Certain prestige classes are another example Gorb, what seems balanced for one group, doesn't for another. I've heard some players try to convince me and others, some really wroughty classes were just fine. One even slipped once and acknowledged the boost he could get to concentration was ridiculous!
On the rod build above with 4 rods. Rods should be quite rare items, multiples held by one character should be almost impossible. That is very, very high magic, and would be impossible to do on the tables if the character had gone from level 1 to 12 or 13 (rods are a high roll, you'd have to roll the same thing from bosses or high CRs over and over). Stack powerful and rare magical items together, have a bandoleer of rods or staffs and anything becomes broken.
Which brings me to another question. Magic items shopping and crafting, the worst thing to hit the recent editions of dnd?
(They were much rarer in AD&D if they existed at all in a territory. From late 3rd on, the fill all slots and shop/craft phenomenon seemed to spread. I've seen players, not whole groups mind, want to spend more time crafting than adventuring. No risk, no challenge, choose to do the accounting, beef stats and maximise everything up. The Equalizer dubbed this, the accounting chronicles. This for me, really wasn't heroism.)
Interesting discussion on this thread. I found myself seeing it as first being a very flame-based topic until I read further. First, your game, your houserules. Would I want to be a player in that game? No. Would I ever run with those houserules? No. I admit to being a bit flabbergasted and perplexed with the interpretation, but then again I find I am ever so slowly getting board with gaming, particularly d20 gaming or WotC's Generic Universal ROLL Playing System and every incarnation of d20 rules leading to more and more overcodification and turning more players into rules lawyers and enhancing and reinforcing the idea that it's about WINNING AND building fighters capable of dealing 75 points of damage with a single attack...and because I have my own houserules that nerf casters in regard to the number of spells they can cast in a day - inspired by the Dresden Files.
My own houserules with casters.
Int/Wis/Chr determines what level spell can be cast as appropriate to the caster class.
Constitution Modifier plus half caster level (rounded down) determines how many spells can be cast each day for Wizards, Sorcerors, Bards; Cha for Psions, Clerics, Paladins, Rangers;
Ported in rules from other d20 Monte Cook sources:
Meta-magic feats don't affect spell slots, so much as can be used only so may times each, I think was a Monte Cook source - Arcana Evolved maybe.
Ported in some other Monte Cook concepts such as casting a spell with heightened capacity by using TWO spell slots instead of one.
Save DCs are = 15 + Spell Level + Appropriate Attribute Modifier. Base save DCs increased from 10 to 15 as a way to compensate for decreased spell capacity.
Ported in Gem Magic from the Demonwars Saga Campaign Setting, did a lot of houserule modification and put them strictly in the realm of Druids and Rangers. Makes these classes a bit mroe powerful in magic area, so using a node stone requires a full round action 99% of the time. No feats allow this to be bypassed.
To Lilithsthrall,
Yeah they know about it, it is how we have played for a long time after all. Some go spellcaster and have a lot of fun mixing up spell combos when they get to that level. It is the same for another dm I know, whom runs games at the moment. Also the same for a former dm here.
We seem to be pretty heavy amongst humans, the occasional elf wizard, some go cleric into less common deities. What is most common is still fighters of late, the party always has a fair bit of melee, sometimes an archer and a social character like a bard or someone who concentrates feats and skills that way. A ninja char does sometimes pop up, one of the longest players went for one, as did I when I played in the other dm's game.
Level? We usually start 1, in the game I'm running at present, we started as level 1 commoners, then could level up in a pc or npc class, or trade the level in once they got some xp. Quite an interesting start. This party is mainly melee, one bard, been one druid too. A marshal rogue cavalry character just came in as well. In past games there has been a 6, 8, or 12th level start or when new characters come in. Then spellcasters are a bit more common, but never the entirety of the party (not all the players particularly like spellcasters).
Hello Gendo,
I feel your pain. There is a bit too much rules lawyering coming out, stuff questing, accounting, sad styles of play and dming. One dm I know, he ran things so badly and so hard across multiple games, he just can't get players any more.
Your rules seem unique to me. I've seen worse spell rules to be sure. So a wizard level 1 with 10 con, can cast no spells per day? This is about numbers that can be cast, I've seen some woeful ones that punish spellcasters for casting spells (horrible penalties, can leave you helpless). I don't like spellcasters that much to play (although I do give them more spells per round over time), but wouldn't your system require wizards to have a great con to cast the number of spells as is typical? Where would a non-martial learned person get such a con? This is not an attack though, just a few questions. Not sure it works well at low levels or with non con beefed builds.
Interesting discussion indeed.
What I've gleaned from your answers 3.5 Loyalist is it true that what your (highlevel) caster players do is mainly using damage spells (Fireball, Scorching Ray...) in combat?
If the answer is yes, then go ahaed, your casters are likely balanced against your melee/archers.
But as you might have noticed from my and stringburkhas post, the way for the caster to go is NOT TO DEAL DAMAGE but instead to cast SOS (save or suck) or SOD (save or die) spells.
You allowing multiple casts results in
- fully buffed casters by round one
- barrage of SOS/SOD against which normal monster have only a very low chance of saving
Sooo, a high-level caster could end a combat against a BBEG or a horde of minions pretty much before the rest of the party even could act.
And about mage arnmor (sorry couldn't resist):
School conjuration (creation) [force]
See, no enchantment either!
No I've seen Sods and soss' used in games. Phantasmal killers is a bit of a favourite, but my thoughts on it are very mixed, not that impressed. They want to kill the enemies quick obviously. If one can be passed, multiples can be passed, and as the wizard sage whom was listed earlier and wrote on wizards in the linked article, targetting a single foe for sos or sod spells isn't always a good thing to do. You can get overwhelmed if they save, or if there are too many.
"And about mage arnmor (sorry couldn't resist):
School conjuration (creation) [force]
See, no enchantment either!"
Yes but that gets off the original topic on these protective spells, gyre effects one target whom has any type of spell in effect on their person (magic items enhancements and magic armour etc, do not count, fly does however). The more they have, the more damage. Most of those are abjuration, the most humble is mage armour, the most complex is a lot more beneficial than that. Buffs can be great, but there are ways to counter them. Buffs can lead to self countering if a spellcaster protects themselves but doesn't help the combat or defeat the enemies (I've seen warlocks teleport around to protect themselves and not help the party) then setting things up worse for them in the latter rounds.
