Peronally, I thought no one casts Cold of Cone much so they recognized how weak the spell was and made a better one.
That's true. Casting quickened Haste/Slow is still better use of your available actions than casting Cold Ice Strike even if it's not errataed to standard action.
Quickened Haste/Slow is 7th level.
Cold Ice Strike is 6th level.
Whether that's ok is still open to discussion.
Why? To both of your paragraphs.
Why restrict Clerics from decent damage spells? Is it just historical precedent or do you really believe Clerics don't deserve nice things
Either the game is 3.X compatible or it is not.
If it is 3.X compatible, there's a large amount of "edition" baggage. PF must respect this baggage if it is to remain 3.X compatible.
One baggage element is that clerics are supposed to get "flashier spells" later than sorcerers/wizards do. Cone of cold is a flashy spell that is primarily a sorcerer/wizard spell. It can be a cleric spell, but it has to be part of a domain. That's how 3.X was originally designed.
I find it interesting you can blatantly argue the game designers are flat wrong like that. I also think you haven't taken into account the differences between an actual Quicken Spell Feat (which can be applied to many spells) and a Cone of Cold. Perhaps a Quicken Spell that only works on ONE SINGLE SPELL is only worth a two slot increase as opposed to Quicken Spell's four slot increase on ANY SPELL.
So, the Quicken effect is inherently weaker because it's limited to one spell. A normal Quicken effect is limited to one spell. So really you're saying you pay more (higher spell slot) for the option of using it on any one spell? Then I'd always choose the spell that has the feat "built in" -- which means this spell always gets selected because it is better than any spell + the Quicken Spell feat -- which means it is broken. I would request to my unsuspecting GM that I write versions of all spells that deal damage similar to cone of cold that they all have a "quickened, but only this spell" version.
In this case -- if this spell really exists in the book like it is being presented in this thread -- the developers *are* flat wrong. It's such a massive departure from 3.X that they can't call the game 3.X compatible any more.
WHY cleric 6?
FYI, a Paizo developer has already posted up-thread that they are `looking into this`,
i.e. he found it probable that there is some sort of Errata issue here,
but needs to find out exactly what the INTENT was before deciding how to fix it.
...So arguing that the spell couldn`t possibly be Errata is pretty silly.
If the current state was was intended, they wouldn`t be `looking into it`.
FYI, a Paizo developer has already posted up-thread that they are `looking into this`,
i.e. he found it probable that there is some sort of Errata issue here,
but needs to find out exactly what the INTENT was before deciding how to fix it....So arguing that the spell couldn`t possibly be Errata is pretty silly.
If the current state was was intended, they wouldn`t be `looking into it`.
That appears to have been in reference to the question regarding spontaneous casters applying metamagic to a Swift Action spell, which is not defined in the rules currently as far as timing.
That appears to have been in reference to the question regarding spontaneous casters applying metamagic to a Swift Action spell, which is not defined in the rules currently as far as timing.FYI, a Paizo developer has already posted up-thread that they are `looking into this`,
i.e. he found it probable that there is some sort of Errata issue here,
but needs to find out exactly what the INTENT was before deciding how to fix it....So arguing that the spell couldn`t possibly be Errata is pretty silly.
If the current state was was intended, they wouldn`t be `looking into it`.
Uh, so far you seem to be only person who came to this interpretation in the thread. I rather think it is in correlation to the completely missing "Components" line in the spell description or something else which has directly to do with the spells function.
In this case -- if this spell really exists in the book like it is being presented in this thread -- the developers *are* flat wrong. It's such a massive departure from 3.X that they can't call the game 3.X compatible any more.
I am hoping for some level of hyperbole in this statement.
If not it seems like an extreme position to take.
Granted I am one of those who dosent use 3.5 material and would be OK wiht an eventual PF 2.0 not being backwards compatable so that my taint my view
Maybe it's a swift action because the area on it, like the area on cone of cold, is so atrocious. I've NEVER seen cold of cold used in play. My party received staff of frost and promptly sold it for exactly that reason. With that in mind I'm not terribly shaken up about this. You are looking at a very situational spell that basically requires you be in front of your fighters with the bad guys within charging distance of you to affect them.
Why restrict Clerics from decent damage spells? Is it just historical precedent or do you really believe Clerics don't deserve nice things
9 levels of prepared spellcasting with free access to every single spell on the class list is as nice as it gets. Wizards have to contend with limited spells known, 1/2 BAB, d6 hp. Giving clerics the wizard spell list makes wizards obsolete. And wizards AND clerics are already so ridiculously powerful at higher levels that we should be VERY careful about giving either class anything at all.
is not only that. Blessing of the Mole seems similar (paladin?). Am I wrong?
