Actually...DD conjuration that took over the role of evocation WAS game ending. Or at least a pretty big part of a game ending. So please forgive those of us who have been through this once before and learned a pretty dang valuable lesson for being pretty dang wary about it happening AGAIN. Those who forget the past and what not.
To the others complaining about it being too powerful, just don't use it, put a damper on it, or ask for tact. It's like the Master Summoner, fulfills a niche and ask for a certain maturity. It isn't game ending. Please stop discouraging Paizo from doing things like this in the future. I appreciate options!
I played an evoker in 3.5. It was fun. I certainly didn't blast every round, being the party wizard and all, but an extra blast per spell level got used a lot. It either started encounters, or ended them.
Peeling off hit points from hordes of enemies, or a particular one the fighters couldn't seem to hurt, was a valid way to get to the win. They went down sooner, or wasted actions trying to get their hit points up. YMMV, but it worked for me. It had a little of that 2e mojo, too.
Conjuring monsters had a similar effect, but they tied up enemies' actions and didn't hurt them very much, if at all. The tough ones sucked up the AoOs, and the monsters couldn't do much to them, not even the main casters. They either had protection spells up, or started casting them.
Either way, it got them closer to dead, which was the goal when fighting bad guys. When I saw Orb of Acid, Cold, etc., then finally Force, I was nonplussed. Nothing I did was all that unique, anymore, let alone powerful. My nifty little blasts were crap compared to those spells.
WOTC was real good at ignoring player input. They were selling splat, and giving the same excuses we're seeing here: "If you don't like it, don't allow it."
I'm not the only DM who got tired of looking at the mountains of cheese. Something as simple as what direct damage can and can't do should be well-vetted. I want players to find new ways to be cool and have fun. I don't want certain schools to be so good they're the obvious choice.
The chorus of "Conjuration gets that, too?" hopefully hasn't fallen on deaf ears this time. Some of us remember the last days of 3.5., and don't want that, again, where "nothing is true, everything is permitted."
They sold books. It didn't seem to matter what was in them. It's like they didn't care, and screwed up the game so we'd all buy 4.0.
|
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! :-)
Thanks for the explanation. After it, the main problem I see is this spell (and some other lapsed content) use in PFS games. Test spells/feats/items can stay for a long time in PFS even if unsupported, from what I get, so sometime they can become a problem with the GM not knowing how to manage something that is unsupported but still exist.
I've been trying to develop the Shift Subschool feat, which would shift a conjuration subschool (with the exception of summoning) into another school. (Evocation would get the creation subschool, while enchantment would get the calling subschool). The problem was, I couldn't figure out what prerequisites would be required (if any).
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Go back to page 1 of this thread, and go from there. I'm not going to repeat the entire thread for you. Others have explained it much better than I can.
No, it hasn't been explained. Most of this thread is nothing more than a bunch of whining over Conj vs. Evo; no one has sufficiently explained why this spell is broken. Having a rider that can be negated is not OP. Nor is dealing 5d6 at 5th lvl or 10d6 at 10th lvl to a single target (mere chump change).
It's accepted that blasting is a weak strategy. Most damage spells are inherently weak, dealing insignificant amounts of damage. There are so many better spells to cast than direct damage spells, yet when a good blast spell shows up everyone begins crying over it.
I say the designers need to make more blast spells in the same ballpark as Snowball, then maybe Blasting will be a feasible strategy. I'd also say +1 for power-creep in order to enhance a weak play style.
I'll take this one on.
Snowball is not broken. It is out of line with the core of blasting spells, which are low tier in PF due to the way in which monster HP has scaled since...well...forever. As everyone else has said, it's in the wrong school and flagrantly breaks a design rule regarding SR.
That said, there are only a few fixes that are needed to make blast spells better.
1. Scale the die type with spell level. Single target blasts get d6s at spell level 1, d8s at 3, d10s at 5, and d12s (or 2d6/lvl) at 7+. Area blasts are one die step back.
2. All single target blasts get a rider. If the rider is out of scale for the spell level, reduce the die by one step.
3. No SR/No Save is considered a rider.
This, unfortunately, requires a rewrite of Core spells, so it's not going to happen shy of a new edition. Currently, some builds attempt to do this (a die step increase = +1 avg damage/CL = Orc bloodline), but we know the limitations on those already.
Lastly, as this impacts the Martial/Caster Disparity by allowing casters to more effectively do damage, some tweaks to martials are due to compensate.
Signed,
Someone who can't stand playing Wizards.
For start It violated the paizo´s own guidelines about spells resistance. And when you compare it to shocking graps it is not dificult to realize it is way better thatn the existing spells, anohter violation of paizo´s own guidelins about spell creation "comparethe new spells with the old ones".Well, guidelines are just that guidelines. They are an outdated means of balancing the current atmosphere, and serve no purpose now that the game has been out for this long. We should not use the guidelines as a means to keep an inferior play style inferior. Not that the general idea of those guidelines is bad, but they assume too much, which has been proven wrong (specifically that all spells in the CRB are balanced).
