So was Thaco.
Oh, lord, that nonsense again. No, THAC0 did not date back to Blackmoor, unless you redefine what you mean by "THAC0" such that it's actually still in Pathfinder, unless you're then making a special limitation of your expanded definition for no more reason than trying to pretend to have a point.
(I mean, seriously, the row of 20s in AD&D 1st was much, much more distinct mathematically from THAC0 than THAC0 ever was from the "well, we'll just reverse the sign on AC improvements!" of 3rd.)
If the solution is to always move the power level up, you get creep.
Whereas you have a point here. The problem is, of course, is that it's generally accepted that sorcerers are more powerful than, say, rouges. So it's also going to be power creep to balance around sorcerers.
And that's the dangerous similarity of this approach to what happened to 4th. 4th rebalanced the game around newer things — the 3.5 warlock and martial adepts. That's a recipe for leveraging yourself to a place greatly alien from the original. If you're going to make balancing changes, start by balancing the oldest elements, and then make the newer elements conform to the resulting power level.
And that's the dangerous similarity of this approach to what happened to 4th. 4th rebalanced the game around newer things — the 3.5 warlock and martial adepts. That's a recipe for leveraging yourself to a place greatly alien from the original. If you're going to make balancing changes, start by balancing the oldest elements, and then make the newer elements conform to the resulting power level.
I just have to say something. I disagree with this paragraph on so many levels. I don't think there's anything dangerous there, I don't think it was balanced around newer things in general, I am certain it wasn't balanced around those specific classes, the power level around which it's balanced is not what makes it different and starting by balancing the oldest stuff will not accomplish anything different.
If 4E is a bad game or a too different game, it's not because of it's power level. There's a range of different ones in D&D and you could pick any one of them arbitrarily to be your goal. 4E's classes aren't too strong or too weak, it's how they apply that power which gives the game its identity. You can balance assuming everybody's a 3.5 expert or a 3.5 wizard and it won't matter at all, as long as you build the monsters to challenge that level of power.
Compare the mechanics of any 4E class with the 3.5 warlock. I defy you to find anything in common. Yes, the classes get something called at will attacks and the warlock was famous for having one of those, but 4E's at wills are just basic attacks with a slight modifier. They're more like attacking using a feat than they are a d6/2 levels deathray.
As for the martial adepts, I don't see where you're coming from. I mean, there are some superficial similarities, but adepts never ran out of powers, didn't have dailies and were themselves pitched to be balanced against partial progression spellcasters. 4E doesn't include them. I don't think it even references them. The only similarity is that most melee guys in 4E get new named attacks as they level. Those don't even work similarly.
As for balancing the oldest elements first, they were the most disparate in all of 3.5, aside from a few outliers who the designers just built wrong. By balancing those with each other, you could end up anywhere. The classic 3.5 tier list puts the fighter in tier 5 and the druid in tier 1. If you want to make them approximately equal, one needs to be brought to the power level of the other or both need to meet in the middle. That's going to radically change at least one of them before we even try to apply the aesthetics, new system rules and design principles of a new game made by a new team.
What really makes 4E "vastly alien" is that they:
All that has precisely nothing to do with game balance and everything to do with a concious decision to do things differently and a few big mistakes during implementation. It's not even an incredibly well balanced game. Those classes with their similar looking power progressions are far from equal. The ranger is the strongest class in the player's handbook, according to many, and until they errataed him he could solo Orcus in a round while under-levelled.
I'd also argue that it isn't power creep to balance around anything that's already accepted as part of the game. Power creep is where things get better over time, not when they match powerful existing material.
If you were to say "The sorcerer is my anchor. From now on I shall aim to keep everything I make or modify equal to a core sorcerer" your output will not get ever stronger over time, it would just be quite strong.
|
Because the spell might be used on a martial class doesn't change that the caster now has an extra spell available, and more to the point any extra spell available. It completely undermines the "prepared" disadvantage that is the underpinning of why prepared casters get spells a level earlier. Particularly for Wizards who already can have bonded items at this point, which function as uber-pearls of power.
I love metamagic feats, but I hate that the rods handwave all the restrictions.
1) Pearls of power: they don't give you "any extra spell available", instead they "allow you to recharge a spell of a specific level that you have already cast today".
That is a big difference. They add flexibility to your spell load only in a roundabout way, allowing you to take as many different spells as you have spell slots and then using the pearl to recharge the used spells that you think will be useful to cast more than once/day.Note that spontaneous spellcasters have runestone of power and several items that increase their spell selection, trodding way more on the feet of prepared spellcasters than the reverse when a prepared spellcaster use a pear of power.
Generally I don't see them as a problem unless the casters is buying plenty of them.