And, like acidic strike, is CONJURATION.
So it begins..
In this case -- if this spell really exists in the book like it is being presented in this thread -- the developers *are* flat wrong. It's such a massive departure from 3.X that they can't call the game 3.X compatible any more.I am hoping for some level of hyperbole in this statement.
If not it seems like an extreme position to take.
Granted I am one of those who dosent use 3.5 material and would be OK wiht an eventual PF 2.0 not being backwards compatable so that my taint my view
It's not an extreme position. I think most people who use 3.X compatible material want PF to be 3.X compatible. This spell (as it is written now, given the limited information we know) is not 3.X compatible. PF 2.0 might not be 3.X compatible, and that's fine. But PF 1.0 is 3.X compatible.
It would be one thing if the spells introduce new mechanics or further some concept. It's quite different when older material is trampled. . .
In this case -- if this spell really exists in the book like it is being presented in this thread -- the developers *are* flat wrong. It's such a massive departure from 3.X that they can't call the game 3.X compatible any more.I am hoping for some level of hyperbole in this statement.
If not it seems like an extreme position to take.
+1
One spell, even if it is a very good direct damage cleric spell, does not make pathfinder incompatible with 3.5.
Not that I think clerics need it mind you.
Where does it stop?
Keep in mind the APG didn't have anything close to the power of this spell for its level.
Developer
|
It's not an extreme position. I think most people who use 3.X compatible material want PF to be 3.X compatible. This spell (as it is written now, given the limited information we know) is not 3.X compatible. PF 2.0 might not be 3.X compatible, and that's fine. But PF 1.0 is 3.X compatible.
It would be one thing if the spells introduce new mechanics or further some concept. It's quite different when older material is trampled. . .
Nothing is changed in the core mechanics of the game. The mechanics determine compatibility. Clerics generally not accessing damaging magic is a balance issue from 3.x, yes. It's also a flavor issue, neither of which are truly integral to the d20 system.
A publisher can even go so far as to create a class that gets fighter BAB, Spontaneous Casting, Wizard Spell Progression, and access to both the sorc/wiz and cleric/oracle lists. This would be compatible with the system. It would be unbalanced. Balance is not compatibility.
The spell would be incompatible if it asked you to save vs. spell, or had a casting time of 4, or required you to succeed a Force 6 casting check with Drain of 12. These require different systems.
That being said, the spell is rather powerful, but you can describe it in 3.x rules, and understand how it functions using the language of the system.
Basically there's no THAC0 roll, so we're good.
The mechanics determine compatibility.
Balance is not compatibility.
Basically there's no THAC0 roll, so we're good.
So, you're saying a 1st level spell that does 1 million damage (saveless, no SR) is compatible with 3.X. It uses the 3.X rules to define a spell. Therefore, it is compatible.
Balance is part of being compatible. Otherwise, there's two systems -- PF that uses UM stuff, and PF stuff that doesn't use UM. The two systems speak a *similar* language, but similar doesn't mean equal. One system thinks spells should do a lot more damage for their level than another.
That's incompatibility.
It's a matter of flavour too.
Blasting genrally goes with Arcane > Druid > Cleric.
Why suddenly a blasting swift action spell for clerics? I see it for a winter deity, but then, put it in a domain list.
|
Developer
|
The mechanics determine compatibility.
Balance is not compatibility.
Basically there's no THAC0 roll, so we're good.
So, you're saying a 1st level spell that does 1 million damage (saveless, no SR) is compatible with 3.X. It uses the 3.X rules to define a spell. Therefore, it is compatible.
Balance is part of being compatible. Otherwise, there's two systems -- PF that uses UM stuff, and PF stuff that doesn't use UM. The two systems speak a *similar* language, but similar doesn't mean equal. One system thinks spells should do a lot more damage for their level than another.
That's incompatibility.
Yes. Compatible. Not balanced. Compatible is the ruleset used. Balance is a different thing entirely.
There're enough arguments here (the forum, I mean) that x feat or x class isn't balanced. I don't think any of those arguments mean the class or feat is incompatible with the system.
So long as you can make sense of the new element in the language of the system, it's compatible.
That being said, being compatible does not make it a good idea. Your spell example and my class example are terrible things that should never be allowed.
I'm actually on your side that this is a bit much to give clerics, but not because I couldn't suddenly apply the spell in 3.5 terms. I could. It'd just impact game balance in a way I might not like.
Yes. Compatible. Not balanced. Compatible is the ruleset used. Balance is a different thing entirely.
I think there's a line between "questionably balanced" and "incompatibly balanced". There's no clear line that marks the difference between the two. In this case, it's over the top.