What do we all think of warlocks? Multiple eldritch shots and spell-likes per round? I take it that isn't how you run it?
And no one waded into the discussion on items, accounting and the sad state of affairs dnd has headed towards in some, but more frequent instances. I've seen some great warlocks, mixing damage with curses, confusing foes.
Oh they are much more exciting if they can do a full round and use all their bab on the eldritch attacks, or invocations.
(lots of different things)
I may have missed it, but how do you model iterative spellcasting to mimic the -5 to each subsequent attack?
-5 Caster level per iterative spell seems to be the most appropriate. Otherwise, you really are granting the spellcasters multiple standard actions instead of a full-round 'iterative spell' option.
If I were a 6th level fighter and got my 2nd attack at -5 to hit, and watched the wizard cast two full-strength fireballs, I'd be annoyed, wondering why my 2nd attack wasn't also full power.
What about
1st spell-max level
2nd spell-max level-5
3rd spell-max level-10
want more magic in your campaign? cut the penalty a smidge:
1st spell-max level
2nd spell-max level-4
3rd spell-max level-8
this means hitting the 9-11 range starts allowing wizards a chance at magic missile each round, or clerics can throw in a cure light wounds, etc. secondary casters, like pallys and bards, lose out by nature of lower spell levels, but they have melee ability to back it up. you could also allow attacks and spells interchangeable- w/ BAB 6, you can cast a spell and attack at a -5, or attack and cast a spell at least 4 levels lower than your highest level.
|
He can argue it all he wants, but getting other people to believe it might be difficult. :) I could snap the game in half with iterative spellcasting, and I'm not even that good of an optimizer.
I get the feeling his groups play the game the same way the original developers played it, and that's why they haven't encountered the problems most of us have.
I don't go for Magus, it is a bit overpowered isn't it?
Well, the Magus is overpowered if you let them cast more than one spell per round.
As a question to this, would a magus (or Fighter/Mage, or Warlock, or what have you) with +6 BAB be allowed to both cast a spell and strike with their weapon, as part of the same full-round action?
If so, True Strike + attack for the win. Defensive casting just isn't that hard, if you build for it properly... especially if Concentration gets to be a skill again...
Oh they are much more exciting if they can do a full round and use all their bab on the eldritch attacks, or invocations.
Everything gets more exciting if they get to do more stuff.
I really don't want to rain on your parade here, but I really don't understand how this
Cast a Spell
A spell that takes one round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed.
A spell that takes 1 minute to cast comes into effect just before your turn 1 minute later (and for each of those 10 rounds, you are casting a spell as a full-round action). These actions must be consecutive and uninterrupted, or the spell automatically fails.
When you begin a spell that takes 1 round or longer to cast, you must continue the invocations, gestures, and concentration from 1 round to just before your turn in the next round (at least). If you lose concentration after starting the spell and before it is complete, you lose the spell.
You only provoke attacks of opportunity when you begin casting a spell, even though you might continue casting for at least 1 full round. While casting a spell, you don't threaten any squares around you.
This action is otherwise identical to the cast a spell action described under Standard Actions.
or this
A spell that takes 1 round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed.
A spell that takes 1 minute to cast comes into effect just before your turn 1 minute later (and for each of those 10 rounds, you are casting a spell as a full-round action). These actions must be consecutive and uninterrupted, or the spell automatically fails.
When you begin a spell that takes 1 round or longer to cast, you must continue the invocations, gestures, and concentration from one round to just before your turn in the next round (at least). If you lose concentration after starting the spell and before it is complete, you lose the spell.
You only provoke attacks of opportunity when you begin casting a spell, even though you might continue casting for at least one full round. While casting a spell, you don’t threaten any squares around you.
This action is otherwise identical to the cast a spell action described under Standard Actions.
Casting a Metamagic Spell
Sorcerers and bards must take more time to cast a metamagic spell (one enhanced by a metamagic feat) than a regular spell. If a spell’s normal casting time is 1 standard action, casting a metamagic version of the spell is a full-round action for a sorcerer or bard. Note that this isn’t the same as a spell with a 1-round casting time—the spell takes effect in the same round that you begin casting, and you aren’t required to continue the invocations, gestures, and concentration until your next turn. For spells with a longer casting time, it takes an extra full-round action to cast the metamagic spell.
Clerics must take more time to spontaneously cast a metamagic version of a cure or inflict spell. Spontaneously casting a metamagic version of a spell with a casting time of 1 standard action is a full-round action, and spells with longer casting times take an extra full-round action to cast.
... or even this...
Cast a spell (full-round)
[Full][AoO: Yes]
Description: The spell will take effect just before the caster's action in the next round.
A character can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after casting such a spell, but cannot otherwise move.
A character may attempt to cast a spell while on the defensive. Casting a spell while on the defensive does not provoke an attack of opportunity. It does require a Concentration check (DC 15 + spell level). Failure means that the character loses the spell.
can possibly be read in such a way which allows more than one spell cast per round, through the normal action sequence. It's simply not listed as an option within these rulesets
Like pretty much everyone else on here has said, if it works for your game, great! It's not Pathfinder. It's not 3.5. It's not 3.0. It's not Shadowrun, GURPS, Palladium, White-Wolf, or Paper-Rock-Scissors either. It's your own game. Good for you!
But considering your original post said:
Today an issue got brought up which caused me to go back to some of the basic rules on actions. Started a 15th level dragon hunt campaign, and the dm informed me, that my level 15 cleric could not cast two standard action spells in a round, as a full round action. The ranger could let off many arrows, but I could only let off 1 spell, regardless of my bab and level.
Now I went back and looked things over and the stance is not unfounded. A spell is a standard, there is only one standard in a round at its most simplest mechanics. Melee and ranged characters, once they get to +6/+1 bab, can make two attacks (formerly one was a standard) at least as part of a full round. I had always assumed this was just fine and also applied to spellcasting (not for full round spells of course). The Dm has come down with the decision, no, a spellcaster can only cast one standard and make one move action per round.
