So, a friend playtested the ninja in my game. It was really annoying. He was invisible all the time and the rules for finding/targeting invisible people are a pain, and basically it was awful. I felt that vanishing trick was too powerful, but wasn't sure why until I broke it down. Most of the ninja tricks copy spells of approximately 2nd level. Darkvision and Shadow Clone are the most obvious (the latter actually being a nerfed version of a 2nd level spell). Vanishing Trick copies Vanish, which is a 1st level spell, but it's a swift action. In other words, it's basically quickened which makes it the same as a 5th level spell. That's out of control. At best you could argue that it's the equivalent of a 3rd or 4th level spell, which is still significantly better than Darkvision and Shadow Clone, etc. In 3.5, Swift Invisibility was a 2nd level spell (ok, 1st for Bards). So in theory, that means Vanishing Trick should duplicate swift invis in order to be balanced against the other tricks. In other words, Vanishing Trick should render the ninja invisible for one round at the cost of one ki point. If you want to argue that swift invis was only 2nd level for classes that got spells at a delayed rate, well...ok, I guess. But isn't that an argument for it being more powerful? Anyway, if you must bump it a little, then give them one daily use free like some of the other tricks get. As a personal idiosyncratic touch, I also like the idea of the one round duration not getting used up as long as the ninja only takes a single move action or less. Something like that, anyhow. You know, so they can use it to creep around or hide in place. Anyway, the point is that the ninja being invisible constantly (like they will always be the way things stand since they will just vanishing trick at the end of every round) is really annoying in play, and is demonstrably overpowered relative to the other ninja tricks. You are incentivizing people to be obnoxious, which is the opposite of good. Add in Invisible Blade and things just get worse. Unless of course the thing the ninja is fighting sees through invisibility, in which case the ninja's special trick just doesn't work at all, which is not very fun or exciting either.
On another note, a few people seem to be complaining about the ninja's lack of access to unarmed combat, which you must admit is a staple of the archetype. Can't you just add a trick that gives them unarmed combat as a monk 3 levels lower? Please do.
You may want to keep track of Ki points more closely, using one per round will empty the Ki pool in the first encounter of the day. Doesn't sound that imbalance-ing
|
The guy has at most 8 ki points at 2nd level, this means he can use it 8 times before he's completely done, and he has to take a feat, roll an 18 in character creation, and take a race that will give him +2 cha to get there. He might make it to the 2nd or even 3rd encounter of the day before running out, depending on what you are fighting.
You may want to keep track of Ki points more closely, using one per round will empty the Ki pool in the first encounter of the day. Doesn't sound that imbalance-ing
Don't be ridiculous; obviously I don't literally mean every round. I am speaking from a place of having playtested this over multiple encounters, and I'm telling you he was constantly invisible. Did you actually playtest it before you commented? I'm not sure how many rounds the average encounter lasts in your group, but I find that 4-10 rounds is about the usual for mine. So he starts the encounter invisible, gets into position, strikes, goes invis again, strikes, goes invis to reposition and strike somewhere else. Then the fight is over. So no , he's not invisible every round, but he's invisible for 50-75% of the rounds in a typical encounter. He was 8th level with a good Wisdom and the Extra Ki feat. he has plenty of ki to do this in at least the two big encounters (assuming a typical distribution of encounter difficulties) of the day, and usually more, and he doesn't need to do it for the weak encounter so...there you have it. Also, you're really not addressing the issue. What can you even mean that it doesn't sound imbalancing because of how often he can do it? The only possible measure of whether something is unbalanced or not is to compare it against the other options that can replace it, which I have done above, and against which you have offered no refutation. You know how you know something is unbalanced? 1.) If everyone takes it, it is unbalanced. 2.) If you can nerf it considerably and it still seems like a viable choice, it is unbalanced. For me, Vanishing Trick is still a viable option if its duration is reduced from a round/level to a round (especially if you amp it slightly in one or both of the ways I mentioned above). Also, everyone takes it. That's all the proof I need that it is unbalanced. Secondly, I'm trying to address something here beyond balance. Some things are just annoying (regardless of balance issues) and should be discouraged, and one of those things is repetitive tactics, particularly those that make someone invisible or their enemies blind. The fight against invisible Perseus in God of War is really cool, but it would get real annoying real fast if every boss was invisible. Honestly, it would have been pretty obnoxious if even one more boss had been invisible. But it's even worse in D&D. Why? Because the rules for locating and targeting people you can't see are an annoying pain in the ass. We were constantly looking up the answers to questions like "what happens if he declares a charge through a space where your invisible guy is, since he doesn't know you're there?" That's just one example. We had our noses back in the books every few minutes, grinding the game to a halt over stuff like that. Every effort should be made to minimize the amount of time that people spend in the game not being able to see other people, or in any event we definitely shouldn't be encouraging it to happen in every encounter. And by the way, even if you disagree with my ki expenditure breakdown above, consider that when the ninja inevitably gets invisible blade, he'll only need to spend one ki per encounter to be invisible for the whole thing. So certainly at that point he can be reasonably said to be "constantly invisible."
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
You may want to consider the enter key once in a while. It'd make the whole thing a lot more readable.
The ninja has a constant 50% miss chance, big deal shadow clones provide just as good a bonus, hell even smoke bombs give a similar effect. Honestly what is the ninja doing besides running around in circles insulting monsters? shadow clones even stay up after you attack so are arguably better.
