I see your point. But remember, if you don't have to invest 4~6 feats just to make your chosen fighting style to remain relevant, you can use your feats for different stuff. Ona related not, I removed the Combat Expertise and Int 13 prerequisites from all combat maneuver feats. So A Paladin could learn to disarm/trip enemies just fine, but a Fighter will be able to do that plus grapple, steal, sunder, bullrush, etc...The paladin doesn't disarm/trip until level 3. The fighter doesn't disarm/trip/grapple/steal/sunder/bullrush until level 6.
My way you can use a variety of combat maneuvers earlier. You specialize to get the power stuff. This has the advantage of freeing up low level feats for non-chain stuff, and letting you do a bit of everything cheap (because in the maneuvers example you can do all improved maneuvers with 3 feats, all greater maneuvers with maybe another 4, but the top tier stuff like rapid grappler and bull rush strike you basically have to specialize.
I think starting with broad feats and specializing into narrower just gives more organic character growth. You try a bunch of stuff and then decide how to focus your training.
I reread you post, and I think you're right. What would you think if I ruled that "Combat Expertise" (without the Int prerequisite) is the equivalent of having all the Improved [Combat Maneuver] feats (i.e.: you don't provoke AoO with nay of them anymore), but still keep the Greater version for characters who decide to specilize more?
|
It is explicitly stated that the only things that automatically fail on a natural 1 in Pathfinder are attack rolls and saving throws.
Are caster level checks to overcome spell resistance attack rolls? If so, they can be buffed by generic buffs to attack rolls.
Are caster level checks to overcome spell resistance not attack rolls? If so, they don't automatically fail on a 1.
Take your pick, or explain on what basis you are only sometimes kind of treating them as attack rolls.
Now who's being willfully obtuse?
The closest approximation, per the rules is that a SR check is "like an attack roll". There are no buffs because the the ranges and modifiers are adjusted by other factors in this sub-system. But it doesn't say "it's like a skill check" in which you may have a valid point.
I don't generally agree with ciretose because he's a PF defender (irrationally so sometimes) in the extreme. He thinks the game works well and I don't, but I am not going to call him a liar because his very valid interpretation - based on what is written in the book - is 100% accurate. He's going with what they (the devs) wrote, and it would be the best DM call and interpretation on the subject - because they are referencing another mechanic, so he's following their logic.
The SR rules are summed up in a few paragraphs (not enough really) but his logic of following an "attack roll fails on any roll of a 1" is spot on, because they say the SR sub-mechanic functions like an attack roll. If they didn't want it to fail then they would have made SR loosely tied to a skill check - they didn't say that though.
If he's proven wrong by a dev I would still say that it was an excellent and sound DM call on his part, based on what he had to work with.
And just because something is like an attack role it doesn't mean a combat buff would apply. There are several buffs that apply to characters unevenly - improve to hit, but not skill checks, etc. So just because a bonus type isn't assigned to it doesn't take away the important phrase "The defenders spell resistance is like an Armor Class against magical attacks. Include any adjustments to your caster level to this caster check."
When it references AC as part of the mechanic, logic would have us follow all the rules associated with AC. They just don't apply the standard buffs to it because this sub-mechanic/contest is balanced by other factors (CL, creature HD, etc).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My brother always play fighters or barbarians; he kills everything and i play wizards as support and battlefield control. One day we met a big stupid monster that kill him and I killed the monster with a debuff and a unique spell. He sucked a lot and stressed me about the unbalance between martial characters and casters.. I asked him to create a wizard and try it. He comes back to is barbarian in less then an adventure :)
So, basically, your point is that Wizards are better than Barbarians, but you like it that way because they're hard to play so you get to feel superior to your dumb brother who can't/doesn't want to play Wizards?
I always thought it was a myth that people who claim casters are no stronger than martials were actually lifelong caster players who didn't want their dirty power-secret to come out. But, yeah, wow, you just flat out said that's what was going on, and amazingly, you claimed it was an argument for why the Wizard wasn't stronger! Really?
"I easily killed a monster the Barbarian couldn't because I was a Wizard. But it's ok--Wizards aren't more powerful because it's a lot of work to be better than people."
Really?
I cannot believe people cannot tell the difference between a caster level check and an attack roll. Regardless of whether SR is LIKE armor a caster level check is not LIKE an attack roll. Furthermore...learn to simile. Seriously, this is not a even a question. It's plain English. There is a comparison being made for understanding. That's it.
