range Self (5 foot radius per level = dispel invisibility).
None of which is any use against blur, displacement, or hide in plain sight, among other things.
And all of which are higher level.
Faerie fire's not a junk spell. The higher level a druid gets, the more the value of most of their other first level spell options approaches zero and the better, relatively, faerie fire looks. I mean, Entangle's a great spell (not as great as pre-PF, thankfully) but are you still casting it at 15th level? Whereas in the situation in which Faerie Fire is useful it's always a great spell.
SR - No is a pretty recent development in the game.
Evocation typically sucks because the damage it does relative to the HPs of CR appropriate foes is low and there are simply too many defenses (SR, Save for Half, Elemental Resistances, Immunities, Evasion) that further reduce the efficacy of the spell.
Then of course you had the conjuration direct damage spells which typically made the evocation alternatives even less appealing.
Perhaps Evocation was too powerful back in the day but unfortunately 3.x went too far in emasculating it.
|
Personally, I think most spells that a Save completely negates is underpowered. I think all spells should have some affect, and those that are negated (by a save) should at least affect the target until the end of their next turn. Even if in a lesser or minor way. Maybe a warrior shrugs of a Sleep spell, but either they fell asleep, hit the ground and woke up, or are Fatigued (sleepy) for their next action. Something like that.
why is the fact that a wizard rule the battle field with summon monsters, control spells and SoD/SoS spells, not enough. Do every single spell a wizard makes have to be better than anything else? come on guys, leave atleast the ilusion to the fighter that he is the one winning the fight by doing the HP damage. I dont think evocation should be better than they are now, they are not laughable but marely very situational.
over all i have no real problem with spells, and as the common conception is spellcasters are supperior, why would any1 boost their power?
well thats just my two cents.
Detect Undead.
Just inhale! If you smell rotting flesh, you're getting close...
Not exactly, if you smell rotting flesh you are getting close to a DEAD body. For sniffing out UNdead, you have to stay put and wait for the smell to come to you...
|
Evocation is not that bad as people usually credit it, at least not at levels 5 to 12 ( and in a AP that goes from 1 to 15 thats 53.3% of the levels), fireball is an area save or die, or save or you only have one hit to drop and even if you make your save you are only half hp.
Its only at higher levels when direct damage loses utility but mostly to the mass save or die, save or suck, that do what evocation do (area effects) and better, and the huge increase of HP.
Evocation is not that bad as people usually credit it, at least not at levels 5 to 12 ( and in a AP that goes from 1 to 15 thats 53.3% of the levels), fireball is an area save or die, or save or you only have one hit to drop and even if you make your save you are only half hp.
I'd be interested in seeing your math on that with actual encounters and/or monsters. Certainly I can't think of a lot you face at level 5 that dies from 17.5 fire damage.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I'd be interested in seeing your math on that with actual encounters and/or monsters. Certainly I can't think of a lot you face at level 5 that dies from 17.5 fire damage.Evocation is not that bad as people usually credit it, at least not at levels 5 to 12 ( and in a AP that goes from 1 to 15 thats 53.3% of the levels), fireball is an area save or die, or save or you only have one hit to drop and even if you make your save you are only half hp.
Well there is an encounter in The Jackal's Price (LoF AP):
with waves of 8 lv2 warriors, 8 standard gnolls with 4 hyenas, and a gnoll sorcerer/rogue with 3 gnolls and ettin bodyguard... (total EL 7 or so)
that my group's water sorcerer made quick work of with Coldball. I'll concede that such encounters are not representative of the preponderance of play, but they do happen.
|
|
Thats the problem: math
Real game experience is what counts:
For example in red hand of doom this is the usual enemy
hobgoblin soldier 13hp
Shackled city
alleybashers 14hp
hillfolk 19hp
hill baboons 22hp
And this is the usual hp of enemies which appear in mass at that level in most campaings most are wiped with an average damage tougher ones with a high damage and even in an average they are close to death. they save? still better than save or suck spells wich have no effect on a sucesful save.
Area spells are not ideal for tough enemies but for mass enemies, and for that at levels 5 to 12 they do great.
Thats the problem: math
Real game experience is what counts:
For example in red hand of doom this is the usual enemy
Shackled city
Hi, this is a Pathfinder forum. We're not talking about 3.5 here.
Also quoting hit points is useless without the context of what the ELs on the encounters are and/or what the expected party levels are.
(I also think Shackled City was awfully softball easy, at least at the lower levels, but that might just be me. Our group spent most of the early-mid part of it watching the druid's animal companion win half of the encounters before the real characters got to do anything. RHoD I haven't actually played so I won't comment on.)