You are also assuming shocking grasp is a balanced spell: it's not. It's just another example of a weak-sauce spell and it falls squarely into why blasting is not good. Comparing "good" to "crap" does not make the "good" OP.
It really strikes me that tabletop RPG has be severely tainted by the mindset of video game RPG calculations. For my part, this is one of the reasons I fled from DnD 4.0 - the variety of spells and their capability is not necessary in a video game, but situational usefulness in an RPG where the environment really shouldn't be: encounter, drop highest level damage or insta-incapacitate spell, fire again - encounter over. Granted, I think some spells should bypass SR. I'm not sure why this one would - there's no good discussion as to why, just some whining about which school it should be in. But I also see that there's a lot of hatred toward spells that just do limited damage that really doesn't make sense to me. Sure, Magic Missile isn't the be all, end all spell, but it was never meant to be. Taking out 25 points of damage on a critter is a good thing, especially since it never misses. It should be useful, even against higher-ECL monsters.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aside from the usual asinine "Pathfinder killed 3.5, then SKR violated my puppy and now they PRINTED THIS SPELL BRRGHHHLLLZZZZEEE" nonsense, this thread remind me that perhaps having more designer attention devoted to what freelancers write in Player Companion books could be a good idea.
I'll take this one on.*snipped for space*
Great post; but breaking the SR rule is a good thing as SR is one of the main reasons blasting sucks.
Also, it doesn't require a rewrite. A web update with a few new/changed rules, and/or even a new class (i.e. Warmage) with archetypes would be sufficient.
See, my thought is that the inflated HP and regularity of energy resistance is a much bigger problem than SR.
Snowball is nowhere near as potentially crazy as the original Chromatic Orb spell was, it's damage is capped unless you use feats that you'd spend on much better spells, and it doesn't bypass Cold Resistance. And it doesn't have any of the really wild carrier effects that the original Chromatic Orb did, such as petrification. And quite frankly, most big and tough monsters would laugh at the Fort save DC for this spell.
No one meant Chromatic Orb (2E spell), they meant the elemental orb spells that dealt 1d8+1d8 per 2 caster above 1st (Max 9th level they dealt 5d8; no save or SR.
Okay Orb of Force Lesser did 1d6+1d6 per 2 caster above 1st, 9th level they did Max 5d6).So Snowball spell is stronger than the Orb spells since it is 1d6/level.
|
|
is honored more in the breach than in the keepingThat'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
Never seen it before myself, but thanks to the wonders of Internet search, here is the explanation. :-)
Instructive for non-English native speakers like me.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Go back to page 1 of this thread, and go from there. I'm not going to repeat the entire thread for you. Others have explained it much better than I can.
No, it hasn't been explained. Most of this thread is nothing more than a bunch of whining over Conj vs. Evo; no one has sufficiently explained why this spell is broken. Having a rider that can be negated is not OP. Nor is dealing 5d6 at 5th lvl or 10d6 at 10th lvl to a single target (mere chump change).
That IS the explanation. The spell effect isn't the issue...the school IS. Which school does what is important when specialization JUST gave you an extra spell from that school. Now with schools giving other effects, what school a spell is from is even MORE important. Why is that concept so freaking hard for you to grasp? Seriously, had this spell been an evocation spell...even with the no SR, it would have caused only a minor stir. Evocation with SR...yeah no issue really other then the die hard no power creep crowd. The reason it is OP is BECAUSE IT IS CONJURATION WHICH MAKES CONJURATION EVEN MORE BROKEN AND EVOCATION EVEN MORE OF A DUMP SCHOOL.
That IS the explanation. The spell effect isn't the issue...the school IS. Which school does what is important when specialization JUST gave you an extra spell from that school. Now with schools giving other effects, what school a spell is from is even MORE important. Why is that concept so freaking hard for you to grasp? Seriously, had this spell been an evocation spell...even with the no SR, it would have caused only a minor stir. Evocation with SR...yeah no issue really other then the die hard no power creep crowd. The reason it is OP is BECAUSE IT IS CONJURATION WHICH MAKES CONJURATION EVEN MORE BROKEN AND EVOCATION EVEN MORE OF A DUMP SCHOOL.
Go back to page 1 of this thread, and go from there. I'm not going to repeat the entire thread for you. Others have explained it much better than I can.
No, it hasn't been explained. Most of this thread is nothing more than a bunch of whining over Conj vs. Evo; no one has sufficiently explained why this spell is broken. Having a rider that can be negated is not OP. Nor is dealing 5d6 at 5th lvl or 10d6 at 10th lvl to a single target (mere chump change).
Stop screaming, please.
The point is: why would a conjurer prepare that spell, when he can prepare Grease, Obscuring Mist, Mount, or even Unseen Servant in that slot? These spells are much more useful than a single target damage spell, even with the rider and no SR.
|
|
I'll take this one on.*snipped for space*
Great post; but breaking the SR rule is a good thing as SR is one of the main reasons blasting sucks.
Also, it doesn't require a rewrite. A web update with a few new/changed rules, and/or even a new class (i.e. Warmage) with archetypes would be sufficient.
Spell Resistance is actually there for a reason.
