|
It seems the more Pathfinder goes on the more the weaknesses of magic and the spellcasting classes are removed.
Let's look at some of the weaknesses.
1:Spell Resistance.
2:Saving Throws and Spell DC's.
3:Casting spells while threatened.
4:Spell access.
5:Spell components.
6:Spell costs.
7: Golems and other types of creatures.
I was reading the thread about the "Snowball" spell and I got to thinking. The game continues to remove the weaknesses that spellcasters and magic itself had to deal with. Are combat spells going to become more and more affiliated with the Conjuration school which ignores Spell Resistance? Casting while being threatened isn't that hard anymore. Access to all spells is essentially easy because you can visit any city and buy them, even if you have no prior knowledge of them. The costs of most spells is essentially 5gp etc... etc...
Now I love Wizards, I have played elven Wizards since the early 80's but I have always enjoyed the weaknesses of the class that goes along with the power. I also enjoyed the work that it took because I felt the pay off was well worth it but now the spellcasting classes are loosing their weaknesses more and more. I remember when you actually feared golems and other creatures that had spell resistance and immunity.
I know most of this started with 3rd edition but why continue to cater to it?
Spells are easy to design but hard to balance. Thematically magic can do anything. Maybe the game designers expect GM's to be more involved in vetting what spells they allow in their games. Some people want spell casters to be mechanically superior to non casters or some gaming groups don't have players with the system mastery to make optimal use of a full caster. New more powerful spells are one way to address the wants of such groups.
I don't think that spell components are a major factor in balance if the rules are followed. But spell access, spells that don't allow spell resistance, or that still have a partial effect on a successful save (other than pure damage spells) can be a bit much for my tastes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm afraid that an unavoidable effect of extra books with spells and feats is that spellcasters get more powerful. Their access to even more spells is more powerful than fighters' access to more feats, because your number feats is far more limited than your number of spells. Especially for wizards and divine casters where number of spells known is effectively unlimited.
If Paizo wants to prevent that, they should either not give out new spells in supplements, or make them part of new colleges or domains that you can only get by giving up something else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Casting defensevely is harder in PF than it was in 3.5, sure after a certain level it becomes an auto success but that level is higher than it was in 3.5.
Spell components and the aquisition of spells are the same (more or less) than it was in 3.0 and later.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
6:Spell costs.7: Golems and other types of creatures.
Now I love Wizards, I have played elven Wizards since the early 80's but I have always enjoyed the weaknesses of the class that goes along with the power. I also enjoyed the work that it took because I felt the pay off was well worth it but now the spellcasting classes are loosing their weaknesses more and more. I remember when you actually feared golems and other creatures that had spell resistance and immunity.
I know most of this started with 3rd edition but why continue to cater to it?
2E Melf's Minute Missiles (3rd level, 1 missile/level, deals 1d4+1 also +1 fire with each) bypass MR (the 2E version of SR). And that good damage in 2E since hps were low (Lloth the spider god of drows had like 100 hps and Golems are way below her in level)
So no, there never was a time you had to fear golems. You chose to do so by not picking your spells right.
|
|
6:Spell costs.7: Golems and other types of creatures.
Now I love Wizards, I have played elven Wizards since the early 80's but I have always enjoyed the weaknesses of the class that goes along with the power. I also enjoyed the work that it took because I felt the pay off was well worth it but now the spellcasting classes are loosing their weaknesses more and more. I remember when you actually feared golems and other creatures that had spell resistance and immunity.
I know most of this started with 3rd edition but why continue to cater to it?
2E Melf's Minute Missiles (3rd level, 1 missile/level, deals 1d4+1 also +1 fire with each) bypass MR (the 2E version of SR). And that good damage in 2E since hps were low (Lloth the spider god of drows had like 100 hps and Golems are way below her in level)
So no, there never was a time you had to fear golems. You chose to do so by not picking your spells right.
The problem here is Golems did not function off of MR. That is a 3rd edition thing that involved SR. Golems were completely immune to all spells except for a select few.
Let's take the Iron Golem for example. It was slowed by lightning, healed by fire and immune to everything else.