This isn't how I run my games, if a spellcaster has good bab, they can let off more spells. High level clerics, 8+ can mix their offence and defensive spells, wizards can let off more than one once they get to level 12. Now this guy has gone one step further in hampering spellcasters and said, even a haste potion once imbibed will not allow quicker spellcasting and more in a round.
So I put it to you all, what do you think? I've noticed some pathfinder spellcaster bosses can get more spells off in a round than 1. I can see the argument, but I personally go by the bab. The higher level spellcaster can cast quicker than the beginner. The guy is using core.
It sounds like you've already answered your own question. The rules on what can be done with spell-casting as a full-round action are very clear. The bolded part of your first post says it all. In the standard d20 ruleset, from which 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder are all derived, casting one spell a round (barring things like Quicken Spell) is the best that anyone is ever going to achieve.
As other posters have put it, caster power increases through new spells. A first-level wizard casts Burning Hands to hit an area with damage. At 5th level, they cast Fireball to keep up with everyone else. At 9th level, they cast Cone of Cold or Cloudkill. At 13th level, they cast Prismatic Spray, or Limited Wish. 17th level brings us Meteor Swarm, Prismatic Sphere, or Wish.
THAT is how spellcasters are designed to improve, through the advancement of their arcane knowledge unlocking greater and greater mysteries of the universe.
Again, if you've changed things in your game, great! Gather up the rules, slap the OGL on it, name it "3.5 Loyalist's Customized Fantasy Gaming Using Bits and Pieces of Various Other Systems, as Well as Stuff I Came Up With On My Own", and put it out on the web.
I'll download it. Heck, I'll even have my buddies try it out one night over beer and pretzels. If we like it, we'll go with it.
... but it still won't be 3.0, 3.5, or Pathfinder.
Your forgeting wands and scrolls both of which under this would give you more spells per round. So 4 9th levels is not that hard to imagine\.
Indeed, I did forget about them. Good catch.
EDIT: I had a longer post written, but decided to delete it, because I was afraid it would derail the topic.
The rules may go one way, but that doesn't mean we can't go another, more logical and entertaining way. Some above have already acknowledged yeah the powerful spellcaster should be able to get off more than one low level spell, how to change the rules to accommodate this? Well, for my groups (except this new dm going with the no full round spellcasting) it is simple.
"I get the feeling his groups play the game the same way the original developers played it, and that's why they haven't encountered the problems most of us have."
Ah I'm very curious, what do you mean by this? Could you add more detail? What is meant by the problems you encounter because of how you play the game?
To stringburka,
On persistent effected spells, they seem often used in your game and that there are many rods of persistent spell around (how could one character collect so many if they are rare?). Looking up the metamagic feat:
http://dnd.savannahsoft.eu/feat-2142-persistent-spell.html
It does not seem it can apply to every attack spell you think it can apply to. It seems more to beef your personal buffs or personal detection spells than to extend any enchantment spell to 24 hours. No one I know has ever taken it, and they have never found a rod with that on it (and I do use many charts from multiple books). Are you sure you got the costs right as well for rods with that on it?
To BigJohn,
Yes, a spellcaster with good bab could cast and cut in a round, or trip and ray, or sunder and shatter, or bestow curse and kick. You can see why this is a really nice source of combos. Perhaps it makes it more like some fighting game, but I want the combat to be cool and satisfying. One new player recently who came in at level 12 wiz/marshal mix. Yeah he was facing off against two denizens of Leng. They backed him into a corner, out came the spells, broke through the SR, caused some havoc. Burnt through some of his high level spells, killed one, incapacitated another. Then closed in for the coup de grace with his longsword. It was really cool.
You really seem to worry about the rulesets. You can check back further in the forum for where I have added more detail, but yes, since an attack is normally a standard (with a move, swift and free left over), spells are often standards, and that standards can be combined into a full attack with other standards to the full use of bab, standard spells as a full round can also be cast multiple times if the bab is there allowing more standards as a part of full round.
"Like pretty much everyone else on here has said, if it works for your game, great! It's not Pathfinder. It's not 3.5. It's not 3.0. It's not Shadowrun, GURPS, Palladium, White-Wolf, or Paper-Rock-Scissors either. It's your own game. Good for you!"
Oh not this idea again. I'll put it this way then, if I am using the majority of a rule-set, say 94%, what is the game i am playing? If one ever uses a homebrew interpretation or adds on their own rules, are you saying they are never playing dnd? They cannot be playing dnd? What about the rest that they do use? Does one small change mean you cannot even suggest you are not playing dnd in any variety? What if I remove something, like say its pathfinder, but I'm removing a few feats I don't like and think which could be abused? Sounds like a lawful alignment to me, but not a very accurate assertion.
I might have my modified rules up in a document sometime soon. There is a few more homebrew things added to it, but the core mechanics are 3.5 with some pathfinder classes. As you can tell, it is still mostly dnd.
"Your forgeting wands and scrolls both of which under this would give you more spells per round."
Your number of actions per round as part of a full round is determined by your bab. So if you are up to two actions, that is two spells, having a scroll in hand doesn't mean you can cast a third, that also takes time after all. With scrolls there is also the problem of drawing and requiring a hand be free for somatic. Quick draw has limitations as well, since it applies to weapons, not potions or scrolls. So since a draw and pulling out a scroll takes a move, sadly, no two scrolls in a round even with my rules. You could at +6/+1 cast two standards in a full, cast one spell from your repertoire and use a scroll you were holding (as long as both were standard actions, not full rounds on their own).
On wands, I've seen a dm overlook that they are often a standard to use. You can't just shoot them off with no actions. Using the wand takes time too.
To Lazarx,
"Pathfinder is not, and never was about reviving 3.5."
You might want to read the intros to beta and alpha, and a lot of the early pathfinder stuff on design commentary. They most certainly did want to revive and continue with 3.5, keep the fan base, keep a lot of the system (do you think every game system has a d20 skill tree, feats, classes of the 3.5 archetypes, magic items and spells from 3.5) but also suggested new rules and their own changes. Which they did not force or cast as evident, they suggested, go to the early pathfinder materials.