That said...and I cannot believe this still matters at all...HE CAN'T FAIL. Let me go ahead and make it super duper clear why I have been very adamant that this is a non-issue that we shouldn't even be talking about. You see this player is a wizard who can craft magical items. And he decided he at one point in his career to INVENT one. You know what it does? He doesn't automatically fail on a natural 20 regardless of what type of roll it is.
So I have a player who cannot fail both because it is impossible to do so as it is a caster level check. And because he has a magical item that prevents it REGARDLESS.
Can we move on now please?
WPharolin, so your GM allowed the creation of a magic item that removed automatic failure on any d20 roll of a "1"? And you think that's a valid reason to say that it is pointless to discuss possible automatic spell failure?
Does it occur to you that perhaps other GMs might not have allowed the creation of such an item in the first place?
I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have.
|
|
I cannot believe people cannot tell the difference between a caster level check and an attack roll. Regardless of whether SR is LIKE armor a caster level check is not LIKE an attack roll. Furthermore...learn to simile. Seriously, this is not a even a question. It's plain English. There is a comparison being made for understanding. That's it.
That said...and I cannot believe this still matters at all...HE CAN'T FAIL. Let me go ahead and make it super duper clear why I have been very adamant that this is a non-issue that we shouldn't even be talking about. You see this player is a wizard who can craft magical items. And he decided he at one point in his career to INVENT one. You know what it does? He doesn't automatically fail on a natural 20 regardless of what type of roll it is.
So I have a player who cannot fail both because it is impossible to do so as it is a caster level check. And because he has a magical item that prevents it REGARDLESS.
Can we move on now please?
Thank you for illustrating what ciretose and so many others have been trying to say about handwaving.
At least you are being honest but you just lost the thread and crux of your whole argument (by your own example). Your DM should probably re-evaluate why he allowed such a broken, metagame balance breaking item in his game.
You had some good points regarding martial vs caster areas of influence – but this flagrant disregard for the rules and in-game balance indicates that this issue isn’t localized to one item, but how you and your gaming group approach magic, balance and the metagame.
WPharolin, so your GM allowed the creation of a magic item that removed automatic failure on any d20 roll of a "1"? And you think that's a valid reason to say that it is pointless to discuss possible automatic spell failure?
Does it occur to you that perhaps other GMs might not have allowed the creation of such an item in the first place?
I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have.
No. You need to read the thread before you post. I am the DM and I allowed a magic item that removed automatic failure on any d20 roll of a "1" and irregardless of the rules for SR or how dominate monster works it has absolutely no bearing on the discussion because the discussion was never about automatic spell failure because automatic spell failure would not change ANYTHING. It seriously wouldn't. Not one point I have made would be countered or addressed in any way shape or form. Ciretose interjected into a discussion and used my treatment of dominate monster(a treatment which he honestly had no knowledge of what-so ever) as a point as a counter to a not even tangentially related point. And as long as people continue to fish for flaws my campaign rather than address the issue they pretty much concede that point. Especially since that the point stands solidly with or without that flaw.
OK, so YOU decided to allow an item that is a blatant meta-gaming artifact which removes one of the core balancing aspects of the game, which is that EVERYONE can miss sometimes.
Cool. Got it.
You had some good points regarding martial vs caster areas of influence – but this flagrant disregard for the rules and in-game balance indicates that this issue isn’t localized to one item, but how you and your gaming group approach magic, balance and the metagame.
Guh...no offense but an item that prevents you from failing on a natural 1 is less impressive than re-rolls. Hero points do more to break the game. Attack rolls and saves are literally the only two things this effects. You didn't prove anything other than you are impressed by very weak magical items.
Don't forget concentration checks, or do those not fail either.
Yes, they also do not fail.
There are two things in the system, and only two that automatically fail on a 1 (and automatically succeed on a 20): attack rolls and saves.
If you come across a d20 roll and need to know whether it auto-fails on a 1, there are two questions you need to answer:
Is it an attack roll? Is it a save?
If it is neither of those things, a 1 is not an automatic failure.
So basically what some of you are saying is that a caster at certain levels will auto pass SR.
Yes, they probably will, just as they automatically pass concentration checks at a certain point.
|
|
Guh...no offense but an item that prevents you from failing on a natural 1 is less impressive than re-rolls. Hero points do more to break the game. Attack rolls and saves are literally the only two things this effects. You didn't prove anything other than you are impressed by very weak magical items.
