|
I am generally the one to defend the system when others claim things are overpowered.
But there are some exceptions.
These are the thing I think are broken, why I think they are broken, and how I would fix them. I may add more later, but top of my head.
Why it's broken: It doubles the chance a save will fail at only a +2 spell slot. That is a 10% drop for a double chance of success, not to mention making the metamagic rod ridiculously cheap.
Fix: Make it +4. In my opinion the ability to functionally double the save DC of a spell is as valuable as quicken spell, and the same types of spells that don't work for quicken are the ones that shouldn't work for persistent.
2. Create Pit
Why it's broken: Single save without spell resistance for a spell that at the level you get it is functionally save or be removed from combat entirely at medium range.
Fix: Make it third level, meaning the earliest anyone can have it is 5th level, by which time you at least have a chance to be carrying a fly potion, or to have the ability to cast fly.
3. Touch Attack for firearms.
Why it's broken: It begs for Rogue abuse with sneak attack damage, not to mention making crossbows obsolete and introducing general power creep.
Fix: Make rapid reloading/safe use of revolvers a Gunslinger only feat. Being able to shoot a gun once as a touch attack is a nice weapon feature. Being able to do it all the time is as powerful as primary power for an entire class.
4. Simulacrum
Why it's broken: "Simulacrum creates an illusory duplicate of any creature. The duplicate creature is partially real and formed from ice or snow. It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only half of the real creature's levels or HD (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD). You can't create a simulacrum of a creature whose HD or levels exceed twice your caster level." is incredibly vague, and power is not defined by HD, it's defined by CR. Can you create a genie that can grant you wishes? By the RAW, why not.
Fix: Two possible solutions. First, make it CR based, as in any creature half the CR of the caster or less. Or, if you want to keep the HD cap divided by 2, remove all spell like abilities and only allow magic learned by class levels. This way you keep the "Oh my god it's a Pit Fiend" effect of seeing one without having functionally being able to create most of the power of a Solar for less than a +4 Sword.
Feel free to add your own, but only with solutions.
1. Persistent SpellWhy it's broken: It doubles the chance a save will fail at only a +2 spell slot. That is a 10% drop for a double chance of success, not to mention making the metamagic rod ridiculously cheap.
Not double, it varies based on the original chance. Example 50% chance of failiure becomes 75% chance. Its a principle of statistics.
Formula is: (Chance of saving Persistant spell)= 1-(Chance of Failing Non-persistant spell squared)
I am generally the one to defend the system when others claim things are overpowered.
But there are some exceptions.
These are the thing I think are broken, why I think they are broken, and how I would fix them. I may add more later, but top of my head.
Why it's broken: It doubles the chance a save will fail at only a +2 spell slot. That is a 10% drop for a double chance of success, not to mention making the metamagic rod ridiculously cheap.
You should look at the final result which varies by your original chance to fail.
As an example making someone with a 10% chance go to to 20 % chance of failure normally means they will pass anyway.
On the other hand if the person is already at a 50% chance then it goes to 25. It seems like a good motivator to boost saves to me.
I am also of the schools that the work "broken" should be used sparingly. What is broken for group one is ok for other groups. It is better to say "X is broken for my group".
Carry on.
edit: ninja'd
|
|
1. Persistent SpellWhy it's broken: It doubles the chance a save will fail at only a +2 spell slot. That is a 10% drop for a double chance of success, not to mention making the metamagic rod ridiculously cheap.
Not double, it varies based on the original chance. Example 50% chance of failiure becomes 75% chance. Its a principle of statistics.
Formula is: (Chance of saving Persistant spell)= 1-(Chance of Failing Non-persistant spell squared)
Yes, but in the 50% example it is functional a save that is 5 levels higher (each 5% being equal to 1 save DC)
So making it +2 is ridiculously low, particularly when you throw in the low metamagic rod cost.
|
|
I have been using persistent spell a lot since it came out, I don't feel it is broken. I do agree the metamagic rods are cheap though. I don't think it needs a level adjustment raise.
By the time you can first cast create pit it is only 10' deep. That is pretty easy to get out of for anyone. I know the climb DC is 25, but at only 10' deep there are other ways around this. I think it is a good spell that encourages the group to work together to push people into the pit. The medium range is nice, but honestly color spray is often more deadly in my experience. Create pit just seems like a good solid spell to me.
Guns seem to not work all that well.
Yeah Simulacrum is so vague that I just don't allow it in my games.
I showed the math on persistent above. With the way it is now, you can cast disintegrate with a functionally 5 level higher fail chance. It turns a 50/50 save on a death spell to a 75% fail at only a two level cost. Any spell you wouldn't allow to be quickened I wouldn't allow a functional +5 to save DC on top of all other bonuses.
10 feet deep mean you fall prone (1d6 damage) and take a full round to climb out at medium range with only a single save. At 5th level, not an issue, at 3rd...
Color Spray is a 15 ft cone, meaning your caster has to get right up next to something that can kill him right back if it saves.
Rogues with Guns are the issue.
Why it's broken: It doubles the chance a save will fail at only a +2 spell slot. That is a 10% drop for a double chance of success, not to mention making the metamagic rod ridiculously cheap.
Fix: Make it +4. In my opinion the ability to functionally double the save DC of a spell is as valuable as quicken spell, and the same types of spells that don't work for quicken are the ones that shouldn't work for persistent.
Taking up a higher level spell slot is not just displacing a spell with a higher saving throw, it's displacing a spell that generally does more in many ways. It also requires you to be higher level to use it at all.
For example, trying to use Persistent burning hands instead of fireball. Sure, the chances are that they will more likely fail the save ... but then you are doing 5d4 damage rather than 5d6 ... or for that matter 6d6 or 7d6 ... so in actual fact the expected average damage is probably less.
Bottom line is you are sacrificing a more capable high level spell for a less powerful lower level spell, but with a greater chance of success. Hardly broken.
2. Create Pit
Why it's broken: Single save without spell resistance for a spell that at the level you get it is functionally save or be removed from combat entirely at medium range.
Fix: Make it third level, meaning the earliest anyone can have it is 5th level, by which time you at least have a chance to be carrying a fly potion, or to have the ability to cast fly.
Actually all my PCs carry a mundane piece of equipment that render this untrue: A grappling hook and knotted rope.
Round one: fail save, and fall in pit. Then get up, get rope and hook out and throw hook out of pit - a good heavy hook will dig into plain earth, and throwing it fifteen feet is easy. If the worst comes to it, a fellow PC can grab it.
Round two: climb rope, climb DC 5.
Round three: beat caster lightly about the head.
You are neutralised for two rounds only, based on one save. Not broken.
3. Touch Attack for firearms.
Why it's broken: It begs for Rogue abuse with sneak attack damage, not to mention making crossbows obsolete and introducing general power creep.
Fix: Make rapid reloading/safe use of revolvers a Gunslinger only feat. Being able to shoot a gun once as a touch attack is a nice weapon feature. Being able to do it all the time is as powerful as primary power for an entire class.
Given the number of spells that work on a touch attack, the low damage output of firearms compared to melee weapons, the distances at which encounters take place at ... it's no biggee as far as I can see. Impressive at low level, yes, but then so is the 18 Str greatsword fighter.
Yes, it makes crossbows redundant if you can afford a gun. Note that crossbows are redundant as battlefield weapons in the modern world, and have been for centuries. Your point is?
Guns are pretty much optional in games; if you don't like them, don't put them in.
4. Simulacrum
Why it's broken: "Simulacrum creates an illusory duplicate of any creature. The duplicate creature is partially real and formed from ice or snow. It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only half of the real creature's levels or HD (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD). You can't create a simulacrum of a creature whose HD or levels exceed twice your caster level." is incredibly vague, and power is not defined by HD, it's defined by CR. Can you create a genie that can grant you wishes? By the RAW, why not.
Fix: Two possible solutions. First, make it CR based, as in any creature half the CR of the caster or less. Or, if you want to keep the HD cap divided by 2, remove all spell like abilities and only allow magic learned by class levels. This way you keep the "Oh my god it's a Pit Fiend" effect of seeing one without having functionally being able to create most of the power of a Solar for less than a +4 Sword.
