Creative Director
|
Soooo, I guess Agile weapons were deemed too powerful after the initial feedback? I'll take that into account for my next campaign, I've already allowed them for the current ones. ^^Note: For better or worse, we often "test out" new rules in the campaign setting line. When the new rules work and are popular, we end up supporting them—see things like the chase rules, the red mantis assassin prestige class, tons of new monsters, etc.
When they end up not working or have poor receptions, we tend to let them go fallow. They don't end up in hardcovers; they don't get supported in the future, etc. Achievement feats are a good example of this, as is the first incarnation of the hide shirt or several of the feats from the original hardcover campaign setting.
So... the appearance of this spell should NOT be taken, necessarily, as a hint of things to come or of Paizo's goal to replicate the infamous orb spells or to further destroy the school of evocation.
That all said... thanks a ton for the feedback! It's super helpful! :-)
No.
I believe that the design team simply forgot about agile weapons. It's even possible they didn't know the agile weapon quality existed.
Getting the design team to work better with our campaign setting materials is an ongoing project. The "Paizo needs to get their house in order" thread helped to galvanize folks here at Paizo and start working on fixing those problems.
AKA: If you see something from a softcover end up in a hardcover, we've vetted it (hopefully) and made sure it's solid rules work. If you don't see something show up, it might just be something the rules team didn't realize was out there. It might be something they forgot. It could well be something they decided didn't need to see the light of day again, too, but just because it doesn't show up does NOT mean that's always the case.
|
Spells requiring to-hit rolls don't typically allow saves.This was true in the 3.5. not pathfinder. They added saves to many spells that required to-hit rolls.I should specify:
Damage spells requiring to-hit rolls don't typically allow saving throws. Snowball does allow a save for the non-damage aspect.As a seperate issue:
Another good spell for comparison purposes is Frigid Touch
The old orb spells did the same thing. You took damage of you were hit and then you madeba save for some sort of effect.
If I'm not mistaken, I think some of the orb spells were d8.
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Way to dodge the essential question, James.
"Is it canon for PFS games or not?"
"Um, well, harumph...we printed it, but it's optional according to the fully set in stone rules that are always flexible...." Whatever.
That being said, this forum long ago decided on a hard and fast standard of power creep whether any of you want to admit/remember it or not.
AM BARBARIAN. Can it one-shot AM BARBARIAN? If not, it is totally NOT overpowered. If so, it is PFS legal, but only for AM BARBARIAN.
That's NOT the essential question.
Pathfinder Society org play is one part of the game. My focus is not on that part of the game, but on the home-play games. The classic get together with friends and play a campaign or a one-shot game.
If folks want to know if something is legal for PFS games... they should go to the resources we've provided for PFS players; we keep those resources of what is and isn't legal up to date.
The only PERFECT way to prevent power creep is to stop printing books. That's not an option for Paizo.
And if the forum decided on things long ago... why do folks on the forum keep asking questions?
AKA: Remember, it's a game. We play it to have fun. I'm here to help folks have fun with the game. It's not fun to have to answer antagonistic questions.
As I've said in this thread a few times, cold should be a necromancy thing (as cold is the absence of heat; you shouldn't be able to evoke or conjure that).
Necromancy isn't so much creating cold as using negative energy, whose interaction with life energy feels cold. Darkness is an evocation effect, even though darkness is merely absense of light, right? (I don't know why Silence is an Illusion/Glamer... It should either be Evocation like Darkness, just affecting sonic energy instead of light energy... or a Transmutation effect, which Darkness could also be)
Note: For better or worse, we often "test out" new rules in the campaign setting line... When they end up not working or have poor receptions, we tend to let them go fallow. They don't end up in hardcovers; they don't get supported in the future, etc.
Huh. Well, if you ever do something like 'Golarion Stuff Compendium', it may be a good idea to just leave this out, and use the space for some new thing that knocks people's socks off. (I'm also not opposed to doing 'new versions' of old material that didn't work out quite well. The very first Golarion PRPG Companion for Qadira is a candidate for that, e.g. Daivrat not really being up to snuff as a PrC)
As I've said in this thread a few times, cold should be a necromancy thing (as cold is the absence of heat; you shouldn't be able to evoke or conjure that).Necromancy isn't so much creating cold as using negative energy, whose interaction with life energy feels cold. Darkness is an evocation effect, even though darkness is merely absense of light, right? (I don't know why Silence is an Illusion/Glamer... It should either be Evocation like Darkness, just affecting sonic energy instead of light energy... or a Transmutation effect, which Darkness could also be)
You never create cold, you suck away heat. That is thematically fitting with a lot of existent necromancy spells.
No.
I believe that the design team simply forgot about agile weapons. It's even possible they didn't know the agile weapon quality existed.