Okay so you can't beat SR at times, well sometimes a fighter doesn't hit the AC and sometimes creatures make their saving throws which all does suck but they aren't eliminated nor should they be because that's a part of the game.
If you're analyzing snowball only as a sorc/wiz spell, you've already made a mistake. It's a druid spell that arcane casters happen to also be able to cast. Compare it to other druid blasts.
|
|
That IS the explanation. The spell effect isn't the issue...the school IS. Which school does what is important when specialization JUST gave you an extra spell from that school. Now with schools giving other effects, what school a spell is from is even MORE important. Why is that concept so freaking hard for you to grasp? Seriously, had this spell been an evocation spell...even with the no SR, it would have caused only a minor stir. Evocation with SR...yeah no issue really other then the die hard no power creep crowd. The reason it is OP is BECAUSE IT IS CONJURATION WHICH MAKES CONJURATION EVEN MORE BROKEN AND EVOCATION EVEN MORE OF A DUMP SCHOOL.
Go back to page 1 of this thread, and go from there. I'm not going to repeat the entire thread for you. Others have explained it much better than I can.
No, it hasn't been explained. Most of this thread is nothing more than a bunch of whining over Conj vs. Evo; no one has sufficiently explained why this spell is broken. Having a rider that can be negated is not OP. Nor is dealing 5d6 at 5th lvl or 10d6 at 10th lvl to a single target (mere chump change).
Stop screaming, please.
The point is: why would a conjurer prepare that spell, when he can prepare Grease, Obscuring Mist, Mount, or even Unseen Servant in that slot? These spells are much more useful than a single target damage spell, even with the rider and no SR.
A wizard with a high enough intelligence could prepare Grease, Obscuring Mist, "Snowball", Mount, and Unseen Servant.
I ask you this.
Why not?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The point is: why would a conjurer prepare that spell, when he can prepare Grease, Obscuring Mist, Mount, or even Unseen Servant in that slot? These spells are much more useful than a single target damage spell, even with the rider and no SR.
Pretty much.
A wizard with a high enough intelligence could prepare Grease, Obscuring Mist, "Snowball", Mount, and Unseen Servant.
I ask you this.
Why not?
Most wizards don't have 28 Intelligence at the level that this spell becomes available for one thing. You'd need to be 7th level before you could prepare all of that (including the school bonus slot) without relying on bonus spells, and the most reasonable assumption would be 4th level, +1 spell from school, +1 bonus spell (Int 12-18) assuming standard point buy.
Personally I think that's a pretty horrid spell loadout, but that's another discussion entirely. (^~^)"
Spell Resistance is actually there for a reason.
Okay so you can't beat SR at times, well sometimes a fighter doesn't hit the AC and sometimes creatures make their saving throws which all does suck but they aren't eliminated nor should they be because that's a part of the game.
Of course, spell resistance still applies to:
1: Virtually every non-conjuration (creation) spell in the game.2: Summoning spells (oh yeah, your summons can wink out).
3: Virtually all enchantment, evocation, necromancy, targeted illusion, and some divination (rarely divination 'cause most Divinations don't target others).
The reason this spell lacks SR is because it is a Conjuration (creation) which by rule does not allow for SR. Simple enough.
The spell isn't broken in the least. I'm not even sure it's as good as magic missile or colorspray (or sleep at the level you get it) or even the many of the buff spells (like shillelagh) when you initially get it. It caps out at 17.5 average damage with a ranged attack at 5th level, unless you are spending feats/class features to improve it. Like another poster said, this is more suited for a druid (mages are going to have issues with the ranged attack roll, especially in the heat of combat where targeting melee-fighting enemies is a -4 to hit, and soft cover is +4 to their AC, and their low BABs).
What people are really upset about is that it's not Evocation (but if it was then it would be forced to have SR: Yes because then it's not a {creation} spell). The rage isn't against this spell, it's against the Evocation school. Some might seem like they dislike Conjuration, and call it broken / too good. But this rage actually comes from a seep seated resentment towards Evocation for being such a crappy school and failing to do what Evocation should; which is why I was talking about the schools earlier. The issue is not this spell, it's the metagame surrounding Evocation.
Here is what the Magic chapter says about Evocation.
Evocation spells manipulate magical energy or tap an unseen source of power to produce a desired end. In effect, an evocation draws upon magic to create something out of nothing. Many of these spells produce spectacular effects, and evocation spells can deal large amounts of damage.
That's it. No subschools. Hell, the entire description of Evocation is so short and nonspecific that most schools have more documentation on an individual subschool. What evocation does say that it does that is actually - supposedly - unique to Evocation is: "Many of these spells produce spectacular effects, and evocation spells can deal large amounts of damage".
LIES. <(｀^´)>
The simple fact of the matter is Evocation is supposed to look like this: Example A, Example B.
Instead, it looks more like this: Examble C (not knocking the fellow anime fans btw :P).
The only reason people are upset about this spell is because Evocation sucks, has sucked for ages, and this just draws yet more attention to the fact Evocation sucks. What would actually make people happy would be for Evocation to be a school that does what it claims. It's not difficult in all honesty to determine what does and does not deal large amounts of damage (we do it all the time). Nor is it particularly hard to make certain spells more flashy and showy and spectacular.