2) Metamagic rods. I agree with you. Mostly I dislike the idea that a spellcaster would get access to spells way above his current or maximum caster level using a relatively simple magic item.
My current solution is to substitute the rods with magic books that impart the feat for 24 hours when read while preparing your spells (they are a permanent item). They make spell preparation a bit longer so you can use one, at most two books unless you want to spend most of your day preparing your spells, and the acquired feat follow all the rules of the standard feat, so if you want to memorize a quickened magic missile you need to be capable to cast 5th level spells.
3) Metamagic feat: there is a good number of metamagic feat that are reasonably balanced when you need a feat to use them and you have all the normal limitations of the feat and become very unbalanced when available as a move action on whatever spell you want and don't cost any extra spell level (i.e. when got from a metamagic rod).
4) Power creep of the metamagic rods with the increase of metamagic feats.
As the number and variety of metamagic feats increase the power of the metamagic rods as a class of items increase. The metamagic rods in the CRB have a level of power and balance, adding all the feats from all the other different sources change that level of power and that balance.
|
|
First?Yup. I don't think his perspective is invalid, and it is nice to have someone honestly take that stance as opposed to people on here who talk about how overpowered X class is and then in the next breath act shocked anyone would limit things in any way.Probably my second biggest pet peeve on these forums.People who bash 4e for not for the actual substance of its changes, but for the fact that it dared to make such substantial changes; without seeming to realize that 3e did exactly the same thing.
That and people who mindlessly bash pre-d20 editions while simultaneously showing that they have little, if any, knowledge of those editions.
So, essentially, hipocracy combined with ignorance.
We are still allowed to bash 4e because we played it and found it crappy, right? :)
|
|
A possible houserule for you to try Ciretose: Instead of removing the metamagic rods, make possessing the metamagic feat a requirement to be able to use one of that type.
(i don't have a dog in the race on other side, i am all for house rules to enhance a particular group's preferences and playstyles.)
My group typically makes use of the lower level pearls of power (4th and below) and usually as a recall for an ailment removal that having one prepared of just wasn't enough that day. As the DM i have my own houserule, that a given PC can only benefit from a given pearl/level once a day.
I could also largely get behind this (I'd have to think about it with quicken and persistent)
|
|
If the solution is to always move the power level up, you get creep.Whereas you have a point here. The problem is, of course, is that it's generally accepted that sorcerers are more powerful than, say, rouges. So it's also going to be power creep to balance around sorcerers.
And that's the dangerous similarity of this approach to what happened to 4th. 4th rebalanced the game around newer things — the 3.5 warlock and martial adepts. That's a recipe for leveraging yourself to a place greatly alien from the original. If you're going to make balancing changes, start by balancing the oldest elements, and then make the newer elements conform to the resulting power level.
The problem (or I should say "a" problem) with 4e was they equated making them the same with balancing them.
Calling the same dice different things isn't the same as having very different play experiences.
I don't want all of the classes to be equal at all times. I do want classes to have strengths AND weaknesses. I don't care if the Wizard is the all powerful master of the battlefield a good deal of the time if he is also at risk of running out of useful spells and being completely dependent on the rest of the party at other times.
That, to me, is balance.
My issue with the rods and pearls is that you are taking the limiting factor of the class or of a feat and removing it. And of course players want that, because players want to make the most powerful version of whatever concept they are playing possible. But I don't know that removing those limits adds to the enjoyment of the game, overall for everyone.
So that is why I am asking if they belong in the game or if they are creating more problems than they create value.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pearls of power don't bother me too much. If a wizard wants to spend his hard earned cash to double down on a single spell each day that's his bussiness.
Metamagic rods on the other drive me crazy. Not so much for being a feat in a can item but for being an item that lets it's user doing things which someone who actualy took the feat can't.
Basicly it bugs me that a 9th level spell can be quickened. Ever. If metamagic rods were reworked in such a way that the highest level spell you could use with them was the same as the highest level spell a person with the feat could the feat on I'd be much more ok with them.
- Torger
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My group typically makes use of the lower level pearls of power (4th and below) and usually as a recall for an ailment removal that having one prepared of just wasn't enough that day. As the DM I have my own house rule, that a given PC can only benefit from a given pearl/level once a day.
That is not a house rule. That's RAW.
If it was an extra slot that has to be filled at the beginning of the day, it wouldn't bother me. It's that it basically a spontaneous casting slot.
Well that sounds like a quick and easy house rule right there.
- Torger
|
Metamagic rods on the other drive me crazy. Not so much for being a feat in a can item but for being an item that lets it's user doing things which someone who actually took the feat can't.
