|
Would it be overpowering to simply drop/ignore ASF from armor? I know it would reduce the utility of a few abilities of some of the classes, but working around that by giving them something to compensate or what have you...Possibly letting those same arcane casters wear one step heavier armor too? so wizards would have light armor proficiency.
I just dont see any way that divine casters are weaker than arcane casters to the extent that they need armor proficiency, better bab and hd, and no ASF to compensate. I understand that arcane spells generally do a bit more damage, but arcane casters generally lose out on alot of the benefits of divine spells, and divine casters have access to the entire spell list! Once you realize that includes the APG and UM and other splats, thats a mega selection of spells.
I have a hard time seeing why I shouldn't either drop ASF or come up with an explanation why it applies to divine casters as well. I likewise don't understand why arcane casters who can wear armor get lower level spells. If the summoner gets limited to 6th level slots, shouldn't a druid get the same? Likewise for the cleric. I can see the argument that the cleric gets armor by way of being a heal-bot, but then clerics not focused on healing (say they went with combat domains and are neutral, taking inflict spells instead) are IMO as good as a wizard with casting, but with medium BAB, higher HD type, and armor and no ASF (along with a few more weapon proficiencies).
If it would be overpowered to give it to an arcane class, would it not be reasonable to then strip it of the divine classes? lowering the druid and cleric to d6hd, with low bab and no armor profs, with Divine Spell Failure of some kind?
Can I get some comments? Any side effects I may have missed? A good (and mechanically supported) explanation why this may or may not be a good idea?
I don't think spellcasters need anything that makes them better. The were extremely powerful to begin with, and PF made them even better.
But I agree with the conclusion, that this also means that divine spellcasters really don't need such great combat abilities. Wizard HD and minimal weapon and armor proficiency would be the right thing. If you want it, you can multiclass as a fighter.
We need to parse a few things out here. For one, there is a difference between a primary caster (gets 9th level spells) and a secondary caster (up to 6th level spells). Primary arcane casters include the witch, sorcerer, and wizard; secondary includes the bard and summoner. A primary arcane caster is capable of just about anything; with the infernal healing spell, about the only thing they can't do well (arguably) is remove status effects, should they so desire. These classes can do direct damage if they like, they can manipulate the battlefield however they like, gather information, buff, debuff...pretty much everything. Can they do it well? Depends on their builds. So the balancing point for these classes is no armor unless they want to gamble on a spell failing at a critical moment.
Secondary arcane casters have less ability via magic to do these things due to more restrictive spell lists that are thematically flavored for the class. So they get additional class abilities beyond what even witches and sorcerers get. One of those abilities is to cast spells in various types of armor without ASF. These classes also have better BAB and HD to compensate for the fact that they can't do things like build walls of various energies and materials on the spot, fly at will, cross continents on a whim, or stop time when they're feeling mean. Without the broad range of powers of the primary classes, these classes are less versatile in general, so these kinds of abilities are their compensation.
Primary divine spellcasters include clerics, druids, and oracles. Divine magic doesn't do certain things well. As you've noted, there isn't a lot of direct damage magic available to these classes. Battlefield control is variable based on class. Many cleric spells are situational; you don't want or need them every day. So these classes may have access to more spells initially than their arcane counterparts, but many of those spells are effectively non-options. I've played high level wizards and clerics, and found as a wizard the problem was in choosing which spells to prep, because it doesn't take much to get to the point of having as many spells known as the cleric at a given level; the cost is low, as has been computed a few times in various threads. Conversely, I had problems choosing everyday spells for the cleric at higher levels, as some levels are filled with highly situational magics. So divine primary casters get other abilities to compensate, such as the lack of existence of divine spell failure, better hit dice, and additional class abilities.
Now, possible ramifications of your choices:
1) If divine casters have ASF, crucial spells for healing can now fail, in or out of combat. While in-combat healing is frowned upon, sometimes you just need that heal spell. And at low levels, that can really matter as well.
2) If you drop the cleric and druid to d6 hd, poor BAB, no armor, clerics have a really difficult time. Their spell list isn't nearly as versatile as the wizard/sorcerer/witch list. I did this with my last cleric, and it caused me problems in battle. Why? I can buff before a fight, but the spell list doesn't lend itself to lots of combat magic. Limited battlefield control for one reason, poor damage spells for another. And you don't want to spend an entire fight just buffing and healing; that's a leading reason people avoid playing clerics. As for the druid, he can still compensate with wildshape to some degree, but the increased fragility he gains might make him now unable to use it in combat; this would require some testing.
