"AoO" & "Combat Reflexes" Need I say more.
So it ok for melee but not caster to interrupt the game.
Last time I checked, casters were allowed to make AoO's and select Combat reflexes if they want to. It works well for druids, and others who use shape shifting.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The MAIN reason in my experience that immediate action spells are annoying is merely that they interrupt the flow of the game. They're designed to do so. It's like putting rules in the game that encourage you to interrupt other players in the middle of talking. It's kinda annoying.
I've much less a problem with swift action spells, since swift actions have to happen on your turn, and thus you're not interrupting anyone but yourself.
"AoO" & "Combat Reflexes" Need I say more.
So it ok for melee but not caster to interrupt the game.
Eh... Attacks of opportunities happen at predictable junctures in the game and can be avoided, immediate action spells happen whenever the caster feels like it. If a spellcaster wants something comparable to an Attack of Opp they can cast something like Fire Shield to create a more active defense.
Curiously enough Attacks of Opportunity were one of the things that was eliminated from the beginners set to make the game more accessible to new players.
I should have specified that the player gets more actions, not the character.
Ah, gotcha. Yeah, I totally agree that minions and minion-like spells sometimes get hectic, especially in bigger games. The larger group I play with banned having more than one summoned creature [1] but the other group loves our Sickened Eagles, so I think that limit is probably best handled with rules at the table.
Interrupts actually help alleviate the turn that takes forever, though, by sucking up the caster's next round swift action. (No quickened spells.) I don't know all the current interrupt spells, but "Electric vengeance! Take X damage!" really doesn't take any longer than "Fire shield! Take X damage!" and both are a lot quicker than even a quickened scorching ray to resolve.
Dunno. I guess I just don't think it's less fun to have someone tell me "I'll give you a bonus on that!" on my turn or "hah! No, you missed me!" on the DM's.
Attacks of opportunities happen at predictable junctures in the game and can be avoided, immediate action spells happen whenever the caster feels like it.
As far as AOOs being predictable.. err. If you've got good knowledges and take the action to use them (or good player knowledge and the willingness to use it) or you're fighting simple stuff, yeah. But a DM with any creativity is going to have you saying, "Crap, it's large, I figured 15 feet would be leeway enough," and once you're past ninth or tenth level you never know who has Step Up and Strike until you're hit. (Not exactly an AOO, but an interrupt that acts like one.)
In my experience, most immediate action spells are either only capable of being used in response to something (Electric Vengeance) or best used in response to something (Greater Mirror Image).
[1] Plus animal companion or familiar. Really I suspect the DM found one charging pouncing raking dire tiger bad enough, really disliked having two, and would have exploded if there were three. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
one of my favorite spells is an immediate action. emergency force sphere from the cheliax companionAnd it is eminently cheesy!
What? I call shenanigans on that. You're absolutely abusing the word cheesy. Is the spell a bit overpowered for its level and potentially system abusing? Yes. Is a character throwing up a quick shield of force to deflect an enemy charge or an avalanche actually conceptually cheesy? No, not at all. It's something we see in fantasy and comic books all the time. And I'm not sure why we wouldn't find some way to emulate it. I mean, really, the same wizards who are creating demiplanes and summoning hordes of elementals have never thought to make a spell that lets you parry an attack or throw up a quick obstacle to interrupt an enemy? That's just crap.
Before 3e, spells could take all round - if not multiple rounds to cast, and being hit at all inturrupted them and made you lose the spell.
How on Earth are immediate defensive spells a classic part of combat?
What? I call shenanigans on that. You're absolutely abusing the word cheesy. Is the spell a bit overpowered for its level and potentially system abusing? Yes. Is a character throwing up a quick shield of force to deflect an enemy charge or an avalanche actually conceptually cheesy? No, not at all. It's something we see in fantasy and comic books all the time. And I'm not sure why we wouldn't find some way to emulate it. I mean, really, the same wizards who are creating demiplanes and summoning hordes of elementals have never thought to make a spell that lets you parry an attack or throw up a quick obstacle to interrupt an enemy? That's just crap.one of my favorite spells is an immediate action. emergency force sphere from the cheliax companionAnd it is eminently cheesy!
+1
Emergency Force Sphere is incredibly broken.
It's also incredibly classic, and that's the only reason I allowed it in my own game.
What would be somewhat beneficial is an idea I've seen a couple times, of "immediate standard action" spells, that can be cast immediately, but suck up the standard action from next round.