Edit: invisible blade probably wont go out as printed, no one ever said it wasn't too powerful.
The ninja has a constant 50% miss chance, big deal shadow clones provide just as good a bonus, hell even smoke bombs give a similar effect. Honestly what is the ninja doing besides running around in circles insulting monsters? shadow clones even stay up after you attack so are arguably better.
Edit: invisible blade probably wont go out as printed, no one ever said it wasn't too powerful.
Shadow Clone requires a standard action to initiate, which is sort of the whole point of what I'm saying about Vanishing Trick (Always remember the mantra "The most valuable resource in the D&D game is available actions"). It's a 1st level spell that is quickened. Even if you argue that it's not a direct comparison, you can't tell me that making it a swift action doesn't increase its effective spell level by at least two (and that's being generous). That puts it at 3rd level, which puts it above Shadow Clone (which mimics a 2nd level spell, but LESS powerful since you don't add duplicates based on caster level) and Darkvision (which pretty much directly mimics a 2nd level spell). I'm still not hearing an argument to refute this line of reasoning.
Also bear in mind that any class with steady SA progression has obvious built-in synergy with anything that lets it become invisible, which inherently makes such effects more valuable than others (like shadow clone) that provide similar defensive effects but don't synergize with SA.
You may want to consider the enter key once in a while. It'd make the whole thing a lot more readable.
Point taken. Will do.
Shadow Clone requires a standard action to initiate, which is sort of the whole point of what I'm saying about Vanishing Trick (Always remember the mantra "The most valuable resource in the D&D game is available actions"). It's a 1st level spell that is quickened. Even if you argue that it's not a direct comparison, you can't tell me that making it a swift action doesn't increase its effective spell level by at least two (and that's being generous). That puts it at 3rd level, which puts it above Shadow Clone (which mimics a 2nd level spell, but LESS powerful since you don't add duplicates based on caster level) and Darkvision (which pretty much directly mimics a 2nd level spell). I'm still not hearing an argument to refute this line of reasoning.Also bear in mind that any class with steady SA progression has obvious built-in synergy with anything that lets it become invisible, which inherently makes such effects more valuable than others (like shadow clone) that provide similar defensive effects but don't synergize with SA.
Regular invisibility doesn't synergize with SA that well, and you can't just judge it with spell level, if you offered to let a wizard cast a quickened 2nd level spell 8 times per day at level 8 (with a one round duration if they cast/attack) as long as they never prepared any other 2nd level spells most would turn it down.
Vanish is thematic for a ninja and it helps with scouting, battlefield placement, and occasionally defense (for one round if you aren't retreating). Burning through your major resource every round (keep in mind a lot of them are used out of battle too) is called novaing, sure it looks crazy when you do it but it is also clouding your vision to the other encounters (including non-combat) that the ninja is only being sub-par in.
Burn all 8 of my major resources to annoy my DM for an encounter or spend a standard action to annoy him just as much in that same encounter and still have 7 left..... (via shadow clone) hmmmm...
Regular invisibility doesn't synergize with SA that well, and you can't just judge it with spell level, if you offered to let a wizard cast a quickened 2nd level spell 8 times per day at level 8 (with a one round duration if they cast/attack) as long as they never prepared any other 2nd level spells most would turn it down.
Illusionist 8th can cast quickened greater invisibility for a number of rounds equal to their level per day. :P
Illusionist 8th can cast quickened greater invisibility for a number of rounds equal to their level per day. :P
Thank god they don't get sneak attack xD
Thank god they don't get sneak attack xD
Illusionist 8th can cast quickened greater invisibility for a number of rounds equal to their level per day. :P
Fey Sorcerer 5/Ninja 3/Arcane Trickster X with a robe of arcane heritage? Actually, that's probably not very good at all.
Seriously, you were doing something wrong there.
Ki is based on CHA and not on WIS like you wrote above. Then Vanishing trick doesnt make you invisible forever, only for rounds per level.If it would take longer than a swift action it would be pretty useless, because then you can just go stealth again. If he did it that often, there was some wrong counting im sure. My ninja with a pretty much maxed CHA has 11 points on level 10.
You can argue to allow it some levels later, maybe 3. 4. or 5.
Compared to the spells after magic rules its of course a boosted higher level spell. But who says everything has to function like that?
The usability here is highly rogue/ninja dependant, since its clearly mainly for sneak attack. You can compare it with Hips actually, which even rangers get at later levels.
And did you ever play on high levels? Do you know how many ways there are to counter invisibility? At the time invisible blade is accessible, there are many other sorrows, like damage resistance etc.
Then, since the ninja is an archetype it has something to do with playstyles, a lot. For me its a template that gives me more fun and survivability in the games we play, because there are not much traps or other typial rogue stuff. Even mages have protected pockets there.
You further say repeptitive tactics are annoying?
Well any character that specializes in something does repitition.
Do you think someone with greater trip will not trip at any oportunity?
Or look at the druid: shapeshift and flank with companion. Uhhh how wicked. Even casters often choose their favored spells and rinse and repeat.
The ninjas essential concept is vanish and SA, even more like the rogue.
Thats the concept of the class. And because the ninja uses mystical power -Ki- he can do amazing things like invisible blade.
About poeple being invisible: remember its in most parts a high magic world. Our monk (an oakling) has a ring of invisibility (and if its just to survive at all in CHeliax), the sorcerer has invisibility too in crazy amounts. Where is the difference? its part of the game.