3) One of your assumptions is that whenever a new divine spell appears in a book that it automatically becomes available to all casters. This need not be the case. Just because the book is available it does not necessarily mean that the whole book is available. Just saying it to make sure it's said.
Overall, you seem to believe that because a class has access to 9th level spells that makes it equal in magical power to every other such class. If I'm wrong, I apologize. The quality of the content of a given class's spell list determines the power of the spell list. Cleric players often choose specific domains and subdomains to get some diversity/versatility out of their lists due to limitations I've outlined above, as do other divine spellcasters with domain options.
Something that's been said in prior editions, though maybe it still lingers with Pathfinder, is that divine spells have relatively simple somatic components. Things like 'wave your right hand in a broad circle while holding your holy symbol'. Arcane spells are suggested to have more rigid somatic components: 'wave your right hand in a circle after chanting the third word of this incantation, of a size equal to your torso, but be done by the fifth world of this spell, make sure you're going counterclockwise' type stuff.
OK, my focus is diffusing, time to stop.
|
Its almost as if there were no feats that allowed this to happen...Armor proficiency, Arcane Armor Training, and Arcane Armor Mastery.
Gain the armor proficiency you want, lose up to 20% ASF, and problem solved.
Now its balanced, you shouldn't just get things for free, giving up 2 or 3 feats to wear armor isnt that big of a deal IMHO.
|
|
Its almost as if there were no feats that allowed this to happen...Armor proficiency, Arcane Armor Training, and Arcane Armor Mastery.
Gain the armor proficiency you want, lose up to 20% ASF, and problem solved.
Now its balanced, you shouldn't just get things for free, giving up 2 or 3 feats to wear armor isnt that big of a deal IMHO.
No I'm suggesting that if it's reasonable that the wizards and sorcerers have to pay for these abilities, then divine casters should have to do the same. And if it IS reasonable to give them to divine casters, then those arcane casters should also get them for free.
If divine casters have ASF, crucial spells for healing can now fail, in or out of combat. While in-combat healing is frowned upon, sometimes you just need that heal spell. And at low levels, that can really matter as well.
I suppose this is true. I've been considering trying to ditch the idea of the dedicated healer though, because well, my players refuse to play dedicated healers. Most games nobody I've run in the past 5 years, either nobody plays a cleric, or they take spontaneous inflict, and prep just enough cure spells for themselves, and make damage dealing characters, like a more magic focused paladin. They use channel to AoE smite people instead of for healing, etc.
The Cleric spell list isn't nearly as versatile as the wizard/sorcerer/witch list.
Hmm. A look at my APG tells me that you're right. I was thinking you were right when you only used core. In Pathfinder they really did avoid giving clerics the heavy hitting spells, though they can still stomp you with summon effects, undead creating effects, and planar ally. I'm not sure thats a less effective way to deal damage, I think it's just a *different* way. And direct damage seems to be the only real in-combat thing that wizards have and clerics don't.
As for the druid? He's got damage dealing spells, the only thing that may be a problem, as you pointed out, is the wildshape may need a boost to make it combat viable. It would in fact need some testing.
One of your assumptions is that whenever a new divine spell appears in a book that it automatically becomes available to all casters. This need not be the case. Just because the book is available it does not necessarily mean that the whole book is available. Just saying it to make sure it's said.
Well, okay, I suppose I can ban spells from the books as they come out, but I know the default player assumption will be that new spells are up for grabs as they come out, and I tend to allow access to almost all paizo content. But I dont want to have to go through and change the cleric spell list every time a new book comes out and add them to domains or give them some restricted access to the new books or anything like that, it seems kindof jerkish and silly.
Overall, you seem to believe that because a class has access to 9th level spells that makes it equal in magical power to every other such class. If I'm wrong, I apologize. The quality of the content of a given class's spell list determines the power of the spell list. Cleric players often choose specific domains and subdomains to get some diversity/versatility out of their lists due to limitations I've outlined above, as do other divine spellcasters with domain options.
I think that's my experience with 3.5 showing (where that was definitely the case).
So. you're saying the increased BAB, Armor Proficiencies, and lack of ASF are to compensate for weaker spell lists? I can see how that argument might hold for the cleric/oracle, now that I double check the spell lists in the Core and APG (dont have UM in front of me) (though to people who still use the 3.5 Spell Compendium or any of the 3.5 splats that had alot of magic content, that is most definitely not the case). I strongly disagree with regard to the druid though. The lists are definitely of comparable power level to the sorc/wiz before you take into account class features (in which area the druid is just better in every way). Theoretically the wizard can make up new spells or research spells that aren't on his list, but not in PFS, and I've never seen a GM actually allow it to happen - except in the occasional game with no cleric druid bard or oracle, where he adds the cure spells to the wizard list, and the wizard player says "Gee, thanks...".