Basically it bugs me that a 9th level spell can be quickened. Ever. If metamagic rods were reworked in such a way that the highest level spell you could use with them was the same as the highest level spell a person with the feat could the feat on I'd be much more ok with them.
- Torger
I could go for that.
As it stands, the rods are better than the feats; they can be applied retrospectively, and can break the max spell level the caster can cast/prepare.
|
|
In the case of pearls of power (and to a lesser extent the sorcerer equivalent mentioned up thread) I don't think having to pick specific spells at a given time is something that isn't fun. I think being challenged is fun, and I think rules that remove the basic challenges of the game make the game less fun.
You keep repeating this. Are you aware that pearls of power only allow you to recover a spell that you have already memorized and cast?
Not any spell on your spellbook, not the spell you have cast with your bonded item.
So how they allow you not to pick specific spells? You have to pick them, simply you get the option to cast them more than once.
|
|
I like pearls of power and generally allow them to work for spontaneous casters or put in a same function same price item for them.
I don't like rods because they are better than the feat they replicate. I still allow them, though I haven't seen a quicken rod higher than minor.
Wands pretty much cover low level spells better than pearls anyway.
There is a big difference between a pearl of power used by a prepared spellcaster and a spontaneous spellcaster.
The prepared spellcaster get back 1 specific spell.
The spontaneous spellcaster get the ability to cast one more spell of that specific level and can choose between all the spell he know at that level.
So a 3rd level wizard using a pearl of power will get back his armor spell.
A 3rd level sorcerer using a runestone of power get back the ability to chose between 4 different spells.
That is the reason why the runestones of power cost more.
|
|
So how they allow you not to pick specific spells? You have to pick them, simply you get the option to cast them more than once.
Which is exactly what a spontaneous caster can do that a prepared can't do.
A prepared caster can have access to more spells, but he has to prepare them individually in slots.
A spontaneous caster has access to less spells, but they can cast the spells they know repeatedly.
Comparing the two is deemed a significant enough advantage that prepared casters get spells a level earlier than spontaneous.
And what pearls do is allow you to cast a prepared spell as if it were spontaneous. If it were just an extra slot you could memorize an additional spell into, I would have no issue with it as you would still need to prepare the slot in advance. It is the fact you functionally become a spontaneous caster when you use it.
|
|
So how they allow you not to pick specific spells? You have to pick them, simply you get the option to cast them more than once.Which is exactly what a spontaneous caster can do that a prepared can't do.
A prepared caster can have access to more spells, but he has to prepare them individually in slots.
A spontaneous caster has access to less spells, but they can cast the spells they know repeatedly.
Comparing the two is deemed a significant enough advantage that prepared casters get spells a level earlier than spontaneous.
And what pearls do is allow you to cast a prepared spell as if it were spontaneous. If it were just an extra slot you could memorize an additional spell into, I would have no issue with it as you would still need to prepare the slot in advance. It is the fact you functionally become a spontaneous caster when you use it.
Repeating that at infinitum don't make it true.
Let's see how ti work:
First, the prepared spellcaster maximum number of spell know:
a 7th level wizard with 20+ intelligence. He get 6 spell slots.
To get 7+ slots he need 28+ intelligence or a ring of wizardry so generally level 8+ and a 36.000 gp headband or a 20.000 gp ring, both possible but hardly the norm.
So the norm unless your wizard has a high level is 6 spells.
Then he need to have cast one or more of those spells to replace it. To repeat it, he need to have cast it, so his selection isn't 6 different spells (unless he has user all of his first level spells) but less than that.
Las step he has to use a standard action to recharge a specific spell. You generally don't use standard actions for non combat actions in combat, so the wizard has to chose in advance what spell he want to recharge.
I later need a different spell? Though luck.
Ruenstone of power, 7th level sorcerer: he use the stone with a standard action, get hie spell slot back and he can chose between 5 different spells when he use it again.
So no, the pearls of power don't thread on the sorcerer flexibility as much as you say. Less than having a scroll.
|
|
1. The prepared spellcaster's only cap on spells known is how many spellbooks they can carry. Your 7th level wizard may only have 6 known spells on a given day, but those spells can change every day. No so for spontaneous casters.
2. That is maximum spell slots available per day, not maximum spells known per day.
3. He wouldn't need to use the pearl if he didn't cast the spell first, because if he didn't cast the spell first he would still have the spell to cast without using the pearl.
4. I have no idea why you picked 7th level, but you did so let us look at the numbers. The 7th level full Spontaneous caster vs full prepared casters spells known PER DAY at 7th level assuming a 20 in casting stat.
0 level Spontaneous = 7
0 Level full = 4, but knows all of them
1st Level Spontaneous = 5 that are the same every day.