I'll rest my case on this spell. There's no sense arguing about it unless we know for sure if its real or not. And even if it's a real spell, there's a simple solution to this whole problem:
Say no to Ultimate Magic. Done! (:
Sometimes you have to throw the baby out with the bathwater -- especially if it's a nasty, snapping alien baby.
|
Developer
|
I'll rest my case on this spell. There's no sense arguing about it unless we know for sure if its real or not.
Aye, fair point.
And even if it's a real spell, there's a simple solution to this whole problem:Say no to Ultimate Magic. Done! (:
Sometimes you have to throw the baby out with the bathwater -- especially if it's a nasty, snapping alien baby.
There are some things I rather like in the book, and definitely some things that will be allowed at my table, but every table is different.
There's some content that needs errata-ing, definitely, but the book as a whole is pretty solid. I wouldn't let this one thing sour your whole view on it.
Well I dont think any single anything is enough to throw out a whole book. A simple exclusion of the spell is enough, but I do things case by case anyway. To each un to their own i guess.
I wonder though, how would people feel if the spell had a caviat "You may cast no other spells on the turn you cast this spell". So its a swift action potentially allowing you additional standard and move actions etc, but it wouldnt allow you to get off an additional spell. Is that reasonable with a single level increase over cone of cold?
Stay calm. The spell description is obviously not right. In no way was this spell intentional.
The fact that this is a cleric spell supports this. The fact that the components are completely missing makes it even clearer.
My guess is that they were developing some spell but then messed up and forgot to finish the spell. Or something like that.
In other words: Just an editing glitch. Like the cantrip references that were left in.
Stay calm.
I am calm (:
You should see me when I'm angry.
Kind of like a nasty, snapping alien baby. . . does that mean I get thrown out with the bathwater? ):
|
Stay calm.I am calm (:
You should see me when I'm angry.
Kind of like a nasty, snapping alien baby. . . does that mean I get thrown out with the bathwater? ):
There is a certain symmetry to the logic. If one is willing to disregard an entire book full of options because of one spell that is over the top (or even say that it discredits the backwards compatibility of an entire game system), then it would follow that others might be willing to disregard one's entire posting history because of one over the top hyperbolic statement.
I don't agree with that logic, but it would be consistent.
Let's assume cone of cold is erratad to 4th level. Let's also assume that Quicken Spell has been erratad to +2 spell levels for ths school of Evocation, and +4 spell levels for all other schools -- the logic being that blasting should be fast (nice for eldritch knight types), and that evocation basically sucks anyway.
Cold ice strike now makes perfect sense... except for being a general cleric spell. Errata that, too, and we're done.
I don't agree with that logic, but it would be consistent.
I hope more people figure out a way to disregard my entire posting history. It will prevent necro threads explaining to me how wrong I was. And furthermore, it will prevent me from having to do more "oops my bad" posts than I already do. . .
win/win!
evocation basically sucks anyway
I want everyone to keep thinking this. And it makes my job as a GM so much easier.
evocation basically sucks anywayI want everyone to keep thinking this. And it makes my job as a GM so much easier.
Will you be so kind to explain how evocation damaging spells don't suck, especially compared to other schools of magic and damage output of martial classes?
I wonder though, how would people feel if the spell had a caviat "You may cast no other spells on the turn you cast this spell". So its a swift action potentially allowing you additional standard and move actions etc, but it wouldnt allow you to get off an additional spell. Is that reasonable with a single level increase over cone of cold?
No. That combines with a spell trigger activation of a staff/wand. Might as well be a spell.
And of course I wouldn't throw out the entire book because of this single hypothetical spell alone (: I would throw it out if there was a "philosophy shift" in the book (new stuff simply overwriting the old stuff) -- introducing a bunch of spells and related feats/classes/etc. built around those spells. Sometimes those shifts can be pretty sneaky. . .
Will you be so kind to explain how evocation damaging spells don't suck, especially compared to other schools of magic and damage output of martial classes?
That would take a while |:
That would take a while |:
Fair enough.
I would like to add that in my years of playing D&D 3e I have almost exclusively GMed and I am utterly convinced that arcane casters, especially sorcerers and wizards, are better suited for fulfilling any other role than damage dealing. Damage spells are in my opinion absolutely inferior to other options open to arcane casters and don't stand to scrutiny in overwhelmingly high number of situations.
This didn't change in Pathfinder.
On the other hand, I tend to agree with many posters here. In fact I think this spell is so bad that it would baffle me if it really is a final version only lacking casting components. It would be a butcher's approach to fixing game issues, and one that won't end well.
I think that the effectiveness of blasting is not on topic.
The point is that blasting is mainly an arcane thing.. until Ultimate magic, apparently.
I especialy like how in the books spell design section they point out exactly why this is terrible spell design.