A similar idea was presented in the Unearthed Arcana, of allowing the Full Defense action to be used 'immediately'. I thought that made a lot of sense (though could get complicated).
Interrupts actually help alleviate the turn that takes forever, though, by sucking up the caster's next round swift action.
Just poking my head in, was reading through and saw this. Don't all characters refresh actions on their turn, so it would be spending the swift action from their last turn, not their next turn?
When you ready an action to attack and use it before your next turn you don't skip your next standard action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"AoO" & "Combat Reflexes" Need I say more.So it ok for melee but not caster to interrupt the game.
"Casters can't have nice things." :p
*ducks and runs*
Before 3e, spells could take all round - if not multiple rounds to cast, and being hit at all inturrupted them and made you lose the spell.
How on Earth are immediate defensive spells a classic part of combat?
Much as I loathe to, I have to agree with this. :)
There are a few situations where a given spell won't make any sense if it's not an immediate action. If you have a spell like that, you have to ask yourself two important questions: Is this really a good idea for a spell? Really?
If the answer to both questions is 'yes', then go right ahead. Examples of spells where it does make sense is spells like Feather Fall and those new bard spells that give you a bonus to a failed dice roll. They wouldn't work at all if you could only cast them on your own turn.
Just poking my head in, was reading through and saw this. Don't all characters refresh actions on their turn, so it would be spending the swift action from their last turn, not their next turn?
Immediate actions are special. They consume the swift action of your next turn.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience, most immediate action spells are either only capable of being used in response to something (Electric Vengeance) or best used in response to something (Greater Mirror Image).
And if you read what I said above you'd know that I've never suggested there should be no immediate action spells, only that you should *avoid* making them unless it's absolutely necessary... as for example feather fall.
Greater mirror image is a perfect example of a cheesy immediate action spell. It's better in every way than mirror image, lower level than the quickened version of Mirror Image, and can be cast in the middle of an ambush. It basically eliminates the need to ever cast defensive magics in advance and allows a wizard to have a great defense up *before* round one of every combat without robbing him of his first round action.
Pure Limburger.
Immediate actions are special. They consume the swift action of your next turn.
Just poking my head in, was reading through and saw this. Don't all characters refresh actions on their turn, so it would be spending the swift action from their last turn, not their next turn?
Using an immediate action on your turn is the same as using a swift action and counts as your swift action for that turn. You cannot use another immediate action or a swift action until after your next turn if you have used an immediate action when it is not currently your turn (effectively, using an immediate action before your turn is equivalent to using your swift action for the coming turn). You also cannot use an immediate action if you are flat-footed.
Yea, you're right.
|
Immediate spells are a great idea, they just need to be smarlty implemented. Immediate Fireball or Hold Person would be silly, however, Immediate spells can bring lots of flavour to a class. Just look at the APG and the Paladin Spell list for that - able to use LOH Immediately as falling unconcious, being able to immediately take damage for someone. These are all fitting to the Paladin class. Same with the Bard and some of their spells. Before immediate spells came along, hybrid casters had a lame spell list that was not very fitting to the class.
Defensive one off use Immediate spells are good, long lasting immediate spells not so much
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm actually down for immidiate cast defensive spells.
...That are on the spell lists for the Magus, Bard, Paladin, and Ranger. That'd be p. sweet and flavorful to match!
Wizards? No. You shouldn't be mixing it up in melee, and when someone comes to pound your face in, that should be your weakness.
Before 3e, spells could take all round - if not multiple rounds to cast, and being hit at all inturrupted them and made you lose the spell.
I'd like to see something like this again, actually. At least 1 round casting times.
Powerful crowd control spells like Black Tentacles shouldn't be a standard action to cast.
Is the spell a bit overpowered for its level and potentially system abusing? Yes.
I think you made my point for me here.
Breaking line-of-effect as an immediate action leads to all kinds of, as you put it, abuse. At only 4th level, it leaves a Sorcerer nigh-indestructible with its spammability. I'm not sure reducing its duration is a fix, as the duration interferes with the caster's actions at some point. For a buffing caster, however, there's nothing better.
As far as parrying an attack or throwing up a quick obstacle to interrupt, that would be fine, but EFS does more than that (EFS blocks ALL effects once it goes up, so it's not just 1 interrupt, it's an interrupt that eliminates potential harm from future actions as well). ALL of the giants throwing boulders are blocked, ALL of the archers attacks are blocked, ALL of the spellcasters' effects are blocked, ALL of the charging horde is blocked. It'd be fine if it blocked Joey, but still let Chandler attack. Say cheese!