They became more confident of these changes over time, and more fans began to like their rules as time went on, but pathfinder is most certainly a variant 3.5 ruleset and is a continuation of 3.5, not the going over to 4th ed or into a different system. 3.5 characters are forward compatible to pathfinder, and I do recall some pathfinder work on making them so, for playing coming along from 3.5 to pathfinder. Path core makes some changes, but beta fits more snugly as a 3.5 variant.
To trio,
"but getting other people to believe it might be difficult"
I'm not founding a cult, belief isn't really important to me. What I would like others to do, is to try it, not believe. It is deadly and awesome, and you don't sit round with a move left over, twiddling your thumbs (once you get to two standards as part of a full round). Hasten me up baby, we are going in. :)
Persistent spell in Pathfinder is different from Persistent Spell in 3.5. The Persistent Spell referred to is one that makes an enemy roll two saves and take the worse when they save against the metamagiced spell.
Kind of like a pugwampi effect, but more limited.
No I've seen Sods and soss' used in games. Phantasmal killers is a bit of a favourite, but my thoughts on it are very mixed, not that impressed. They want to kill the enemies quick obviously. If one can be passed, multiples can be passed...
Against an optimized Wizard of Level 15+ an average mob of the same CR needs a 16+ to pass a weak save (either will or fort as the casters choice) - twice with persistant (or 4 to 6 times against a BBEG "endboss" style which will be hit by two or even three spells).
Failure means instant death to the mob regardless of HPs - so the caster can deal 500+ points of "damage" in a single round with two spells. Compare that to two Fireballs and you see what EVERYONE here is talking about.
If you are not impressed by this then I'd say you either fudge rolls (hey, I rolled a 20 again, what do you say now?) or your caster players are so far from optimised that they are literally on another world.
I guess the latter is the case or else we wouldn't have this discussion.
About the Warlock:
Badly balanced class. The Warlock is one dimensional and boring and horribly OPed in the mid levels when he can Fly and be Invisible 24/7. In the high levels he is a little bit sub par as he really doesn't gain that much after Level 7 compared to other casters and also his damage lags behind.
|
|
About the Warlock:
Badly balanced class. The Warlock is one dimensional and boring and horribly OPed in the mid levels when he can Fly and be Invisible 24/7. In the high levels he is a little bit sub par as he really doesn't gain that much after Level 7 compared to other casters and also his damage lags behind.
The one I dealt with had three options.
Chilling Tentacles.
If they are unaffected, Baleful Polymorph.
If still unaffected, Eldritch Blast.
Always flying, usually invisible. Second didn't matter so much, as True Seeing was common.
Ah I'm very curious, what do you mean by this? Could you add more detail? What is meant by the problems you encounter because of how you play the game?
Wizards cast area effect spells, clerics cast healing spells. Fighters stand in front, and the monsters focus on them. Rogues get a sneak attack where they can.
The problem is when casters start using other spells that stop the enemies in their tracks. To the point that the fighters are just putting them out of their misery. And wondering why they are needed anymore. While wizards get to create demiplanes, fighters get a bonus to damage. Decided difference.
I'm not founding a cult, belief isn't really important to me. What I would like others to do, is to try it, not believe. It is deadly and awesome, and you don't sit round with a move left over, twiddling your thumbs (once you get to two standards as part of a full round). Hasten me up baby, we are going in. :)
No thanks, the game has enough 'win initiative or die' coded into its rules as it is.
I agree symbol of death, symbol of pain, some nice hold monster or dominate are really strong spells, and consequentially, are very high level. How many of those can be thrown around in a single day? How many encounters can be made easier with some sods or sos? The answer is not very many. 2-4of the best, if the party is even at that level. Dungeons and quests should not be just a few fights. Players in the games I'm familiar with get up to 6 and 7th level spells for sure towards the end, but 8 and 9? We don't play campaigns for that long, before moving on. If someone want's to just use their high level spells until they are out of them, they can, but it isn't always tactically smart. Most of the pathfinder products aren't pitched at that level either. You get around 14 in the latter books, maybe just into 15, not 17-20 for half the campaign.
There is also the matter of balancing opponents to the players. So once they start getting into the levels of having sods, and such effects, bosses will also have them if they are spellcasters. There is a balance; and I am not so sure the higher levels are the most exciting levels when sos, sods are used by player or enemies, hence why I like the mid-levels and multiple spell options open to spellcasters.
Now there is some talk of optimisation, and certain feats or spells should be taken. Spellcasters should pack a punch, but I've mentioned illusions, I've mentioned fatigue and tactics that can counter spellcasters and make them less of the most powerful players by default. They are not gods, they are very very mortal (unless they are liches lol). We've thrown in the option of more spells, and the spellcasters have a good time, but fights should be a challenge and I have never had trouble challenging the players even when they have two spells. Good spell selections should be taken. All dms should also work against the 15 minute day. If they are in hostile territory, trying to rest the rest of the day just might not be feasible. Consider it realism of a sorts.
Then the spellcaster might complain, running out of spells, no high levels left (suddenly the great attack spells they spent earlier on a minor foe mean nothing, because they can't get them again till tomorrow), but that is what heroics are about, pushing through when your back is to the wall.
If they climb up into extradimensional spaces to be nice and safe and cosy this smart option shouldn't always be without complications. It works for them, but what do npcs in the party think about sleeping in a magic area entirely at the mercy of some arrogant mage? What about the party barbarian, do they just go along with this risking becoming soft? We can game too much and role-play too little, and magic is not always the master of all. if the wizard says to the barb, ha! Stay down there then, and the barb gets killed without the wizard support. Then the wizard has abandoned mutual protection. They may come down, spell list refreshed, and an important part of the party is gone. Who will now protect them while they cast?
In regards to the suggestion I may run normal parties, of the Gygaxian style, the answer is perhaps, but the melee sometimes are quite mobile and less tanks. We don't always go for clerics or a cleric in the party, end up usually having more melee or roguish melee with a good grasp of tactics and smart use of feats. Is there some fundamental thing you players do differently to this? Much more wizards and clerics?