Quoting from Ultimate Magic page 132
"Avoid the temptation to invent spells with a casting time of “1 move action,” “1 swift action,” or “1 immediate action,” as that’s just a cheesy way for spellcasters to be able to cast two spells in 1 round, and there’s already a mechanism for that: the Quicken Spell feat. Making combat spells with faster casting times devalues the Quicken Spell feat"
and quoting from Ultimate Magic page 129
"maximum damage depends on the level of the spell and whether the spell is arcane or divine. This is because arcane magic is deliberately designed to be better at dealing damage to balance the fact that divine magic is better at healing."
that’s funny to me
anyway I’m glad I’m not the only one who picked up on it and am sure the paizoians will errata the hell out of it soon enough.
Torger
I especialy like how in the books spell design section they point out exactly why this is terrible spell design.
Quoting from Ultimate Magic page 132
"Avoid the temptation to invent spells with a casting time of “1 move action,” “1 swift action,” or “1 immediate action,” as that’s just a cheesy way for spellcasters to be able to cast two spells in 1 round, and there’s already a mechanism for that: the Quicken Spell feat. Making combat spells with faster casting times devalues the Quicken Spell feat"
and quoting from Ultimate Magic page 129
"maximum damage depends on the level of the spell and whether the spell is arcane or divine. This is because arcane magic is deliberately designed to be better at dealing damage to balance the fact that divine magic is better at healing."
that’s funny to me
anyway I’m glad I’m not the only one who picked up on it and am sure the paizoians will errata the hell out of it soon enough.
Torger
Awesome post. The image will talk in my place.Yoink!
always need more Fark thread images!
This was necessary. Now waiting for a fix.. a là Cockatrice Strike :D
"maximum damage depends on the level of the spell and whether the spell is arcane or divine. This is because arcane magic is deliberately designed to be better at dealing damage to balance the fact that divine magic is better at healing."
Torger
Is that why Flame Strike is better than every arcane damaging spell of same level and lower ?
Nobody reads those instructions, not even the people that write em. :)
So a cold spell is added.. next? An acid one?
How much is too much? I already find annoying most spells belong to almost every spellcasting class, this trend will not end well.
Why don't suppress class specific spellists then?
So a cold spell is added.. next? An acid one?Psst... It's already happened
Really guys, this is not that big a deal. Quit making a mountain out of a molehill.
Psst.. not quite the same. You must specialize and take several feats to cover more energies. And the feat does not cover area of effect of the spell, slots one level and stuff. all relevant for metamagic.
It's different from directly add a swift action casting spell. Sorry. Nice try.
So a cold spell is added.. next? An acid one?Psst... It's already happened
Really guys, this is not that big a deal. Quit making a mountain out of a molehill.
Psst.. not quite the same. You must specialize and take several feats to cover more energies. And the feat does not cover area of effect of the spell, slots one level and stuff. all relevant for metamagic.
It's different from directly add a swift action casting spell. Sorry. Nice try.
Reread your post. Note how you worry about them adding other elemental spells to a cleric's spell list. Reread my, admittedly brief, post. Note how I address this concern by mentioning that a cleric could already expand beyond zomg fire spells only by taking this feat. Notice how swift action casting doesn't get mentioned until your next post where you feel the need to shift the goalposts.
Now notice me leaving the thread. Because I've said my piece, and I have no illusions regarding me actually changing your mind.
Note how I pointed out that one thing is improve slightly blasting with costly feats, one thing is expand the blasting spell list of the class. Note implications pointed out (effect on metamagic, areas, and similar implications, so on how good is the class in the task).
feel better now?
The rest of this thread is too illogical for me to argue with. Balance does not intersect with compatibility, this spell is fine balance wise as written, though it does need the components line, and I'm going to take Meabolex's advice and ignore his entire posting history, for the greater good.
The greater good...
Maybe I should throw this 3.X compatible monster at my group. . .
Chunky the CatN Tiny animal
Init +2; Senses low-light vision, scent; Perception +5
Defense
AC 14, touch 14, flat-footed 12 (+2 Dex, +2 size)
hp 500004 (1d8+500000)
Fort +500001, Ref +4, Will +1
Offense
Speed 30 ft.
Melee 2 claws +4 (1d2–4), bite +4 (1d3–4)
Space 2-1/2 ft.; Reach 0 ft.
Statistics
Str 3, Dex 15, Con 1000010, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 7
Base Atk +0; CMB +0; CMD 6 (10 vs. trip)
Feats Weapon Finesse
Skills Climb +6, Perception +5, Stealth +14; Racial Modifiers +4 Climb, +4 Stealth
It's compatible!
Kind of like a nasty, snapping alien baby. . . does that mean I get thrown out with the bathwater? ):
Nope. Out of an airlock.