Immediate spells are a great idea, they just need to be smarlty implemented. Immediate Fireball or Hold Person would be silly, [snip]
Defensive one off use Immediate spells are good, long lasting immediate spells not so much
I agree. /Offensive/ immediate spells are a bad idea because they COULD effectively extend a caster's turn compared to the monsters'.
Wizard's turn:
Wizard (standard action): Fireball!
Wizard (swift action): Quickened Fireball!
Monster's turn:
Wizard (immediate action): Immediate Fireball!
The swift vs immediate distinction only really matters if the monster dies before the wizard's next turn, but that would be "cheesy."
I can't think of any spells that actually work that way, though admittedly I don't know all the PF ones. Emergency Force Sphere is offensive only if you're an Arcane Archer, and I believe Imbue Arrow is at least a standard action no matter what spell is on it -- Immediate or Swift just lets you pull it off in one round instead of two. (Please don't "fix" that until I get to use it because I am really amused by it and only wish I could shoehorn Inquisitor in there somewhere.)
Edits:
I've played buffing melee casters, and I've never used Emergency Force Sphere. The longer you sit in your buffing bubble, the less there is to do once you're buffed. I would very much prefer a one round duration to a round per level. Even a one-effect bubble would probably be an even trade with how it is now; the worst things are the one-hit things, and you're really only suffering against things with lots of natural attacks (not iteratives). I'd consider that an even trade for not having to dismiss.
Greater mirror image is a perfect example of a cheesy immediate action spell. It's better in every way than mirror image, lower level than the quickened version of Mirror Image, and can be cast in the middle of an ambush. It basically eliminates the need to ever cast defensive magics in advance and allows a wizard to have a great defense up *before* round one of every combat without robbing him of his first round action.
Pure Limburger.
Getting a little offtopic, but my 3.5 sorcs kept both. 1/9 is much better than 1/2, at a lower spell level, available just as soon in fights as MI (can't take immediate actions when you're flat-footed), without absorbing a future action I might need more if I get the chance to buff. GMI was better than nothing but I usually only used it after my standard MI's images ran out. (And that was already having Displacement.)
Wizards? No. You shouldn't be mixing it up in melee, and when someone comes to pound your face in, that should be your weakness.
Meh.
"Should" should be a houserule. :)
Maybe the lesson for spell casters or melee is you can have immediate actions as part of a prepared spell or style that has a standard action to cast like fire shield. The same could apply if you borrowed some features from martial characters in 4E like stances, so once an effect it up, it is just a matter of book keeping, versus spamming it every round. That way you can have your cake and eat it too!
I'm actually down for immidiate cast defensive spells.
...That are on the spell lists for the Magus, Bard, Paladin, and Ranger. That'd be p. sweet and flavorful to match!
Wizards? No. You shouldn't be mixing it up in melee, and when someone comes to pound your face in, that should be your weakness.
Clearly hell has frozen over. I agree with ProfessorCirno on something.
Is the spell a bit overpowered for its level and potentially system abusing? Yes. Is a character throwing up a quick shield of force to deflect an enemy charge or an avalanche actually conceptually cheesy? No, not at all.
I absolutely hate the concept of "potentially system abusing" abilities. Either it is system abusing or it isn't. It's possible to depend on your players to not use the ability to its maximum advantage. But you can't *enforce* that self-nerf on players unless you simply remove it from the game. You can't blame players for optimizing the abilities they're given to use. If you have to remove something from the game due to "abuse" -- that is, using the concept optimally, then the game element is broken. It shouldn't have been in the game in the first place.
I'm actually down for immidiate cast defensive spells.
...That are on the spell lists for the Magus, Bard, Paladin, and Ranger. That'd be p. sweet and flavorful to match!