Trio,
All your monsters had true seeing? I can understand your wish to counter a flying invisible player. There are many monsters that can be good to pose a challenge, even the humble flail snail can reflect spells shot at it all over the place. The party warlock in a game I was running once shot a flail snail and set the angry drunken master monk on fire. They had already been having a dispute over the warlocks cowardice, it almost went to another combat. Also if someone uses fly all the time inside a dungeon, they can quite effectively fly off and get themselves ambushed by something that reaches out to grab them. Chokers, oozes, spiders. I've seen a wiz move around a lot and draw a lot of attention of incorporeal opponents too. Good luck with those types!
Against an optimized Wizard of Level 15+ an average mob of the same CR needs a 16+ to pass a weak save (either will or fort as the casters choice) - twice with persistant (or 4 to 6 times against a BBEG "endboss" style which will be hit by two or even three spells).
That is why casters would rule the game. You add in bouncing spell, barring extraordinary bad luck someone is failing a save.
A "Metamagic, bouncing, greater" rod is only 24,500. My high level caster gets to cast 4 spells(assuming one spell per full BAB), and force 12 saves. The BBEG or the party is dead. You better win initiative(play a diviner).
"Bouncing"? Bouncing is not in my game or any games I've played in. I've never even heard of it as a metamagic feat, what is its source?
Checked, it is not in players 3.5, path beta or core as a metamagic feat. Sounds like it multiplies the saves by 3 (4 spells becomes 12 saves). And you guys let this into your games?
Persistent also isn't in the above sources.
See this is one of the great problems. By not allowing multiple spells per round, by not allowing more tactics and action, people reach for rods or very questionable feats to try and get more power, to be more effective as spellcasters. Allow multiple spells as a full-round at mid levels, when a spellcaster should be able to do more, and you can keep right away from these overpowered items and game-breaking feats.
I tell you spellcasters, they don't rule the game. Monks at times laugh at the saves they force, ninjas just go invisible and cut their throats (if they are particularly savvy they hold till they start casting, then go invisible). Rogues can out-smart them, poisoning them, sneak attacking, melee go to grapple or hold attacks for when they start casting. If its long range, the ranger will try to take them out or the party will lay an ambush or be smart. They can have two spells, doesn't make them immediate winners.
Bouncing rods, wow wraith, not very impressed. There is a game outside such feats and items you know? Greater rods are entirely off the table for the most common levels played; and I'm not sure that price is close to being right to force more saves for any spell cast with it.
|
|
See this is one of the great problems. By not allowing multiple spells per round, by not allowing more tactics and action, people reach for rods or very questionable feats to try and get more power, to be more effective as spellcasters. Allow multiple spells as a full-round at mid levels, when a spellcaster should be able to do more, and you can keep right away from these overpowered items and game-breaking feats.
By letting them break the game with multiple spells a round. Trading one broken situation for another.
I won't argue monks and rogues with you, but in my games they are not at all as effective as in yours.
It hasn't broken yet. It applies to all spellcasters equally. The players have about the same spell potential as the enemy. It doesn't lead to the situation where one side has the bouncing and persistence rods, and one side doesn't. If both sides did have the same rods and feats, I would have to ask shaking the verisimilitude, where did all those rods come from? If it is the amongst the most powerful spellcasting feats, it would make sense for everyone to go for it, which makes the game sadly more boring as spellcasters standardise around it (I have a persistence and bouncy bounce rod, what do you have? I have one too! And me!).
I am guessing these rods and the bounce feat are from the newish pathfinder magic book? Not all that is new is not wrought in my experience.
Trio, have you ever played with or as a 3.5 ninja? They are a sweet class, especially with some of their ki feats. Bit of an anti spellcaster class.
"Bouncing"? Bouncing is not in my game or any games I've played in. I've never even heard of it as a metamagic feat, what is its source?
Checked, it is not in players 3.5, path beta or core as a metamagic feat. Sounds like it multiplies the saves by 3 (4 spells becomes 12 saves). And you guys let this into your games?
Persistent also isn't in the above sources.
See this is one of the great problems. By not allowing multiple spells per round, by not allowing more tactics and action, people reach for rods or very questionable feats to try and get more power, to be more effective as spellcasters. Allow multiple spells as a full-round at mid levels, when a spellcaster should be able to do more, and you can keep right away from these overpowered items and game-breaking feats.
I tell you spellcasters, they don't rule the game. Monks at times laugh at the saves they force, ninjas just go invisible and cut their throats (if they are particularly savvy they hold till they start casting, then go invisible). Rogues can out-smart them, poisoning them, sneak attacking, melee go to grapple or hold attacks for when they start casting. If its long range, the ranger will try to take them out or the party will lay an ambush or be smart. They can have two spells, doesn't make them immediate winners.
Bouncing rods, wow wraith, not very impressed. There is a game outside such feats and items you know? Greater rods are entirely off the table for the most common levels played; and I'm not sure that price is close to being right to force more saves for any spell cast with it.
Bouncing is in the APG(pathfinder book), and it is because of your rules that I can abuse it. Otherwise it would not have been appealing enough for me to check to see if the rod even existed.
Your group just needs help playing casters. Anyone can kill a caster(sorc,wizard) if they can get to them. The problem is getting to them. Even when you get to them you have to hit them, and before all that you have to find them.You need to read a few fighter vs caster threads, and there are a lot, and tell us how you plan to handle those issues, and that is before a caster can get more than one spell off a round.
As for your immediate winners comment there is a chance that the opponent rolls really high on all 4 or more saves, but it is not likely. You can't really depend on a corner case to prove your point. You only need to fail one save to get jacked up without using quicken metamagic.
It hasn't broken yet. It applies to all spellcasters equally. The players have about the same spell potential as the enemy. It doesn't lead to the situation where one side has the bouncing and persistence rods, and one side doesn't. If both sides did have the same rods and feats, I would have to ask shaking the verisimilitude, where did all those rods come from? If it is the amongst the most powerful spellcasting feats, it would make sense for everyone to go for it, which makes the game sadly more boring as spellcasters standardise around it (I have a persistence and bouncy bounce rod, what do you have? I have one too! And me!).
I am guessing these rods and the bounce feat are from the newish pathfinder magic book? Not all that is new is not wrought in my experience.