1st Level Prepared = 6 slots that can change daily
2nd Level Spontaneous = 3 that are the same every day
2nd Level Prepared = 4 slots that can change daily
3rd Level Spontaneous = 2 that are the same every day.
3rd Level Prepared = 3 Slots that can change daily.
4th Level Spontaneous = Can't cast 4th level spells.
4th Level Prepared = 2 Slots that can change daily.
Hmm, I don't see much of a problem with metamagic rods, but in the games I've played they've generally been rare and hard to find.
Pearls of power, on the other hand, don't seem like a big deal, and the reason is opportunity cost.
Consider the 2nd level wizard who has 1000gp finally saved up. If a pearl of power isn't available, is he going to throw that money down a well? No chance. So look what the alternatives are...
Wand of, say, Mage Armor. That's 50 additional spells (at caster level 1), with 250 gold left over. It's a decent tradeoff, fifty spells vs. one more spell a day.
Scrolls of first level spells. 40 of them for 1000 gp. Has more variety than the wand, but provokes an attack of opportunity. Overall, I'd say this is an even trade.
In comparison, I don't see what the big deal is. I find myself agreeing with Kirth, that the +2 spells a level, and automatically learning spells is what needs to go first.
My group typically makes use of the lower level pearls of power (4th and below) and usually as a recall for an ailment removal that having one prepared of just wasn't enough that day. As the DM I have my own house rule, that a given PC can only benefit from a given pearl/level once a day.That is not a house rule. That's RAW.
Is it? I am somehow missing that in my reading of the item. Could you show me the relevant text so that i can edit my house rule document please? :)
We have to define 'benefit from'. If it mean's the same thing as 'use', then it's in the description of the item.
If it's 'be affected by the magic', then that's your house rule.
|
|
1. The prepared spellcaster's only cap on spells known is how many spellbooks they can carry. Your 7th level wizard may only have 6 known spells on a given day, but those spells can change every day. No so for spontaneous casters.
2. That is maximum spell slots available per day, not maximum spells known per day.
3. He wouldn't need to use the pearl if he didn't cast the spell first, because if he didn't cast the spell first he would still have the spell to cast without using the pearl.
4. I have no idea why you picked 7th level, but you did so let us look at the numbers. The 7th level full Spontaneous caster vs full prepared casters spells known PER DAY at 7th level assuming a 20 in casting stat.
0 level Spontaneous = 7
0 Level full = 4, but knows all of them
1st Level Spontaneous = 5 that are the same every day.
1st Level Prepared = 6 slots that can change daily
2nd Level Spontaneous = 3 that are the same every day
2nd Level Prepared = 4 slots that can change daily
3rd Level Spontaneous = 2 that are the same every day.
3rd Level Prepared = 3 Slots that can change daily.
4th Level Spontaneous = Can't cast 4th level spells.
4th Level Prepared = 2 Slots that can change daily.
7th level is a range where:
- first level spells are still relevant- the wizard get the maximum number of 1st level spells so it can be compared with a sorcerer without cries of "but later the wizard get more spells".
Your argument has nothing to do with the pearl.
The pearl affect only the spells that you have memorized that day, and only those that have been expended, so it don't open up any ability to cast as a sorcerer, as you claim.
What you are saying is that a prepared spellcaster is a prepared spellcaster and that a spontaneous spellcaster is a spontaneous spellcaster and the pearl don't change anything in that regard.
|
|
Is it? I am somehow missing that in my reading of the item. Could you show me the relevant text so that i can edit my house rule document please? :)My group typically makes use of the lower level pearls of power (4th and below) and usually as a recall for an ailment removal that having one prepared of just wasn't enough that day. As the DM I have my own house rule, that a given PC can only benefit from a given pearl/level once a day.That is not a house rule. That's RAW.
Your statement can be read two ways:
a) a single pearl can affect a caster only once day (RAW)b) a caster can use only one first level pearl, one second level pearl and so on in a day in a day (houserule).
I think that what you man is b) and what he read is a).
Aha!
Hmm, that's very possible Diego. You are correct in that i was saying [b] as my houserule.
Thank you for clearing that up for me.
Is it? I am somehow missing that in my reading of the item. Could you show me the relevant text so that i can edit my house rule document please? :)My group typically makes use of the lower level pearls of power (4th and below) and usually as a recall for an ailment removal that having one prepared of just wasn't enough that day. As the DM I have my own house rule, that a given PC can only benefit from a given pearl/level once a day.That is not a house rule. That's RAW.Your statement can be read two ways:
a) a single pearl can affect a caster only once day (RAW)
b) a caster can use only one first level pearl, one second level pearl and so on in a day in a day (houserule).I think that what you man is b) and what he read is a).
Ah, okay. My bad, then.