1) the description is not in the least confusing - in Pathfinder a creature has class levels alone (and one class level = one hit dice), or HD and class levels that grant HD. If in doubt, half the total HD.
2) Problem is, feats, skills and all the rest are not based on CR. They are based on hit dice. CR is a very arbitrary rating, how do you make a monster half it's CR? Your 'fix' isn't fixing anything, it's making it more complex.
|
|
Taking up a higher level spell slot is not just displacing a spell with a higher saving throw, it's displacing a spell that generally does more in many ways. It also requires you to be higher level to use it at all.
For example, trying to use Persistent burning hands instead of fireball. Sure, the chances are that they will more likely fail the save ... but then you are doing 5d4 damage rather than 5d6 ... or for that matter 6d6 or 7d6 ... so in actual fact the expected average damage is probably less.
Bottom line is you are sacrificing a more capable high level spell for a less powerful lower level spell, but with a greater chance of success. Hardly broken.
It isn't about Damage spells. It's about SoS spells. If you cast disintegrate against BBEG who would save 50% of the time, now you have kicked it up to him failing 75% of the time with the cost of a 32,000 gp rod you can use 3 times a day. 16,250 if you craft it.
That is ridiculous.
Actually all my PCs carry a mundane piece of equipment that render this untrue: A grappling hook and knotted rope.
Round one: fail save, and fall in pit. Then get up, get rope and hook out and throw hook out of pit - a good heavy hook will dig into plain earth, and throwing it fifteen feet is easy. If the worst comes to it, a fellow PC can grab it.
Round two: climb rope, climb DC 5.
Round three: beat caster lightly about the head.You are neutralised for two rounds only, based on one save. Not broken.
I effectively remove you from combat and put up a barrier with a 2nd level spell.
And everyone is standing around not shooting at you while you spend two rounds (minimum) climbing out? And keep in mind it isn't single target. Got a group coming down a hallway. Well now the hallway is a 10 ft by 10 ft pit.
Given the number of spells that work on a touch attack, the low damage output of firearms compared to melee weapons, the distances at which encounters take place at ... it's no biggee as far as I can see. Impressive at low level, yes, but then so is the 18 Str greatsword fighter.
Yes, it makes crossbows redundant if you can afford a gun. Note that crossbows are redundant as battlefield weapons in the modern world, and have been for centuries. Your point is?
Guns are pretty much optional in games; if you don't like them, don't put them in.
Touch attack spells also almost invariably have have spell resistance or a save, and don't have the ability to fire multiple times and add sneak attack damage to each near certain hit.
Which is the problem.
As to the crossbow, the game isn't set in the modern world.
1) the description is not in the least confusing - in Pathfinder a creature has class levels alone (and one class level = one hit dice), or HD and class levels that grant HD. If in doubt, half the total HD.
2) Problem is, feats, skills and all the rest are not based on CR. They are based on hit dice. CR is a very arbitrary rating, how do you make a monster half it's CR? Your 'fix' isn't fixing anything, it's making it more complex.
You missed the point entirely.
The feats, etc, are given to creatures in the context of the CR. When you make it based on HD, a Solar (22 HD) is equal to an Ancient Black dragon.
Only one is CR 23 and one is CR 16. And neither should be able to be made with all of the class skills by an 13th level Wizard.
A 13th level wizard could make a Genie who can grant them wishes, as the spell is currently written.
It isn't about Damage spells. It's about SoS spells. If you cast disintegrate against BBEG who would save 50% of the time, now you have kicked it up to him failing 75% of the time with the cost of a 32,000 gp rod you can use 3 times a day. 16,250 if you craft it.
That is ridiculous.
The damage spells merely illustrate a point. You are using a high level spell slot to cast a lower level spell with a greater chance that the subject will fail it's save. However, high level spells are good enough that you really wonder why you would want to, unless you are trying to effect something with seriously good saves, in which case even two saves are not a slam dunk.
If you prefer a SoS spell, try comparing Sleep to Deep Slumber. Deep Slumber is the better spell, far and away. Sometimes being able to cast Sleep with a greater chance of success is desirable, but nine times out of ten you are going to go with Deep Slumber. Being able to cast Sleep with a better chance of success sounds great at 1st level, but it's 'meh' at 5th level.
I effectively remove you from combat and put up a barrier with a 2nd level spell.
And everyone is standing around not shooting at you while you spend two rounds (minimum) climbing out? And keep in mind it isn't single target. Got a group coming down a hallway. Well now the hallway is a 10 ft by 10 ft pit.
They are? Damn! That's nearly as bad as Entangle, Glitterdust or Web!
... yes. Those are all BETTER than Create Pit. If Create Pit is overpowered so are these. Come to think of it, if you have that many guys standing around to shoot arrows, why are you bothering with Create Pit? Just put yourself behind difficult terrain and shoot the heck out of them as they approach. Same effect, one less spell.
Saying a spell means you win when you factor in a huge advantage that has nothing to do with the spell is not an argument that spell is broken. If the spell can't work without the huge advantage, then the one thing it isn't is too powerful.
Edit: and do not forget, your archers cannot actually come within five feet of the pit's edge without risking falling in themselves, making it hard to see the bottom and hence hard to shoot anyone inside.
Touch attack spells also almost invariably have have spell resistance or a save, and don't have the ability to fire multiple times and add sneak attack damage to each near certain hit.
No, touch attack spells do a lot more base damage than guns, so they don't need to add sneak attack damage. I understand that the touch attack only counts at close range, too. Touch attack spells usually have have no save, but spell resistance applies. Damage resistance applies to firearms instead, you will note.
Again, I fail to see the imbalance.
As to the crossbow, the game isn't set in the modern world.
Then don't have guns in your game. Problem solved.
You missed the point entirely.
The feats, etc, are given to creatures in the context of the CR. When you make it based on HD, a Solar (22 HD) is equal to an Ancient Black dragon.
No, it's not. Skills and feats are based on Hit Dice. CR is calculated from hit dice, feats, powers etc. not the other way around.
Step 6: Skills and Feats
Using Table 1–4, determine how many skill ranks your
creature has based on its type and Hit Dice.
Clearly all your confusion regarding the spell was down to not realising this.
|
|
1. A higher level spell has a save DC that is 2 points higher. Adding 25% to the save is the equivalent of a spell 5 points higher.
2. Glitterdust blinds you and then allows a new save each round. It doesn't drop you down a hole requiring a DC 25 climb check to get out and effectively creating a wall (relative to 3rd level characters)
Web and entangle both have two ways to avoid the effect (reflex then CMD checks as psrt of the move action)
One doesn't impede movement (Glitterdust) and the other two functionally allow a second save even if you fail the first.
Again the fix is to make it 3rd level, where it would still be an effective and useful spell, but not effectively a single save combat ending one.
3. You conveniently ignored that I pointed out touch attack spells are a) A single attack, and b) allow spell resistance or some other save as a secondary (in pathfinder).
The problem is you have functionally created an item with an ability equivalent to a +4 enhancement inherent in it. If this were mitigated by only one class being able to fire it more than once in a round, it would be fine. As is, you can add sneak attack, smite, divine bond, favored enemy, weapon specialization, etc...bonuses to it, while dual wielding it so you can use those bonuses against touch attack many, many times in a single round.
I broke down a rogue taking the two weapon fighting chain in another thread and the damage was ridiculous even before you start adding enhancements to the weapon.
4. Really. Both the solar and the black dragon have 22 HD. Both well within what a 13th level Wizard could replicate. Spell like abilities aren't designated by level for creatures without class levels, so there is no way to determine at what level a genie gains wish.
It is less clear to me where your confusion comes from.
I've been the guy arguing from your perspective before, so I get your intent. Believe me I generally think most of the whining is BS. In these 4 cases, mistakes were made.
1. A higher level spell has a save DC that is 2 points higher. Adding 25% to the save is the equivalent of a spell 5 points higher.
Not really. A spell that is one level higher only raises the DC by 1.
Let's say we have a 4th level spell and the save is 18. Yeah a metamagiced persistent spell is harder to make a save on most of the time when compared to a spell 2 level higher, but a feat was also spent to make that happen. I think that should provide some benefit. I think the issue is that you believe the benefit to outweigh the cost.