Ever wonder why magic missile is one of the best evocation spells in the game? It deals no more damage than any other spell of its tier, but it's got a medium range, deals untyped damage, and never misses. Meanwhile, it's brothers in arms are guys that tap out at the same 17.5 damage (or less) and require touch attacks (shocking grasp) or very tiny AoEs (burning hands is made of fail), and as time goes on magic missile is still useful (so useful that some mages will even prepare it in higher level slots). Sure it has SR: Yes, but like other schools it's pretty damn good if it beats SR, whereas other evocation spells are lackluster to the point that SR is just salting the wound.
But if blasting spells were better, had more robust AoEs, more control (not nuking 90% of your treasures and 10% of your enemies), and more kicker effects (like the aforementioned igniting, freezing, etc), or dealt moderate damage but adjusted the scenario (similar to how red dragon breath slags the ground and turns it into difficult terrain that burns people), then maybe we'd actually see more evocation love, because even when it has saving throws, spell resistance, and energy resistance, we know the payoff is going to be freaking amazing if it goes through. Amazing enough to actually dedicate our limited spell slots to.
Unfortunately this won't happen without homebrew. Mainly because there are some mechanics that have already been published as a lazy attempt to patch the weakness of blasting by making it decent through super-specialization (these examples of contrived builds like half-blooded admixiture orc blooded elves and what-not for instance), which masks the innate disappointment with the school itself.
So if they actually did try to publish decent Evocation spells...well then they might risk their previously published material messing stuff up (because all those class-buffs trying to make X decent could make Y overpowered). It's kinda sad. I'ma go drink orange juice in depression... (=_=)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gease to target reflex, snowball to target fortitude. Buy a lesser rod of dazing or rime and and you are golden.The point is: why would a conjurer prepare that spell, when he can prepare Grease, Obscuring Mist, Mount, or even Unseen Servant in that slot? These spells are much more useful than a single target damage spell, even with the rider and no SR.
That's a lot of investment. A lesser dazing rod is 14,000 gp. If that doesn't say all there is about this argument, we have a problem. By the time that's even reasonable, the save DC of said spell is pretty terrible. It's single target. Requires a ranged attack roll and short range. I'd still take grease over this spell in most cases on my conjurers (or other mages for that matter).
Grease is an AoE, modifies terrain (cast in a hallway to ensure no one can charge you. It can be cast on an enemy's weapon (save each round vs dropping said weapon). It can be cast on yourself or others (granting a +10 bonus vs grappling). It is an exceedingly more versatile spell that is more useful in a variety of instances.
Sorry, I'd probably still pick grease over 3.5-17.5 average damage vs 1 target and a save vs staggered.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, I'd probably still pick grease over 3.5-17.5 average damage vs 1 target and a save vs staggered.
Maybe it's just me, but spells like grease and glitterdust rarely seem to work as advertised when I try to use them. In fact, my 4th level wizard (21 int) has yet to blind anyone, or slow them down enough to matter.
He's absolutely slaughtered with magic missile and scorching ray, though. YMMV.
Maybe it's just me, but spells like grease and glitterdust rarely seem to work as advertised when I try to use them. In fact, my 4th level wizard (21 int) has yet to blind anyone, or slow them down enough to matter.
He's absolutely slaughtered with magic missile and scorching ray, though. YMMV.
Hm, well what sorts of enemies to you regularly face? Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to imply anything, but it sounds like either you've been horrendously unlucky, someone is fudging dice, or you're fighting things that are drastically beyond you on a regular basis. For example, with a +5 Int modifier (as is your 21), glitterdust should have a DC 17, and slow should be DC 18.
Most CR 5 enemies, even those with strong Will saves (based on Bestiary Monsters by CR) should have no higher than a 55% chance to save against your slow spell. Most are at significantly worse odds (the highest will save I noticed browsing through checking types with high will, such as undead/outsiders was a +8, making for a 55% chance at success; while most had much less).
In the case of PC classed individuals, much the same in that respect. It seems like your luck has just been absolutely horrible. Especially since the more difficult sorts of encounters (that is, encounters with multiple lower CR enemies - which grants action economy advantage - typically will possess lower saving throws than your top end encounters, which means slow is very impressive in such encounters at rebalancing action economy in your favor).
In the case of singular strong enemies, do not underestimate the power of debuffing. If someone in your party uses Intimidate (standard action) vs the rather low DC to intimidate a foe, they get -2 to all their saves for quite a little while. That's a great time to drop a blindness/deafness or glitterdust or grease or colorspray or slow or hideous laughter or deep slumber or cause fear or shatter or...
Well you get the idea. :\
It depends the level of play. At mid levels a lesser rod dazing is somewhat expensive but very useful, daze is a big condition.
And who say to take snowball over grease? I say take grease to target reflex and snowball to target fortitude... and fliying creatures (if staggered Some creatures will fall or spend his standar action just to not fall ).