Wizards? No. You shouldn't be mixing it up in melee, and when someone comes to pound your face in, that should be your weakness.
a wizard also has a weakness for athletics, such as jump. guess what? they have spells for that. combat? they have spells for that. perceiving things? they have spells for that.
so the whole "that's their weakness, deal with it" attitude doesnt really work for me. with this mind set, there shouldnt even be mage armor or shield spells.
things are gonna break through the front line sometimes. some people actually aim at reach spellcasters asap. sometimes, they dont even have to break through front lines (archers). and then there are those times in which you get ambushed. im not saying there shouldnt be immediate action spells. i like the concept. combat is combat and sometimes it takes a bit of time. the best way to combat this is to make sure the gm knows your characters abilities and how you plan to use them, and then get good at running through combat as a group (spellcasters look up their next spell when its not their turn, etc).
the whole EFS with buffing casters? well unless your a martial/spellcaster hybrid, most buff spells arent gonna be that good for you. most of the good buff spells are touch, and you cant do that when your in EFS. if they dont need touch, 99.9% of spells need line of effect to the target, which you dont have either. and the whole being able to burrow underneath the sphere and then go back into it takes a few actions. whats stopping someone from casting a spell and then burrowing into the ground where the players cant reach it (most of the time)? instead of a sphere of force, you protect yourself with earth. not a big difference in my book.
is the spell good? yes. too good? maybe. broken? no. abusable? yes, but at the expense of a 4th level spell slot every time (which the wizard only prepared 1 of since thats what they mostly do and there are better and more effective 4th level spells). and the sorcerer? well since idk many people that play one, besides myself and a few others, idk what the gripe is about. before the apg, people were wondering why anyone would play a sorcerer over a wizard. then the humans favored class bonus in the apg was discovered, and everyone b!%~*ed. why? not like youre gonna play a sorcerer anyways. and for those of us who do, the wizard players were always saying how the sorcerer needed something more.
my point is that sorcerers will have to use a 4th level spell slot everytime they wanna cast it and there's other things that they could use instead. your party is probably gonna be very upset you used 1 spell that only benefited you during a combat while they got their asses beat.
and there are plenty of things in the game that interrupt actions in combat. AoO's, spells, class abilities, etc. and if you are using other options outside from Paizo, like SSG's TGGT Feats of Immediate Action, then you have plenty of other things that interrupt combat. if youre worried bout combat taking longer, get better at it and get your groups better at it, but dont take out options already put in place because you cant run through combat smoothly. just my 2cp for what its worth.
|
The MAIN reason in my experience that immediate action spells are annoying is merely that they interrupt the flow of the game. They're designed to do so.
Star Wars saga Edition went this route with the Reaction action. At first (low levels), it's kind of a neat idea. It breaks down once you get into higher levels because everyone has a ton of Reaction powers/abilities ... especially Jedi. GM interrupting players, players interrupting GM, players interrupting players. Combat becomes very chaotic because there are actually situations where nearly everyone at the table gets a reaction and they can build on each other.
-Skeld
Is the spell a bit overpowered for its level and potentially system abusing? Yes. Is a character throwing up a quick shield of force to deflect an enemy charge or an avalanche actually conceptually cheesy? No, not at all.I absolutely hate the concept of "potentially system abusing" abilities. Either it is system abusing or it isn't. It's possible to depend on your players to not use the ability to its maximum advantage. But you can't *enforce* that self-nerf on players unless you simply remove it from the game. You can't blame players for optimizing the abilities they're given to use. If you have to remove something from the game due to "abuse" -- that is, using the concept optimally, then the game element is broken. It shouldn't have been in the game in the first place.
as for this, every game ive played in where someone did this, the gm turned around and used the same tactics they did. so everyone suffered for one persons abuse. there were plenty of fights that couldve ran smoothly but didnt. lets just say our players dont abuse those abilities anymore.
as for this, every game ive played in where someone did this, the gm turned around and used the same tactics they did. so everyone suffered for one persons abuse. there were plenty of fights that couldve ran smoothly but didnt. lets just say our players dont abuse those abilities anymore.
A player fully utilizing all options to exploit the weaknesses of NPCs/monsters (including system-breaking garbage) is optimization.
A GM fully utilizing all options to exploit the weaknesses of PCs (including system-breaking garbage) is bad GMing.
|
|
as for this, every game ive played in where someone did this, the gm turned around and used the same tactics they did. so everyone suffered for one persons abuse. there were plenty of fights that couldve ran smoothly but didnt. lets just say our players dont abuse those abilities anymore.Is the spell a bit overpowered for its level and potentially system abusing? Yes. Is a character throwing up a quick shield of force to deflect an enemy charge or an avalanche actually conceptually cheesy? No, not at all.I absolutely hate the concept of "potentially system abusing" abilities. Either it is system abusing or it isn't. It's possible to depend on your players to not use the ability to its maximum advantage. But you can't *enforce* that self-nerf on players unless you simply remove it from the game. You can't blame players for optimizing the abilities they're given to use. If you have to remove something from the game due to "abuse" -- that is, using the concept optimally, then the game element is broken. It shouldn't have been in the game in the first place.