If you dont like it in your game, ban it, but dont say its overpowered or whatever because you think only mages can do the hot stuff and everything else has to be judged from this position.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A wild wall of text appears!
<sigh> As usual, for some people only casters can have fun abilities.
Ninja is fine, buff Rogue, kthxbye.
High Wisdom eh? Too bad Ki is based of Cha for ninjas. Make him do something other than fight, I bet he'll be a bit more conservative about spending his Ki if he has to use it for other stuff.
Come on guys, simple typo. Obviously I was thinking of monk and a wire got crossed. As a matter of fact, it was no impediment that it was based on Cha because that allowed him to take Osyluth Guile effectively. And why would you assume that he was doing nothing but fighting? That same mission had opportunities for stealth, infiltration and social interaction. And in fact the more non-combat content you add, the fewer combat encounters you're left with (because it's all coming from the same pool of real world time), in which case the formula I laid out is even more likely. Because overall you use less of things like ki in non combat situations. Actually, if you want to go there, this really affirms my position. I see an awful lot of games where the traditional three to four encounter structure doesn't take place, because there's more RP or whatever else going on, which leaves only time enough for one or two encounters, in which case the ninja absolutely has enough ki to easily be invisible almost all the time.
Seriously, you were doing something wrong there.
Ki is based on CHA and not on WIS like you wrote above. Then Vanishing trick doesnt make you invisible forever, only for rounds per level.If it would take longer than a swift action it would be pretty useless, because then you can just go stealth again. If he did it that often, there was some wrong counting im sure. My ninja with a pretty much maxed CHA has 11 points on level 10.
You can argue to allow it some levels later, maybe 3. 4. or 5.
Compared to the spells after magic rules its of course a boosted higher level spell. But who says everything has to function like that?
The usability here is highly rogue/ninja dependant, since its clearly mainly for sneak attack. You can compare it with Hips actually, which even rangers get at later levels.
And did you ever play on high levels? Do you know how many ways there are to counter invisibility? At the time invisible blade is accessible, there are many other sorrows, like damage resistance etc.
Then, since the ninja is an archetype it has something to do with playstyles, a lot. For me its a template that gives me more fun and survivability in the games we play, because there are not much traps or other typial rogue stuff. Even mages have protected pockets there.
You further say repeptitive tactics are annoying?
Well any character that specializes in something does repitition.
Do you think someone with greater trip will not trip at any oportunity?
Or look at the druid: shapeshift and flank with companion. Uhhh how wicked. Even casters often choose their favored spells and rinse and repeat.
The ninjas essential concept is vanish and SA, even more like the rogue.
Thats the concept of the class. And because the ninja uses mystical power -Ki- he can do amazing things like invisible blade.
About poeple being invisible: remember its in most parts a high magic world. Our monk (an oakling) has a ring of invisibility (and if its just to survive at all in CHeliax), the sorcerer has invisibility too in crazy...
First of all, no, I wasn't doing anything wrong. Both myself and the player in question have been playing D&D for over 20 years. I just got back from a convention that will go unnamed and I can say with confidence that I am more familiar with the rules and principles of the game than 75% of the DMs that were being paid to run games there. I'm not trying to brag; I'm only saying give me enough credit not to assume incompetence.
Secondly...I swear, it's like you guys are unaware that 4th edition exists, and don't know how we got stuck with that pile of junk. Why you are determined to give 4th ed apologists fuel for their arguments? Almost every single thing you said above is an example of one of the things that 3rd ed players do that brought about 4th ed.
"Do you know how many ways there are to counter invisibility?"
-Ah, the old, tired argument of the DM counters. Of course I know how many things there are, and of course I can just put things in to counter the exact abilities my players have. But then why, as a player, choose anything over anything else? Honestly, who finds that this kind of thinking leads to enjoyable play? Furthermore, my experience, pragmatically speaking, is that a far, far greater percentage of play occurs at the low to middle levels anyway.
"You further say repeptitive tactics are annoying?
Well any character that specializes in something does repitition.
Do you think someone with greater trip will not trip at any oportunity?"
-Yep. That's true. And lo and behold, what we got for it in 4th ed is every single class having mostly encounter powers. So in the larger sense I'd like to urge everyone to consider veering away from these kind of playstyles. But that's a whole other can of worms, and to bring it back down to this discussion, please let me remind you that I was making a point about invisibility and blindness effects in particular. I would have the same problem if one of my players brought me a concept that involved his character constantly creating tons of darkness that he could see through. Sure, that's an effective tactic, but what an annoying, game slowing thing to do. I personally just wouldn't allow a concept in the game if that was its M.O. The fact is that the rules are weak when it comes to this area of the game. If they aren't going to improve those rules, then, again, the last thing they should be doing is creating a major class that constantly exploits them.
"Even casters often choose their favored spells and rinse and repeat."
-They sure do, don't they? Sure wish they'd stop doing that, don't you? And in general, invoking druids and the other nine level casting classes in any argument about balance almost immediately makes me tune out. Because we all know they aren't balanced (even in Pathfinder, though it's a lot better) and they never have been. They are the number one problem that, again, led to 4th edition being what it is.
"Compared to the spells after magic rules its of course a boosted higher level spell. But who says everything has to function like that?"
-Okay, fine. But what other metric should I use then? It's well and good to say this, but provide a counter argument. How should things function then? If I can't use published, core spells to compare power levels of effects based on those spells, then what would you suggest I use?