You had some good points regarding martial vs caster areas of influence – but this flagrant disregard for the rules and in-game balance indicates that this issue isn’t localized to one item, but how you and your gaming group approach magic, balance and the metagame.
Weak defense
Failing on a natural 1 is a catch-all that is included in some game mechanics to indicate that along a line of probability a certain type of action will eventually fail. You disregarded that as minor thing, which goes to show how much understanding you have of balance and metagame controls against some types of actions (in this case casting spells over SR). It has nothing to do with the specific spell or even spellcasting, but the mechanic and why it exists.
I also find it interesting that someone with a Denner/caster superiority mentality is arguing on how great casters are and that the game is broken and you just added to the pile of crap which is the problem.
|
Guh...no offense but an item that prevents you from failing on a natural 1 is less impressive than re-rolls. Hero points do more to break the game. Attack rolls and saves are literally the only two things this effects. You didn't prove anything other than you are impressed by very weak magical items.
You had some good points regarding martial vs caster areas of influence – but this flagrant disregard for the rules and in-game balance indicates that this issue isn’t localized to one item, but how you and your gaming group approach magic, balance and the metagame.
Weak defense
Failing on a natural 1 is a catch-all that is included in some game mechanics to indicate that along a line of probability a certain type of action will eventually fail. You disregarded that as minor thing, which goes to show how much understanding you have of balance and metagame controls against some types of actions (in this case casting spells over SR). It has nothing to do with the specific spell or even spellcasting, but the mechanic and why it exists.
I also find it interesting that someone with a Denner/caster superiority mentality is arguing on how great casters are and that the game is broken and you just added to the pile of crap which is the problem.
Mathematically speaking, the auto-fail rules have, at most, a 5% reduction in the effectiveness of a character (for those that would succeed on a 1 otherwise, which isn't often). Removal of auto-fail does little unless the character is facing things that are far below their power level, like a high level fighter attacking a base kobold, in which case it is at most a (5/95)% improvement (~5.3), but against the foe that improvement is least likely to be needed against. Even a +2 bonus is nearly twice as effective as this, while a +1 is approximately the same.
Fluff-wise, I've always hated that a 1st level peasant has a 5% chance to hit a 20th level monk who's in full defense, while that monk has a 5% chance to miss when attacking the peasant. Once the power-gap gets big enough that 20 isn't a hit or 1 isn't a miss I feel that they should just deal with it.
Weak defenseFailing on a natural 1 is a catch-all that is included in some game mechanics to indicate that along a line of probability a certain type of action will eventually fail. You disregarded that as minor thing, which goes to show how much understanding you have of balance and metagame controls against some types of actions (in this case casting spells over SR). It has nothing to do with the specific spell or even spellcasting, but the mechanic and why it exists.
I also find it interesting that someone with a Denner/caster superiority mentality is arguing on how great casters are and that the game is broken and you just added to the pile of crap which is the problem.
Okay. You have yet to address any argument I've ever made. You don't get to just tell me things are awesome and overpowered because you say so rather than looking at what the mechanical effects, how often it comes into play, what it actually accomplishes, and how it compares to other abilities. If you are going to continue to grasp at straws than rather than address actual points that have been made (I find it amusing that you don't even seem to know what they are), than you concede defeat. I'm not going to argue with you about a minor magical item that has literally never came into play and that the player wishes he never made. It has nothing to do with grunts (a stand in for all martial characters) NOT being able to participate meaningfully in non-combat aspects of D&D at high level. Now...for the last time, you can either concede defeat by fishing for mistakes that do not exist in my home game, or you can present an actual counter argument. And that means read.
|
|
I'll put it in simple terms - manipulate your save numbers so that their high enough, and with your little toy - you never fail a save. Even though the auto-fail on a 1 mechanic is design agains this manipulation.
That "1" fail is there just for that purpose, it gets around the high numbers "I can never fail a save!" argument. You eliminated that as a feature -and I know why you did that.
If you can't see that as a problem, then you should probably concede defeat, because from a game design or DM angle, you failed.
|
|
I'll put it simple terms - manipulate your save numbers so that their high enough, and with your little toy - you never fail a save. Even though the auto-fail on a 1 mechanic is design agains this manipulation.
That "1" fail is there just for that purpose, it gets around the high numbers "I can never fail a save!" argument. You eliminated that as a feature -and I know why you did that.