Some GMs don't deal with the same players each week so it's impossible to wean them from annoying/ disruptive habits. Aside from that, what is the point of including spells that are so annoying players and GMs must come to an accord to not use them?
I'm actually down for immidiate cast defensive spells.
...That are on the spell lists for the Magus, Bard, Paladin, and Ranger. That'd be p. sweet and flavorful to match!
Wizards? No. You shouldn't be mixing it up in melee, and when someone comes to pound your face in, that should be your weakness.
This. And this is why that force sphere spell from cheliax is an horrible, horrible thing.
as for this, every game ive played in where someone did this, the gm turned around and used the same tactics they did. so everyone suffered for one persons abuse. there were plenty of fights that couldve ran smoothly but didnt. lets just say our players dont abuse those abilities anymore.A player fully utilizing all options to exploit the weaknesses of NPCs/monsters (including system-breaking garbage) is optimization.
A GM fully utilizing all options to exploit the weaknesses of PCs (including system-breaking garbage) is bad GMing.
I think I understand where you're coming from, but the way you state it makes it sound pretty hypocritical, and also makes it sound like you want the game to be played on Easy mode, where optimized characters get to curbstomp non-optimized opposition repeatedly.
The valid point that you have is that a GM should not be using his knowledge of the individual weaknesses of the PCs to create encounters specifically designed to exploit those weaknesses, unless there is a valid in-game reason for that opponent to have knowledge of those weaknesses. I can agree with you that far.
However, turnabout is definitely fair play. If you make optimized characters, you should expect to face optimized opposition. That's why, in my games, optimization doesn't really gain you anything in and of itself. It just means that the game will take place at a slightly higher power level. The level of challenge and the gameplay experience will probably be pretty similar.
Of course I realize not every GM does things this way, and judging from posts I read, I think a lot of groups do like playing in Easy mode.
My personal feeling is that immediate spells should be strictly things to save you from immediate imminent death. This is true of Featherfall (falling to your doom), or the cleric spell that can resurrect you if cast immediately as you die.
That's about it, to me, honestly. I think I will probably restrict the spells that can have Immediate on them to such things. And no, stopping a fireball from hitting you doesn't count. :) I might allow an immediate spell that allows you to walk on lava for CL turns (and gives 10pts of heat resistence) to allow avoidance of insta death from lava, but that's about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Prepared actions exist for a purpose.
I don't see why magic should be powerful AND easy to use and cast.
Choose one.
I think I understand where you're coming from, but the way you state it makes it sound pretty hypocritical, and also makes it sound like you want the game to be played on Easy mode, where optimized characters get to curbstomp non-optimized opposition repeatedly.
Wow, I'm so far away from that viewpoint that it made me laugh that you wrote that (:
However, turnabout is definitely fair play. If you make optimized characters, you should expect to face optimized opposition.
So, as a player, you expect to face characters that will defeat you? Why play?
A GM "optimizing" is easy: PCs have a weakness somewhere, exploit it and you "win". By saying you "optimize" your characters as a GM is a falsehood. A good GM makes encounters that challenge the PCs to some extent (practically no challenge to run-or-you-die challenge). A bad GM makes an encounter a PC will simply fail at.
If you're aware of system-breaking garbage as a GM and use it, you're just being a bad GM. The correct answer is to eliminate it from the game.
A GM "optimizing" is easy: PCs have a weakness somewhere, exploit it and you "win". By saying you "optimize" your characters as a GM is a falsehood. A good GM makes encounters that challenge the PCs to some extent (practically no challenge to run-or-you-die challenge). A bad GM makes an encounter a PC will simply fail at.
If you're aware of system-breaking garbage as a GM and use it, you're just being a bad GM. The correct answer is to eliminate it from the game.
I believe what he meant was, anything the PCs insist on being able to do that's cheesy is fair for him to pull on them eventually.
I've had this discussion with people in my games before. There were combos that they came up with that they started to use, and literally someone said 'Wait, this might be the way Blah Blah and Blah work together by the rules, but it's really cheesy, and if we do it, it's gonna happen to us, you guys want to be on the receiving end of this?', to which everyone stopped, thought, and then winced. The consensus was 'No, we do not', at which point it became a house rule.