Personally, I think most spells that a Save completely negates is underpowered. I think all spells should have some affect, and those that are negated (by a save) should at least affect the target until the end of their next turn. Even if in a lesser or minor way. Maybe a warrior shrugs of a Sleep spell, but either they fell asleep, hit the ground and woke up, or are Fatigued (sleepy) for their next action. Something like that.
I drastically prefer the 4e method of SSSoDs on spells, and not having any "Gotchas!" that just end the encounter instantly like sleep.
|
|
Hi, this is a Pathfinder forum. We're not talking about 3.5 here.
What about backwards compatibility?, I´m bringing examples of campaings I have played, I suppose the game is the same.
(I also think Shackled City was awfully softball easy, at least at the lower levels, but that might just be me. Our group spent most of the early-mid part of it watching the druid's animal companion win half of the encounters before the real characters got to do anything. RHoD I haven't actually played so I won't comment on.)
I ran RHoD once. With no adjustments made to the module, and the module being run on hard mode two characters blazed through it effortlessly. It's designed for four.
First Shackled city being easy, the general consensus is complete the oposite (and also my personal experience) there are threads in ENworld about this, the word meatgrinder shows up.
RHoD is anything but easy, specially some parts of it, although I agree that the average encounters are indeed easy.
But thats irrelevant, I picked two published campaings (the last ones I have directed) to show that the average monster at 5 level (what I have been asked) is easily burned by a fireball.
|
|
I didn't say that though, you broke the quote
I was answering to Dire moongose, you are Codzilla.???????
The very first part of Shackled city have at least two very difficult parts just go to the obituaries.
I think I know what encounter you are speaking of, yeah its easy for its challenge rating but thats just one encounter wich is not even designed to be a combat encounter, and wich could end in TPK, but the difficulty of this campaing is not the point. Maybe you think that all campaings are a joke, if so the thing that one of the posters said to you in one thread about not being playing the same game as you must be true.
SSSoDs???
Save Save Save or Die :p
Most 4e SoDs come own in multiple parts. So, say, a turn-to-stone style ability, first turn makes you Slowed if you fail your save. Second turn it's Immobilize. Finally on the third turn you're fully encased in stone.
Not only does this greatly amp the dramatic tension as each round you're rolling to stay alive (far more tense then just WELP THAT'S A 1 I DIED), it also gives allies a chance to help you, and you yourself a chance to escape from it. And it also reduces the Rocket Tag nature of SoDs.
SSSoDs???Save Save Save or Die :p
Most 4e SoDs come own in multiple parts. So, say, a turn-to-stone style ability, first turn makes you Slowed if you fail your save. Second turn it's Immobilize. Finally on the third turn you're fully encased in stone.
Not only does this greatly amp the dramatic tension as each round you're rolling to stay alive (far more tense then just WELP THAT'S A 1 I DIED), it also gives allies a chance to help you, and you yourself a chance to escape from it. And it also reduces the Rocket Tag nature of SoDs.
I do like the non-binary nature of 4e SoD/SoS.effects. Essentials in particular reduces the number of monsters that can AoE stun lock which dramatically improves 4e gameplay. Increasing monster DPR and reducing monster HP makes for much more interesting and dynamic combats.
It's kinda a shame essentials wasn't the first 4e product as it seems to answer many of the issues it's detractors have with 4e core.
I'm surprised Dazing Spell hasn't been discussed that much. It really ups the ante with blasts. That feat turns any blast into a semi-Save or Suck (be dazed for the number of rounds equal to spell level) in addition to damage done...there are a bunch of blasts that keep on blasting (ball lightning, fire seeds, etc.) that you could use to repeatedly daze a BBEG or multiple foes...
Shackled cityalleybashers 14hp
hillfolk 19hp
hill baboons 22hp
That's in the level 4 part of the adventure, so... you're not really fireballing that.
I don't own a copy of RHoD so I can't speak to that.
First Shackled city being easy, the general consensus is complete the oposite (and also my personal experience) there are threads in ENworld about this, the word meatgrinder shows up.
First I've heard of it, but I'll take your word for it.
I will say, though, that anyone who thinks the first part of Shackled City is a meatgrinder would be killed twice over and then humiliated if a Jason Bulmahn era LG adventure even looked at them funny. There you'd be expecting to fight elder xorn at level 5 -- and you wouldn't even consider that a meatgrinder encounter.
(To clarify: I don't have anything bad to say about Shackled City. I have fond memories of a lot of it. I just don't think it's high on the difficulty scale.)
I'm surprised Dazing Spell hasn't been discussed that much. It really ups the ante with blasts. That feat turns any blast into a semi-Save or Suck (be dazed for the number of rounds equal to spell level) in addition to damage done...there are a bunch of blasts that keep on blasting (ball lightning, fire seeds, etc.) that you could use to repeatedly daze a BBEG or multiple foes...