2. Glitterdust blinds you and then allows a new save each round. It doesn't drop you down a hole requiring a DC 25 climb check to get out and effectively creating a wall (relative to 3rd level characters)Web and entangle both have two ways to avoid the effect (reflex then CMD checks as psrt of the move action)
That rope and hook would lower the check assuming you failed the save, and being in a pit is safer than being blinded with the bad guys nearby.
One doesn't impede movement (Glitterdust) and the other two functionally allow a second save even if you fail the first.
Blinded: The creature cannot see. It takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), and takes a –4 penalty on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks and on opposed Perception skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Perception checks based on sight) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) against the blinded character. Blind creatures must make a DC 10 Acrobatics skill check to move faster than half speed. Creatures that fail this check fall prone. Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them.
4. Really. Both the solar and the black dragon have 22 HD. Both well within what a 13th level Wizard could replicate. Spell like abilities aren't designated by level for creatures without class levels, so there is no way to determine at what level a genie gains wish.It is less clear to me where your confusion comes from.
I've been the guy arguing from your perspective before, so I get your intent. Believe me I generally think most of the whining with BS. In these 4 cases, mistakes were made.
They have 22 HD in their original form, but the duplicate only gets half that HD. You do not get the full monster.
An 11 HD dragon is about a CR 7 according to the table in the dragon section.I don't think a CR 7 is too overwhelming for a level 13 game.
edit:I do believe the spell is badly written, but I would not call it broken. If there is an issue that the spell does not handle then it goes to DM territory.
|
|
Stuff
Quickly, as I need to go to work.
1. Each DC adds 5% to the save. If you add 25%, it is the same as raising the save DC by 5.
2. One requires that all characters carry a grappling hook, one requires they wait a round. One you are in a hole, taking fall damage and a sitting duck. One you can run away at half speed at no penalty while you wait a round for your vision to come back.
And I will assume you agree about web and entangle.
4. CR 7 would be fine. Being able to make a Genie under your control who has a wish spell, not so much.
I agree with up thread where the spell used to be making a half power you is the way to go. I'm just saying if you want to be able to make anything, you need to remove the spell like abilities as many creatures have abilities that wouldn't go away if you "half" them but would be overpowered.
Yes you can DM rule on it. On all of these. The point is I hope they get fixed so I don't have to anymore.
|
Simulacrum (and polymorph any object, which shares many of its problems) has always been extravagantly broken. I remember using it in 1st edition in a Bloodstone game to make 'half-strength' (or 60% or whatever) dragons to use as pets.
3rd edition, making it enhance-able by Empower and Maximize, for a brief shining moment, made my eyes water with the punguency of that cheese.
PF, removing Advancement rules, made it even harder to adjudicate, IMO, since there's less of an idea what a half-strength version of anything would look like. Plus they got rid of one of the few nods to sanity from previous editions, the requirement of having a piece of the creature to be duplicated, which allowed a savvy GM to keep monsters he doesn't want 'simmed' out of the PCs hungry little hands.
If all simulacrum did was allow one to replicate the physical form and features and exceptional abilities of a duplicated creature, and none of it's supernatural, spell-like or class-related abilities (downgrading any class levels into the closest appropriate NPC class levels, making the best sim-spellcaster an adept), it would *still* be a pretty friggin' useful spell.
Stuff
Quickly, as I need to go to work.
1. Each DC adds 5% to the save. If you add 25%, it is the same as raising the save DC by 5.
2. One requires that all characters carry a grappling hook, one requires they wait a round. One you are in a hole, taking fall damage and a sitting duck. One you can run away at half speed at no penalty while you wait a round for your vision to come back.
And I will assume you agree about web and entangle.
4. CR 7 would be fine. Being able to make a Genie under your control who has a wish spell, not so much.
I agree with up thread where the spell used to be making a half power you is the way to go. I'm just saying if you want to be able to make anything, you need to remove the spell like abilities as many creatures have abilities that wouldn't go away if you "half" them but would be overpowered.
Yes you can DM rule on it. On all of these. The point is I hope they get fixed so I don't have to anymore.
I think James is a fan of DM empowerment so I doubt it will be fixed like we want it too, but I do wish more thought would be given to the spell. Right now it is too open for my taste. I will give a reply to your points after I go to sleep and wake up.
1. A higher level spell has a save DC that is 2 points higher. Adding 25% to the save is the equivalent of a spell 5 points higher.
I don't dispute that it makes it a lot harder to make the save than just the increase in the spell level would account for. The problem with your argument is that the effect of the spell is then well below what a spell of that level can achieve.
You get a reduced spell effect for the level of the slot you are using. You get a tougher save that a spell of that level would require. Seems a perfectly good trade-off to me.
2. Glitterdust blinds you and then allows a new save each round. It doesn't drop you down a hole requiring a DC 25 climb check to get out and effectively creating a wall (relative to 3rd level characters)
Web and entangle both have two ways to avoid the effect (reflex then CMD checks as psrt of the move action)
One doesn't impede movement (Glitterdust) and the other two functionally allow a second save even if you fail the first.
Glitterdust functionally reduces your movement to half, actually, and has a lot of other effects besides. In fact, all things considered I would far rather be hit by create pit than by glitterdust. Yes, they all have a 'second save' - so does the pit, it's called a Climb check. The high DC is easily mitigated by basic climbing gear, or a first level spell (spider climb). Even if those are not options, any foe that can attack you can be counter-attacked by a missile weapon of your own, unlike being entangled.
If you are not carrying climbing gear and a missile weapon, you shouldn't be adventuring, period. Badly equipped adventurers are pretty much asking to die.
Again the fix is to make it 3rd level, where it would still be an effective and useful spell, but not effectively a single save combat ending one.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. No way is create pit a viable third level spell.
3. You conveniently ignored that I pointed out touch attack spells are a) A single attack, and b) allow spell resistance or some other save as a secondary (in pathfinder).
No, I point out that firearms are the same: they require a single attack, and are also effected by damage resistance as a secondary. Probably as many creatures have damage resistance than have spell resistance.
The problem is you have functionally created an item with an ability equivalent to a +4 enhancement inherent in it. If this were mitigated by only one class being able to fire it more than once in a round, it would be fine. As is, you can add sneak attack, smite, divine bond, favored enemy, weapon specialization, etc...bonuses to it, while dual wielding it so you can use those bonuses against touch attack many, many times in a single round.
I fully appreciate that as weapons, firearms are deadly. This is because, well, they ARE. Sure, you can enchant them with lots of stuff at high level. You can do that with many weapons, though.
I broke down a rogue taking the two weapon fighting chain in another thread and the damage was ridiculous even before you start adding enhancements to the weapon.
Any TWF rogue is deadly no matter what weapons he is using. Now compare him to a TWF rogue with a pair of short swords flanking in melee. If the firearms rogue gets surprise, he can sneak attack in round 1 with multiple attacks, just like the melee rogue. But if the melee rogue gets a flanking position he can full attack with sneak attack every round. Doesn't matter if he has to hit the full AC, the number of sneak attacks he will get should take him over the gun-using rogues total over the length of a three-round encounter.
The problem with ranged rogues is that they usually only get one good round of sneak-attacking. Once you factor that in, those guns are not so broken.
4. Really. Both the solar and the black dragon have 22 HD. Both well within what a 13th level Wizard could replicate. Spell like abilities aren't designated by level for creatures without class levels, so there is no way to determine at what level a genie gains wish.
Making 11HD creatures out of them, lacking many feats and abilities of the original. An 11HD dragon has a CR of around 7. Hardly broken.
It is less clear to me where your confusion comes from.
That is because I am not in the least confused by any of these issues.
I've been the guy arguing from your perspective before, so I get your intent. Believe me I generally think most of the whining is BS. In these 4 cases, mistakes were made.
And I appreciate where you are coming from, but seriously looking at these 'problems' I can't say that I can see them as such.
Persistent Spell: You use a high-level slot to cast a spell that has reduced effect compared to the level of the slot, but with a better chance of a failed save. That's a reasonable trade-off for the feat, no biggee.
Create Pit: Comparable to similar spells like web or glitterdust, it's an average 2nd level battlefield control spell. Sure, it's nasty if you cast it on somebody who has no climbing gear or skill to climb ... but climbing gear is a must for any adventurer, be they in wilderness, urban or dungeon settings. The name for an improperly equipped adventurer is 'corpse'.