If I had the money to spend on a Dazing Rod, I'd pick better spells for it. Putting Dazing on a 1st level spell that only hits once is wasteful when I could daze an acid arrow which also ignores spell resistance, has a longer range, and hits multiple times to force potential stunlocks (also has a higher DC I might add).
But that's more or less my point. The fact that it's still a tossup and you're having to find corner cases to say why it's go good is a perfect example as to why it's not unbalanced. There's no clear winner, and no clear loser.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The language of the Evocation school is really inconsistent with the rules: "Creates something out of nothing." But not in the (creation) sort of way. A different kind of "create." Why can't Evocation also (create) a snowball to chuck at somebody by tapping into the plane of snowballs and pulling it here? This rule about only Conj being able to get 'SR:No' spells is completely arbitrary. The difference between conj and evocation should be that conj focuses on creating things and evocation creates forces. This would allow evocation some 'SR:no' spells, which would help it not suck quite as much.
Why are you all comparing this spell to grease? It's not about what's the best level 1 spell. It's about what's the best levle 1 blast. If you're building a blaster, you can now go conjuration, and get all the benefits that entails, but also be doing more damage than the evoker (unless the evoker chooses to use snowball too, in which case why is he an evoker?)
Here's the crux of the biscuit. Evokers were the blasters until someone at WOTC decided that conjurers should be better blasters than evokers, because God knows, that school just wasn't strong enough.
Treantmonk even rated PF evocation as green (a good choice) in his seminal guide. It does more than blast, though he may have missed how darkness got nerfed.
Saying "blasting sucks anyway, so just play a conjurer" doesn't address this discrepancy. It's just saying that evokers can't have nice things, so to hell with them.
There's probably no way to have perfect balance between all the schools, but there shouldn't be one that so outclasses the others that it's the only one you see played. Evocation shouldn't create monsters made out of force, and conjuration shouldn't have a better first level blast than anything evocation can do.
I think the universalist wizard could use some kind of boost, too.
There's probably no way to have perfect balance between all the schools, but there shouldn't be one that so outclasses the others that it's the only one you see played. Evocation shouldn't create monsters made out of force, and conjuration shouldn't have a better first level blast than anything evocation can do.
I think the universalist wizard could use some kind of boost, too.
Some of you are talking about boosting certain schools for better balance. Well, perhaps you should be looking at this in the broader context. The wizard class is considered by many to be the most powerful class in the game or at least in the top 3. Making certain schools more powerful is not going to address what some consider the more important objective of having some semblence of balance between the classes.
I personally don't mind having a little imbalance between the classes or between the schools of magic. I remember one of the game developers for D&D (can't remember who) said he had no problem with a little imbalance as it allowed those players who put the effort into researching the rules closely to find little "gems" that would make their character a bit more powerful from those who couldn't be bothered. For that reason I don't have a problem with this Snowball spell. What it comes down to I guess is how much imbalance is a good thing and not forgetting to look at changes you want to make in the wider context such as balance between classes.
There's probably no way to have perfect balance between all the schools, but there shouldn't be one that so outclasses the others that it's the only one you see played. Evocation shouldn't create monsters made out of force, and conjuration shouldn't have a better first level blast than anything evocation can do.
I think the universalist wizard could use some kind of boost, too.
Some of you are talking about boosting certain schools for better balance. Well, perhaps you should be looking at this in the broader context. The wizard class is considered by many to be the most powerful class in the game or at least in the top 3. Making certain schools more powerful is not going to address what some consider the more important objective of having some semblence of balance between the classes.
I personally don't mind having a little imbalance between the classes or between the schools of magic. I remember one of the game developers for D&D (can't remember who) said he had no problem with a little imbalance as it allowed those players who put the effort into researching the rules closely to find little "gems" that would make their character a bit more powerful from those who couldn't be bothered. For that reason I don't have a problem with this Snowball spell. What it comes down to I guess is how much imbalance is a good thing and not forgetting to look at changes you want to make in the wider context such as balance between classes.
The thing is, any player who really combs through everything will always find little tricks to use, compared to a more casual player who can't or won't invest the time and money. That's inevitable in any game system. Every book that comes out will change the dynamic for someone.
The issue here isn't class balance. It's school balance. 3.5 devolved into players trying to snake in new items, feats and spells that made DMs say "WTF? WOTC wants ME to suss through all this splat? Screw it. PHB only."
WOTC broke their own rules trying to sell books. It didn't make the game better, and they didn't care. 4.0 was going to fix it all, and sell even more books.
I'm just counting on Paizo to avoid the "planned obsolescence" model. Some things don't seem to get play tested enough, or maybe at all.
If I'm holding Paizo to a higher standard, well, that's what I've been led to expect. I think they really care about the game, but they need to sell books, too. If they let a spell like this slip, somebody missed it.
Then we're just back on the same hamster wheel, and eventually have to learn a new game with new rules, and our old books will gather dust as we buy the latest, greatest "game that really works, this time. I swear!"
In general, I agree with what you say about how 3.5 spiralled out of control with all its splat books and that is something we naturally both agree that we don't want to happen to Pathfinder. I still think a little or moderate amount of imbalance is ok but I understand that you want it to be tightly policed.