The biggest drawback I've seen with Dazing Spell is that the dazing effect relies on the original spell's DC. Since it has a high level slot cost, the DC will almost always be really low for your level, making it only good at dazing weaker enemies you could easily kill with other metamagic anyways.
I ran RHoD once. With no adjustments made to the module, and the module being run on hard mode two characters blazed through it effortlessly. It's designed for four.Thats the problem: math
Real game experience is what counts:
For example in red hand of doom this is the usual enemy
Shackled city
Hi, this is a Pathfinder forum. We're not talking about 3.5 here.
Also quoting hit points is useless without the context of what the ELs on the encounters are and/or what the expected party levels are.
(I also think Shackled City was awfully softball easy, at least at the lower levels, but that might just be me. Our group spent most of the early-mid part of it watching the druid's animal companion win half of the encounters before the real characters got to do anything. RHoD I haven't actually played so I won't comment on.)
Did the group have fun?
If so, cool. Not everyone likes being challenged. Some like to curbstomp every encounter. Kind of cathartic. Being all-powerful in a way that real life doesn't allow.
If not, why didn't you just up the difficulty of the encounters?
Published adventures are generally written with the casual gamer running a non-optimized party in mind. Just look at the sample characters in the back of an adventure path to see what their design assumptions are. Any optimized party will breeze through it if the encounters aren't beefed up. That's not the fault of the designers, they have to designe for a specifics audience. If that doesn't match the way your group plays, you have to adapt the adventure.
I'm surprised Dazing Spell hasn't been discussed that much. It really ups the ante with blasts. That feat turns any blast into a semi-Save or Suck (be dazed for the number of rounds equal to spell level) in addition to damage done...there are a bunch of blasts that keep on blasting (ball lightning, fire seeds, etc.) that you could use to repeatedly daze a BBEG or multiple foes...The biggest drawback I've seen with Dazing Spell is that the dazing effect relies on the original spell's DC. Since it has a high level slot cost, the DC will almost always be really low for your level, making it only good at dazing weaker enemies you could easily kill with other metamagic anyways.
Also it is +3 spell levels higher. Which to me is a big drawback.
The biggest drawback I've seen with Dazing Spell is that the dazing effect relies on the original spell's DC. Since it has a high level slot cost, the DC will almost always be really low for your level, making it only good at dazing weaker enemies you could easily kill with other metamagic anyways.Also it is +3 spell levels higher. Which to me is a big drawback.
OK. Let's assume a 15th level caster (casting stat 30), just like your spell perfection fireballer, against a CR 15 dragon, with a reflex save of 15. Ball Lightning has DC 10+4+10 = 24 with no spell focus or add-ons. That means the dragon has a 55% chance of making the first save...but you have three balls to hit him with...so you have an 83% chance of taking him out of the fight for four rounds. As opposed to the jacked-up maximized empowered quickened fireball combo, where if everything works out AND he fails BOTH saves (which probably won't happen!), you take 200 hp off...and slow him down not at all. Seems sort of worth it to me...
.
The sorcerer and cleric/druid have a limited number of feat available. They need these for General, Magic Feats, and Magic item creation feats.
So my first choose is feats that only raise it up one slot: Still, Silent, Reach, Heighten, Extend, Enlarge, Bouncing.
+3 level increase is harder to take, yes love Daze and Widen. On the other hand, take these feats too early... and you do not have the spell slots to load these spells up. Take them late, and you still can not use them on 7th, 8th, or 9th level spells. Yes, they have a place in the game... but one has to weight the Pro vs Con of +3 level spells.
1: Fun is irrelevant to a discussion about difficulty.
2: We suspected the DM of coddling us, and when we read the module after the fact were shocked to learn he was actually running it on the higher difficulty setting presented. Does that answer your question regarding whether or not we found it enjoyable to hold back and still effortlessly plow it?
3: Raising the difficulty is irrelevant to a discussion of default difficulty. As it is, RHoD has some of the worst stat blocks I've ever seen. These results aren't even unique. Another group I knew regularly optimized every single meaningful encounter, with complete rewrites of most of them, and raised boss CRs by 2 or 3, and their group still plowed it. The only time anyone died is when they forgot that melee characters were not supposed to melee real threats, so they'd try it and get full attacked down. And they had healbot Clerics, so they were automatically non optimal. Still another group two manned it effortlessly. One of the two characters was a Warmage, which is perhaps the worst full caster you could possibly play. RHoD is a total joke to any half decent group.
Fun is always relevant. It's a game and we're playing it to have fun, right? So whether a group is having fun is almost always my first question, and if the answer is yes, then they're doing it right, in my opinion.