Arcane casters have the best spell lists.
Allowing them to wear armor would not necessarily destroy reality as we know it, but honestly, it would be a house rule that bolstered the classes which are already the best in the game.
Even if it were needed and easy to do without consequences, I would still avoid it because I like to play as close to RAW as possible, simply to reduce the paperwork my players need to remember.
|
|
Ah, I can see your desire to reduce memory work. When I have house rules, I put together a pdf that I hand to the players. They can print it if so inclined. All I basically say is: "This PDF trumps any and all errata and anything printed in the rulebook."
If they're looking things up in the rulebook before checking that document first they're clearly doing it wrong, given what I told them pre-game.
|
|
Let me add an importantly missed point on why divine casters need better defenses than arcane casters. The divine casters are defaulted and expected to do some battle field healing. That puts them on the front lines. Arcane casters can more easily avoid the center of the battle. The divine casters can really use the extra defense while its not all that necessary for the arcane. Besides being able to stride into combat makes up for the less interesting spell list.
IF the divine caster is doing battlefield healing, then sure.
if however, the character says: Yes, I'm making a cleric, but I won't be taking healing spells, and I'm focusing on damage dealing, then I think we have a problem. And its not that hard to do. Neutral cleric, spontaneous inflict/channel negative, and dont prep any cure spells, or prep onw a day or something. People will quickly get the point that youre not the healer and they will make other plans.
Meanwhile your class is compensating for a weakness you dont have.
Its a house rule its your call. You largely sound like you already have your answer. The majority of people here are going to rightly tell you that Arcane casters are already the most powerful in the game. Because well, there whole thing is telling the laws or physics and reality to sit down and shut up. And they are really, really good at it.
But if you really want to slap armor on them and make them slightly harder to kill for the classes that aren't able to tell gravity to go away with a wave of a hand, well feel free I guess.
First point, which is mentioned many times already, but bears mentioning one more time is that Arcane Casters are very, very powerful. They really do not need a boost, in fact it is really at the other spectrum, boosts are dangerous for Arcane Casters since they are already so very powerful.
That said, I must say, I don't think the ability to put on armor and still cast is a big deal for most wizards (I think it sounds better than it actually is). You see, the thing is that part of the reason Wizards are so powerful is because not being able to wear armor isn't nearly the penalty it's made out to be. It's really not much of a penalty at all.
Wizards don't generally rely on AC for defense. They can get a decent AC with Mage armor and shield spell, but Wizards tend to rely on various other means to keep them safe from attack:
1) defensive spells that give "miss" chance. Mirror Image is probably the most common
2) Hiding. Invisibility, fogs, darkness. If they can't see you, it's hard for them to attack you.
3) Barriers. All those wonderful walls.
4) Proximity. Who can move around like an arcane caster? No monk in the game is as fast as Dimension Door.
Wearing armor requires things like Strength (for encumbrance) and is really useful for those who get attacked a lot, not those who take great effort to get attacked the least. Frankly, I don't know if I would put armor on my Wizard even if it didn't have ASF. Maybe masterwork padded I suppose.
No monk in the game is as fast as Dimension Door.
Before level 12.
|
|
Hmm.
@Greenmage, Treantmonk: I'm actually not planning on putting armor on my arcane casters - that was more for illustrative purposes, I agree they don't really need a boost. I brought that up because I figured people would say they don't need a boost, and yet druid, and non-healing clerics seem to me to be wizard+. I'm less familiar with the Inquisitor and Oracle in play, and Paladin and Ranger have never seemed overpowered to me.
What I'm considering is taking it away from some of the divine casters, which in some cases I dont think their spell selection is any worse than that of a Wizard, their obligations any heavier, yet they have the melee capability as well.
This is less about boosting arcane casters (well, maybe the bard could use a boost) and more about how it seems to me that divine casters are on the overly powerful side, as evidenced by CoDzilla (admittedly less so in PF, but it's still there).
Add to that the wizard's spellbook, which isn't an insignificant expense: It costs money to scribe spells as well as to acquire them initially, and experience has taught me how crippling it can be to have fewer than 3 spellbooks. Granted, your travel spellbook can be a subset of it so it may only cost you like 2.5 times the cost.
I mean, yes, there's the problem that when druids shift, if I nerf them in combat, they may not be able to make use of the shifted form at the same time as no spells, but that could be handled by adjusting wildshape to not be affected by the nerf.
Am I wrong about the Druid and Non-Healbot cleric? If yes, then why? If they don't assume the role of party-wide healer, are they not wizard+? Sure, the cleric doesn't have the blasty spells, but he has better summoning and undead creation. And blasting spells are generally some of the weaker of the wizard spells.