Firearms: if you don't want advanced guns, ban them in your games. If you do, they are no more broken than ranged touch spells. Guns are not called 'the great equalizers' for nothing.
Simulacrum: If you read the monster creation rules in the Bestiary you will see exactly how to make monsters of half the hit dice of the original, and how to reduce abilities appropriately. That's what they are there for. They do require an application of common sense - a simulacrum of a genie made by a wizard that cannot cast wish is unlikely to have it as a power, after all.
Persistent Spell- Significantly undercosted. Yes it's not broken on evocations but lets face it evocation is generally considered to be grossly suboptimal. On low level SoL spells the spell's inherent limitations generally prevent massive abuse of persistent, that is certainly not the case when you start tossing around persistent Baleful Polymorphs or Flesh to Stone with the aid of a metamagic rod.
Is this a problem with the base cost structure of metamagic rods? Quite possibly but that's a whole other argument. I think a higher spell level cost (+3 or maybe even +4) might be more appropriate and would solve many of the issues with rod cost as rods of metamagic for +3 or +4 metamagics are generally cost prohibitive until late game.
Create Pit and Spiked Pit- Definitely problematic. While climbing gear is practically a requirement for low level adventurers. At minimum you are talking reflex save (likely lowest for heavily armored tanks), then retrieving a grappling hook and tossing it (2 standard actions most likely), then you have a climb action with armor check penalties.
Basically that's 3+ rounds out of the action which is a pretty significant effect at this level.
Spiked pit is even worse because the walls prevent the ready use of rope + grappling hook and at the damage per round climbing is pretty much incapacitating. Let's face it without a fly potion or levitation potion the fighter or cleric is going to be stuck in that pit for the duration of the spell which is probably long enough keep said fighter out of the entire fight - this isn't particularly fun.
Ranged Touch Guns- The gunslinger is pretty much a hot mess IMHO, I don't think they are particular gamebreaking but my interest with the 2 round of playtesting is pretty low ebb currently.
Simulacrum and Polymorph Any Object- Yeah pretty much obscenely easy to abuse. Spells that require a massive amount of DM fiat to limit are simply bad news. Personally I think the best solution is to just nuke both spells from the spell list and replace the intended effect with something much less open ended.
As the game goes higher in level I think there should be some spells written such that they require the DM to adjudicate their use. This means that a DM will have to know the rules and realize how they interact. It also requires that the PC's be upfront and honest and really discuss things with the DM and that hte DM hear them out, look at everything and make decisions.
I think Simulacrum is one of those spells- and really: I am ok with that. If a DM wants to say that a Sim'd genie gets wishes, that is ok. If he doesn't- that is also ok. "Half strength" or "half power" is something that I am honestly OK with being.. very vague. That is why we have a DM. So he can read it, check out what you want to do, and then make a ruling based on it.. and even adjust that ruling on the fly.
If you, or your DM, isn't comfortable with that then they can also either : rewrite the spell with some definite limits or 2) remove it entirely from the list.
This isn't to say that "every spell should be vague and arbitrary because of rule 0" but rather that some spells, because of their very function, will require Rule 0 in order to still be useful and to sometimes be very cool to use. The "rule of cool" can sometimes trump the need to have every square inch of a spell cast in 6 cubit meters of concrete.
Don't be a jerk. Don't be unreasonable. Don't try to break the game. They are all rules just as solid as any rule in the rulebook- so why not write in a spell or two that lets the players and the DM exercise the ole brainpan abit?
-S
**Not saying anyone here is being ajerk or unreasonable or tryin to break the game- just that alot of spells/combinations/whatever really only are an issue when someone is.. being a jerk, unreasonable, and/or trying to break the game by some little loophole that was left open to keep the game/ability/whatnot interesting with the thought that the DM can plug any such loopholes with a little two letter word: No.**
Persistent Spell- Significantly undercosted. Yes it's not broken on evocations but lets face it evocation is generally considered to be grossly suboptimal. On low level SoL spells the spell's inherent limitations generally prevent massive abuse of persistent, that is certainly not the case when you start tossing around persistent Baleful Polymorphs or Flesh to Stone with the aid of a metamagic rod.
Metamagic rods are, as you rightly point out, a whole different ball game. Problem is the 'fix' that ciratose quotes doesn't really affect them. Baleful polymorph with Persistent Spell is nasty, but you would need a 7th level spell slot for it. That means a minimum of 13th level, and look at the other 7th level spells you could cast instead ...
Is this a problem with the base cost structure of metamagic rods? Quite possibly but that's a whole other argument. I think a higher spell level cost (+3 or maybe even +4) might be more appropriate and would solve many of the issues with rod cost as rods of metamagic for +3 or +4 metamagics are generally cost prohibitive until late game.
Again, later in the game the targets you are hitting are much tougher. You also have the option of spells that effect large groups with SoS, rather than single targets. Generally, hitting five targets with a SoS two or three will save at is more effective than hitting one with a SoS that he almost certainly will fail against.
Create Pit and Spiked Pit- Definitely problematic. While climbing gear is practically a requirement for low level adventurers. At minimum you are talking reflex save (likely lowest for heavily armored tanks), then retrieving a grappling hook and tossing it (2 standard actions most likely), then you have a climb action with armor check penalties.
Basically that's 3+ rounds out of the action which is a pretty significant effect at this level.
But then consider your tank's Will save vs glitterdust (lets face it, a fighter will likely have better Dex than Wis) which would render him blinded for the same period with no way of getting out of it. Glitterdust > Create Pit, no doubt about it.
Spiked pit is even worse because the walls prevent the ready use of rope + grappling hook and at the damage per round climbing is pretty much incapacitating. Let's face it without a fly potion or levitation potion the fighter or cleric is going to be stuck in that pit for the duration of the spell which is probably long enough keep said fighter out of the entire fight - this isn't particularly fun.
Are you likely to have (or be able to afford) a potion of levitation or the like at 5th+ level, where this spell gets used? Again, it's one save and out for the fight - just like glitterdust or deep slumber or hold person save that spiked pit also damages you, but also has a way out which means you might not be out for the fight.
Again, I can't see how this is broken compared to other 3rd level spells.
Simulacrum and Polymorph Any Object- Yeah pretty much obscenely easy to abuse. Spells that require a massive amount of DM fiat to limit are simply bad news. Personally I think the best solution is to just nuke both spells from the spell list and replace the intended effect with something much less open ended.
To be honest, making simulacrum work on monsters (as opposed to characters) isn't actually hard if you use the rules in the Bestiary. It's not a simple process, but it is presumably one that the DM performs, or at least oversees.
**Not saying anyone here is being ajerk or unreasonable or tryin to break the game- just that alot of spells/combinations/whatever really only are an issue when someone is.. being a jerk, unreasonable, and/or trying to break the game by some little loophole that was left open to keep the game/ability/whatnot interesting with the thought that the DM can plug any such loopholes with a little two letter word: No.**
Well said, sir. I can appreciate 'testing to destruction' in such cases, but I can't see the problems in 9/10 situations where you have a reasonable player and a reasonable DM.
4. Simulacrum
Why it's broken: "Simulacrum creates an illusory duplicate of any creature. The duplicate creature is partially real and formed from ice or snow. It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only half of the real creature's levels or HD (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and...
Im not sure how this is "broken"...
il·lu·so·ry   
[ih-loo-suh-ree, -zuh-]
–adjective
1.
causing illusion; deceptive; misleading.
2.
of the nature of an illusion; unreal.
The wording clearly states that simulacrum isn't an exact duplicate of the creature. Its a poor man's copy. Its a sufficiently high level spell with hefty costs and time requirements. It only gets class feats and abilities and isn't capable of progressing or improving. If it dies it costs an arm and a leg to repair or another significant investment to make a new one.
Really, if this is broken, then I'd hate to see how broken the leadership feat is...
The broken'ness of the spell is that folks want to use it to re-create critters with abusive SLA's that don't have a clear "half power" under the spell description. For example: Does a half-power Efreeti have 3/day wishes? 1.5/day? 1/day? 2/day? None?