So yes, magic users back then did fear golems.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2E Melf's Minute Missiles (3rd level, 1 missile/level, deals 1d4+1 also +1 fire with each) bypass MR (the 2E version of SR). And that good damage in 2E since hps were low (Lloth the spider god of drows had like 100 hps and Golems are way below her in level)So no, there never was a time you had to fear golems. You chose to do so by not picking your spells right.
From where you get the idea that Melf's Minute meteors was immune to magic resistance?
It is an evocation/abjuration spell, so I don't see why you think it isn't subject to MR.
Beside that it fired at most 5 meteors round, each requiring a to hit (vs normal AC as you hadn't a touch AC in 1st-2nd edition) with a +2 tot eh to hit, each meteor did 1d4 fire damage in a 1' radius and could set fire to inflammable objects, missed did 1 point of damage to creatures withing 3' and you had do use the scatter rules for grenade-like attacks to see where the hit landed. Very different form what you say.
|
|
The problem here is Golems did not function off of MR. That is a 3rd edition thing that involved SR. Golems were completely immune to all spells except for a select few.And most golems still have that line "Immune to any spell that allows spell resistance." in their stat block. Most casters, especially those bound to PFS rules, still have reason to fear them.
This is the umpteemth thread in the last couple of weeks where you've been ranting about spellcasters. Did a sorcerer Ray of Frost your cheerios or something like that?
Why do you need to fear golems now? All you have to do is fill your slots with conjuration creation spells and you are good to go.
The problem began with adding the line "Immune to any spell that allows spell resistance".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From where you get the idea that Melf's Minute meteors was immune to magic resistance?
It was in the text. They were treated as +2 weapons not magic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Casters have always been able to fight their way around magic immune enemies, even in core with the Summon Spells. And then the APG added pits, which almost trivialize things like golems since they tend to have crappy saves. So a snowball being able to deal 5d6 damage to a few magic immune enemies really isn't that crazy, especially since your fighters and barbarians are probably doing a lot more. And if you're the kind of wizard who wants to Intensify Empower that to 15d6 at level 10, that's also fine, because the same fighter and barbarian are probably doing triple digit damage at that point without having to expend resources.
Are wizards getting more powerful? Definitely, but I've been finding that the same applies to most classes as well. Wizards are probably getting a better deal out of it, but it's a bit of an unfortunate reality with the system Pathfinder is based on. It could be done, but it would mean really limiting the new options presented for wizards, which I don't really think is a good solution.
|
|
It was in the text. They were treated as +2 weapons not magic.
From where you get the idea that Melf's Minute meteors was immune to magic resistance?
LOL, no, you are reading 2nd ed rules with 3rd ed eyes.
The text is "The meteors are treated as missile hurled by the wizard with a +2 bonus to the attack roll and no penalty for range".There is nothing in it about they being +2 weapons. It evoked fire, i.e. magical fire. The part about hurled missiles is simply a description on how you had to use them for teh to hit.
Like Mel'f Acid Arrow said "the wizard creates a magical arrow that speed to its target as if fired from the bow of a fighter of the same level of the wizard."
But it is not a +something arrow, and it don't require a real bow to be fired.
And in 2nd edition you needed +3 weapons to harm a golem, so even with your interpretation the golems were immune to Melf's Minute Meteors.
|
Call me crazy but as a rabid fan of arcane spell casters I like a system where one has more options that make you feel less absolutely useless to the group in certain types of encounters.
Okay crazy...I as a rabid arcane caster fan prefer a system where conjuration isn't the automatic school of choice for specialization and evocation the obvious dump school. Yeah I like some remote semblance of balance...I'm silly like that.
Call me crazy but as a rabid fan of arcane spell casters I like a system where one has more options that make you feel less absolutely useless to the group in certain types of encounters.Okay crazy...I as a rabid arcane caster fan prefer a system where conjuration isn't the automatic school of choice for specialization and evocation the obvious dump school. Yeah I like some remote semblance of balance...I'm silly like that.
I just want to point out that this has been true since 3.0. Until a few years ago, however, it didn't seem to be common knowledge. I just find it interesting, that's all.
]
The problem here is Golems did not function off of MR. That is a 3rd edition thing that involved SR. Golems were completely immune to all spells except for a select few.
Let's take the Iron Golem for example. It was slowed by lightning, healed by fire and immune to everything else.