Hmm.
@Greenmage, Treantmonk: I'm actually not planning on putting armor on my arcane casters - that was more for illustrative purposes, I agree they don't really need a boost. I brought that up because I figured people would say they don't need a boost, and yet druid, and non-healing clerics seem to me to be wizard+. I'm less familiar with the Inquisitor and Oracle in play, and Paladin and Ranger have never seemed overpowered to me.
What I'm considering is taking it away from some of the divine casters, which in some cases I dont think their spell selection is any worse than that of a Wizard, their obligations any heavier, yet they have the melee capability as well.
This is less about boosting arcane casters (well, maybe the bard could use a boost) and more about how it seems to me that divine casters are on the overly powerful side, as evidenced by CoDzilla (admittedly less so in PF, but it's still there).
Add to that the wizard's spellbook, which isn't an insignificant expense: It costs money to scribe spells as well as to acquire them initially, and experience has taught me how crippling it can be to have fewer than 3 spellbooks. Granted, your travel spellbook can be a subset of it so it may only cost you like 2.5 times the cost.
I mean, yes, there's the problem that when druids shift, if I nerf them in combat, they may not be able to make use of the shifted form at the same time as no spells, but that could be handled by adjusting wildshape to not be affected by the nerf.
Am I wrong about the Druid and Non-Healbot cleric? If yes, then why? If they don't assume the role of party-wide healer, are they not wizard+? Sure, the cleric doesn't have the blasty spells, but he has better summoning and undead creation. And blasting spells are generally some of the weaker of the wizard spells.
IMO!
It has been established that the cleric is lacking in damage spells and battlefield control. Channel (negative)energy is not the best fix for this, it requires a high charisma (More uses, better save, and leave out more people (with a feat)), the aforementioned feat (selective channeling) which in the end starts making them very MAD, Str or Dex for attack (maybe damage), Con for HP, Wisdom for spellcasting, and charisma thrown in.4-5 stats as opposed to the wizards 2-3 (int & con, dex can be optional). Buffs can help with that to a degree, but not enough, esp. for multiple combats per day.Druids are a different problem. Less MAD than the cleric (especially when wildshape is thrown in) more combat control and damage spells, a feat to let you cast in wild shape. This one I could see a nerf, no clue what though. And I don't think there spell casting is quite on par with the wiz/sor, but everything else might just be pushing them over the edge.
I can't speak for your group, but in most groups the arcane casters don't need boost, and the divine casters are not causing issues. How are the divine casters supposed to protect themselves if you take their armor away? The arcane casters have miss chance, which is generally better than AC, which is why they don't care about it so much.
Hmm.
@Greenmage, Treantmonk: I'm actually not planning on putting armor on my arcane casters - that was more for illustrative purposes, I agree they don't really need a boost. I brought that up because I figured people would say they don't need a boost, and yet druid, and non-healing clerics seem to me to be wizard+. I'm less familiar with the Inquisitor and Oracle in play, and Paladin and Ranger have never seemed overpowered to me.
What I'm considering is taking it away from some of the divine casters, which in some cases I dont think their spell selection is any worse than that of a Wizard, their obligations any heavier, yet they have the melee capability as well.
This is less about boosting arcane casters (well, maybe the bard could use a boost) and more about how it seems to me that divine casters are on the overly powerful side, as evidenced by CoDzilla (admittedly less so in PF, but it's still there).
Add to that the wizard's spellbook, which isn't an insignificant expense: It costs money to scribe spells as well as to acquire them initially, and experience has taught me how crippling it can be to have fewer than 3 spellbooks. Granted, your travel spellbook can be a subset of it so it may only cost you like 2.5 times the cost.
I mean, yes, there's the problem that when druids shift, if I nerf them in combat, they may not be able to make use of the shifted form at the same time as no spells, but that could be handled by adjusting wildshape to not be affected by the nerf.
Am I wrong about the Druid and Non-Healbot cleric? If yes, then why? If they don't assume the role of party-wide healer, are they not wizard+? Sure, the cleric doesn't have the blasty spells, but he has better summoning and undead creation. And blasting spells are generally some of the weaker of the wizard spells.
That spellbook is pretty cheap to put a spell into. RD did the math once and unless the GM is stingy with wealth the wizard can afford every spell in the core book over the course of his career, easily.
Even a the druid shifting and casting is not one par with a wizard, maybe the 3.5 druid because of the old polymorph rules, but not anymore.I can't really say how you are incorrect because I don't know how your games run. If you list a few actual in game situations then that would help immensely.