If you can't see that as a problem, then you should probably concede defeat, because from a game design or DM angle, you failed.
As I see, by the time you get your save bonus high enough to avoid ever failing a save, you've sacrificed enough in other areas that you deserve it. It's not like making your save means you take no effect, there are still things that will hurt you despite your save. That's what abilities like Stalwart and Evasion are for.
If you can't see that your complaint has more to do with DM style than actual balance, then I can't help you.
How did this thread go from characters with more options are more powerful and usually more fun to without a chance to fail on a 1 the whole game breaks down and any GM that allows that is doooooooooomed?
In an attempt to get back on topic, I think there are things about the game that can be improved but mostly it works fine, though not always optimally. I agree with the original poster that more options is better, and that it would be better if every class had a good amount of options to allow participation in every area of the game.
That being said diversity is good and not every class should be the same or equal in all regards. Homogeneity is not a desirable outcome, and balance to make everything the same is not the goal. Equality of options though is a good goal, meaning that every class should have a number of meaningful options that it can take though they don't have to be the same options or exactly the same in number.
Pathfinder overall does this very well with a few exceptions that are really hold overs from 1st Edition and the genesis of the game. Paizo has improved what they had to start with and I am confident they will continue to do so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think my problem with the high level is really that high level play mixes elements of low level and high level play without any regard for the difference.
For example, the following abilities are all locked behind "level 10+ glass":
Great Weapon Specialization (+2 damage with one weapon)
Penetrating Strike (Ignore 5 points of damage reduction)
Greater Rending Fury (1d6 Bleed when you rend)
Bashing Finish (Free shield bash when you crit)
Sickening Critical (Sicken on a crit)
Pin Down (Enemies provoke if they withdraw or take a 5' step away from you)
Strike Back (Ready an action to hit an enemy attacking you with reach)
Quiet Death (Assassin can kill someone without nearby people knowing it was him)
Deadly Cocktail (Lets you apply two poisons to a weapon at the same time)
Entanglement of Blades (Prevents the target from making 5' steps)
Fast Tumble (Move at full speed without penalty when avoiding AoOs with Acrobatics)
Rumormonger (You're really good at creating rumors--really?)
Teleport (Travel 1000 miles+ instantly)
Dominate Person (Control the actions of a humanoid for 10 days+)
Magic Jar (Forcefully possess enemies, including body hopping between them while you remain safely out of danger)
Baleful Polymorph (Make a save, or permanently become a useless animal)
Some of these things are not like the others...
The problem is, I want a game with mundane abilities like those I listed above (killing people quietly, tumbling fast, dealing slightly more damage than before, etc.) without also having ridiculous fantastic abilities like Teleportation and multi-week slaves. However, I think low level magic is fine and even desirable.
So, I have this dilemma. I don't want to remove spellcasters because I want some low level magic. I don't want to stop before 10th level, because then totally mundane abilities that I think are cool are still locked away. What choice do I have?
It's almost like the people who wrote the mundane abilities and the people that wrote the magic weren't working on the same game. It was like the Fighter and Rogue guys were working on a game with just Fighters and Rogues in it. I think they lost sight of the fact that 3rd edition skills were calibrated so that 5th-6th level is the peak of what humans can accomplish on Earth. So, apparently, people on Earth can't kill anyone quietly or put two poisons on a weapon. <_<
In many ways, even if wizards or other casters were limited to existing spells of level 4 and below, there would STILL be an argument that they are overpowered compared to martial classes.
Now who's being willfully obtuse?
The closest approximation, per the rules is that a SR check is "like an attack roll". There are no buffs because the the ranges and modifiers are adjusted by other factors in this sub-system. But it doesn't say "it's like a skill check" in which you may have a valid point.
But it says right on it that it is a caster level check, much like a stat check or skill check.
But all of this is beside the point.
Adamantine: I don't really see how exactly. Most of the gamebreaking stuff doesn't show up until around 7th level by my count.
Adamantine: I don't really see how exactly. Most of the gamebreaking stuff doesn't show up until around 7th level by my count.
Level 7 spells or level 7 characters?
I'm not saying that spells between level 5 and 7 necessarily break the game, but I am suggesting there are plenty of spells in that range that increase the disparity of casters from martial characters.
One of the results of the sheer devastation that casters can do with high level spells has been the creation of god-like monsters to provide them with a challenge.