You say that:
The issue here isn't class balance. It's school balance.
And you also said earlier:
I think the universalist wizard could use some kind of boost, too.
I don't see how you can increase the power of certain schools without increasing the power of the class overall which is already at the top. How can you possibly justify this given your fears regarding "all this splat" as you put it?
Here's the crux of the biscuit. Evokers were the blasters until someone at WOTC decided that conjurers should be better blasters than evokers, because God knows, that school just wasn't strong enough.
The thing is Vestrial is right. I was talking with a friend of mine online about this recently. The problem is that evocation is kinda stupid. It's a school that has spells that likely should belong in other schools.
Even the word "evocation" defines what Conjuration is known for. No joke. If you actually study the real-life beliefs of binding or calling beings like angels and demons to help you, it's called Evocation. It's almost no wonder conjuration and evocation seem to step on each others toes.
I mean, most of the force spells would fit right into Abjuration. Stuff like shield, wall of force, resilient sphere, tiny hut, and so forth? Yeah, they'd fit right in with Abjuration.
The light/darkness spells? It's a wonder these aren't already Illusion school spells (in fact, in earlier editions, some of these were).
The elemental spells where you "evoke" fire, cold, electricity, and so forth? Yeah, looks like conjuration actually would be the best school for these, given that thematically it makes sense to draw such elements from the planes rather than creating energy from nothing. It would also help those who wanted to blast stuff because it would all be Conjuration (creation) spells and thus have no SR (which isn't arbitrary, it makes sense, because you create something with magic that then damages others, rather than trying to affect something with magic).
Is there much left in Evocation after moving these sorts of spells around to schools they make more (or as much) sense in?
In general, I agree with what you say about how 3.5 spiralled out of control with all its splat books and that is something we naturally both agree that we don't want to happen to Pathfinder. I still think a little or moderate amount of imbalance is ok but I understand that you want it to be tightly policed.
You say that:
The issue here isn't class balance. It's school balance.And you also said earlier:
I think the universalist wizard could use some kind of boost, too.I don't see how you can increase the power of certain schools without increasing the power of the class overall which is already at the top. How can you possibly justify this given your fears regarding "all this splat" as you put it?
I just think Paizo can try to balance the schools better in relation to each other. Each one gives certain benefits to the character. The earlier version of the universalist gave him an extra slot in any school he wanted. That got shouted down, because then, there was little reason to play anything but a universalist.
Now, it's the red-headed stepchild of all the schools. At least evokers get an extra slot per spell level.
I once floated the idea of a "greater bond" to give it a little more appeal. At 8th level or so, the uni's arcane bond got better. He either got an improved familiar for free, or could cast 2 spells per day from his bonded item instead of one, since he's so versatile and all.
Not sure if that would work out, but it needs something. You don't see universalists at PFS tables, because what they get doesn't make up for having one less slot per spell level. They should be cool in some way(s) to compensate.
The specialty schools have some nice perks outside of their bonus spells. Diviners get crazy initiative. Transmuters can raise stats.
The uni needs more. Fixing that wouldn't require splat, just errata.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure if that would work out, but it needs something. You don't see universalists at PFS tables, because what they get doesn't make up for having one less slot per spell level. They should be cool in some way to compensate.
The specialty schools have some nice perks outside of their bonus spells. Diviners get crazy initiative. Transmuters can raise stats.
The uni needs more. Fixing that wouldn't require splat, just errata.
In the Beta universalists got some cool stuff (all of the schools did honestly, and now some of them, like necromancy and universalists, got the shaft). For one, in the Beta, universalist got their hand of the apprentice ability at-will, which was actually a cool ability for acting while conserving your spells (it was your BAB + Int mod to hit, and object damage + Int mod to damage). Then at 8th level, you got an ability that allowed you apply metamagic to spells for free (essentially level/2 free metamagic levels that you could apply on the spot). Their capstone was +4 to CL and save DC for all spells you cast.
Necromancers...god...they got a supernatural animate dead at 8th, and you could control 8 HD / caster level. Their cap was cool too. Your type changed to undead but you were immune to positive energy. Q.Q
Not sure if that would work out, but it needs something. You don't see universalists at PFS tables, because what they get doesn't make up for having one less slot per spell level. They should be cool in some way to compensate.
The specialty schools have some nice perks outside of their bonus spells. Diviners get crazy initiative. Transmuters can raise stats.
The uni needs more. Fixing that wouldn't require splat, just errata.
In the Beta universalists got some cool stuff (all of the schools did honestly, and now some of them, like necromancy and universalists, got the shaft). For one, in the Beta, universalist got their hand of the apprentice ability at-will, which was actually a cool ability for acting while conserving your spells (it was your BAB + Int mod to hit, and object damage + Int mod to damage). Then at 8th level, you got an ability that allowed you apply metamagic to spells for free (essentially level/2 free metamagic levels that you could apply on the spot). Their capstone was +4 to CL and save DC for all spells you cast.