So yes, magic users back then did fear golems.
Heck, it wasn't even a 3e thing. It was a 3.5 thing. In 3.0, they were still immune to spells and spell-like abilities without the SR qualifier.
|
|
I just want to point out that this has been true since 3.0. Until a few years ago, however, it didn't seem to be common knowledge. I just find it interesting, that's all.Call me crazy but as a rabid fan of arcane spell casters I like a system where one has more options that make you feel less absolutely useless to the group in certain types of encounters.Okay crazy...I as a rabid arcane caster fan prefer a system where conjuration isn't the automatic school of choice for specialization and evocation the obvious dump school. Yeah I like some remote semblance of balance...I'm silly like that.
I said SEMBLENCE of balance here...not ACTUAL balance. Yes conjuration has been the no brainer school for anyone with even moderate system mastery in arcane casters form the start of 3.0. But that was just that minor bit that didn't make it a glowing neon sign...until conjuration took over DD as well at the end days of 3.5.
|
|
Heck, it wasn't even a 3e thing. It was a 3.5 thing. In 3.0, they were still immune to spells and spell-like abilities without the SR qualifier.]
The problem here is Golems did not function off of MR. That is a 3rd edition thing that involved SR. Golems were completely immune to all spells except for a select few.
Let's take the Iron Golem for example. It was slowed by lightning, healed by fire and immune to everything else.
So yes, magic users back then did fear golems.
Ah, you're right.
|
|
Call me crazy but as a rabid fan of arcane spell casters I like a system where one has more options that make you feel less absolutely useless to the group in certain types of encounters.
Since when are you supposed to be able to handle each and every situation out there?
Would get to be a bit redundant if you ask me.
Problem is that he has a valid point this time around.
And rare are the days when I think SHALLOWSOUL of all people has a point.
|
|
I have to agree. I have found Icy Prison to be particularly devastating. If they fail the save, they are very likely dead. If they make the save, they are entangled and take a -6 on strength and dex plus reduced move speed. This by itself wrecks melee enemies, but then Icy prison also targets reflex save, meaning if you cast it again they are more likely to fail their save.
Essentially you are screwed either way. Making your save would just prolong the inevitable.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Problem is that he has a valid point this time around.
And rare are the days when I think SHALLOWSOUL of all people has a point.
But there are already 3 other threads on the first two pages with effectively the same subject.
The "Boost to Wizard Power" thread springs to mind immediately.
Yes casters are powerful. No we don't need 500 different threads on the subject.
But in the interest of furthering discussion I'll comment on the Golem thing. Regardless of caster power levels, why is it a good idea to have an enemy that's completely immune to anything that's thrown at them by a caster?
It doesn't really fix any of the balance issues, it's just an appeasement enemy that you can point to in the book and say "Just throw one of these at him every now and then!".
If you want casters to be weaker don't lament the lack of magic immune enemies (an external check), lament the lack of INTERNAL checks and balances on caster power levels.
While I may understand your position I think it is not a big deal, you can alwyas hit the hide button.Problem is that he has a valid point this time around.
And rare are the days when I think SHALLOWSOUL of all people has a point.
But there are already 3 other threads on the first two pages with effectively the same subject.
The "Boost to Wizard Power" thread springs to mind immediately.
Yes casters are powerful. No we don't need 500 different threads on the subject.
People always mention this mythical "Hide button" but I can never seem to find it.
I've got "Flag" "List" "FAQ" and "Reply", but no "Hide".
Is it hidden somewhere or am I just blind?
6:Spell costs.7: Golems and other types of creatures.
Now I love Wizards, I have played elven Wizards since the early 80's but I have always enjoyed the weaknesses of the class that goes along with the power. I also enjoyed the work that it took because I felt the pay off was well worth it but now the spellcasting classes are loosing their weaknesses more and more. I remember when you actually feared golems and other creatures that had spell resistance and immunity.
I know most of this started with 3rd edition but why continue to cater to it?
2E Melf's Minute Missiles (3rd level, 1 missile/level, deals 1d4+1 also +1 fire with each) bypass MR (the 2E version of SR). And that good damage in 2E since hps were low (Lloth the spider god of drows had like 100 hps and Golems are way below her in level)
So no, there never was a time you had to fear golems. You chose to do so by not picking your spells right.