The issue could be the way your party builds characters. It could be the response to the player's tactics. You may have a houserule in play that is the issue. I have seen all of these be an issue.
Wizards can summon also, and since they have bonus feats it cost them less to do so. Undead creation is expensive, and taboo in many games.
Wizards don't generally blast either.
edit:Changed spells to feats
|
|
That spellbook is pretty cheap to put a spell into. RD did the math once and unless the GM is stingy with wealth the wizard can afford every spell in the core book over the course of his career, easily.
Even a the druid shifting and casting is not one par with a wizard, maybe the 3.5 druid because of the old polymorph rules, but not anymore.
I can't really say how you are incorrect because I don't know how your games run. If you list a few actual in game situations then that would help immensely.The issue could be the way your party builds characters. It could be the response to the player's tactics. You may have a houserule in play that is the issue. I have seen all of these be an issue.
Wizards can summon also, and since they have bonus spells it cost them less to do so. Undead creation is expensive, and taboo in many games.
Wizards don't generally blast either.
I've run alot of games that include the FR spells, but the druid and cleric players never bothered to look at those books, so that's not it. Mostly it seems to be the summoning. They get fairly equivalent summoning, (cleric summoning and undead creation is even better) but wizards squish and clerics and druids dont. I haven't seen higher level play much though. Only once have I seen a campaign pass level 12. So at high levels when the wizard starts being amazing I can see maybe the wizard takes the lead.
I've run alot of games that include the FR spells, but the druid and cleric players never bothered to look at those books, so that's not it. Mostly it seems to be the summoning. They get fairly equivalent summoning, (cleric summoning and undead creation is even better) but wizards squish and clerics and druids dont. I haven't seen higher level play much though. Only once have I seen a campaign pass level 12. So at high levels when the wizard starts being amazing I can see maybe the wizard takes the lead.That spellbook is pretty cheap to put a spell into. RD did the math once and unless the GM is stingy with wealth the wizard can afford every spell in the core book over the course of his career, easily.
Even a the druid shifting and casting is not one par with a wizard, maybe the 3.5 druid because of the old polymorph rules, but not anymore.
I can't really say how you are incorrect because I don't know how your games run. If you list a few actual in game situations then that would help immensely.The issue could be the way your party builds characters. It could be the response to the player's tactics. You may have a houserule in play that is the issue. I have seen all of these be an issue.
Wizards can summon also, and since they have bonus spells it cost them less to do so. Undead creation is expensive, and taboo in many games.
Wizards don't generally blast either.
How is the summoning better? Undead creation has its own set of issues, and I have never seen it used.
What I was getting at in my last post was how are the other casters causing problems in your games, and what how do you expect for your nerfs to help your game take care of those specific issues?
I've run alot of games that include the FR spells, but the druid and cleric players never bothered to look at those books, so that's not it. Mostly it seems to be the summoning. They get fairly equivalent summoning, (cleric summoning and undead creation is even better) but wizards squish and clerics and druids dont. I haven't seen higher level play much though. Only once have I seen a campaign pass level 12. So at high levels when the wizard starts being amazing I can see maybe the wizard takes the lead.That spellbook is pretty cheap to put a spell into. RD did the math once and unless the GM is stingy with wealth the wizard can afford every spell in the core book over the course of his career, easily.
Even a the druid shifting and casting is not one par with a wizard, maybe the 3.5 druid because of the old polymorph rules, but not anymore.
I can't really say how you are incorrect because I don't know how your games run. If you list a few actual in game situations then that would help immensely.The issue could be the way your party builds characters. It could be the response to the player's tactics. You may have a houserule in play that is the issue. I have seen all of these be an issue.
Wizards can summon also, and since they have bonus spells it cost them less to do so. Undead creation is expensive, and taboo in many games.
Wizards don't generally blast either.
I meant to say they have bonus feats, not bonus spells.
|
|
How is the summoning better? Undead creation has its own set of issues, and I have never seen it used.
What I was getting at in my last post was how are the other casters causing problems in your games, and what how do you expect for your nerfs to help your game take care of those specific issues?
Cleric summoning is generally better because they get the same summon monster, and planar ally is generally better than planar binding, in addition to the fact that you get ally 2 levels earlier.and, well, nongood cleric necromancers with channel negative energy (and the command undead feat if available) is more powerful than the wizard equivalent.
But mainly the problems I've been encountering are the following:
1. Few people want to play as dedicated healers, so they generally don't, even if they're playing a class with healing.
2. (Always for druids, and sometimes for clerics) I encounter a well built character seems to wizard as well as the wizard, but when they are running low on spells or dont feel like using them, instead of hanging back, they run in and tank with the fighter.