"The ninjas essential concept is vanish and SA, even more like the rogue. Thats the concept of the class. And because the ninja uses mystical power -Ki- he can do amazing things like invisible blade."
-Uh, ok. So what? The ninja can have whatever concept it wants and you can have whatever playstyle you want, as long as everything is balanced and enjoyable. Something is either balanced or it isn't. I am certain that the class can be built in such a way that it achieves the desired aesthetic in a way that is balanced and fun, as opposed to unbalanced and annoying.
BTW, As to how to resolve when a character Charges (at another target I presume) thru a square occupied by an Invisible character:
1st: They would get the Perception check to notice/get a hunch that the Invisible character is within 30´ feet, as well as the (signifigantly higher DC) chance to notice their actual square.
2nd: Assuming they don´t discover the actual square and try and Charge thru the Invisible character (by chance), I would rule that it provokes an AoO from the Invisible character: for attempting to leave a threatened area (assuming the Invisible character is threatening). That would leave the Charger knowing where the attack came from... And even if the Invisible character didn´t take an AoO, the Charger should now know there is an Invisible creature in that square since they couldn´t enter it (i.e. bumping into the Invis creature).
3rd: The Charger would be able to execute a Charge attack vs. the Invisible character, because the Invisible character is a valid target for a Charge attack in that given line, even if the Charger didn´t KNOW that when they started the Charge. Normal Miss Chance for Concealment/Invisibility would apply.
I agree that Vanish Trick is irritating... I guess we will see when Ultimate Combat is released, what happened to it...
Then Vanishing trick doesnt make you invisible forever, only for rounds per level.If it would take longer than a swift action it would be pretty useless, because then you can just go stealth again.
There is a Vanish spell that is a 1st level, standard action casting time spell. Is that useless? Rounds per level actually quite quickly covers more than an average encounter, and you are getting a good deal by spending a lower level spell slot than normal Invisibility. Or to compare with Rogue SLA abilities, Vanish is a valid choice if you can use a 1st level spell x/day, while Invisibilty is not. Being able to Vanish as a Standard Action is better than not being able to do so.
BTW, As to how to resolve when a character Charges (at another target I presume) thru a square occupied by an Invisible character:
1st: They would get the Perception check to notice/get a hunch that the Invisible character is within 30´ feet, as well as the (signifigantly higher DC) chance to notice their actual square.
2nd: Assuming they don´t discover the actual square and try and Charge thru, I would rule that it provokes an AoO from the Invisible character: for attempting to leave a threatened area (assuming the Invisible character is threatening). That would leave the Charger knowing where the attack came from.
3rd: The Charger would be able to execute a Charge attack vs. the Invisible character, because the Invisible character is a valid target for a Charge attack in that given line, even if the Charger didn´t KNOW that when they started the Charge.I agree that Vanish Trick is irritating... I guess we will see when Ultimate Combat is released, what happened to it...
I think that's a pretty reasonable way to resolve the question. But it's one of many and you had to sit there and come up with it. How long did it take you? I don't know, but however long it was that's that much less game time when a question like this arises in-play. And that's assuming that you don't spend any time in the books trying to look for a direct answer, and also assuming that you don't have players jumping in and arguing with your decision.
I completely agree and understand that it could be hard to come up with that ruling on the fly... I was just sharing my take on it for the benefit of other players and future games.
On the other hand, we don´t want to discourage players simply because we aren´t well-versed with the rules, but the issue is certainly tied up with the other aspects you have mentioned, mainly of repetitive and overly effective tactics (if the tactic isn´t specifically countered, e.g. dusty room vs. non-flyers or whatever), the tactic tending to provoke rules issues is just one more straw on the camel´s back. (it´s not like a Caster of your party couldn´t routinely cast Invisibility on the melee characters for similar effect, rules-wise)
Anyhow, I think the mass of feed-back that Paizo had about the Ninja was basically that it was out of line power-wise with the (edit:) ROGUE, and Vanishing trick was one of those points. The playtest is over and we don´t have the final class yet, so I´m surprised people still discuss the class, since we don´t really know what the final class will look like (and the final class itself is done, so further feedback can´t affect anything) I wouldn´t be surprised if Vanish Trick doesn´t turn into a 1-round / until-your-next-turn duration effect, for one.
BTW; another tactic (besides throwing dust on the ground) is enemies Readying Actions: Besides plain Readied attacks vs. the square they were just attacked from, if the NPCs have Power Attack and Improved Bull-Rush, there is a Feat in the Sargava Player´s Guide that allows Readying Partial Charges without needing an action restriction or anything, which could be pretty effective vs. such a tactic. Once anybody hits the Invisible guy, any other characters should be able to figure the square he´s in.
Just so I am clear OP, the player would attack, vanishing trick, move somewhere else, then attack somewhere else correct? So essentially the character is attacking half as many times or less as a normal (lets say rogue) would if he just flanked and two weapon sneak attacked repeatedly. Ideally then the character is sacrificing a large portion of his potential damage to be extra sneak and added survivability. Yes it becomes hard to attack the ninja, but he is also sacrificing alot of offense to do it. So where is the problem?
Just so I am clear OP, the player would attack, vanishing trick, move somewhere else, then attack somewhere else correct? So essentially the character is attacking half as many times or less as a normal (lets say rogue) would if he just flanked and two weapon sneak attacked repeatedly. Ideally then the character is sacrificing a large portion of his potential damage to be extra sneak and added survivability. Yes it becomes hard to attack the ninja, but he is also sacrificing alot of offense to do it. So where is the problem?