The problem here is Golems did not function off of MR. That is a 3rd edition thing that involved SR. Golems were completely immune to all spells except for a select few.
Let's take the Iron Golem for example. It was slowed by lightning, healed by fire and immune to everything else.
So yes, magic users back then did fear golems.
Yes, and the weapons that it took to harm a golem have also been expanded. For example a Clay Golem could only be harmed by magical blunt weapons, now any weapon can do damage (although it does have DR 10).
Also before damage caused by a Clay Golem could only be healed by a 17th or higher level Cleric using a Heal spell, now it's just a DC 26 Caster Level check.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Damn skippy. I freaking hated Golems in Baldur's Gate / Baldur's Gate II (2E y'know). Why did I hate them? I freaking hated them because my martials couldn't do a damn thing to them unless they had a specific type of magic sword such as a +3 or +4 (depending on the golem) weapon, and then the golems were amazingly resilient (had great AC, and their attacks were devastating to front liners as they basically ate through your AC and HP like hot knives through butter). Healing still sucked, so out healing brute monsters with lots of attacks (or few strong attacks) was nigh impossible unless your tank was also a spellcaster (fighter/druid with ironskins is the simplest, though fighter/mage with stoneskin was great too).
Tell ya what. You want more magic immune enemies? Well, maybe you should bring back physical immune enemies. See, these days we get off with some damage reduction, which is about half as potent as it was in 3.0, which was infinitely less potent than it was in 2E and before (because you literally couldn't damage them, PERIOD).
Just as an example:
SizeAndType: Large Outsider (Chaotic, Evil)
HitDice: 13d8+52 (110)
Initiative: +5 (+1 Dex, +4 Improved Initiative)
Speed: 40 ft., fly 90 ft. (good)
ArmorClass: 30 (-1 size, +1 Dex, +20 natural)
Attacks: +1 vorpal greatsword +18/+13/+8 melee, whip +17 melee; or 2 slams +19 melee
Damage: +1 vorpal greatsword 2d6+8, whip 1d4+3 and entangle; or slam 1d6+7 and fear
FaceAndReach: 5 ft. by 5 ft./10 ft. (15 ft. with whip)
SpecialAttacks: Spell-like abilities, fear, entangle, body flames, summon tanar'ri
SpecialQualities: Damage reduction 30/+3, SR 28, tanar'ri qualities, death throes
Saves: Fort +12, Ref +9, Will +13
Abilities: Str 25, Dex 13, Con 19, Int 20, Wis 20, Cha 16
Skills: Bluff +18, Concentration +19, Diplomacy +17, Hide +13, Knowledge (any one) +13, Listen +28, Move Silently +13, Scry +21, Search +20, Sense Motive +20, Spellcraft +21, Spot +29
Feats: Ambidexterity, Cleave, Improved Initiative, Two-Weapon Fighting
ClimateAndTerrain: Any land and underground
Organization: Solitary or troupe (1 balor, 1 marilith, and 2-5 hezrous)
ChallengeRating: 18
Treasure: Standard coins; double goods, plus whip; standard items, plus +1 vorpal greatsword
Alignment: Always chaotic evil
Advancement: 14-19 HD (Large); 20-39 HD (Huge)
Notice the DR. 30/+3. 30. If you aren't wielding a +3 weapon, you might as well go home if you're a martial. Hell, in 3.0, Arcane Archers were the shit, because they got a scaling +X, up to +5, which allowed them to have cool effects put on their bow without being neutered by DR. And neuter it did. Most experts would have rather taken a +3 weapon over a +1 holy weapon any day of the week, because DR was that big of a deal. It had SR 28, but that's a 55% chance to beat if you're a level-appropriate mage. 75% if you have greater spell penetration. And Spell Focus / Greater Spell Focus each added +2 to the save DCs back then (so Focus/Greater Focus = +4 to the DC).
Whereas in those days with the spell immune golems, fighters couldn't even hurt them. Didn't matter if you where some fighter that was twelve stories tall, wielding a hammer the size of a mountain, with a 25 strength (which was godlike back then), you simply are not going to damage that golem unless your hammer is +3 or better. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Casters could at least screw with golems, get around golems, or slow them down with summons or undead while the party escaped. Warriors couldn't do DIDDLY SQUAT.