Anything cheesy that is done by the players is fair fodder for the GM to shove down their throats with NPCs at a future date.
As to optimizing NPCs, there is a difference between building characters designed to kill the PCs and optimizing the NPCs. An optimized sunderer is a valid build that really truely terrorizes the fighter/paladin/etc.
There's a difference between powerful combinations of abilities and system-breaking garbage. I don't like the term "cheese" because one person's cheese is another person's standard game element. Most of the people who use the term "cheese" are unaware that the element isn't really broken. . . they just haven't thought about all the possibilities or counters.
My primary beef is with GMs who use system-breaking garbage and *know* they are messed up -- but you use them anyway.
For instance, let's say a spell was *PRIMARILY* used against avalanches and cave-ins. But what if it had a secondary use that made it so stupid that it completely changes the game. For instance, if this spell is allowed, every BBEG should have a number of tiny mook diviners wandering around with him. Now the BBEG can fight the PCs with the PC's abilities constantly thwarted by the mook wizards' emergency shield.
Does this sound stupid? It is. And it's an example of game-breaking garbage.
Executing a good combo of actions is a different ballgame.
Cheesy to me is using 2 or more rules from different books to get an effect that is usually illegal by the rules. Such as the unerrated spell perfection allowing you to lower a 1st level spell to a cantrip (or whatever it was) by putting a metamagic feat on it that didn't raise it's level. That was cheesy.
Cheesy to me is using 2 or more rules from different books to get an effect that is usually illegal by the rules. Such as the unerrated spell perfection allowing you to lower a 1st level spell to a cantrip (or whatever it was) by putting a metamagic feat on it that didn't raise it's level. That was cheesy.
The key word is "unerrated".
That implies broken. Sometimes things are just broken.
"Cheese" is when something is very, very good, but it's not illegal or broken. Some would call magic missile cheesy.
When a spell says it has a secondary, extra purpose that is (by far) the dominating use of the spell, that's a good clue something is broken. The next clue is that you can start to come up with all kinds of stupid encounters using the mechanic.
There's a difference between powerful combinations of abilities and system-breaking garbage. I don't like the term "cheese" because one person's cheese is another person's standard game element. Most of the people who use the term "cheese" are unaware that the element isn't really broken. . . they just haven't thought about all the possibilities or counters.
My primary beef is with GMs who use system-breaking garbage and *know* they are messed up -- but you use them anyway.
For instance, let's say a spell was *PRIMARILY* used against avalanches and cave-ins. But what if it had a secondary use that made it so stupid that it completely changes the game. For instance, if this spell is allowed, every BBEG should have a number of tiny mook diviners wandering around with him. Now the BBEG can fight the PCs with the PC's abilities constantly thwarted by the mook wizards' emergency shield.
Does this sound stupid? It is. And it's an example of game-breaking garbage.
Executing a good combo of actions is a different ballgame.
My original reply, which was probably much more eloquent, got eaten by the post monster. Anyway, I don't think I'm that far off from you. My main point is that while I don't think GMs should build opponents that "will" defeat the PCs, I think it is more fun if significant opponents (not every encounter falls in this category) "can" defeat the PCs. If they aren't even capable of defeating the PCs, then I throw your same question back at you: Why play?
Responding to PC optimization with NPC and monster optimization is one valid tool the GM has to assure the appropriate level of challenge. Using optimized (or cheesy) tactics that the party themselves uses at times against them is another that I think is valid.
I actually agree with you that it is better to have a mature discussion and agree to ban or not use things that ruin enjoyment of the game. Some players don't like having their toys taken away from them, though, particularly if they are in official rulebooks, and those players sometimes need a taste of their own medicine to gain the maturity necessary to voluntarily give something bad up.
As for the term "cheesy", it is a matter of taste. One person's supreme cheese is someone else's awesome. I, for one, am glad no one forces me to play the game in a way I don't enjoy. Rule Zero rocks!
|
|
as for this, every game ive played in where someone did this, the gm turned around and used the same tactics they did. so everyone suffered for one persons abuse. there were plenty of fights that couldve ran smoothly but didnt. lets just say our players dont abuse those abilities anymore.A player fully utilizing all options to exploit the weaknesses of NPCs/monsters (including system-breaking garbage) is optimization.
A GM fully utilizing all options to exploit the weaknesses of PCs (including system-breaking garbage) is bad GMing.