Trio, have you ever played with or as a 3.5 ninja? They are a sweet class, especially with some of their ki feats. Bit of an anti spellcaster class.
Just because something is the best option that does not mean everyone will have it. If that were the case all classes would have the same builds.
The 3.5 ninja sucked. It was decent at low levels because it could go invisible, but that was about it.
It is not more an anti spellcaster class than any other class. Actually it is less so. It has one trick, turning invisible which any caster can handle by 3rd level, and at higher level monster have ways to bypass invis.
...By not allowing multiple spells per round, by not allowing more tactics and action, people reach for rods or very questionable feats to try and get more power, to be more effective as spellcasters...
Eh no, exactly that is not the case.
As everyone has demonstrated Spellcasters are incredibly useful even in mid levels with only one spell per round and maybe one quickened spell 3 times per day.
"Tactics" never enter into it because there are no tactics needed if I can jug 3 Flesh to Stone against the BBEG caster with weak fort save before he can even act.
Tactics are needed if I have to weight wether I want this spell this round or another and wether I want to use my rod now or save it - your rules actually hurt "tactics".
Go and re-read your posts! You cite countless things that you do to "nerf" casters who use their magic. Cheesy spells and monsters, strange houserules (Ninja vanishing as a delayed action to waste a spell, wtf) - it's no wonder the casters in your game need their 3 fireballs per round to be on par with the archer, because if they use anything else some scary monster will come to eat their magic or some Goblin with a Wand of Gyroscopic Lolwhut will cause them 15d12 damage with no save and no SR!
As a matter of fact, I did get to run a ninja in Red Hand of Doom. A shame we never completed that game...Wasn't 3.5 Ninja a Rogue with crippled sneak attack?
Yeah. It was called Sudden Strike, but IIRC it only worked when the opponent was denied dex.
...By not allowing multiple spells per round, by not allowing more tactics and action, people reach for rods or very questionable feats to try and get more power, to be more effective as spellcasters...Eh no, exactly that is not the case.
As everyone has demonstrated Spellcasters are incredibly useful even in mid levels with only one spell per round and maybe one quickened spell 3 times per day.
"Tactics" never enter into it because there are no tactics needed if I can jug 3 Flesh to Stone against the BBEG caster with weak fort save before he can even act.
Tactics are needed if I have to weight wether I want this spell this round or another and wether I want to use my rod now or save it - your rules actually hurt "tactics".
Go and re-read your posts! You cite countless things that you do to "nerf" casters who use their magic. Cheesy spells and monsters, strange houserules (Ninja vanishing as a delayed action to waste a spell, wtf) - it's no wonder the casters in your game need their 3 fireballs per round to be on par with the archer, because if they use anything else some scary monster will come to eat their magic or some Goblin with a Wand of Gyroscopic Lolwhut will cause them 15d12 damage with no save and no SR!
I missed his houserules. With that being said I will say that if he does not use his houserules to stop casters then the multispell casters will destroy his game with most of the board members playing one.
Ah I see it is being underestimated again! I leap to its defence.
Yes, invisible, as a swift, which means you can pair it with a charge and a sneak attack on the end of that. Ninjas don't really go well with dodge because of their swifts.
It's a swift so if you have the initiative, you can hold it and take off, frustrating spellcasters or those about to come over and attack you.
6 skills a level and a nice list. Can make quite the skilled character, especially if you are using the beta, core or a condensed skill list.
They also get trapfinding at level 1, get a sneak attack variant called sudden strike (slightly weaker due to required flat-footed, but not weaker on damage and certainly not crippled, but much of the debate has considered it as such because flank isn't enough). Poison use, imp poison use, acrobatics bonus, ki dodge, speed climb, can strike incorporeal at 8th, and at tenth can go ethereal and strike out of it (so much for only being able to go invisible).
So they can be quite fine just at that, but I've found they are best when paired with some ki feats. There is some of that in adventurer and handbook 2, but also if you delve into some of the sources on oriental characters. I took some feats to beef the amount of ki my ninja could have, and then spread out the types of things he could use it to do. Ki strike, small temporary illusions, elongating out how long he could go invisible or ethereal. It is quite a fun attack class. It isn't a supporter, it isn't a spellcaster, it isn't a melee precisely, it's a jobber, and I like jobbers. Not one trick ponies, but easy for spellcaster players to dismiss or melee players to ignore how damn stealthy and sneaky they can be. A ninja with a good bluff, a good stealth and some skills to escape, can potentially kill anyone and get out. NINJAAAA FANBOY! ;P
Yes Micman, and after you made the horrible choice of throwing three of your nice flesh to stones at one target, how many do you have left for other opponents? Throwing the best you have immediately risks a lot. Better to mix it up.
That is a combination that does work (more should take blingfight). The rogue can be the counter to the ninja. Blindfight can be a bit rare (at least in the games I've seen) because it is a bit of a defensive feat.
Course, will you run out of hp, before they run out of ki? You can blind fight it up, but if they are on the ethereal attacking out of it...
Getting them decent choppers like the falchion, or reach weapons can also be quite tricky and help if you are forced to hack it out. Sudden striking, getting some attacks of opportunity with reach, sudden striking and stealthing to a different square. All good tactics.
...and after you made the horrible choice of throwing three of your nice flesh to stones at one target, how many do you have left for other opponents? Throwing the best you have...
Depends entirely. Apart from the infamous 15 minute workdays killing a BBEG, the literal endboss, with three spells in one round strikes me as very "good". But also could I throw them at three different targets if the need presents itself. But also I could save my high level spells if no target is worthy - I could throw three Black tentacles or even three grease - the world is my oyster as I am a caster with 3-4 spells per round.
Sooo, if you give casters n spells per round you imply that they should use them or not? But now you say doing so is "a horrible choice"?
Ah I see it is being underestimated again! I leap to its defence.
Yes, invisible, as a swift, which means you can pair it with a charge and a sneak attack on the end of that. Ninjas don't really go well with dodge because of their swifts.
You don't attack at the end of a charge. You attack as part of a charge.<--Ingore that comment
I misunderstood you, but how I will get back to this in my next post.
It's a swift so if you have the initiative, you can hold it and take off, frustrating spellcasters or those about to come over and attack you.