I think Shallowsoul just hates D&D, or anything that gives PCs any sort of power at all. Everything he says he hates in D&D/PF has generally been true forever in one form or another, and he hates more about the game than he seems to like. Everything is always wrong, except for himself. He's always right, but that right is always directly contrary to pretty much everything the game is, or hopefully ever will be.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, here. Download OSRIC (Old School Reference & Index Compilation) and try playing that. It may be the answer to all your woes. It is basically 1E D&D, cleaned up a bit. Try playing that game for a while, and see if you have no complaints. You're clearly unhappy with modern D&D/PF (and I'd bet you'd be unhappy with OSRIC too after some time, if I was a gambler).
Best case scenario, I solved every problem you'll ever have with your gaming hobby.
Worst case scenario, you'll be back to complain about how mages in old D&D have too many options, fighters don't get enough skills, and theives are failures at everything but you have to have them in your party whether anyone wants to play them or not, and that demihumans are superior to everyone.
Which means we literally have nothing to lose by trying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To revive DR/+x, is not really a bad idea, Afther the first level DR magic is like a joke.
I do use +X DR in my games, because I recall when dragon DR wasn't a laughing matter. I even have an exceedingly simple method of handling it. I actually liked the +X scaling bit (also, greater magic weapon is your friend).
DR 5/magic becomes DR 5/+1
DR 10/magic becomes DR 10/+2
DR 15/magic becomes DR 15/+3
And so forth.
But the real difference is the amount of DR. If you come up against say, a Stone Golem in 3.0, if you lacked a +2 enhancement weapon, the golem ignores 30 points of damage from your attacks. 30 points. Which means unless you do have this one particular weapon, you are not likely to even scratch them (especially true since there were less good ways to increase your damage on martials in 3.0, since Power Attack was bad {-1/+1}, weapon specialization capped at +1/+2, favored enemy didn't work on things immune to crits (which constructs/undead were), smite was horrible, etc). With a +1 holy sword, you'd have been dealing at 11th level, maybe 1d8+8+1+2 (2 handing) = 15.5 DPA (Damage Per Attack). You will never hurt it.
OTOH, back then you didn't have all the various different kinds of DR. You didn't need to lug around all the different weapons: materials, holy/evil/etc, etc. You just got the biggest plus you could afford and you could probably hurt everything you came across.
You can almost do that now anyway. There's a chart in the glossary the gives you a magic plus needed to overcome some other DR type.
DR Type Weapon Enhancement Bonus Equivalent
cold iron/silver +3
adamantine* +4
alignment-based +5
OTOH, back then you didn't have all the various different kinds of DR. You didn't need to lug around all the different weapons: materials, holy/evil/etc, etc. You just got the biggest plus you could afford and you could probably hurt everything you came across.
Tell ya what. You want more magic immune enemies? Well, maybe you should bring back physical immune enemies. See, these days we get off with some damage reduction, which is about half as potent as it was in 3.0, which was infinitely less potent than it was in 2E and before (because you literally couldn't damage them, PERIOD).Notice the DR. 30/+3. 30. If you aren't wielding a +3 weapon, you might as well go home if you're a martial. Hell, in 3.0, Arcane Archers were the s&~~, because they got a scaling +X, up to +5, which allowed them to have cool effects put on their bow without being neutered by DR. And neuter it did. Most experts would have rather taken a +3 weapon over a +1 holy weapon any day of the week, because DR was that big of a deal. It had SR 28, but that's a 55% chance to beat if you're a level-appropriate mage. 75% if you have greater spell penetration. And Spell Focus / Greater Spell Focus each added +2 to the save DCs back then (so Focus/Greater Focus = +4 to the DC).
Whereas in those days with the spell immune golems, fighters couldn't even hurt them. Didn't matter if you where some fighter that was twelve stories tall, wielding a hammer the size of a mountain, with a 25 strength (which was godlike back then), you simply are not going to damage that golem unless your hammer is +3 or better. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Casters could at least screw with golems, get around golems, or slow them down with summons or undead while the party escaped. Warriors couldn't do DIDDLY SQUAT.