I frequently feel that the game is the most fun around level 6 - 10 or so both because casters and martial classes are more or less comparable, but also because combats provide both a sense of mortal danger and a chance for success through tactical mastery. As you go to higher and higher levels it has been my experience that most battles eventually become all about whether a particular spell succeeds or not.
In many ways, even if wizards or other casters were limited to existing spells of level 4 and below, there would STILL be an argument that they are overpowered compared to martial classes.
That's fine, then we'll go with level 3 spells. The greater point was that "mundane" abilities are locked behind the same doors as world-shaking, game-changing magical ones, and I find that problematic. I know it was done to keep, say, wizards, from taking those abilities, but the way they did it caused other issues.
|
|
In many ways, even if wizards or other casters were limited to existing spells of level 4 and below, there would STILL be an argument that they are overpowered compared to martial classes.
Because they are not balanced with drawbacks.
My argument (I’ll keep it short)
Martial has to learn X, Y and Z feat to pull off an attack that targets AC. He trades in Feats to and has to be configured for such an attack and his exchange is in hit points. So he trades in: hps, feat tax, and difficulty of success or failure with every roll - having to roll to-hit.
Caster has to learn X feat to augment an effect. Oh by the way - X feat scales with all of one type of spell which makes them harder to save against/does more damage/etc (whatever the scaling metamagic feat does). He chooses his abilities every day, and trades in almost nothing. Being a non-combatant he will only trade in minimal damage if the group is operating properly. He doesn't really need any of these feats because in the end he can still generate the effect.
He doesn’t really trade in Hps, and he doesn’t trade in: Fatigue levels, feat tax, personal risk, hps, material cost or investment, difficulty of success or failure (action doesn’t work because he rolled to low). All he uses are his slots which generate effects, some of which can be resisted by saves.
His biggest boon: Failed Save vs. a spell effect > single fighter attack. Much greater.
As I have stated before - if spells were balanced against use by: Cost (material), Cost (payment effect on caster), Difficulty of use (success or fail rolls) or Risk (harm effect on Caster) then spells will be cast less and used less to solve in-game problems. Less spell use functionality and reliance = less spell and caster domination and influence on the game.
As an aside - Item abilities should not translate to spell abilities and vice versa. Item abilities should be the better and more stable versions of spell - direct translation from item to spell is lazy, and also promotes the idea that any item can be replicated by a spell. So in effect, casters do not even need said items - this is bad game design turned up to 11. There needs to be a need for gear (casters gear being more expensive) and the gear needs to be able to do things that cannot be replicated by a spell selection. This current system was put in place for ease of use and understanding of abilities (the MtG memory effect) but is a failure. When some of the most important tools can be replicated by spells, everyone else who needs those tools will always be playing catch-up.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now who's being willfully obtuse?
The closest approximation, per the rules is that a SR check is "like an attack roll". There are no buffs because the the ranges and modifiers are adjusted by other factors in this sub-system. But it doesn't say "it's like a skill check" in which you may have a valid point.
But it says right on it that it is a caster level check, much like a stat check or skill check.
But all of this is beside the point.
I would say the biggest problem is that in the rulebook is says "The defender’s spell resistance is like an Armor Class against magical attacks."
Even though it's a caster check it does reference
- Like an AC
- Magical Attack
I don't think a 1 would be a fail, but from reading the poorly written passage I could see how it could be interpreted as such. Easily.
They could have dropped "like an armor class" and just said you need to make a caster check against the SR which is like a DC.
Level 7 spells or level 7 characters?
Adamantine: I don't really see how exactly. Most of the gamebreaking stuff doesn't show up until around 7th level by my count.
Level 7 spells.
Levels 5 and 6 have some good utility spells but I'd hesitate to call them overpowered. They're really nice to have around when you need 'em.
Might need to redefine game breaking.
Teleport (5th) steps on alot of toes - doesn't break the game but it does crap on the need to sneak in and scale over a wall (and the class focus and skill that go into that).
I think the major good of being able to skip over the "You walk for 2 months and find 5 random encounters. Weeeeee." segments as being enough reason for the minor evil of Climb (obsoleted by Spider Climb [2] and Fly [3] I might add) and Stealth (obsoleted by Invisibility [2] already) being marginalized. Not to mention that Dimension Door comes in as a 3rd or 4th level spell anyway...
Yeah no, 5th and 6th level spells don't break anything that wasn't already broken.
|
|
Might need to redefine game breaking.