Necromancers...god...they got a supernatural animate dead at 8th, and you could control 8 HD / caster level. Their cap was cool too. Your type changed to undead but you were immune to positive energy. Q.Q
Oh, and universalists were the s~*% in Beta. I quote to you how school spells worked in the Beta.
In addition to these abilities {each school had a school perk, a 1st, 8th, and 20th level ability, except universalists which lacked a school perk but...}, each school also grants a number of bonus spells. Whenever a wizard attains the listed level, he may choose one spell from his school to prepare as a bonus spell. Instead of gaining a spell of the listed level, the wizard can instead choose a spell of a lower level, which he can then prepare twice per day (except for 2nd level). A universalist can choose spells from any school.
Notice the last sentence. That's right. In the PF beta, universalists lacked a school power but could grab their bonus spells from any schools.
Universalists were quite good in the Beta. If you wanted to apply this sort of thing to modern PF wizards, universalists would get an extra spell slot just as the other wizards, except they dump any spell they want into it, instead of a school-specific spell. Heck, even if you gave them bonus spell slots later than specialists that'd probably be cool too (like maybe when you hit 2nd level spells you got an extra 1st level slot with any spell in it you wanted).
In Beta they were setting univrsalists up as being masters of nothing but the best wizard for manipulating their magic using metamagic and a wide assortment of different spells, but without the cool school powers that the other specialists had.
Is there much left in Evocation after moving these sorts of spells around to schools they make more (or as much) sense in?Ultimately, you're right. There really doesn't need to be 9 schools of magic. There's so much mechanical overlap and it really doesn't add much thematically to the game, imo.
But that's what we have, and it's not going to change any time soon (I doubt ever).
Well, we can discuss the game here, but at our own tables we can mod the hell out of the game. So if you wanna just scrap Evocation from your home games and turn their school powers into a subschool or feat path you can totally do that. Wouldn't even be hard and errata for your game could fit on 1 page. (-.^)
And it really wouldn't take that much to make evocation a desirable school-- First, don't give other schools better blasts. Second, errata the sorc bloodlines to not work for wizards(It's cheesy as all hell that the best blaster in the game is a sorc 1/wiz X), and lastly give evocation a minor buff. It really wouldn't take much. +1/die would have been good, but copying sorcs is kinda lame.
I agree that the sorcerer bloodline thing is kinda dumb. Though we're not ripping of sorcerers with the +1/die thing. That was in 3.x too. In fact, I offered a feat in my games for ages that did that exact thing, and there were greater versions of said feat (I believe you could take the feat at 6th, 11th, and 16th level, and it granted +1 damage / die with spells each time, which at the highest levels meant every 1d6 was actually 6.5 average damage instead of 3.5).
Shifting all evocation dice one size larger for evokers only (d4->d6->d8, etc) is something I've thought about doing in my game, and would probably be enough to make evokers an attractive option.
That's mechanically the same as +1 per die, except that it has the same minimum damage as the base spell, so it's a little less attractive. The average damage only rises by +1/die. :P
Players would stop feeling they must use all the control spells that everyone gripes about so much, and maybe wizard hate in general would decline a bit, lol.
You're probably right there. I have to admit, it does feel like there's a lot of wasted space when I'm skimming over spells for my wizards, reading the blasty ones and then looking for something more useful in an adventure. :P
Also, keep in mind that the problem is with the school itself. Not giving conjuration (or other schools) better blasts won't help the evocation school. It just means the evocation school has the only blasts and they're all bad, effectively killing blasting. I'd say buff evocation so that they're attractive. Then it doesn't matter if other schools can do some blasting (conjuration can have their lower-damage no-SR blasts), evocation will do blasting the best (who cares if we have SR, our blasts are bad enough that your face is going to melt if they penetrate).
If you haven't noticed, I'm mostly in this thread 'cause I like discussing the metagame and enjoy the design theory (which helps when judging things in my games). ;)
Actually, that's invocation. Different word. 3.x dropped it completely.Here's the crux of the biscuit. Evokers were the blasters until someone at WOTC decided that conjurers should be better blasters than evokers, because God knows, that school just wasn't strong enough.The thing is Vestrial is right. I was talking with a friend of mine online about this recently. The problem is that evocation is kinda stupid. It's a school that has spells that likely should belong in other schools.
Even the word "evocation" defines what Conjuration is known for. No joke. If you actually study the real-life beliefs of binding or calling beings like angels and demons to help you, it's called Evocation.
It's almost no wonder conjuration and evocation seem to step on each others toes.
Opposites attract! LOL Wizards can do some nasty necromancy, but they get positive energy, too.
I mean, most of the force spells would fit right into Abjuration. Stuff like shield, wall of force, resilient sphere, tiny hut, and so forth? Yeah, they'd fit right in with Abjuration.
Except for mage armor, which, somehow, is... wait for it... conjuration. For the most part, though, if you want to jack people with force, it's evocation.
The light/darkness spells? It's a wonder these aren't already Illusion school spells (in fact, in earlier editions, some of these were).
Yes. But the darkness and light are real, not imagined, and were evoked from nowhere.