Did you tell your DM during play that you thought things were going too easily? Been a while since I read RHoD, so I don't remember their advice for toughening the adventure for strong parties to remember if it was adequate or not. The point I would make is that no DM is limited to following that advice or to following anything in a published adventure. I regularly run for a group of seven players, four of whom are very, very experienced and strong tactically. I have to heavily modify every published adventure I use to get them to break a sweat, and not just one time. I do it constantly as the adventure goes on, adjusting difficulty of encounters and challenges up and down depending on my perception of how well they are doing to produce the right level of challenge. Sometimes I still miscalculate and they have a cakewalk where I thought it would be challenging, and on a few occasions I've overcompensated and made challenging encounters deadly. It's not an exact science, but I think I'm reasonably good at it after all these years.
In my experience default difficulty is just the starting point, and there is a lot of adjusting that has to go on before the game is played and during it.
|
|
That's in the level 4 part of the adventure, so... you're not really fireballing that
I´m currently DMing Shackled city, TotSE at the moment, hillfolk and alleybashers are the mooks at 5 level (end of chapter 3).
I will say, though, that anyone who thinks the first part of Shackled City is a meatgrinder would be killed twice over and then humiliated if a Jason Bulmahn era LG adventure even looked at them funny. There you'd be expecting to fight elder xorn at level 5 -- and you wouldn't even consider that a meatgrinder encounter.
Just go to the obituaries, funnily people tends to die almost always against the same enemies.
If you find adventures wich are usually considered as meatgrinders easy, thats you, not the norm, so you shouldnt think of your personal experience as the usual standard by wich all things should be considered.
See
One of the old posters Mary Yamato complained a lot about this, I suspect that the drop in difficulty in second darkness could have something to do in this.
As it is, RHoD has some of the worst stat blocks I've ever seen. These results aren't even unique. Another group I knew regularly optimized every single meaningful encounter, with complete rewrites of most of them, and raised boss CRs by 2 or 3, and their group still plowed it. The only time anyone died is when they forgot that melee characters were not supposed to melee real threats, so they'd try it and get full attacked down. And they had healbot Clerics, so they were automatically non optimal. Still another group two manned it effortlessly. One of the two characters was a Warmage, which is perhaps the worst full caster you could possibly play. RHoD is a total joke to any half decent group
For this campaing I had the most optimized characters I ever DM, we had only one death (to a lucky max power attack critical at the start of the campaing) and I improved the challenge of some of the enemies (only two wich were medium size wich I found underwhelming and make them large, JUST AS THE ADVENTURE ADVICE). All this was perfect to me I dont like characters deaths, the players feel challenged, not every combat needs to be a near death experience, and several parts were near TPK. The only campaing journal that I read before running the campaing ended in TPK just in the toughest point for us.
As I said to Dire moongose if you find almost all adventures too easy maybe you have carried optimizing too far. Not anything bad if you are enjoying that, wich in your post does´nt seem, but dont hold the uber optimized party as the normal standard for all games
If you find adventures wich are usually considered as meatgrinders easy, thats you, not the norm, so you shouldnt think of your personal experience as the usual standard by wich all things should be considered.
That's so baffling to me. I just can't comprehend how that's even possible. We played that campaign with some of the most mechanically terrible (build and play) PCs imaginable. E.g. illusionist that barred conjuration and transmutation and pretty much only cast magic missile in combat, trapfinding rogue that always charged ahead without remembering to actually check for traps and used CON as a dump stat, and so on. We still didn't have any casualties. The DM in question I know from experience is tough but fair -- he'll try his best to kill you while sticking faithfully to what's written in the module.
I know 3.5 druid was great, but at the low levels it shouldn't be so awesome that it's soloing most of the encounters you're listing as killers before the rest of the party even catches up with it, but it was in that game. We're not even talking about using any non-core feats or animal companions, here.
Of course, browse the forums and you'll find a group that TPKed on the very first encounter of Kingmaker, too.
Of course, browse the forums and you'll find a group that TPKed on the very first encounter of Kingmaker, too.
I saw that and it still makes me marvel. I've never seen an easier warm-up fight. The group I DMed for finished it with the bad guys getting off only one totally ineffectual attack before they were all dead or captured, and that's with giving the leader an extra level and doubling the number of mooks. Oh well, stuff happens, I guess, and sometimes even smart players do stupid things. And sometimes the dice gods kick you in the balls, hard.
Meta magic feats are a horrible add on system, IMO.
For the most part I agree. I can't really think of one that is worth it most of the time, unless you have a way of applying it for free.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meta magic feats are a horrible add on system, IMO.For the most part I agree. I can't really think of one that is worth it most of the time, unless you have a way of applying it for free.
And that's precisely my problem with the system. The only way people want to use it is for free. Be it a class feature or DMM or rods.
If you NEED metamagic to make a spell perform the way you want, the spell is written poorly. It should just perform that way. You shouldn't have to spend feats on it.