Teleport (5th) steps on alot of toes - doesn't break the game but it does crap on the need to sneak in and scale over a wall (and the class focus and skill that go into that).
I think the major good of being able to skip over the "You walk for 2 months and find 5 random encounters. Weeeeee." segments as being enough reason for the minor evil of Climb (obsoleted by Spider Climb [2] and Fly [3] I might add) and Stealth (obsoleted by Invisibility [2] already) being marginalized. Not to mention that Dimension Door comes in as a 3rd or 4th level spell anyway...
Yeah no, 5th and 6th level spells don't break anything that wasn't already broken.
That's my point. Those abilities should not be broken by 2nd and 3rd level spells (again, with no drawbacks).
You dismissing abilities as obsolete just reinforce my point which is - magic without drawbacks/limits are disruptive and damaging to the whole game.
It is, but I was pointing out that "Limiting magic to 4th level or below" does nothing to fix that issue, and that the TRULY gamebreaking stuff (premature campaign enders and things requiring GM Fiat to tone down because they're so ambiguous) doesn't come out until 6th-7th level spells or so.
|
|
It is, but I was pointing out that "Limiting magic to 4th level or below" does nothing to fix that issue, and that the TRULY gamebreaking stuff (premature campaign enders and things requiring GM Fiat to tone down because they're so ambiguous) doesn't come out until 6th-7th level spells or so.
And from a design perspective the concern should start at how level 3 and 5 casters crap on their companions. This is a ground up issue that starts at level 1 of casting ability.
My main point being - once you start trouncing other class abilities you've already made a bad game. Instead of spells working to complement groups, spells were designed and developed as abilities to replace other members of the group, and all this starts at very low levels.
I think the major good of being able to skip over the "You walk for 2 months and find 5 random encounters. Weeeeee." segments as being enough reason for the minor evil of Climb (obsoleted by Spider Climb [2] and Fly [3] I might add) and Stealth (obsoleted by Invisibility [2] already) being marginalized. Not to mention that Dimension Door comes in as a 3rd or 4th level spell anyway...
Even though you like the idea of skipping walking for 2 months (I don't, but that's ok), there's no reason spellcasters have to be the source of that, or that the ability to skip that stuff should work in combat or whatever.
You could give the PCs an item that teleports them to specific places around the world after a 5 minute ritual. Or maybe it only works once a day. Or many other things that would get rid of the problem (long walks) without giving a small portion of the classes in the game the ability to solve that problem while the others watch.
Well you could do that just fine (and many MMOs use it to great effect), but my point is (again) that, as Auxmalous has said, spellcasting pretty much needs a rework from the ground up instead of just a flat limitation. That fixes one problem, but doesn't fix many more and opens up a few new ones (IMO, since you said you like long treks on foot).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well you could do that just fine (and many MMOs use it to great effect), but my point is (again) that, as Auxmalous has said, spellcasting pretty much needs a rework from the ground up instead of just a flat limitation. That fixes one problem, but doesn't fix many more and opens up a few new ones (IMO, since you said you like long treks on foot).
I completely agree with this.
The caster needs to be redesigned without the assumption that just because it says "magic" they can automatically learn to do it.
The martial needs to be redesigned without the assumption that just because it says "magic" or even "not realistic" that they automatically can't do it.
If you did both of these things, you'd end up with a VERY different game. Because of this, I doubt you'll ever see it with any D&D/Pathfinder product. E6 is probably the closest you'll get.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rynjin, I could easily argue that at the level a caster gets them even fairly innocuous spells as "glitterdust" and "fly" are encounter-ending spells that are vastly beyond the abilities of equal level martial characters.
I don't agree at all that the problem begins with spells of level 7. That's just when the problem gets so obvious that it's almost impossible to credibly rationalize the problem away.
Not all of the problems, but the majority of them IMO. I don't think Glitterdust and Fly (well maybe Fly) are really so very WTF good past the 1st level or two they show up that they break anything really.
I think you underestimate the value of "glitterdust".
It's a good spell, but even though it's a Will save the DC drops pretty low after a while. While the Invisibility revealing is great it wouldn't be so super special awesome if the magic rebuild we were talking about came to pass.
Though I am a bit confused as to why it's a Will save, since you're essentially chucking ground glass in their eyes.
even though the blinding of glitterdust declines in usefulness, except against golems, it has the advantage of dispelling and preventing invisibility. which is useful at all levels for helping martials, and it is also useful for screwing over golems. no SR, golems have crappy will saves and no immunity to blindness.