Any answer you give is just sheer DM adjudication- but the potential is there for 3/day wishes from your Simulacrum. 3/day SLA's have no material component.
(not saying a DM would/should allow it- just saying what the potential for a problem is)
-S
|
|
I don't dispute that it makes it a lot harder to make the save than just the increase in the spell level would account for. The problem with your argument is that the effect of the spell is then well below what a spell of that level can achieve.
You get a reduced spell effect for the level of the slot you are using. You get a tougher save that a spell of that level would require. Seems a perfectly good trade-off to me.
Except the metamagic rod for 32,000 k (16,500 if you make it) that allows you to boost your disintegrate by 5 DC.
And ignoring that glaring issue, show me an 8th level spell better than disintegrate with a save DC 3 higher than an 8th level spell.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. No way is create pit a viable third level spell.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/spell-lists-and-domains/spell-lists---sorcere r-and-wizard#TOC-3rd-Level-Sorcerer-Wizard-Spells
Compare
Any TWF rogue is deadly no matter what weapons he is using. Now compare him to a TWF rogue with a pair of short swords flanking in melee. If the firearms rogue gets surprise, he can sneak attack in round 1 with multiple attacks, just like the melee rogue. But if the melee rogue gets a flanking position he can full attack with sneak attack every round. Doesn't matter if he has to hit the full AC, the number of sneak attacks he will get should take him over the gun-using rogues total over the length of a three-round encounter.
The problem with ranged rogues is that they usually only get one good round of sneak-attacking. Once you factor that in, those guns are not so broken.
The issue is the melee rogue generally has a better than 50/50 to miss in the last few rounds, while the firearms will generally hit on anything but a 1.
And be out of full round attack range 90% of the time. More if they take the no 5 foot rogue talent.
Making 11HD creatures out of them, lacking many feats and abilities of the original. An 11HD dragon has a CR of around 7. Hardly broken.
If it didn't keep the spell like abilities, I would agree with you. But you can make a creature that can cast spells higher level than you yourself can cast because of the glaring loophole.
|
|
Persistent Spell- Significantly undercosted. Yes it's not broken on evocations but lets face it evocation is generally considered to be grossly suboptimal. On low level SoL spells the spell's inherent limitations generally prevent massive abuse of persistent, that is certainly not the case when you start tossing around persistent Baleful Polymorphs or Flesh to Stone with the aid of a metamagic rod.
Is this a problem with the base cost structure of metamagic rods? Quite possibly but that's a whole other argument. I think a higher spell level cost (+3 or maybe even +4) might be more appropriate and would solve many of the issues with rod cost as rods of metamagic for +3 or +4 metamagics are generally cost prohibitive until late game.
Create Pit and Spiked Pit- Definitely problematic. While climbing gear is practically a requirement for low level adventurers. At minimum you are talking reflex save (likely lowest for heavily armored tanks), then retrieving a grappling hook and tossing it (2 standard actions most likely), then you have a climb action with armor check penalties.
Basically that's 3+ rounds out of the action which is a pretty significant effect at this level.
Spiked pit is even worse because the walls prevent the ready use of rope + grappling hook and at the damage per round climbing is pretty much incapacitating. Let's face it without a fly potion or levitation potion the fighter or cleric is going to be stuck in that pit for the duration of the spell which is probably long enough keep said fighter out of the entire fight - this isn't particularly fun.
Ranged Touch Guns- The gunslinger is pretty much a hot mess IMHO, I don't think they are particular gamebreaking but my interest with the 2 round of playtesting is pretty low ebb currently.
Simulacrum and Polymorph Any Object- Yeah pretty much obscenely easy to abuse. Spells that require a massive amount of DM fiat to limit are simply bad news. Personally I think the best solution is to just nuke both spells from the spell list and...
+1
|
|
Metamagic rods are, as you rightly point out, a whole different ball game. Problem is the 'fix' that ciratose quotes doesn't really affect them. Baleful polymorph with Persistent Spell is nasty, but you would need a 7th level spell slot for it. That means a minimum of 13th level, and look at the other 7th level spells you could cast instead ...
It is 7th level now, it would be 9th under my rule.
Vuron can address the rest if he likes, since it's to him.
|
|
The broken'ness of the spell is that folks want to use it to re-create critters with abusive SLA's that don't have a clear "half power" under the spell description. For example: Does a half-power Efreeti have 3/day wishes? 1.5/day? 1/day? 2/day? None?
Any answer you give is just sheer DM adjudication- but the potential is there for 3/day wishes from your Simulacrum. 3/day SLA's have no material component.(not saying a DM would/should allow it- just saying what the potential for a problem is)
-S
+1
As subject to abuse as Leadership can be, you can be certain your co-hort will at least be a few levels with regards to CR below the person taking the feat.
Except the metamagic rod for 32,000 k (16,500 if you make it) that allows you to boost your disintegrate by 5 DC.
Your 'fix' does not fix the metamagic rods either. Yes, it makes it more expensive, but not the fundamental issue of it. Face it, metamagic rods are a problem all on their own.
And ignoring that glaring issue, show me an 8th level spell better than disintegrate with a save DC 3 higher than an 8th level spell.
If your argument is that the spell of that level should be better and have the same save chances as the Persistent Spell spell, then you've completely missed the point of taking the feat. The point of Persistent Spell is that it makes the chances of success greater, but no other feature is effected. If it was just to increase the save to that equivalent of the level of slot you use, you'd use Heighten Spell. The whole point of Persistent Spell is that the chance of it succeeding are greater than that, otherwise the feat would be redundant. On the other hand, you get nothing else from the feat.
As for which 8th level spells are better, almost by definition all of them are 'better' in terms of what they can do, if they weren't they wouldn't be 8th level spells, would they?
Look at it this way - you are 15th level and you have your disintegrate spell and you want to up the effects. You know it has a roughly 50/50 chance of success as is, so as is, if it succeeds it will do 30d6 damage, if it fails it would do 5d6, so it will on average inflict 61.25 damage for a 6th level spell.
If you make it Persistent then that 50/50 chance of success becomes 75/25, making an average 83.125 damage for a two level increase in spell level.
If you Empower it, then that 50/50 chance remains the same, but your damage is up by 50%. That means 91.875 damage on average for a two level increase in spell level.
Empowering delivers more average damage, and you can calculate that the higher your chance of success the better Empowering is. A Persistent spell is only better if your chances of success are low and you want to be sure of delivering some damage. Now disintegrate is a damging spell, which isn't the best example, what you want to compare to is a SoS spell against a similar higher level equivelant. Sleep and Deep Slumber are a good pair to compare:
Deep slumber effects up to 10 HD of creature.
Sleep effects up to 4 HD of creature, but if you make it Persistent you gain +2-3 to the save DC. More limited use, better chance of success is the trade-off.
If your save chance is 75% and you are hit by a Persistent spell, your chances of success on the whole are slightly better than 55%, which means the increase in 'virtual spell level' has dropped to +4. If your save chance is 25% and you are hit by a Persistent spell, your chances of success on the whole are slightly better than 5%, so again the spell has only gained +4.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/spell-lists-and-domains/spell-lists---sorcere r-and-wizard#TOC-3rd-Level-Sorcerer-Wizard-SpellsCompare
I have already demonstrated that Create Pit is not functionally better than Glitterdust and Web which are 2nd level wizard spells. You have failed to demonstrate that it is in any way better than it's peers - either they are also broken, or Create Pit isn't.
The issue is the melee rogue generally has a better than 50/50 to miss in the last few rounds, while the firearms will generally hit on anything but a 1.
That depends on the target and the character level, but I am willing to bet that three rounds of full attacking in melee against full AC will on the whole dish out more damage than one round of full attacking with ranged touch.
Taking your figures, your gun-slinging rogue deals sneak attack damage for one round. The melee rogue does 50% sneak attack damage for 3 rounds. That adds to 150% of the sneak-attack goodness of the gun-slinging rogue ... I would argue that the guns have merely made the ranged attack rogue reasonably comparable to the melee rogue, they haven't in any way beaten him.
If it didn't keep the spell like abilities, I would agree with you. But you can make a creature that can cast spells higher level than you yourself can cast because of the glaring loophole.