Which is why it was heart breaking when a Glabrezu casts dispel magic on your weapon. Oops, you're neutered for about 2.5 rounds. Oops, he broke your weapon. Oh damn, there went 50,000 gp down the drain.
I personally like that DRs are about half of what they used to be, and have more variety. I like that lycanthropes have DR overcome by silver, fey by cold iron, fiends by holy weapons, etc. I also, personally, prefer that DR/Magic scale for creatures with magic DRs. I like being prepared, and I think that the Iconics will agree that more weapons is better. >:)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OTOH, back then you didn't have all the various different kinds of DR. You didn't need to lug around all the different weapons: materials, holy/evil/etc, etc. You just got the biggest plus you could afford and you could probably hurt everything you came across.You can almost do that now anyway. There's a chart in the glossary the gives you a magic plus needed to overcome some other DR type.
DR Type Weapon Enhancement Bonus Equivalent
cold iron/silver +3
adamantine* +4
alignment-based +5
Yeah, I'm not really that happy about that change (especially since spells like greater magic weapon are just bizarrely different and don't count, meaning that martials value +X significantly more highly than special abilities, whereas in 3.5, it was okay to have a +1 flaming sword, because your friendly party mage could cast greater magic weapon on it and now you've got a +3 flaming sword).
In my own little perfect world, I'd have a mixture of 3.5 material DRs and 3.0 scaling +X. So creatures like lycanthropes would have DR/silver, fey would have DR/cold iron, fiends would have DR/good, and dragons and such would have DR/+X.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Currently, the most optimal weapon I've found you can have is +1 bane. At about 8,300 gp each (or 1/2 that if you craft it), they're pretty much the most efficient weapons to use in terms of reward vs benefit. I mean, they crank your enhancement bonus up to +3 (allowing you to ignore most material DRs). So get a small collection of them together and you're going to rock socks.
+1 dragon bane (vs wyverns, pseudodragons, true dragons, linnorms, etc)
+1 evil-outsider bane (vs all demons, devils, daemons, kytons, etc)
+1 magical beast bane (vs most every beastly creature)
+1 undead bane (vs EVERYTHING undead, including undead versions of everything else)
The best part is you can buy them in the standard rules because they are freely traded in any metropolis, as they are all within the 16,000 gp limit of a metropolis (whereas +3 weapons aren't and must be crafted, randomly generated, quested, or looted off bosses).
Snowball does not seem all that great to me. You do 5d6 every other round if you chain cast it, and you still need to hit with the attack. Should not be too hard against a golem but I am not seeing how 9 points of damage a round is going to break any encounters.
Like I said, it's not that it's going to break anything. It's that people are upset about the state of Evocation and are lashing out.
|
|
Regardless of caster power levels, why is it a good idea to have an enemy that's completely immune to anything that's thrown at them by a caster?
It doesn't really fix any of the balance issues, it's just an appeasement enemy that you can point to in the book and say "Just throw one of these at him every now and then!".
It is a different mindset on game play really...
Just read what the 2nd Edition DMG said on the subject of using monsters that are immune to certain things.
Creatures with powerful weapon immunities should be used with care. Players trust the DM to create situations in which they have a chance to win. Don't use such creatures unless the party has weapons to defeat them, or there is some other reason for encountering that monster.
Every player character in the party needn't have a weapon effective against the monster, but there should be at least two in the party. Avoid making an encounter dependent on the actions of a single character. It's not much fun for the other players and too many things can go wrong with the plan if the key player doesn't cooperate or his character gets hurt.
The warning above is just that, however--a warning. It's not a rule. There are times where using such creatures on an unprepared party can lead to creative and entertaining play.
For example, say the party is just beginning an adventure involving lots of werewolves. Early on, they are attacked by a hairy creature and their weapons don't seem to do any good! If not dispatched by spells, it causes serious injury, but doesn't manage to kill anyone, before it flees for some reason or another. It shouldn't take too much for players to figure out what they need, and getting appropriate weapons can become part of the adventure.
Immune creatures also can be used to control a party that has become abusive or just too powerful. Such uses of very potent creatures should be extremely rare.