All of this is pre-level 13 stuff, because all the campaigns I've played or ran since pfrpg came out ended at 12 or earlier.
|
Wearing armor requires things like Strength (for encumbrance) and is really useful for those who get attacked a lot, not those who take great effort to get attacked the least. Frankly, I don't know if I would put armor on my Wizard even if it didn't have ASF. Maybe masterwork padded I suppose.
Thanks TM, I was trying to put it into words and you did it so well for me.
Ugh... Druids... When you play with one that cast entangle one turn, then flaming sphere the next while he rides around on his riding dog wielding two swords... They really do seem to get a disproportionate amount of power, and they get 4 skill points to boot. Compared to all the other spell casters...
|
|
Ugh... Druids... When you play with one that cast entangle one turn, then flaming sphere the next while he rides around on his riding dog wielding two swords... They really do seem to get a disproportionate amount of power, and they get 4 skill points to boot. Compared to all the other spell casters...
Now, that, + a couple wolves. I dunno. it seems like playing a dragon.
You mean for my CR, I can tank AND cast spells just as well as the fighter and mage can? and I have more skillpoints too? ...My problem isnt the druid stomping through the encounters, my problem is they seem to be equally good at too many things. For a monster? fine, but not so much for a player. They seem to outshine the other players, which isn't desirable to me.
But I dont find the wizard to be that powerful either. I know at high levels he is, but when most campaigns are stopping at 12, you have the mage who's really weak for 1/3 the game, and a mage who casts spells as well and fights well to boot?
How is the summoning better? Undead creation has its own set of issues, and I have never seen it used.
What I was getting at in my last post was how are the other casters causing problems in your games, and what how do you expect for your nerfs to help your game take care of those specific issues?Cleric summoning is generally better because they get the same summon monster, and planar ally is generally better than planar binding, in addition to the fact that you get ally 2 levels earlier.and, well, nongood cleric necromancers with channel negative energy (and the command undead feat if available) is more powerful than the wizard equivalent.
But mainly the problems I've been encountering are the following:
1. Few people want to play as dedicated healers, so they generally don't, even if they're playing a class with healing.
2. (Always for druids, and sometimes for clerics) I encounter a well built character seems to wizard as well as the wizard, but when they are running low on spells or dont feel like using them, instead of hanging back, they run in and tank with the fighter.All of this is pre-level 13 stuff, because all the campaigns I've played or ran since pfrpg came out ended at 12 or earlier.
Planar Ally is so expensive that I can't see it coming up enough times in a game to make a difference. You can also pimp pour charisma as a sorcerer, and/or you care more about planar binding spells working. I wizard that could also boost charisma, but it is not normal to do so. If potential is the issue they are still about even if you really are a wizard that cares about planar binding.
1. Nobody should have to play a dedicated healer. That does not mean don't memorize any healing spells, but if your job is mainly to heal then the players need to look at their tactics or the GM is overdoing it. The cleric has the ability to heal the party, but that is not a job.
2. I have never seen a divine caster with a wizard's versatility in solving problems. It could be the wizard is not choosing a wide enough variety of spells, or the game does not bring enough variety to the table for the arcane spells to matter as much, but that is not a class issue.
You need to get inside the building(level 3 to 5 group):
When someone is so fanatically loyal that diplomacy nor intimidate will work and/or the NPC just won't listen to the thought of a conversation what do you do? To add to that what happens if killing/harming the NPC in question will cause problems?
The door is magically sealed, and there is no lock to be picked(real AP issue).
The point buy you give out is also a factor. Wading into combat can be done by anyone, but doing it effectively is different.
The number of encounters and difficulty of those encounters is also a factor.
Ugh... Druids... When you play with one that cast entangle one turn, then flaming sphere the next while he rides around on his riding dog wielding two swords... They really do seem to get a disproportionate amount of power, and they get 4 skill points to boot. Compared to all the other spell casters...Now, that, + a couple wolves. I dunno. it seems like playing a dragon.
You mean for my CR, I can tank AND cast spells just as well as the fighter and mage can? and I have more skillpoints too? ...My problem isnt the druid stomping through the encounters, my problem is they seem to be equally good at too many things. For a monster? fine, but not so much for a player. They seem to outshine the other players, which isn't desirable to me.
But I dont find the wizard to be that powerful either. I know at high levels he is, but when most campaigns are stopping at 12, you have the mage who's really weak for 1/3 the game, and a mage who casts spells as well and fights well to boot?
Does this Druid player outshine the others when he plays other classes?
A druid can be a competent caster, and melee combatant, but he can't excel at both unless he something is going on that should not be going on.