You can make anything broken if you start from the premise that the DM doesn't know the rules and the player wants to break it. The spell description is very clear that ALL abilities are reduced appropriately in either scale or quantity. Sure, it can be difficult, but Selgard sums it up pretty well - it isn't broken unless the DM allows it to be broken.
|
|
Except the metamagic rod for 32,000 k (16,500 if you make it) that allows you to boost your disintegrate by 5 DC.Your 'fix' does not fix the metamagic rods either. Yes, it makes it more expensive, but not the fundamental issue of it. Face it, metamagic rods are a problem all on their own.
We agree on this. I wish they had just thrown the damn things out entirely.
And ignoring that glaring issue, show me an 8th level spell better than disintegrate with a save DC 3 higher than an 8th level spell.
If your argument is that the spell of that level should be better and have the same save chances as the Persistent Spell spell, then you've completely missed the point of taking the feat. The point of Persistent Spell is that it makes the chances of success greater, but no other feature is effected. If it was just to increase the save to that equivalent of the level of slot you use, you'd use Heighten Spell. The whole point of Persistent Spell is that the chance of it succeeding are greater than that, otherwise the feat would be redundant. On the other hand, you get nothing else from the feat.
As for which 8th level spells are better, almost by definition all of them are 'better' in terms of what they can do, if they weren't they wouldn't be 8th level spells, would they?
Look at it this way - you are 15th level and you have your disintegrate spell and you want to up the effects. You know it has a roughly 50/50 chance of success as is, so as is, if it succeeds it will do 30d6 damage, if it fails it would do 5d6, so it will on average inflict 61.25 damage for a 6th level spell.
If you make it Persistent then that 50/50 chance of success becomes 75/25, making an average 83.125 damage for a two level increase in spell level.
If you Empower it, then that 50/50 chance remains the same, but your damage is up by 50%. That means 91.875 damage on average for a two level increase in spell level.
But 40d6 is enough damage to kill most characters, making the average more or less moot. It will either likely near kill you (40d6 = 105) or it probably won't bother you much (5d6 = 17)
It is generally a save or die type situation. Empowering it isn't particularly useful as the increase doesn't matter nearly as much as making the save, as you are either likely dead or barely hurt. It isn't a problem of damage spells as for the all or nothing spells.
Consider Flesh to Stone for example. Or Mass Hold Person. Or Force Cage. Or Baleful Polymorph, etc...
As to the rogue, I'll take that bet. Except who said one round of ranged touch? It's a full round attack, just like the melee. Dual wielding pepperboxes.
Touch AC is much, much, lower than regular AC. You are going to have a better than 50/50 miss chance for at least your last two attacks, if not the last 4. Remember it isn't a full BAB class.
And the rules aren't in any way clear for Simulacrum.
Create pit vs. other conjuration
Glitterdust provides a save each round and it only hits the area once. Web allows for CM or escapist artist to get out. Clanky McFighter will have a good CMB (~+7) which is a point or two higher than the stand save. Also if RAW is actually enforced, then Web is of rather situational use.
These masses must be anchored to two or more solid and diametrically opposed points or else the web collapses upon itself and disappears
It'll work in dungeons, but it probably won't work while travelling. Also there's the fact that it can be burned away.
Create pit only doesn't work on flying creatures and things with climbs speeds.
The broken'ness of the spell is that folks want to use it to re-create critters with abusive SLA's that don't have a clear "half power" under the spell description. For example: Does a half-power Efreeti have 3/day wishes? 1.5/day? 1/day? 2/day? None?
Any answer you give is just sheer DM adjudication- but the potential is there for 3/day wishes from your Simulacrum. 3/day SLA's have no material component.(not saying a DM would/should allow it- just saying what the potential for a problem is)
-S
That doesn't seem broken to me. Let the player have the 3 wishes a day. Any decent DM that doesn't have a field day with a character who tries to make a wish factory is the one at fault. How is this very different from Gating in an effriti and dominating it? The creature you replicate is half as powerful as it should be, easy to break and stuck permanently at the level you create it. Not to mention the fact that it takes 12 hours and 500 GP/HD. Spells like this are far from broken. Aside from the high cost and time investment, it absolutely BEGS for the GM to regulate it. Sure mr Player. Have your simulacrum with 3 wishes per day. Just make sure you spend a good amount of time thinking exactly how to word your wish spell. Otherwise, BAM! Unintended consequence.
Personally, I think this comes down to a player and DM issue. If you don't like it don't use it or allow it to be used. Mechanically, I don't see a problem with it.
The wish issue is more with a weak monster that has a strong SLA, then the simulacrum spell. I would just change the monster since you can do the same thing with planer binding as being discussed in another thread.
For the sake of data. The chances of saving versus the same spell persisted for all values.
5% -> .25%
10% -> 1%
15% -> 2.25%
20% -> 4%
25% -> 6.25%
30% -> 9%
35% -> 12.25%
40% -> 16%
45% -> 20.25%
50% -> 25%
55% -> 30.25%
60% -> 36%
65% -> 42.25%
70% -> 49%
75% -> 56.25%
80% -> 64%
85% -> 72.25%
90% -> 81%
95% -> 90.25%
100% -> 100%
As you can see the most major difference is when the chance of saving is already low. Example: if you need the enemy to roll a one, its now ones and twos. But if you need them to roll 10 or lower, it pays off well as now its 15 or lower.
Id say its good as it should be a strong against foes of equal challenge. Devastating against weaker foes, and near worthless against foes much higher than you. If you get alot of benefit from a persistent spell, you probably could handle the encounter through other means already.
Create pit vs. other conjuration
Glitterdust provides a save each round and it only hits the area once. Web allows for CM or escapist artist to get out. Clanky McFighter will have a good CMB (~+7) which is a point or two higher than the stand save.
Clunky McFighter is also going to be able to make a DC5 climb check in his sleep to go up his knotted rope and grappling hook.
Whether you are forcing your way through webs or entangling undergrowth, it takes time. All of these battlefield control spells have the net effect of taking you a few rounds to get out of them. Create pit isn't materially different to the rest in that regard.
Also if RAW is actually enforced, then Web is of rather situational use.
These masses must be anchored to two or more solid and diametrically opposed points or else the web collapses upon itself and disappearsIt'll work in dungeons, but it probably won't work while travelling. Also there's the fact that it can be burned away.
Create pit only doesn't work on flying creatures and things with climbs speeds.
In other words, it too has situational use.
But 40d6 is enough damage to kill most characters, making the average more or less moot. It will either likely near kill you (40d6 = 105) or it probably won't bother you much (5d6 = 17)
It is generally a save or die type situation. Empowering it isn't particularly useful as the increase doesn't matter nearly as much as making the save, as you are either likely dead or barely hurt. It isn't a problem of damage spells as for the all or nothing spells.
At 20th level, yes. At 20th level a wizard with 14 Con (and at level 20 who won't have a few stat boosters?) has 110 hit points; your fighter is likely to have at least twice this. It's enough to lay low most characters of equivelant level, if you want the kill, you Empower.
Consider Flesh to Stone for example. Or Mass Hold Person. Or Force Cage. Or Baleful Polymorph, etc...
Believe me, I have done. If I'm preparing a set of spells per day for my wizard, Persistent baleful polymorph isn't a patch on limited wish; it's nasty, but limited wish has so many more uses. Persistent flesh to stone might inflict a rotten save, but power word stun has no save at all.
See where I'm coming from? Once you start comparing the boosted spell to those that you could be preparing or casting instead, it just doesn't look that hot.
As to the rogue, I'll take that bet. Except who said one round of ranged touch? It's a full round attack, just like the melee. Dual wielding pepperboxes.
Because the first round of attack you have surprise, and can sneak attack. After that, they know you are there (firearms are NOT stealth weapons), and you don't get sneak attack.
This pistol has six barrels instead of one. The entire barrel housing can be quickly rotated by hand between shots, allowing all six bullets to be fired before the weapon must be reloaded.
If you have one of these in each hand, how are you going to rotate the barrels? It's like the repeating hand crossbow - you can duel wield it by having a loaded one in each hand, but you have to put one of them down to reload the other. Your idea only works once you have revolvers available.
Touch AC is much, much, lower than regular AC. You are going to have a better than 50/50 miss chance for at least your last two attacks, if not the last 4. Remember it isn't a full BAB class.