The elemental spells where you "evoke" fire, cold, electricity, and so forth? Yeah, looks like conjuration actually would be the best school for these, given that thematically it makes sense to draw such elements from the planes rather than creating energy from nothing. It would also help those who wanted to blast stuff because it would all be Conjuration (creation) spells and thus have no SR (which isn't arbitrary, it makes sense, because you create something with magic that then damages others, rather than trying to affect something with magic).
Is there much left in Evocation after moving these sorts of spells around to schools they make more (or as much) sense in?
Not really. Evocation is summoning, as much as casting any spell is summoning some sort of magic from some space you can access with a spell you can cast.
Evocation covers "elements:" Light, dark, acid, cold, electricity, fire and force. What they have in common is short casting times, plenty of damaging effects, and easy components.
Something from nothing, or close to it.
|
|
That's mechanically the same as +1 per die, except that it has the same minimum damage as the base spell, so it's a little less attractive. The average damage only rises by +1/die. :P
Shifting all evocation dice one size larger for evokers only (d4->d6->d8, etc) is something I've thought about doing in my game, and would probably be enough to make evokers an attractive option.
A evoker would benefit a bit more from maximizing his evocation spells.
In that situation the gain would be 2 points for each caster level.And having more swingy dices, to me, seem in theme with the evoker. It is a bit of a all or nothing class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, that's invocation. Different word.
Sorry but, Evoke is actually the word for it. Moreso than Invoke. Invocation is the petitioning of, and may be a practice involve with Evocation (such as if you invoke the name of a spirit in an attempt to evoke said spirit), which is generally what Conjurers in D&D do (if you cast planar binding you invoke the creature desired and then evoke them). Evoke is to summon or call forth. When discussing magic(k), Evocation is the actual term used to define the summoning and binding of spirits, while invoking them is generally used to acquire their attention or to assert your authority through ritual {don't hold my familiarity of such things against me}. In essence, Evocation and Conjuration are more or less hand in hand in practice from a practicality standpoint.
I completely ignored blasting in 3.5, who got +1/die?
Psionic characters did. 3.5 Psionics was one of the best most balanced books produced in the entire 3.x line. The kineticist discipline (effectively the Evocation of psionics) dealt with movement and manipulation of energy, so it had things like energy bolt.
Now if you look at the power/spell Energy Bolt, you'll notice it's basically identical to lightning bolt except that it has two major differences.
1) You can change the energy type that you are using.
2) What type of energy you use has a different effect.
Fire and Cold (the two most heavily resisted elements by the way) deal +1 damage per die, which means that these are your high-damage powers. Cold also targets Fortitude on the saving throw, which means your blaster can opt for either Reflex (Fire) or Fortitude (Cold) when targeting a foe (this also means that a (Anti)Paladin with a Ring of Evasion doesn't get to ignore 100% of your damage 95% of the time).
Electricity is more accurate, dealing only 1d6/level but has +2 to the save DC and +2 to penetrate spell resistance. So it was the "safe" option.
Sonic (the least resisted energy type of all) actually suffers a -1 penalty per die because of the type advantage, meaning that it deals average damage similar to 1d4/level instead of 1d6/level. It was also ideal for blowing objects to tiny bits due to its special kicker. So sonic was the damage type you used if your foe was just too damn resistant or immune to everything else. Your damage was less potent, but you weren't impotent.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That IS the explanation. The spell effect isn't the issue...the school IS. Which school does what is important when specialization JUST gave you an extra spell from that school. Now with schools giving other effects, what school a spell is from is even MORE important. Why is that concept so freaking hard for you to grasp? Seriously, had this spell been an evocation spell...even with the no SR, it would have caused only a minor stir. Evocation with SR...yeah no issue really other then the die hard no power creep crowd. The reason it is OP is BECAUSE IT IS CONJURATION WHICH MAKES CONJURATION EVEN MORE BROKEN AND EVOCATION EVEN MORE OF A DUMP SCHOOL.Stop screaming, please.
The point is: why would a conjurer prepare that spell, when he can prepare Grease, Obscuring Mist, Mount, or even Unseen Servant in that slot? These spells are much more useful than a single target damage spell, even with the rider and no SR.
Well when somebody doesn't seem to get the idea the first 30th time, screaming is all there is left.
The point isn't that the conjurer doesn't have better options...the point is that the conjurer now has one MORE option...and the fact that he oppose school evocation is even more of moot point as when he DOES need damage (because sometimes you do just need to pile on those damage spells) he has the snowball spell.
The point isn't that the conjurer doesn't have better options...the point is that the conjurer now has one MORE option...and the fact that he oppose school evocation is even more of moot point as when he DOES need damage (because sometimes you do just need to pile on those damage spells) he has the snowball spell.
I think you're making an elephant out of a mosquito.
Actually, that's invocation. Different word.Sorry but, Evoke is actually the word for it. Moreso than Invoke.
I already provided the definitions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I already provided the definitions.Actually, that's invocation. Different word.Sorry but, Evoke is actually the word for it. Moreso than Invoke.
So did I. An invocation is like a prayer. An evocation is a summon.