Well, not really. The Ninja can just as easily take two weapon fighting like the Rogue and flank when the opportunity presents itself, etc. So he's not sacrificing anything (especially since it's a swift action to invoke VT, and not to mention that invisibility makes setting up for a flank much easier). Being invisible all the time just opens up tactical options, mainly allowing him to pressure bosses and casters who otherwise would have had a lot more breathing room behind their minions and other defenses. In theory I can appreciate this kind of tactical fighting, but I found that it was far too easily achievable with the Vanishing Trick using ninja, especially since (unlike the monk who at least has to move up at the start of combat) he would start almost every fight with a surprise SA against the boss or caster or whatever that he was already threatening.
|
So, a friend playtested the ninja in my game. It was really annoying. He was invisible all the time and the rules for finding/targeting invisible people are a pain, and basically it was awful. I felt that vanishing trick was too powerful, but wasn't sure why until I broke it down. Most of the ninja tricks copy spells of approximately 2nd level. Darkvision and Shadow Clone are the most obvious (the latter actually being a nerfed version of a 2nd level spell). Vanishing Trick copies Vanish, which is a 1st level spell, but it's a swift action. In other words, it's basically quickened which makes it the same as a 5th level spell. That's out of control. At best you could argue that it's the equivalent of a 3rd or 4th level spell, which is still significantly better than Darkvision and Shadow Clone, etc. In 3.5, Swift Invisibility was a 2nd level spell (ok, 1st for Bards). So in theory, that means Vanishing Trick should duplicate swift invis in order to be balanced against the other tricks. In other words, Vanishing Trick should render the ninja invisible for one round at the cost of one ki point. If you want to argue that swift invis was only 2nd level for classes that got spells at a delayed rate, well...ok, I guess. But isn't that an argument for it being more powerful? Anyway, if you must bump it a little, then give them one daily use free like some of the other tricks get. As a personal idiosyncratic touch, I also like the idea of the one round duration not getting used up as long as the ninja only takes a single move action or less. Something like that, anyhow. You know, so they can use it to creep around or hide in place. Anyway, the point is that the ninja being invisible constantly (like they will always be the way things stand since they will just vanishing trick at the end of every round) is really annoying in play, and is demonstrably overpowered relative to the other ninja tricks. You are incentivizing people to be obnoxious, which is the opposite of good. Add in...
Eventually ninja gets greater invis
Yes it turns out if the ninja wants to have 50% concealment in an encounter he can use half or all of his resources to do it. Congratulations you just nova'd and have nothing left for the rest of the day. Rounds/level means nothing if your attacking every round and ending it (and your pretty useless if you aren't attacking)
The vanishing trick does seem to be headache for those of us who would like to challenge Ninja characters, it's true. A player in my group is multiclasses hungry ghost monk and ninja. Between his high base ki pool (thanks in large part to UM's monk vows... hooray.) and the hungry ghost's ki theft ability, he is able to spend nearly every round invisible.
His favorite tactic so far has been to make a full attack, vanish (swift action) and then 5 foot step to force the enemies to guess which square he's in. Next round he repeats and gets Sneak Attack on the first hit as gravy. As many times as he can do it per day, he is invisible during the turns of most enemies.
At the levels we're playing right now, only some casters really have viable ways to counter invisibility.
It wouldn't be a huge problem if, for instance, it provoked an attack of opportunity. At least then it'd involve some risk.
Edit: I should be more specific. It happens to be a Gestalt campaign, which is probably the only reason it's viable at low levels. I just checked the Hungry Ghost archetype, to find out that it doesn't get ki steal until 5th level. While this option is still viable under normal play, it requires a slightly higher level to actually pull off. At those higher levels, Vanishing Trick is probably less of a concern. I'll check my facts before I complain in the future, haha.
Yes it turns out if the ninja wants to have 50% concealment in an encounter he can use half or all of his resources to do it. Congratulations you just nova'd and have nothing left for the rest of the day. Rounds/level means nothing if your attacking every round and ending it (and your pretty useless if you aren't attacking)
This is exactly the kind of response I expect from someone who hasn't actually playtested it. When you playtest it, you realize that the round per level thing is very important because it allows you to get into position at the start of the fight, then reposition between important kills, IN ADDITION to the pop-disappear type shenanigans that you are referring to. Only at very early levels do you have to use up a large percentage of your resources to do this.
Erick,why do you keep saying "this is the response I expect from someone who hasn't playtested it?"It's kind of insulting;you might be saying that to someone who HAS playtested it.
Anyways,at early levels,you use up your resources too fast if you do it continuously..At higher levels,just throw monsters at him who have tremorsense,blindsight,or even just a few creatures that are immune to sneak attack.
Even if he has maxed out his ki pool(or gotten close to it),that mean's he'll have to:
a)Spend more points on Cha,thus lowering his attack bonuses,possibly damage bonuses,and some skills.
b)Spend a lot of feats on maximizing it,again,not allowing him to get some nice combat feats.
and c) Deal with you.If you think that he's too overpowered,it's perfectly reasonable as a GM to tell him that,and ask him to tone it down a bit.
Well, I was responding to someone who said "congratulations" sarcastically in the post to which I was replying. So I'm just responding in kind to what I'm given. Also, are you seriously berating my civility in a post in which you tell me to "deal with it?"