Yes, and you also need to remember that we are assuming you have flanking in melee. You may not do, and in such a situation the shooter has an advantage I will agree.
And the rules aren't in any way clear for Simulacrum.
Wrong - the rules are perfectly clear for simulacrum; the rules are less clear for adapting monsters to half their hit dice, that's the real issue here and that's in the rules in the Bestiary.
Persistent is extremely useful in making SoL casters even more fearsome than they already are. The impact on saving throw percentages is much greater than heighten spell for instance.
The game doesn't need single-target and AoE SoL casters getting better. They can already ruin games as is. As for whether it's more efficient to prepare a level 7 spells like Insanity or Power Word Blind as opposed to a persistent Baleful or Hold Monster/Dominate Person is probably open for debate. In terms of save percentages it's actually better to cast the persistent 5th level SoL instead of the unaugmented 7th level SoL effect.
Limited Wish is confusing the issue because unlike other spells at 7th level it also carries a material cost which limits it's utility as a go to spell.
As to Glitterdust vs Create Pit, Glitterdust is a great spell because even if you fail to blind foes it gives you defenses against invisibility. However with a save every turn that means that many foes will return to action sooner rather than later. Blinded is a pretty nasty effect but it doesn't completely remove the player from play (they aren't helpless or stunlocked).
Create Pit isn't universally useful. Flying foes are a bad target. However the net impact of being dropped into a pit is pretty significant.
Sheath weapon - Move Action (Free action with quick draw)
Retrieving a Stored Item- Move Action (This is pretty generous and assumes that the grappling hook is attached)
Throw Grapple - Standard Action (This is assuming that there are decent targets for the grapple to attach to- in many dungeons the lip of the pit would not make for a realistic grapple point)
Climb Rope- You move 1/4 of your speed up the rope or for a -5 penalty you go 1/2 speed. Clanky McClanksalot moves 20' a round which means even fast climbing means that he's climbing at 10' a round. That means between 1 and 3 rounds spent climbing :(
Draw Weapon at top of pit - Move Action
So we are realistically talking a minimum of 3 rounds to emerge from the pit and get back into the fray. This is a massive impact.
Furthermore it's a conjuration (like conjurers need help) and is SR No.
Simulacra-Spells that rely on DM fiat to adjudicate are bad, spells that rely on the DM to reference the bestiary during the middle of the game are bad, spells that require the DM to modify the bestiary stats are double plus ungood.
If one of the primary goals of PF is to streamline gameplay why in the world would you want to include a spell that requires this much homework and this much DM fiat.
I haven't seen a glitterdust, entangle or web spell that didn't take 2-3 rounds to get out of, if you placed it right.
On the other hand, Clanky McClanksalot may not be limited to 20' movement. Most fighting types tend to breatsplate rather than plate at low level that I have seen, so 30' movement is acceptable. A potion of spider climb would cost 30gp and get you out of the pit almost as fast as it takes to drink it, without juggling weapons so much.
You also have teamwork to consider - Roguey McSneaksalot is likely to make his save and can toss a rope down to Clanky; Wizzy McCastsalot can hang back and cast spells to get him out.
There's quite a few ways this can be easily circumvented into an inconvenience. In the end it's situational, it can be very effective in some cases, not very effective in others.
Edit:
Does it make SoL casters more effective? I don't actually think so. It allows them more flexibility, they can cast lower level, limited spells with a better chance of success at the expense of higher level more flexible spells. Nasty, yes. Broken? No, not really.
Honestly I don't think the pit spells are wildly beyond the bounds of reason but I do think for the most part they tend towards the high end of the power spectrum. Against Big Brute monsters with poor reflex saves and no climb speed it's basically going to end the fight.
A Rhino(CR 4) or an Owlbear (CR 4) really has no defenses against this spell, bad reflex saves no ability to climb mean that everyone can gather around the lip of the pit and used ranged/reach attacks without risk.
Now you can argue that a variety of spells can give autowins at this level but I'm not sure that is a good design target.
Probably too powerful but not going to "break the game".
Persistent can upset the power balance even more than it already favors casters. Metamagic rods are RAW, stuff like Spell Perfection (ugh) is RAW, there are numerous ways in Pathfinder Core + APG to set up a high threat SoL caster that has a good success rate with SoL spells against CR+2/+3 creatures.
The basic math is already stacked against creatures poor saves, I don't think it benefits the game to make saves that much harder to get especially when so many creatures and classes have 2 poor saves.
Now personally I've removed metamagic rods (except for extend which is relatively harmless) from my games but I'm still exceedingly reluctant to bring over persistent spell in it's current configuration.
Simulacra-Spells that rely on DM fiat to adjudicate are bad, spells that rely on the DM to reference the bestiary during the middle of the game are bad, spells that require the DM to modify the bestiary stats are double plus ungood.
The GM is supposed to be the adjudicator for spells such as this. Pathfinder is streamlined. It is hardly game breaking for the GM to have to take a few minutes for a spell that takes significant time and RP investment to throw together the stats.
To blanket label spells that require some thought and work on the part of a GM as bad is ridiculous. If the GM doesn't want to do the work, make the player do it and have the GM check it for accuracy. This is a spell that takes 12 IN GAME HOURS! The other players can RP what's going, or a game break can be taken. This is not a problem spell. Spells that are worded ambiguously and allow for exploiting the mechanical rules are bad. Simulacrum doesn't do either of these.
Also, if you can't rely on your GM to have fun with something akin to a wish spell, he's doing it wrong.
(By "fun" I don't mean killing players and punishing them for using the spell, but giving unintended consequences for using a spell of that kind in the right situation)
I agree with statements #1 and #4: Persistant Spell is too good for the cost and Simulacrum is just ridiculous (unless you start getting into extremely creative definitions of "half-strength").
With regards to Create Pit, I thought it was going to be very powerful until I tried it out with my wizard. In practice, I could get some of the enemies to fall into the pit, but it was very hard to do any further damage once they were in there. Shooting missiles in is tricky, since you can't safely stand in the squares adjacent to the pit. Likewise, it's difficult to climb out of the pit, but not that difficult, especially if you consider the -5 adjustment to the DC for being in a corner of two perpendicular walls.
I honestly don't have a problem with a rogue getting a sneak attack with a touch attack once a round. It's not really any different from a wand of Scorching Ray, is it?
Since a similacrum is half as powerful as the original, they can ony grant limited wishes. :)
I agree with statements #1 and #4: Persistant Spell is too good for the cost and Simulacrum is just ridiculous (unless you start getting into extremely creative definitions of "half-strength").
Half-Strength = Strength / 2
:P
But as Goth Guru just said, its simply scaling back the monster according to the rules. Unless I'm mistaken, there are rules for doing just that in either the Bestiary or the Game Mastery Guide.
Persistent is extremely useful in making SoL casters even more fearsome than they already are. The impact on saving throw percentages is much greater than heighten spell for instance.
The game doesn't need single-target and AoE SoL casters getting better. They can already ruin games as is. As for whether it's more efficient to prepare a level 7 spells like Insanity or Power Word Blind as opposed to a persistent Baleful or Hold Monster/Dominate Person is probably open for debate. In terms of save percentages it's actually better to cast the persistent 5th level SoL instead of the unaugmented 7th level SoL effect.
SoL caster are only an issued for an unprepared DM.
Ability scores cap between 28-34ish depending on various factors10+9 spell level+10 ability score+2 spell focus+2 greater spell focus
About 33
The average save of CR 20 monster is 22. The average low save is 17 before buffs.
After buffs it should be over a 50% chance to make the save assuming the caster bypasses SR, or the monster is not immune to the spell.
Even at lower levels, let's say 10 they can be dealt with if the DM wants to improved the monster's chances of success.
SoL is more of a playstyle issue than an overall game issue is what I am saying.
I agree with statements #1 and #4: Persistant Spell is too good for the cost and Simulacrum is just ridiculous (unless you start getting into extremely creative definitions of "half-strength").
Half-Strength = Strength / 2
:P
But as Goth Guru just said, its simply scaling back the monster according to the rules. Unless I'm mistaken, there are rules for doing just that in either the Bestiary or the Game Mastery Guide.