Getting the design team to work better with our campaign setting materials is an ongoing project. The "Paizo needs to get their house in order" thread helped to galvanize folks here at Paizo and start working on fixing those problems.
AKA: If you see something from a softcover end up in a hardcover, we've vetted it (hopefully) and made sure it's solid rules work. If you don't see something show up, it might just be something the rules team didn't realize was out there. It might be something they forgot. It could well be something they decided didn't need to see the light of day again, too, but just because it doesn't show up does NOT mean that's always the case.
Thanks for the clarification, James. It's a pity, since having Ultimate Equipment be "complete" would have made the book even more awesome. But good to know about the Agile property being properly balanced after all. :)
Hmm. The synergy with Rime Spell is pretty nasty, especially if it's a druid who's casting and making the ranged touch attacks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the orb spells was broken, and snowball seems just fine too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the orb spells was broken, and snowball seems just fine too.
You probably would have liked the first version of Antagonize, too. ^^
Here's an idea. Play a conjurer instead of an Evoker.
Magnuskn, for what it's worth, there were other weapon and armor enhancements from the book Agile was in (from the same page too). Combined with the statements that the Dev team doesn't like dex to damage and placed it as a mythic feat (even then Jason had reservations), I think it's likely it was intentionally skipped over. This of course is just based on all the evidence I'm aware of which may not be complete :-)
Here's an idea. Play a conjurer instead of an Evoker.
Yeah, that's the answer. One school that is so vastly superior to all others, nobody would ever play an evoker.
Been there, done that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I for one like this spell and do not see it as a threat to the very existance of reallity. The very pillars of the heavens quake in fear of my 5d6 cold damage spell that has "SR none".
Just a note, errata for Campaign Setting stuff is pretty rare. Errata is done on new printings, and they tend to just do one printing run for CS material. There're exceptions (Winter Witch), but I think that was more due to how important that prestige class was to the upcoming AP.
And from what I recall, and I'd love to be wrong on this one, developer playtesting is done for new classes and new rule subsystems only, but the onus for playtesting feats, archetypes, spells, etc generally seems to be on the shoulders of the freelancer. It's just a reality of the industry that the developers are generally too busy to be able to extensively playtest every little thing. The only exception to this I've seen (in my limited, PF-centric experiences) are some of the 3rd party publishers.
|
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But it's all optional, regardless of how hard or soft a cover is.That may be the case, and everyone may even know it on an intellectual level, but many GMs presume you know more than they do about the game. They figure if it's in a book, it must be a well-considered, balanced rule/spell/whatever, and so it's allowed in their game by default. (This is how most GMs I know operate, in fact-- if it's in an official Paizo book, it's good to go). So if the party conjurer says, 'sweet, I found this awesome new spell,' and the evoker in the party says, 'hold up a minute,' the GM has to suddenly grasp all the implications of the spell that you guys were supposed to already consider before publishing it. And all members involved have to somehow understand that you guys were just 'playtesting' that spell and it's not 'official-official,' despite the fact that the majority of them will never see your post.
I think playtesting in finished, published works is bad practice in general, but particularly so in the case of something that has already been thoroughly playtested for several years and was found wanting.
And as long as the vast majority of the things we publish ARE "balanced" and well designed, that reputation can continue. I like to think we're good enough at Pathfinder to be afforded a few mis-steps now and then.
Whether the snowball spell is indeed a misstep... we're still in the knee-jerk reaction phase, so until it's been in play for a while I can't say.
And as long as the vast majority of the things we publish ARE "balanced" and well designed, that reputation can continue. I like to think we're good enough at Pathfinder to be afforded a few mis-steps now and then.
Whether the snowball spell is indeed a misstep... we're still in the knee-jerk reaction phase, so until it's been in play for a while I can't say.
Well, it's easily better than most other level one spells of its type, its in the wrong school for blasting, it doesn't allow spell resistance and it does the one thing I think has been one of the really bad developments in spell design in the last years: It gives a secondary condition with one of the really crippling status effects. Staggered is the least powerful of those ( the others are Dazed, Stunned and Nauseated ), but it still is one of the things which helps cripple monsters even more against the already very obvious action economy disadvantage they have vs. player characters.
Well, it's easily better than most other level one spells of its type, its in the wrong school for blasting, it doesn't allow spell resistance and it does the one thing I think has been one of the really bad developments in spell design in the last years: It gives a secondary condition with one of the really crippling status effects. Staggered is the least powerful of those ( the others are Dazed, Stunned and Nauseated ), but it still is one of the things which helps cripple monsters even more against the already very obvious action economy disadvantage they have vs. player characters.And as long as the vast majority of the things we publish ARE "balanced" and well designed, that reputation can continue. I like to think we're good enough at Pathfinder to be afforded a few mis-steps now and then.