Anyway, as for throwing monsters with tremorsense etc at him, this was already covered in the thread, above. Basically, I do not believe in the theory of "DM counters." That whole way of thinking is ultimately counterproductive to actually making games more enjoyable.
Finally, everyone is talking around the issue rather than responding to the central ideas. I laid out an overall theory of balance-determination that was not responded to, then specifically gave exact comparisons explaining why VA is unbalanced, which also have not been refuted (beyond people basically saying "nuh-uh!"). The issue of how many times the ninja can do this thing is not the determining factor for whether it is balanced. The issue is how difficult it is for him to do this and how much benefit he receives from it, relative to the other options he could be taking in its place. And I think I have shown conclusively that VT is unbalanced when viewed in this way.
Erick,why do you keep saying "this is the response I expect from someone who hasn't playtested it?"It's kind of insulting;you might be saying that to someone who HAS playtested it.
Anyways,at early levels,you use up your resources too fast if you do it continuously..At higher levels,just throw monsters at him who have tremorsense,blindsight,or even just a few creatures that are immune to sneak attack.
Even if he has maxed out his ki pool(or gotten close to it),that mean's he'll have to:
a)Spend more points on Cha,thus lowering his attack bonuses,possibly damage bonuses,and some skills.
b)Spend a lot of feats on maximizing it,again,not allowing him to get some nice combat feats.
and c) Deal with you.If you think that he's too overpowered,it's perfectly reasonable as a GM to tell him that,and ask him to tone it down a bit.Well, I was responding to someone who said "congratulations" sarcastically in the post to which I was replying. So I'm just responding in kind to what I'm given. Also, are you seriously berating my civility in a post in which you tell me to "deal with it?"
Anyway, as for throwing monsters with tremorsense etc at him, this was already covered in the thread, above. Basically, I do not believe in the theory of "DM counters." That whole way of thinking is ultimately counterproductive to actually making games more enjoyable.
Finally, everyone is talking around the issue rather than responding to the central ideas. I laid out an overall theory of balance-determination that was not responded to, then specifically gave exact comparisons explaining why VA is unbalanced, which also have not been refuted (beyond people basically saying "nuh-uh!"). The issue of how many times the ninja can do this thing is not the determining factor for whether it is balanced. The issue is how difficult it is for him to do this and how much benefit he receives from it, relative to the other options he could be taking in its place. And I think I have shown...
So everyone is right except you. interesting, you would think at least one person would agree with you. i'm going to go with okom
s razer and say, that all things being equal, the issue you raise is simply not really an issue.
instead of nerfing the ninja, we should beef up the rogue.
maybe a rogue talent for an "inspiration pool" that mimics the Ki pool in every way.
the ninja traded evasion for Ki pool and offers a ninja trick to get it.
essentially, the Ki pool only had a net cost of a single 'rogue talent'.
"So everyone is right except you. interesting, you would think at least one person would agree with you. i'm going to go with okom
s razer and say, that all things being equal, the issue you raise is simply not really an issue."
First of all you sarcastically said "so everyone (I'll assume you meant to say no one) is right except you." Why exactly is that impossible? Second, it's spelled "Occam's (Or Ockham's) Razor," and you're not being clear about how you believe it pertains to this argument. My explanation (a quickened first level spell is far better than a second level spell) is actually the clearest and simplest one that has been proffered. Finally, at least two people DID agree with me: Quandary (whose response was by far the most lucid) and WithoutHisFoot. So, further snide comments and sarcasm aside, do you have any actual point to make? Or is your only argument essentially an appeal to populism?
metamagic feats are ovepriced for the changes they offer.
before you call quickened vanish better than mirror image. let me tell you a few things. spell level isn't really a good way to judge things.
quickened vanish (or invisibility for that matter) grant as a swift action, a single sneak attack. look at the poor damage boost a sneak attack provides. i would hardly call it reliable. such a pain to set up and the damage is variable to the point of unreliability. you also have to blow lots of resources to do it. a quickened vanish every round you wish to sneak attack is the same as vomiting ki points. the sneak attack ends the effect. and by the time you get invisible blade. there are so many counters to this little toy. but even at the low levels, there are several toys that weaken this. should i tell you about the Dog? or even almost every animal published?
Dogs have this ability called Scent, which allows them to automatically pinpoint invisible foes without spending an action. any smart individual with something to hide keeps several dogs. PCs being categorized as adventurers have to spend multiple days (even weeks) outside civilization at a time. when you are that removed from Civiization, it is rather difficult to find a place to bathe, and several essential magic items only provide thier effects if you do not remove them. considering the amount of sweat created by the adventuring lifestyle. they really reek. a dog can definitely automatically find the powerful odor that the ninja produces.
the shadow clone is actually a better defense, the extra images carry over for a much longer duration. i would say that mirror image is actually better than quickened greater invisibility. and that greater mirror image (spell compendium) is even better than that. the one counter for mirror image still has drastic penalties attached. the invisibility spells have so many counters attached. and the dog is just the most simple.
metamagic feats are ovepriced for the changes they offer.
before you call quickened vanish better than mirror image. let me tell you a few things. spell level isn't really a good way to judge things.
quickened vanish (or invisibility for that matter) grant as a swift action, a single sneak attack. look at the poor damage boost a sneak attack provides. i would hardly call it reliable. such a pain to set up and the damage is variable to the point of unreliability. you also have to blow lots of resources to do it. a quickened vanish every round you wish to sneak attack is the same as vomiting ki points. the sneak attack ends the effect. and by the time you get invisible blade. there are so many counters to this little toy. but even at the low levels, there are several toys that weaken this. should i tell you about the Dog? or even almost every animal published?