The problem (IMO) is with this line:
"the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD"
There's no particular connection between a monster's hit dice and what special abilities it might have, however. So "appropriateness" is undefined (and where the GM has to get creative).
I agree with statements #1 and #4: Persistant Spell is too good for the cost and Simulacrum is just ridiculous (unless you start getting into extremely creative definitions of "half-strength").
Half-Strength = Strength / 2
:P
But as Goth Guru just said, its simply scaling back the monster according to the rules. Unless I'm mistaken, there are rules for doing just that in either the Bestiary or the Game Mastery Guide.
The problem (IMO) is with this line:
"the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD"
There's no particular connection between a monster's hit dice and what special abilities it might have, however. So "appropriateness" is undefined (and where the GM has to get creative).
Actually, a quick check of the Pathfinder SRD yielded this...
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-advancer
Monster advancer that allows you to adjust and change the monster based on CR. While it doesn't allow you cut the HD of a creature in half, it does provide useful examples for how to adjust Spell-Like Abilities such as Wish or those that would give you trouble.
HD of creature = CR*2 if I'm not mistaken.
Therefore if they are no longer of a caster level high enough to cast wish, they can only cast limited wish... etc...
Persistent is extremely useful in making SoL casters even more fearsome than they already are. The impact on saving throw percentages is much greater than heighten spell for instance.
The game doesn't need single-target and AoE SoL casters getting better. They can already ruin games as is. As for whether it's more efficient to prepare a level 7 spells like Insanity or Power Word Blind as opposed to a persistent Baleful or Hold Monster/Dominate Person is probably open for debate. In terms of save percentages it's actually better to cast the persistent 5th level SoL instead of the unaugmented 7th level SoL effect.
SoL caster are only an issued for an unprepared DM.
Ability scores cap between 28-34ish depending on various factors
10+9 spell level+10 ability score+2 spell focus+2 greater spell focus
About 33The average save of CR 20 monster is 22. The average low save is 17 before buffs.
After buffs it should be over a 50% chance to make the save assuming the caster bypasses SR, or the monster is not immune to the spell.
Even at lower levels, let's say 10 they can be dealt with if the DM wants to improved the monster's chances of success.
SoL is more of a playstyle issue than an overall game issue is what I am saying.
Using CR 20 foes as the counter example isn't great because they are almost invariably dragons (no bad saves+SR) or outsiders (few bad saves + SR) or maybe high level casters.
The problem is that during the bulk of the game monster/npcs success rates vs PCs hover around 25%-35% for poor saves and most of the creatures faced at lower CR levels don't have the resources to buff saves tremendously (unless you spam cloaks of resistance on regular foes). Adding persistent into the mix means that instead of succeeding 35% of the time the monster or NPC is succeeding 12.25% of the time. If the save is normally 25% of the time then the save rate is 6.25% of the time.
This of course also means that enemy casters can really do a number to PCs because there is a realistic maximum at any given level that a PC can spend on resistance items and save boosting feats.
Persistent spells increase the likelihood of the game devolving into rocket launcher tag. I think that rate is already too high as is, I don't want to increase the success rate for those strategies.
Like Hogarth and others have said, Save DC for SLAs are set by HD, access to SLAs is very unclear. There really is no consistent standard for what HD unlocks what SLAs. Efreet clearly get wish like abilities at less than 17 HD.
Now in theory I would support a revision that says that in order to have SLA of level X you need to have X HD but that would require a significant revision of the Bestiary as many creatures have SLAs more powerful than their HD would typically allow.
Making a simulacra of a big beast is not too bad, making a simulacra of a humanoid caster can be a pain but it's doable. Dealing with the edge cases such as Simulacra of efreets are where you can generate a lot of issues.
In those cases DM fiat comes into play. Personally though I don't think abilities should be designed that implicitly place the burden of game balance decisions in the hands of DM fiat. I think it's kinda a design cop-out and it sets up the DM for failure. If he's too permissive he risks campaign derailment and if he's too restrictive he's a bad guy. it's kinda a lose-lose situation and I simply think good game design should not place the DM into lose-lose situations.
Persistent is extremely useful in making SoL casters even more fearsome than they already are. The impact on saving throw percentages is much greater than heighten spell for instance.
The game doesn't need single-target and AoE SoL casters getting better. They can already ruin games as is. As for whether it's more efficient to prepare a level 7 spells like Insanity or Power Word Blind as opposed to a persistent Baleful or Hold Monster/Dominate Person is probably open for debate. In terms of save percentages it's actually better to cast the persistent 5th level SoL instead of the unaugmented 7th level SoL effect.
SoL caster are only an issued for an unprepared DM.
Ability scores cap between 28-34ish depending on various factors
10+9 spell level+10 ability score+2 spell focus+2 greater spell focus
About 33The average save of CR 20 monster is 22. The average low save is 17 before buffs.
After buffs it should be over a 50% chance to make the save assuming the caster bypasses SR, or the monster is not immune to the spell.
Even at lower levels, let's say 10 they can be dealt with if the DM wants to improved the monster's chances of success.
SoL is more of a playstyle issue than an overall game issue is what I am saying.
Using CR 20 foes as the counter example isn't great because they are almost invariably dragons (no bad saves+SR) or outsiders (few bad saves + SR) or maybe high level casters.
The problem is that during the bulk of the game monster/npcs success rates vs PCs hover around 25%-35% for poor saves and most of the creatures faced at lower CR levels don't have the resources to buff saves tremendously (unless you spam cloaks of resistance on regular foes). Adding persistent into the mix means that instead of succeeding 35% of the time the monster or NPC is succeeding 12.25% of the time. If the save is normally 25% of the time then the save rate is 6.25% of the time.
This of course also means that enemy casters can...
I agree that level 20 is not the best base to use, but at lower levels you don't need as much of a boost, and the results are similar for intelligent monsters anyway. Things like mid to high CR animals are out of luck, which is why I don't normally have them as a lone encounter anyway. It is powerful, but I would not call it broken. Nothing is broken to me unless it is an across the board issue(90+ percent of groups).
Other than that it falls into the broken for certain groups category.
If you place your problem on the boards(Which the OP did) and use suggestions from people your gamers cannot reach, you are completely safe.
|
The Pits
Actually, what bothers me most about the pit spells, are the fact that everyone assumes they are certain doom to the monster/pc's trapped inside it.
As already mentioned, a rope and grappling hook makes getting out easier.
And the climb DC to get out is not really 25. The spell states the coarse stone walls of the pit have a CLimb DC of 25. What everyone forgets is the SECOND chart under Climb Skill which lists modifiers. "Climbing in a corner where 2 walls meet" lowers the DC by 5. Bracing against opposite walls lowers it by 10.
So your average medium sized creature needs only a climb of 20 to get out, and a large creature who can reach both walls needs only a 15. At level 3 the spell is pretty powerful, but it quickly loses utility as its low (level 2) reflex save becomes an issue, and tougher CR creatures or players climb out easily around level 5-6.
Also you can fly out, levitate out, spider climb out, etc.
Feather Fall (an immediate action) negates all the damage from falling.
Like Hogarth and others have said, Save DC for SLAs are set by HD, access to SLAs is very unclear. There really is no consistent standard for what HD unlocks what SLAs. Efreet clearly get wish like abilities at less than 17 HD.
Now in theory I would support a revision that says that in order to have SLA of level X you need to have X HD but that would require a significant revision of the Bestiary as many creatures have SLAs more powerful than their HD would typically allow.
Making a simulacra of a big beast is not too bad, making a simulacra of a humanoid caster can be a pain but it's doable. Dealing with the edge cases such as Simulacra of efreets are where you can generate a lot of issues.
In those cases DM fiat comes into play. Personally though I don't think abilities should be designed that implicitly place the burden of game balance decisions in the hands of DM fiat. I think it's kinda a design cop-out and it sets up the DM for failure. If he's too permissive he risks campaign derailment and if he's too restrictive he's a bad guy. it's kinda a lose-lose situation and I simply think good game design should not place the DM into lose-lose situations.
I see your point, but I don't see it as a lose-lose in this case. Lose-Lose to me is damned if you, damned if you don't scenario.
An example is a player that complains that combats are too easy, then tries to get super item . If you don't give him super item X to make things easier after you upped the combat difficulty he complains about that.