Whether the snowball spell is indeed a misstep... we're still in the knee-jerk reaction phase, so until it's been in play for a while I can't say.
Not just level 1 spells--it's also significantly and strictly better than the 2nd level spell Scorching Ray (other than being cold instead of fire damage, which is on average an advantage) at levels 4, 5, and 6. I think it might be okay if it was a level 2 spell (compared to Acid Arrow it is much stronger at low levels but it has a shorter range).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing that bugs me about this is the same thing that bugged me about the Orb spells. This should be an evocation spell. I know at least one of the GMs I play with would allow it with that caveat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rest of the feedback has nothing to do with the OP, and is actually off-topic feedback. This thread was not started to discuss the balance between Evocation and Conjuration.
The balance between conjuration and evocation has always been one of the primary complaints against the orbs spells. As such it seems pretty relevant to the OP to me.
"Broken" isn't just about the numbers.
- Torger
So how does snowball stand up to the DESIGNING SPELLS guidelines as put forth in Ultimate Magic?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
So how does snowball stand up to the DESIGNING SPELLS guidelines as put forth in Ultimate Magic?
You mean like this part?
"It's a common trick to design a spell that doesn't allow spell resistance so the caster can use it against creatures who have spell resistance. In many cases, the idea behind the design is just silly, like a spell that creates a sphere of burning oil and hurls it at the intended area, where it bursts in an explosion of flame; clearly the intent is to create a nonmagical fireball that bypasses spell resistance. Golems in particular are often the intended targets of these spell designs, as their immunity to magic ability makes them completely immune to any effect that allows spell resistance. You should avoid letting these sorts of trick spells into your campaign, as they meddle with the balance of encounters (some monsters are designed to be harder for melee characters to fight, some are designed to be harder for spellcasters to fight, and some are just supposed to be difficult all around)."
- Torger
I really don't see the dex to damage issue at all. The only change that might need to be made is to make sure Dex fighters don't get the 1.5 boost when two-handing. That's it. Other than that it isn't overpowered at all.
You people's rage is rather misguided, however. With or without this spell, evocation would still be the weakest school because the mechanics of spells in 3rd edition (and by extension, Pathfinder) just don't favor it.
I'm sorry, I must have I missed the part where anybody claimed that this specific spell was the cause a discrepancy between evocation and conjuration, which wouldn't exist without this spell.
Redirect that fanrage towards getting new evocation toys, not complaining when the rich conjurers get a new one. Removing this one spell doesn't fix the problem that already existed years ago.
Except it's also been expressed that Casters already have tons of toys at their disposal... so adding EVEN MORE toys, just so that one school of magic is on par with another school of magic, just gives casters more toys over all when that is far from what is desired.
All this school vs. school crap is starting to remind me of the caster-martial disparity arguments.
So... you didn't mean it when you were ragging on the Evocation vs. Conjuration disparity as a long on-going issue that predates this spell, and which (by your suggestion) deserves a fix in more goodies for Evocation?
is honored more in the breach than in the keeping
That's a turn of phrase I'm not familiar with. I'm assuming by way of context that it means that nobody really pays attention to it.
- Torger
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And as long as the vast majority of the things we publish ARE "balanced" and well designed, that reputation can continue. I like to think we're good enough at Pathfinder to be afforded a few mis-steps now and then.
Whether the snowball spell is indeed a misstep... we're still in the knee-jerk reaction phase, so until it's been in play for a while I can't say.
You're absolutely allowed a few mis-steps now and then (and have made a few), and I've never posted a thread bashing a particular misstep. I only question the philosophy of using published material for testing new material.
I'm not sure we can call this 'knee-jerk' phase. How is this spell going to function any differently in PF than it did in 3.5? It is now the best low-level blast in the game (and holds up til mid-level for a dedicated blaster), but it's conjuration. This seems fundamentally at odds with the pains you took to make each school most effective in their own sphere.
Yep. Evokers can't add a few more points of damage to it, and it's better than any evocation they can add that piddly bonus to.
Vestrial is right. It's the best 1st level blast in the game, now. Do I outlaw that particular spell, or the whole book?
Please, Paizo, let's not go down the hellish road that was the Spell Compendium. We count on you to know spells are balanced before you publish them, and this one is pure splat. Conjuration is good enough without ANY blast spells, even acid.
If I have to go over every little thing players want to cheese, PF is no better than 3.5.
I WANT to let players use the books, and find little tricks that make things fun. I DON'T want to take the players' books for a week and pore over them, rooting out obviously imbalanced exploits.
Please, Paizo, let's not go down the hellish road that was the Spell Compendium. We count on you to know spells are balanced before you publish them, and this one is pure splat. Conjuration is good enough without ANY blast spells, even acid.