I'll put it in simple terms - manipulate your save numbers so that their high enough, and with your little toy - you never fail a save. Even though the auto-fail on a 1 mechanic is design agains this manipulation.
That "1" fail is there just for that purpose, it gets around the high numbers "I can never fail a save!" argument. You eliminated that as a feature -and I know why you did that.
If you can't see that as a problem, then you should probably concede defeat, because from a game design or DM angle, you failed.
3.5 allowed it (never fail on a 1) as a feat for Fort saves.
Steadfast Determination in PHB 2http://dndtools.eu/feats/players-handbook-ii--80/steadfast-determination--2 761/
It's a good spell, but even though it's a Will save the DC drops pretty low after a while. While the Invisibility revealing is great it wouldn't be so super special awesome if the magic rebuild we were talking about came to pass.
Though I am a bit confused as to why it's a Will save, since you're essentially chucking ground glass in their eyes.
because of preplanned metagame assertions that ambushers have bad will saves. because every monster has ridiculously high fortitude, the only poor save left to target on an ambusher, would be will.
There are plenty of ways to boost the DC of glitterdust as you reach higher levels. Heightened spell is just one way.
As awesome as it is on its own, try playing a witch with glitterdust...
I agree. They are completely different, but please, don't call me a dumb f~+!. It hurts my feelings.
Anyway, from fighting games, I learned something very interesting. Something that is consistently true to pretty much every game ever, from DnD to Mortal Kombat, passing by Magic The Gathering and Super Mario Bros. And quite possibly, to many aspects of real life as well:Options are the most valuable resource you can have.
Read it again, it's important. It's the whole point of this post.
In fighting fames, just like in PF, we have the concept of "tiers". These tiers are based on character effectiveness. While there is never 100% consensus, there are many points where the players of any given game will agree. e.g.: In Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3, people might disagree about who's better, Vergil, Zero or Dr.Doom, but they'll tell you that all 3 of them are incredibly effective.
Bad Example with the fighting games here if you ask me.I'm not so on top with the fighting games nowadays but I know my classics, and one thing I can say for sure:The complex fighters where always the weak choice
Again I'm speaking about the classics here,and there can be no debate that the top tiers where all the 1-2-3 kind of guys.
Paul in Tekken(Yoshimitsu or Lei had way more options in almost all incarnations but they where simply sucky pros choose Paul over all others although he always was one of the most limited chars but those stonefist where the best move in the game)
Sagat in Street Fighter( I don't have to elaborate on him right?)
Mitsurugi in Soul Edge(again less moves than most others but better ones)
So what did we learn? Simple and effective is the way to go.
Sorry for the nerdrage but you brought this on yourself
He said nothing of complexity. He said options. A perfect example is Ryu from Street Fighter. He is arguably one of the simpler characters in the series. His attack routines are fairly simple. He has his rising dragon punch, his fireball, and his hurricane kick. That's pretty much it really. He deals fair damage and has a fair reach. However, what he has is options. He can keep foes at bay or force them to react in a predictable way with his fireball. He can attack-dodge certain types of attacks (like other fireballs) with his hurricane kick. His rising dragon punch is excellent as an anti-air attack or as a rising attack (such as what you use if you get toppled to the ground and your opponent rushes in). His normal attacks include a wide and high roundhouse kick, a medium and heavy kick with good reach that allows punishing of whiffs, and so forth.
He is simple, but he has options.
Compare to a big character like Zangief. Zangief has been improved heavily over the years. The improvements haven't been in the form of giving him more resilience and damage (arguably he deals less damage than he did in regular SF-II), but he has been given more options (his Lariat move allows fireballs to pass him and punishes arial attacks pretty solidly; neither of which were things he was capable of dealing with in the earlier metagames).
Aha! Finally an Ashiel post about fighting games!
I knew it was a good analogy! Heh...
|
Aha! Finally an Ashiel post about fighting games!
I knew it was a good analogy! Heh...
I'm not fond of the fighting game analogy. It encourages a blandly narrow view of this game. Class balance be damned, and double damned if the DM has an inkling of what makes a robust and engaging story, with multiple opportunities for all characters to contribute to -and shape- the outcome.
Less power = less fun? Bah, it's a conceit that has crept into this game that I think is playground balderdash *adjusts his purple hat*