I would probably need a recount of a battle to see what is going on.
No I'm suggesting that if it's reasonable that the wizards and sorcerers have to pay for these abilities, then divine casters should have to do the same.
But the divine casters do pay for these abilities.
They might not pay with feats, but they pay with their inferior spell-list.
Even if you're an evil cleric who never prepares any healing spells, you just can't keep up with a wizard.
And the wizard might not have your AC, but he just doesn't care. He doesn't need AC. He'll just fly out of reach, turn invisible (probably the kind of invisibility that sticks when you attack), get mirror images, fire shield, and so on.
One thing you might consider, if you feel the wizard/witch needs a "boost" is to simply place a scrolls in the lower level treasures. (Since the only real problem I have found for wizards is lack of selection at lower levels.) Sorcerers can still use those scrolls as extra spells - something that will help them at lower levels almost as much as it does the wizrad/witch (who will add the spell to their book/familiar).
If you are still worried about Arcane casters being fragile, make sure that these scrolls are good defensive (and/or movement) spells.
I have played many a wizard, and that (lack of choice at lower levels) really is the only "drawback" I have ever encountered.
This way, you will not have "changed any rules" in a way that will come back to bite you later when the characters have gained a few levels.
No I'm suggesting that if it's reasonable that the wizards and sorcerers have to pay for these abilities, then divine casters should have to do the same.But the divine casters do pay for these abilities.
Divine casters can also "pay" in another way. Remember, that they must keep to a certain "ethos" to keep their patron happy - and their patron can also ask them to do the occasional "chore" as well. :)
Cleric summoning is generally more limited than wizard summoning (when using summon monster) because of alignment restrictions.
Planar Ally and Planar Binding are different, but I wouldn't say one is better than the other. Planar Binding has lots of downsides (saving throws, SR, angry victims), but has the big advantage of potentially not having to pay the outsider (if you can beat them in a nonmodified CHA check)
It's hard to compare them.
Though JJ has said in another thread yesterday that you can use Planar Binding just like a Planar Ally spell. His opinion doesn't match what it says in the core book though.
As for the rest of spellcasting, overall Wizards get a fancier spell list than Clerics or Druids.
I also feel that divine casters should not have ASF and that arcane casters are more than powerful enough. I have played clerics, wizards, melee/arcane casters, bards, ... Even taking hits by multiclassing to allow arcane casters to wear armor and be more effective in melee was well worth it, they quickly proved more powerful than for example a cleric. They simply have the better spells which is the decisive factor.
Playing divine characters is still very interesting because power is not everything and they are still quite powerful and capable, but if you introduced ASF for divine characters you would take away one of their very few strong points IMO.
|
|
Hmm. Some interesting thoughts/ideas.
I can't post an example, because well, my last campaign ended in january and my memory isnt good enough. lol.
The player is generally effective, but there was definitely a big gap with that druid.
I think I'm going to leave it alone until after our next upcoming campaign, and I'll take notes of problems as they come up.
@treantmonk
Some interesting stuff. I too dont agree with JJ's statements. But I got rid of the alignment system a long time ago. there was a handy guide to do it too. Paladins no longer smite evil. They Smite. they still have the code to follow, but there's no absolute alignments to worry about, and all the "detect" and "protection from" alignment spells got replaced with slightly different working ones.
Hmm. Some interesting thoughts/ideas.
I can't post an example, because well, my last campaign ended in january and my memory isnt good enough. lol.
The player is generally effective, but there was definitely a big gap with that druid.
I think I'm going to leave it alone until after our next upcoming campaign, and I'll take notes of problems as they come up.
@treantmonk
Some interesting stuff. I too dont agree with JJ's statements. But I got rid of the alignment system a long time ago. there was a handy guide to do it too. Paladins no longer smite evil. They Smite. they still have the code to follow, but there's no absolute alignments to worry about, and all the "detect" and "protection from" alignment spells got replaced with slightly different working ones.
There is a guide for giving up alignments? Could you pass on a link?
Don't know if I would ever get my DM's to give up on alignment, but I would be all for it.
My guide for alignmentless play is "Everyone is Neutral unless they have an aura or subtype. Paladins get Smite Anyone." :)
It must be asked...
Is evil evil in your game?
My guide for alignmentless play is "Everyone is Neutral unless they have an aura or subtype. Paladins get Smite Anyone." :)
OK, that wasn't what I expected. Can't see why it wouldn't work though. I'm assuming Paladins would no longer radiate an aura then?
|
But I got rid of the alignment system a long time ago. there was a handy guide to do it too. Paladins no longer smite evil. They Smite. they still have the code to follow, but there's no absolute alignments to worry about, and all the "detect" and "protection from" alignment spells got replaced with slightly different working ones.