Dogs have this ability called Scent, which allows them to automatically pinpoint invisible foes without spending an action. any smart individual with something to hide keeps several dogs. PCs being categorized as adventurers have to spend multiple days (even weeks) outside civilization at a time. when you are that removed from Civiization, it is rather difficult to find a place to bathe, and several essential magic items only provide thier effects if you do not remove them. considering the amount of sweat created by the adventuring lifestyle. they really reek. a dog can definitely automatically find the powerful odor that the ninja produces.
the shadow clone is actually a better defense, the extra images carry over for a much longer duration. i would say that mirror image is actually better than quickened greater invisibility. and that greater mirror image (spell compendium) is even better than that. the one counter for mirror image still has drastic penalties attached. the invisibility spells have so many counters attached. and the dog is just the most simple.
I'm glad that you're at least attempting to directly address the points I made, but I can't say I find your arguments persuasive. Mostly you make a lot of assertions that you do not back up.
"metamagic feats are ovepriced for the changes they offer."
-A bold statement. I like it. I'd like it more if you said anything to support it...
"spell level isn't really a good way to judge things."
-Oh, really? Well, that's nice to know, but why not?
"look at the poor damage boost a sneak attack provides."
-Poor damage boost?? Sneak attack?? A d6 every two levels is a poor damage boost? What qualifies in your book as a good damage boost?
"the shadow clone is actually a better defense"
-Really? How so?
" i would say that mirror image is actually better than quickened greater invisibility."
-Oh, would you? That's interesting. Should I ask why?
Then you go on and on about dogs.
So on your assumption comabat last 4-10 rounds so ill averagre combat at 7 rnds. so within 2 or 3 fights using the tactics described he is out for the day as far as top end i would say a vivesectionist would be even worse as at level 16 they could have perma greater invis now that to me is a problem
You know you ask for a lot how such and such is better but you never stated what makes vanish sooo much better. Okay he is invisible.... and? okay so.... not seeing where the game broke... he could be spending those ki points on wall climbing and just hanging out of reach, or smoke bombs every combat creating concealment for more then just him. Neither of these costs a Ki point a round to keep up.
Yes as I said vanishing trick is good for scouting, thievery, retreating, or emergency combat placement. Note only one of these is combat related. I say emergency because Ki points are a limited main resource and if your spending one a round just for a little extra defense your probably not all that useful at your main jobs of hurting things and utility.
Just so I am clear OP, the player would attack, vanishing trick, move somewhere else, then attack somewhere else correct? So essentially the character is attacking half as many times or less as a normal (lets say rogue) would if he just flanked and two weapon sneak attacked repeatedly. Ideally then the character is sacrificing a large portion of his potential damage to be extra sneak and added survivability. Yes it becomes hard to attack the ninja, but he is also sacrificing alot of offense to do it. So where is the problem?Well, not really. The Ninja can just as easily take two weapon fighting like the Rogue and flank when the opportunity presents itself, etc. So he's not sacrificing anything (especially since it's a swift action to invoke VT, and not to mention that invisibility makes setting up for a flank much easier). Being invisible all the time just opens up tactical options, mainly allowing him to pressure bosses and casters who otherwise would have had a lot more breathing room behind their minions and other defenses. In theory I can appreciate this kind of tactical fighting, but I found that it was far too easily achievable with the Vanishing Trick using ninja, especially since (unlike the monk who at least has to move up at the start of combat) he would start almost every fight with a surprise SA against the boss or caster or whatever that he was already threatening.
I mean the tactic described. Once he attacks he is visible again, so you are not invisible all the time, all it does is give you a single guaranteed sneek attack opportunity. And yes its a good tactic but it isnt broken. It seems to me to be very much in line with how I would imagine a ninja would fight. But in order to be continuously invisible the ninja would be attacking considerably fewer times then a two weapon rogue who was full attacking. Yes the ninja can do that too, but my point is the vanish sneak attack vanish sneak attack tactic in and of itself dramatically cuts down on your overall offense, and isnt going to do as much damage as a straight full attack sneak attack would. So the tactic along with vanishing trick is not overpowered, its just more versatile then the ninja would be without it.
|
|
Come on guys, simple typo. Obviously I was thinking of monk and a wire got crossed. As a matter of fact, it was no impediment that it was based on Cha because that allowed him to take Osyluth Guile effectively.
I was the first one to say anything about it, so I think I deserve some semblance of a break (implications are that I'm the first to catch it), the reason we assumed it was all combat was because vanishing trick doesn't last long enough to really matter outside of combat, it goes for 2 minutes total, and by that point he can use greater invisibility and use hidden master, which are even better.
The ninja schtick is going invisible, which is only mildly annoying in the short term, in the long term it is no big deal, they added powder to the game for a reason.
Just be glad he isn't making the laws of physics cow tow beneath his mighty todger and by that I mean be glad he's not a wizard or abusing the item creation rules to also be a wizard while being a ninja, because he can totally get a spell through talents which gives him a caster level.
You are the GM, you possess near-limitless power (the limits being the point in which your players get fed up with what you are doing), and one guy going invisible shouldn't be a big deal.
It is incredible to me that I cannot make a simple point about rules and balance without a horde of people rising up writing long posts to counter assertions that I have never made. I have never once claimed that VT is "broken" or "game breaking." Many of you act as though I believe that VT alone makes a ninja invincible and unstoppable, an absurd premise which I have never put forth. So let me try again.