After a point there is no character left, it's just cheese. Once the players forget it's a role playing game what is the point of the GM trying to maintain the farce?
Once the players forget it's a role playing game what is the point of the GM trying to maintain the farce?
Maintaining the farce is it's own reward. Remember, the Farce is in all of us. Like duct tape, The Farce has a light side (humor), and a dark side (gallows humor).
May The Farce be with you!
So, as a player, you expect to face characters that will defeat you? Why play?
this is why i play. for the challenge. if there was no way for your opponent to beat you, then theres no strategy. theres no challenge.
gm- "you walk into a room. theres a dragon."
player- "we fight it. we win. it dies. next room/."
rinse wash and repeat.
really boring in my opinion.
a wizard also has a weakness for athletics, such as jump. guess what? they have spells for that. combat? they have spells for that. perceiving things? they have spells for that.
so the whole "that's their weakness, deal with it" attitude doesnt really work for me. with this mind set, there shouldnt even be mage armor or shield spells.
things are gonna break through the front line sometimes. some people actually aim at reach spellcasters asap. sometimes, they dont even have to break through front lines (archers). and then there are those times in which you get ambushed. im not saying there shouldnt be immediate action spells. i like the concept. combat is combat and sometimes it takes a bit of time. the best way to combat this is to make sure the gm knows your characters abilities and how you plan to use them, and then get good at running through combat as a group (spellcasters look up their next spell when its not their turn, etc).
the whole EFS with buffing casters? well unless your a martial/spellcaster hybrid, most buff spells arent gonna be that good for you. most of the good buff spells are touch, and you cant do that when your in EFS. if they dont need touch, 99.9% of spells need line of effect to the target, which you dont have either. and the whole being able to burrow underneath the sphere and then go back into it takes a few actions. whats stopping someone from casting a spell and then burrowing into the ground where the players cant reach it (most of the time)? instead of a sphere of force, you protect yourself with earth. not a big difference in my book.
is the spell good? yes. too good? maybe. broken? no. abusable? yes, but at the expense of a...
You're right, we should just remove all classes that aren't wizards and give wizards spells to replace everyone.
Wait no that's a horrible idea, and one of the biggest complaints about 3e and Pathfinder is how easily spells can replace skills and classes entirely. The last thing we need is to make this problem even worse by openly replacing martial classes.
Do you want to be a cool front liner character who blocks a hundred and one attack? The answer is "Make a martial front liner." Not "Make a wizard."
a wizard also has a weakness for athletics, such as jump. guess what? they have spells for that. combat? they have spells for that. perceiving things? they have spells for that.
so the whole "that's their weakness, deal with it" attitude doesnt really work for me. with this mind set, there shouldnt even be mage armor or shield spells.
things are gonna break through the front line sometimes. some people actually aim at reach spellcasters asap. sometimes, they dont even have to break through front lines (archers). and then there are those times in which you get ambushed. im not saying there shouldnt be immediate action spells. i like the concept. combat is combat and sometimes it takes a bit of time. the best way to combat this is to make sure the gm knows your characters abilities and how you plan to use them, and then get good at running through combat as a group (spellcasters look up their next spell when its not their turn, etc).
the whole EFS with buffing casters? well unless your a martial/spellcaster hybrid, most buff spells arent gonna be that good for you. most of the good buff spells are touch, and you cant do that when your in EFS. if they dont need touch, 99.9% of spells need line of effect to the target, which you dont have either. and the whole being able to burrow underneath the sphere and then go back into it takes a few actions. whats stopping someone from casting a spell and then burrowing into the ground where the players cant reach it (most of the time)? instead of a sphere of force, you protect yourself with earth. not a big difference in my book.
is the spell good? yes. too good? maybe. broken? no. abusable? yes, but at the expense of a...
You're right, we should just remove all classes that aren't wizards and give wizards spells to replace everyone.