Readied actions have to specifically worded as in "when person X takes action Y". If you mean hold an action then you are in trouble because a held action does not allow you interupt someone else's turn. You just choose to take your on a different initiative.
6 skills a level and a nice list. Can make quite the skilled character, especially if you are using the beta, core or a condensed skill list.
No more dangerous than a rogue who gets 8 skills and not a lot of respect on these boards
They also get trapfinding at level 1, get a sneak attack variant called sudden strike (slightly weaker due to required flat-footed, but not weaker on damage and certainly not crippled, but much of the debate has considered it as such because flank isn't enough). Poison use, imp poison use, acrobatics bonus, ki dodge, speed climb, can strike incorporeal at 8th, and at tenth can go ethereal and strike out of it (so much for only being able to go invisible).
Traps don't get respect either. If Sudden Strike requires for someone to be flat-footed instead of only denied dex then you might as well throw the baby out with the bath water. It is difficult to make someone flat-footed past the initiative roll. Poison use is trivial. Most of a ninja's higher level opponents have high fort saves if not blanket immunity to it, and poison is expensive. It is not worth buying. Ki dodge will still not get you the AC needed to be on the front line, but then again if you are only getting SS damage on that first attack you will probably be saved for last anyway.
See InvisibilitySchool divination; Level bard 3, sorcerer/wizard 2
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (talc and powdered silver)
Range personal
Target you
Duration 10 min./level (D)
You can see any objects or beings that are invisible within your range of vision,as well as any that are ethereal, as if they were normally visible. Such creatures are visible to you as translucent shapes, allowing you easily to discern the difference between visible, invisible, and ethereal creatures.
I know about the ethereal thing. I just figured it was a nonfactor since it is also defeated by a second level spell and true seeing.
So they can be quite fine just at that, but I've found they are best when paired some ki feats. There is some of that in adventurer and handbook 2, but also if you delve into some of the sources on oriental characters. I took some feats to beef the amount of ki my ninja could have, and then spread out the types of things he could use it to do. Ki strike, small temporary illusions, elongating out how long he could go invisible or ethereal. It is quite a fun attack class. It isn't a supporter, it isn't a spellcaster, it isn't a melee precisely, it's a jobber, and I like jobbers. Not one trick ponies, but easy for spellcaster players to dismiss or melee players to ignore how damn stealthy and sneaky they can be. A ninja with a good bluff, a good stealth and some skills to escape, can potentially kill anyone and get out. NINJAAAA FANBOY! ;P
Are you using dumpster diving as a defense? Dumpster diving is looking through every book in exsistance to make a build work. In that case it is the power of splat, not the class that is being shown. I saw someone build a level 10 commoner with dumpster diving and it took out CR 10 monsters.
Anything can "potentially" happen depending on the GM.Yes Micman, and after you made the horrible choice of throwing three of your nice flesh to stones at one target, how many do you have left for other opponents? Throwing the best you have immediately risks a lot. Better to mix it up.
Who said all three were being thrown at one target? With persistent spell and the bouncing rod I cast the spell once, and if the first opponent makes both saves it then moves to a 2nd opponent and he has to make two saves. If by some miracles that happens the spell is cast again if needed. 8 saves have just been forced. Do you really want to try your luck and hope each person can make 4 saves? Normally I am more tactical, but with my action economy having been increased I don't have to be as smart. The highest level spell won't even be needed, since the number saves is almost guaranteed to force a fail. Either the party is taken out, or the BBEG is taken out rather anticlimactically if the party caster is the spammer.
As to the issue of charging if you charge a brute type monster he will probably kill you with one full round of attacks after your invis ends. If it is a caster you have to get drop on him, and hope there are no obstructions or you can't charge.
|
|
That is a combination that does work (more should take blingfight). The rogue can be the counter to the ninja. Blindfight can be a bit rare (at least in the games I've seen) because it is a bit of a defensive feat.
Course, will you run out of hp, before they run out of ki? You can blind fight it up, but if they are on the ethereal attacking out of it...
Getting them decent choppers like the falchion, or reach weapons can also be quite tricky and help if you are forced to hack it out. Sudden striking, getting some attacks of opportunity with reach, sudden striking and stealthing to a different square. All good tactics.
I'm immune to your Sudden Strike, and you're burning a ki point a round to hide from me. If you burned 2 ki points to go ethereal, you're burning a ki point a round as a move action which means you get 1 attack a round on a standard. (No multiple standards in the core rules, remember?)
Yes, you will run out of ki before I run out of HP.
"Apart from the infamous 15 minute workdays killing a BBEG, the literal endboss, with three spells in one round strikes me as very "good". But also could I throw them at three different targets if the need presents itself.
Sooo, if you give casters n spells per round you imply that they should use them or not? But now you say doing so is "a horrible choice"?"
Blowing all your best at one target, even a boss, can yes, be a very bad idea. Is the boss real? Is it the real boss? Is it the last thing you will fight in the day.
Ont he 15 minute day I did ask before and I will ask again. It is spells per day, it isn't spells per rest period. A sorcerer has so much within them every day, a wizard can only memorise one lot of his spells and a cleric can't call on their deity for an additional allotment because the best were gone in a few rounds. Or is this different to how you guys run it/what you have seen?
"It is difficult to make someone flat-footed past the initiative roll."
Except you know, they can go invisible or jump into the ethereal and attack out, which also causes flat footed, or use their stealth to... ninja... up to someone and start a carvery.
What is the concern with respect? If players don't respect traps they haven't been killed by one. Goes same for the rogue.
Ethereal is defeated by true seeing, if you have it on, when they ambush you/break in the window. See invisible really helps, but if a ninja remains hidden and closes in, how will they know a ninja is there? Once the combat and suddens start, it is a standard gone to get a look at the opponent.
Please don't use such derogatory terms as dumpster diving. There is a lot of nice feats out there, trying a lot of different ideas and tactics, broadening what is possible in dnd. As a dm I check each one used, as a player I check it is okay. I wrote of the merits of the ninja and said they are improved by better weapons or a certain feat tree.