If I have to go over every little thing players want to cheese, PF is no better than 3.5.
I WANT to let players use the books, and find little tricks that make things fun. I DON'T want to take the players' books for a week and pore over them and rooting out imbalanced exploits.
Whoa, leave Spell compendruim alone.
Name spells in it that were not balanced. Seriously, it wasn't bad, it rebalanced sucky spells, restoted bad spells so they weren't broken, etc.
Whoa, leave Spell compendruim alone.
Name spells in it that were not balanced. Seriously, it wasn't bad, it rebalanced sucky spells, restoted bad spells so they weren't broken, etc.
Where to start?
OK. It made conjuration superior in every way to evocation for single-target blasting, for starters.
I could go on, but that right there is enough. We have a new orb spell.
Even if you change it to evocation, it's the best 1st level blast in the game for the rider effect, alone. Why bother to use anything else? Why have evocation as a school at all when conjurers are better blasters?
Stay on target....
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're absolutely allowed a few mis-steps now and then (and have made a few), and I've never posted a thread bashing a particular misstep. I only question the philosophy of using published material for testing new material.
When I say that we like to get a bit more experimental and try out new things, I don't mean to imply we publish things without giving it a lot of design thought.
And if we never published new experimental things... we would have never done Kingmaker.
Or a monthly Adventure Path, for that matter.
You're absolutely allowed a few mis-steps now and then (and have made a few), and I've never posted a thread bashing a particular misstep. I only question the philosophy of using published material for testing new material.
When I say that we like to get a bit more experimental and try out new things, I don't mean to imply we publish things without giving it a lot of design thought.
And if we never published new experimental things... we would have never done Kingmaker.
Or a monthly Adventure Path, for that matter.
Monthly adventure paths and experimental subsytems in APLs are very different from experimental feats, spells, and archetypes.
I understand the playtesting-in-softcovers angle, but this spell seems problematic even from a theorycrafting standpoint. I know not everyone agrees with that (as evidenced by some in this thread), but I think that that the argument made by many that it overshadows all existent 1st level direct damage spells and has unfortunate interaction with existent metamagic feats is spot on.
Many DMs run games as "Paizo only" and this spell will, in my opinion, become problematic in such games. I don't think the notion that softcovers contain more 'experimental' material is widely known.
When I say that we like to get a bit more experimental and try out new things, I don't mean to imply we publish things without giving it a lot of design thought.Can you give us some insight into the thought process behind this spell? Perhaps we are overlooking something that seems obvious to you guys.
"In a land with a lot of snow, wouldn't it be cool if there was a spell for throwing a snowball at someone? It should probably be conjuration, because it's an actual snowball, and do cold damage. And we want it to actually be useful, so how about 1d6 per level, but cap it at 5d6, because it's low level..."
"In a land with a lot of snow, wouldn't it be cool if there was a spell for throwing a snowball at someone? It should probably be conjuration, because it's an actual snowball, and do cold damage. And we want it to actually be useful, so how about 1d6 per level, but cap it at 5d6, because it's low level..."When I say that we like to get a bit more experimental and try out new things, I don't mean to imply we publish things without giving it a lot of design thought.Can you give us some insight into the thought process behind this spell? Perhaps we are overlooking something that seems obvious to you guys.
And Make it a touch attack because they are being hit by a snowball.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And as long as the vast majority of the things we publish ARE "balanced" and well designed, that reputation can continue. I like to think we're good enough at Pathfinder to be afforded a few mis-steps now and then.Whether the snowball spell is indeed a misstep... we're still in the knee-jerk reaction phase, so until it's been in play for a while I can't say.
A few mis-step on something new and different...yes perfectly understandable. Mis-steps because you refuse to learn from mistakes of the past? That is less understandable.
We are NOT in a knee-jerk reaction phase. Seriously...this has been done in 3.5 for YEARS already. We already know the story. We've been there done that already. Seriously. If you (you as in paizo staff overall) honestly don't know how this story ends, you all need some new rules people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We are NOT in a knee-jerk reaction phase. Seriously...this has been done in 3.5 for YEARS already. We already know the story. We've been there done that already. Seriously. If you (you as in paizo staff overall) honestly don't know how this story ends, you all need some new rules people.
It's just one spell. I think you are over reacting. Just ban it in your game world or like I said before, play a conjurer instead of an evoker. Your comments against the paizo staff in this instance are harsh and unnecessary.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Suggestion for 'fixing' Snowball.
Reduce the damage. A lot. I'd suggest a single die (ranging from d3 to d6 depending on how nerfec you feel it should be) that doesn't scale with at most a +1/levels for five levels. After that it changes the spell from a "damage spell with a rider" to a "Stagger 1 target with a damage rider" which is probably more powerful and makes it step on the evoker's toes less.