Wait no that's a horrible idea, and one of the biggest complaints about 3e and Pathfinder is how easily spells can replace skills and classes entirely. The last thing we need is to make this...
i never said anything bout replacing classes. theres already these abilities in the game so thats just something you have to deal with. a fighter in melee is going to be better than a wizard with EFS. plus the fighter can actually fight back and not use resources (since his resources are usually in the form of feats and magical weapons and armor, and those arent gone when you use them once). where as with a wizard, he has to cast that spell everytime which is using his spell slots and spells prepared and he cant really do much to the person hes in melee with, not without dropping EFS.
i think you blew my point a little bit out of proportion due to that you dont like EFS and immediate spells in general. i know people get upset about this when i say it, but if you dont like it, dont use it. most of you obviously do this already since you banned the spell so dont tell me thats not a valid argument.
i never said anything bout replacing classes. theres already these abilities in the game so thats just something you have to deal with. a fighter in melee is going to be better than a wizard with EFS. plus the fighter can actually fight back and not use resources (since his resources are usually in the form of feats and magical weapons and armor, and those arent gone when you use them once). where as with a wizard, he has to cast that spell everytime which is using his spell slots and spells prepared and he cant really do much to the person hes in melee with, not without dropping EFS.
i think you blew my point a little bit out of proportion due to that you dont like EFS and immediate spells in general. i know people get upset about this when i say it, but if you dont like it, dont use it. most of you obviously do this already since you banned the spell so dont tell me thats not a valid argument.
Back in 3.5 if I wanted the best frontliner, the class I would chose was cleric. They could just fight better than the fighter. EFS is a step in that direction. That is bad.
The MAIN reason in my experience that immediate action spells are annoying is merely that they interrupt the flow of the game. They're designed to do so.Star Wars saga Edition went this route with the Reaction action. At first (low levels), it's kind of a neat idea. It breaks down once you get into higher levels because everyone has a ton of Reaction powers/abilities ... especially Jedi. GM interrupting players, players interrupting GM, players interrupting players. Combat becomes very chaotic because there are actually situations where nearly everyone at the table gets a reaction and they can build on each other.
-Skeld
Speaking as a long time Saga player and GM I can tell you that it doesn't get any more chaotic than Pathfinder or v3.5.
In fact, because there are no full attacks and a lot less die rolling, it is often LESS chaotic.
i know people get upset about this when i say it, but if you dont like it, dont use it.
Alternately, if you don't like it, talk to the developers and tell them you don't like it so they stop making similar things.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
EFS has two things that add up to problems.
Duration and Dispellable.
If it lasted one round then it might be balanced. You're buring a slot to save you for a round. If it couldn't be dispellable, the larger duration might be worthwhile. Sure you blocked that fireball/avalanche/finger of death, but now you're stuck in a bubble for x/rounds while your friends deal with whatever you're fighting.
'Immediate' spells are more the 'Oh frak!' kind of spells for wizards. Even Immediate Expedious retreat and Immediate invisibility (from WotC PHB II) lasted for a round. It was a 'I need to be there NOW and I need to not be seen NOW'. EFS has the advantage of you can throw it up, survey the situation, and drop it when he feels like it.
Before 3e, spells could take all round - if not multiple rounds to cast, and being hit at all inturrupted them and made you lose the spell.
How on Earth are immediate defensive spells a classic part of combat?
Yes, and fireball used to be powerful, and we used THACO to calculate attacks. Either way, I'm quite certain a classic concept doesn't have to come from D&D.
To be fair, I don't think there's anything wrong with powerful spells taking all round (or multiple rounds) to cast. Just as I think a couple of spells should have move-action versions, and some should be immediate actions.
I think you made my point for me here.
I sure didn't. The brokenness of that spell (which is a good spell, but I think people are exaggerating it a bit) has a lot more to do with its level and its duration than it does with its immediacy. If that spell were higher level and lasted less time (or had less potency) it would be perfect.
The thing is, everyone's concerned about these spells disrupting the flow of gameplay, but that's actually what I think is cool about them. They break up the potential for rocket tag. In my games, I usually houserule counterspelling to be a lot easier for similar reasons. I like the idea of spellcasters neutralizing one another while warriors run around hitting minions.
Also, others have said it, but it bears repeating: if the PCs can do it, the NPCs can do it.
I absolutely hate the concept of "potentially system abusing" abilities. Either it is system abusing or it isn't.
I don't mean to be insulting, but that kind of attitude lead to a lot of what I don't think works about 4e. I'm sorry, but I prefer my games to be freer with more options. This isn't necessarily true of the spell in question, but, as a general rule, I'd rather rely on my players not to abuse things like Eidolons or summon monster spells. If they do, I'd rather be the one to handle it than see a game designed to take out any possible mechanical abuse. Something about that attitude makes it feel like playing with bumpers.
The thing is, I think adding some immediate (and even move) spells to the game adds some new design elements, and keep the game a little bit fresh. I'd honestly like to see more, and I think they can be balanced with less difficulty than we might think.