Persistent spells and bouncing rods are irrelevant since we are discussing games without those things. In all my experiences they have never come up. I do not think they are balanced at all. Rods are rare and bouncers and persistent rods don't exist in the games of the full round spellcasting. If you want to force another save, cast another spell, you can't just add two additional saves to one spell, that would be reckless wrought.
Blindfight or uncanny dodge while good, don't protect one from poison. Every ninja worth their onigiri should get into poisons.
That is a combination that does work (more should take blingfight).
[tangent]This "Blingfight" you mention intriques me. Tell me more.[/tangent]
Load up on the bling! Wade in to victory!
Ha ha ha.
One last thing, if people really don't like the rogue much, and don't take them, then they won't have uncanny dodge to protect them from the ninja sudden strike, unless they are barbarians (damn I like the beta barb). Which is also a non spellcaster class (obviously).
It is like saying, that class is awful, and easily countered. But we all don't like to take the counter...
|
|
Ont he 15 minute day I did ask before and I will ask again. It is spells per day, it isn't spells per rest period. A sorcerer has so much within them every day, a wizard can only memorise one lot of his spells and a cleric can't call on their deity for an additional allotment because the best were gone in a few rounds. Or is this different to how you guys run it/what you have seen?
To prepare her daily spells, a wizard must first sleep for 8 hours. The wizard does not have to slumber for every minute of the time, but she must refrain from movement, combat, spellcasting, skill use, conversation, or any other fairly demanding physical or mental task during the rest period. If her rest is interrupted, each interruption adds 1 hour to the total amount of time she has to rest in order to clear her mind, and she must have at least 1 hour of uninterrupted rest immediately prior to preparing her spells. If the character does not need to sleep for some reason, she still must have 8 hours of restful calm before preparing any spells.
If a wizard has cast spells recently, the drain on her resources reduces her capacity to prepare new spells. When she prepares spells for the coming day, all the spells she has cast within the last 8 hours count against her daily limit.
Note the fact that only spells cast within the last 8 hours count against the spells you prepare. So if you cast your Rope Trick, and rest for 9 hours, you get all your spells back.
Blowing all your best at one target, even a boss, can yes, be a very bad idea. Is the boss real? Is it the real boss? Is it the last thing you will fight in the day.
Who said anything about all your spells? Two spells can force 4 saves. Most likely the boss guy is dead.
If the real boss shows up he gets the same treatment. Divination spells and gathering info can help uncover who is really in charge also.Except you know, they can go invisible or jump into the ethereal and attack out, which also causes flat footed, or use their stealth to... ninja... up to someone and start a carvery.
Being denied dex and being flat-footed are not the same thing. Being flat-footed is a condition just like being stunned is. Flat-footness cause you to lose dex. Losing dex does not cause you to become flat-footed. As an example if I poke your eyes out you are blind, but just because you are blind that does not mean someone poked your eyes out.
What is the concern with respect? If players don't respect traps they haven't been killed by one. Goes same for the rogue.
Most traps are not that dangerous if you go by the core rule guidelines, nor are they hard to bypass even without trapfinding. The rogue's issue is that other than trapfinding many people feel they are not needed in a party, and since most traps are not that dangerous and/or can be handled without a rogue, then why play one. I like rogues, but I have seen some good arguments as to why they are not used by many people.
Ethereal is defeated by true seeing, if you have it on, when they ambush you/break in the window. See invisible really helps, but if a ninja remains hidden and closes in, how will they know a ninja is there? Once the combat and suddens start, it is a standard gone to get a look at the opponent.
Most boss fights have a door or room with one entry. When that door opens you know something is up. If some group is messing up your plans then why would not gather info and use spells to find out things about them. If there is a party of 4, and you only see 3 something is up. GM's having minions smart enough to run away is also an option. They report the party tactics to whoever is in charge. In short by the time you get there at least some of your abilties will be known, and since that is all the ninja can do, for the most part, it won't be hard to know which defense to use. Another thing I like to do is use the alarm spell. The party caster would need to have a lot of dispel magics, roll high, and guess which auras are not decoys. Before the party even enters the room the bad guy will be buffed.
Please don't use such derogatory terms as dumpster diving. There is a lot of nice feats out there, trying a lot of different ideas and tactics, broadening what is possible in dnd. As a dm I check each one used, as a player I check it is okay. I wrote of the merits of the ninja and said they are improved by better weapons or a certain feat tree.
OK. I won't use the term, but when I see a build with feats from 5 different books it does not really make me believe the class is powerful especially after the commoner was beating up some monsters due to a splat books.
Persistent spells and bouncing rods are irrelevant since we are discussing games without those things. In all my experiences they have never come up. I do not think they are balanced at all. Rods are rare and bouncers and persistent rods don't exist in the games of the full round spellcasting. If you want to force another save, cast another spell, you can't just add two additional saves to one spell, that would be reckless wrought.
Actually they are not irrelevant if you are playing Pathfinder since they are available for use. Even going back to 3.5 there was chain spell(complete Arcane). That is also a rod. Hit every party member with the spell twice. Most likely someone will fail. By the end of round 2 you will have forced four saves. Most likely we now have a TPK. If the caster is in the party then the the quicken spell feat(rod) also allows for a caster to force several saves. Once gain the BBEG goes down.
Blowing all your best at one target, even a boss, can yes, be a very bad idea. Is the boss real? Is it the real boss? Is it the last thing you will fight in the day.
I have true seeing, I know if it is for real. Chances are it doesn't even make it's first save, so no need for three spells (indeed, this is what this discussion is all about).
Don't act like you leave your party in a haze 24/7, if they enter the cave and see the enormous red dragon and all spellcasters confirm that it is not an illusion (via a very simple long lasting spell), say, do you regularily laugh out as one caster wastes this dragon in round 1 and say "HA, this was only an insignificant minion!"
Sounds incredibly cheesy, if you ask me!
But fine, if you are hell bent then how about this: I throw out a persistant Flesh to Stone (not even my highest level spell at 15th Level), a Stinking Cloud for some minions, folowed by a quickened grease and finally a bouncing Hold Person. I have now used four spells of which not one is even at my highest levelthat are likely to take out a large amount of the opposition all the while the Barbarian is on the way towards his first target - balanced?