1. I said that VT was overpowered relative to the other tricks that are available to the ninja. I used a simple spell level comparison to prove this. Some people have said that I can't use spell level comparisons to prove it, but no one has said exactly why this is so, and it seems absurd to me. Of course that is what I would use, unless you are calling the entire system of spell levels and metamagic feats into question, in which case (according to Occam's Razor- wink, wink) the burden of proof has definitely shifted from me to you. Again please note that there is a difference between unbalanced (which VT is) and broken (which VT is not).
2. I said that, quite aside from issues of balance, the rules governing blindness and invisibility are weak, difficult and game-slowing. I don't think anyone would argue with this. I think Paizo is shooting themselves in the foot and inviting alot of annoyance and slowed down gaming by creating a major class whose primary trope involves the exploitation of a weak rules set. This would be a problem even if VT were balanced. The fact that it is not is (as Quandary pointed out) the proverbial straw on the camel's back.
So, please don't send any more responses along the lines of "invisibility isn't game breaking and here's why..." or "you know, there are a lot of counters to invisibility, like..." Okay? Because I get it; I really do. Your task, should you choose to accept it, is simple. Prove that a quickened vanish is not significantly better than darkvision or (a slightly nerfed) mirror image. I should point out that if you succeed, you will also have proven that the spell level of those spells is poorly assigned, and also probably that Quicken Spell is weak. I don't like your chances, but go for it.
I'm going to try to head some of you off at the pass. Many people have said that the defensive benefits of mirror image are greater than those of invisibility and have fewer counters. Both I and the game designers completely agree. That is why they sagely placed mirror image at 2nd level and vanish at 1st. Even though invisibility is more versatile, the sheer defensive advantage of mirror image makes its level higher. That balance of power shifts dramatically, however, when you make vanish a swift action to cast (not to mention when you also nerf mirror image by taking away the additional images it gets from caster level, as has been done with shadow clone). In pretty much every case, the power of any spell/ability/etc increases dramatically when you reduce its activation time from a standard to a swift action. Not slightly, dramatically. I do not need to prove this statement as it is proven many, many times over. The burden of proof is on you if you wish to refute it. Remember, again, the fundamental tenet: "The most valuable resource in the D&D game is available actions."
I am also no longer responding to the following arguments:
1. But invisibility is the ninja's thing, man!
2. Just be glad it's not a wizard!
3. It's not a problem after 12th level!
4. It doesn't matter what powers the players have, because the DM has more, son! Rocks fall, everyone dies, son! WU-TANG!
5. Something about okom's [sic] Razor!
6. Something about dogs!
What arguments will you accept?
What arguments will you accept?
Answer: Those that are not patently absurd.*
*answer not subject to change when question is asked again in bold type
The vanishing trick does seem to be headache for those of us who would like to challenge Ninja characters, it's true. A player in my group is multiclasses hungry ghost monk and ninja. Between his high base ki pool (thanks in large part to UM's monk vows... hooray.) and the hungry ghost's ki theft ability, he is able to spend nearly every round invisible.
His favorite tactic so far has been to make a full attack, vanish (swift action) and then 5 foot step to force the enemies to guess which square he's in. Next round he repeats and gets Sneak Attack on the first hit as gravy. As many times as he can do it per day, he is invisible during the turns of most enemies.
At the levels we're playing right now, only some casters really have viable ways to counter invisibility.
It wouldn't be a huge problem if, for instance, it provoked an attack of opportunity. At least then it'd involve some risk.
Edit: I should be more specific. It happens to be a Gestalt campaign, which is probably the only reason it's viable at low levels. I just checked the Hungry Ghost archetype, to find out that it doesn't get ki steal until 5th level. While this option is still viable under normal play, it requires a slightly higher level to actually pull off. At those higher levels, Vanishing Trick is probably less of a concern. I'll check my facts before I complain in the future, haha.
While hungry Ghost monk/ninja seems like really hawt combo, and certainly for ki point conservation it is, your PC there is eating a lot of levels where he doesn't get sneak-attack dice. Monk5/ninja 2 would be the level in which he starts to steal ki. At that level he would have a d8 unarmed attack, and 3 attacks (4 with Ki point, which he can't use if he wants to vanish).
So lets say 3 attack-flurry, 3d8 + 3d6 sneak attack total, vs TWF ninja 1d10 katana/1d6 wakazashi + 8d6 sneak attack total (on only 2 attacks!). HGM/ninja has a 1 point lead in BAB too, which count's for some extra damage potential, However regular ninja has 2 more ninja tricks, possibly shadow clones and forgotten trick or my personal favorite combo of Flurry of stars + Pressure points (16d6 sneak attack AND 4 Strength or Dexterity damage, WHAT?)
Answer: Those that are not patently absurd.
Answer: He is not a True Scotsman.
Not absurd based upon what?
Listen man, I specifically made a list of (key word) patently ridiculous arguments so that I wouldn't have to keep wasting my time by responding to them. This is one of those times where at a certain point the only reasonable response is "If you have to ask..."
Answer: Those that are not patently absurd.Answer: He is not a True Scotsman.
Cute, but an inaccurate reference as I have not requalified any statement I have made thus far in order to accommodate for new information that rendered the statement unfactual. Now, are you done? Would you like to actually make a point? Propose a counterargument?