There's the problem, then, and in this light, yes I would allow Arcanes to use armor. I wouldn't house-rule the ASF, though. Just give them 'Armor of Casting' with a bonus built in. That way, should you change your mind, you can fix it more gracefully. You haven't modified physics, just someone's equipment list.
When you do something as basic as 'get rid of alignment', you're breaking huge parts of the RAW. Paladins are the classic example, but clerics fall under this umbrella as well. Deities are supposed to care how divine casters use their granted powers. Same goes for Druids and Rangers. They're restricted in the spells they can prepare and use because their power comes from a being with an agenda. Those powers are granted to mere mortals for the purposes of advancing that agenda exclusively. Use them the wrong way and you can't have them back until you atone. Removing any method of adjudicating 'in character' vs 'out of character' behavior means removing this divine magic use restriction, and greatly boosts the power of the divine caster.
That should have been considered/explained in that 'handy guide'...
Ugh... Druids... When you play with one that cast entangle one turn, then flaming sphere the next while he rides around on his riding dog wielding two swords...Huh? I've yet to see a druid blow feats on two weapon fighting.
Meh... the player was a munchkin. I had no idea what his actual stats or feats were.
Anyway, the thing with magic is that at lower levels, being able to damage is not important because the fighters will do that for you. Battle field control is pretty much the only thing you have. When one summons monsters, they're generally used as distractions. You can support using Enlarge. Etc.
Even at higher levels, having the versatility is generally what wins battles.
Personally, I don't believe divine casters should just *poof* get all the spells in a level, even just spells from the Core rulebook. They should learn them. Clerics and Paladins could possibly learn spells from a church; Druids and Rangers learn them from spending time in nature.
|
|
Hmm. I never considered the mechanical alignment removal a a possible source of my druid/cleric power problem. Mechanically they're pretty much the same as before. Alignment just resulted in too many arguments before I removed it.
Here's the guide I used btw.
http://alzrius.wordpress.com/2010/11/01/removing-alignment-from-pathfinder- part-one-classes/
[Edit] I will say this: Power balance problems with druid and cleric were there before I removed alignment. 3.0, 3.5, and my first pathfinder campaign. The removal of alignment came after that, and didn't seem to change the issue.
Removing any method of adjudicating 'in character' vs 'out of character' behavior means...
This is why I'm growing to hate alignments.
It's one thing to have a deity with an agenda or certain rules he expects his followers to follow.
However, when you expand this into "you must play this alignment", then alignments become objective, not subjective.
There are certain things we can all agree are good and evil, but there are far more things that are debatable.
One example that comes up a lot in these threads are suggestions that Paladins "MUST" impose their own moral views on their friends. Personally, I would consider this an evil action (the "good" action IMO would be to trust your friends, and accept them as they are.), but would allow a player to play his paladin that way if he wished to.
When you say "adjudicating 'in character'...behavior" what it means is the DM gets to impose his personal (subjective) views on good and evil on the players characters.
When I play Pathfinder, the DM gets to control every NPC in the game, this is a massive quantity of characters that completely are under the control of one person at the table.
I get my character. If the DM ever gets to use the phrase, "Sorry, but your character is supposed to be "X" alignment, and I've decided you aren't playing that alignment properly" then the game has failed.
I'm exceedingly fortunate that the DM's I play with are VERY "hands off" when it comes to how the PC's are played and care far more about us having fun and building the personalities of our own characters in unique ways than imposing their own views of morality on us. When I come to these forums and see all the "Is X evil?" threads, it makes me want to give them cookies.
Hmm. Some interesting thoughts/ideas.
I can't post an example, because well, my last campaign ended in january and my memory isnt good enough. lol.
The player is generally effective, but there was definitely a big gap with that druid.
I think I'm going to leave it alone until after our next upcoming campaign, and I'll take notes of problems as they come up.
@treantmonk
Some interesting stuff. I too dont agree with JJ's statements. But I got rid of the alignment system a long time ago. there was a handy guide to do it too. Paladins no longer smite evil. They Smite. they still have the code to follow, but there's no absolute alignments to worry about, and all the "detect" and "protection from" alignment spells got replaced with slightly different working ones.
Some players are specialty players. They are really good with one class, but most of the time a good player is good across the board. I would play again, and then see what happens.
|
|
It must be asked...Is evil evil in your game?
The first rule of Tautology Club is the first rule of Tautology Club.
OK, that wasn't what I expected. Can't see why it wouldn't work though. I'm assuming Paladins would no longer radiate an aura then?
Since they have an Aura of Good class feature, they still do.