StuffI think a lot of the recent arguing is that you are stating that Psionics are overpowered, but you run a low power level game. In fact from opinions expressed, I would guess? you are running a severly house-ruled Pathfinder which doesn't run with base assumptions.
Generally when someone asks if "X is over/underpowered" they asking in the context of the core, un-modified rules. If your Pathfinder games diverge far from baseline assumptions, than telling someone "X is overpowered" is misleading. Your reference is not the Pathfinder game, but something else.
And again, my original assertion was that a few specific things MIGHT be a problem. I never said "Psionics is ridiculously overpowered stay as far away from it as possible." I basically pointed out a few mechanics and suggested that they bear reading before going full bore with the system.
My games aren't "heavily house ruled". Fortunately in Pathfinder there aren't core rules classes that are large or have powerful build which actually solved one of my annoyances there in the switch from 3.5
The only real "house rule" that I use is sneak attack is once a round. Other than that I occasionally bar a feat or spell that players are abusing.
As far as the original question-- I think that "most people say no." has been a pretty safe answer to that question quite a while ago. But since threads don't get locked on these forums once their question is answered its still here. There's not really anything else to say on the subject.
My games aren't "heavily house ruled".
I don't disallow everything. I disallow size large characters. I disallow multiple effects that add up to increase damage to continue to stack. I disallow purchasing magical items and I think long and hard before I include a magic item with an energy/+1d6 on it.
Looks like you have one at least, that you don't allow purchasing magic items.
My games aren't "heavily house ruled".I don't disallow everything. I disallow size large characters. I disallow multiple effects that add up to increase damage to continue to stack. I disallow purchasing magical items and I think long and hard before I include a magic item with an energy/+1d6 on it.Looks like you have one at least, that you don't allow purchasing magic items.
Nowhere in the rules does it say all characters should be able to purchase any and every magic item they want whenever they want just because they have the gold for it.
Unless pathfinder has changed radically from (every edition of the game ever) there are usually specific sections saying that not every magic item should be available all the time.
also-- I would argue that there is a big difference between a few house rules and "heavily house ruled". But that's semantics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nowhere in the rules does it say all characters should be able to purchase any and every magic item they want whenever they want just because they have the gold for it.
Unless pathfinder has changed radically from (every edition of the game ever) there are usually specific sections saying that not every magic item should be available all the time.
I disallow multiple effects that add up to increase damage to continue to stack.
Can we get an example of this?
Well then.Nowhere in the rules does it say all characters should be able to purchase any and every magic item they want whenever they want just because they have the gold for it.
Unless pathfinder has changed radically from (every edition of the game ever) there are usually specific sections saying that not every magic item should be available all the time.
I see nothing in that link that says all magic items are available at all times. I see guidelines for the DM to decide or judge approximately what items are available-- so if a particular item isn't that doesn't mean that I'm using some vast set of house rules?
The link also specifically mentions that the DM can/should halve all the values on that table if they want. . .
I see nothing in that link that says all magic items are available at all times. I see guidelines for the DM to decide or judge approximately what items are available-- so if a particular item isn't that doesn't mean that I'm using some vast set of house rules?
The link also specifically mentions that the DM can/should halve all the values on that table if they want. . .
It says you can limit it, but yes, your ideally going to have magic items available unless your running low magic or the city has a reason not to. Those are the guidelines. Next thing you know your going to tell us you don't use WBL?
I disallow multiple effects that add up to increase damage to continue to stack.Can we get an example of this?
A centaur character using a lance and the charge feats, and then finding a class feature that duplicates the effects thereof with a different name so that he gets x6 damage when charging and then x8 when charging with a lance.
Generally anything listed in the power builds on the old enWorld forums that start stacking feats+ strange class ability, ect, ect, ect.
Or a character paying an NPC wizard to use the alternate magic item creation costs and make a Staff that casts Meteor Swarm at will.. .
I believe I had to restrict animate dead at one point because character were using defile and making skeletons of double their hit dice. . . that one actually got restricted after a character who did that threw a fit when I used a disrupting weapon spell to blow up one of his undead.
Do you have an example you can actually do in pathfinder?
Do you have an example you can actually do in pathfinder?
Well, since we are in the third party section of the forum, and since technically all material published for 3.5 is considered third party compatible with pathfinder. . .
My players have hundreds of dollars worth of d20 products. I'm not going to start out a game and say "these four books we own that say pathfinder are the only thing you can use." point blank, just make judgment calls on what stuff from other books I let in.
Do you have an example you can actually do in pathfinder?Well, since we are in the third party section of the forum, and since technically all material published for 3.5 is considered third party compatible with pathfinder. . .
My players have hundreds of dollars worth of d20 products. I'm not going to start out a game and say "these four books we own that say pathfinder are the only thing you can use." point blank, just make judgment calls on what stuff from other books I let in.
Well that adds more context on to the basis of your opinion so there is that.
Well that adds more context on to the basis of your opinion so there is that.Do you have an example you can actually do in pathfinder?Well, since we are in the third party section of the forum, and since technically all material published for 3.5 is considered third party compatible with pathfinder. . .
My players have hundreds of dollars worth of d20 products. I'm not going to start out a game and say "these four books we own that say pathfinder are the only thing you can use." point blank, just make judgment calls on what stuff from other books I let in.
I'm sure there are abuses out there in Pathfinder, my abusive players just haven't found them yet. We made the switch to pathfinder this summer. We have the core book, Ultimate Magic, APG and ARG.
There's definitely some great things in pathfinder that I love that's changed (ranger/paladins having things beyond level 5 or so to look forward to, the change to cleave). . . but there are still mechanics from 3.5 that I don't agree with that got left exactly the same (Sneak attack on every single attack-- if its extra damage for being so precise how can you do it six times in six seconds plus on an AoO?)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My suggestion? Ditch 3.5 entirely.
It's compatible but the system itself is balanced on itself, not 3rd party. 3rd party is expected to be balanced on it. 3.5 skews this assumption since it was built as standalone upon itself.
My suggestion? Ditch 3.5 entirely.
It's compatible but the system itself is balanced on itself, not 3rd party. 3rd party is expected to be balanced on it. 3.5 skews this assumption since it was built as standalone upon itself.
The changes between 3.5 and pathfinder are exceptionally minimal though. Honestly, its a few feats, a few spells, and they gave a name to the modifiers for combat moves.
Its not as though they changed the core of the game in any way-- attacks work the same, damage works the same, the classes had nothing taken away but mostly had everything they had in 3.5+ more abilities added.
The fundamental balance of the game didn't change at all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fundamental balance of the game didn't change at all.
Beyond "casters rule, fighters drool" being still in place, I cannot for the life of me see how you came to this conclusion.
This has been an extremely entertaining conversation regardless. So thanks for that?
The fundamental balance of the game didn't change at all.Beyond "casters rule, fighters drool" being still in place, I cannot for the life of me see how you came to this conclusion.
This has been an extremely entertaining conversation regardless. So thanks for that?
Care to explain how it has?
Same combat rules, same way of figuring attack bonus and hit points, same attack progressions for each character class, same way of figuring saving throws and armor classes, exact same available armor types?
Skills changed a little (= your level not your level +3) but that hasn't affected combat in anyway.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fundamental balance of the game didn't change at all.
Uhhhhhhh, no.
It changed quite a bit. PArtly because many of the abuses were simply removed. No Divine Metamagic, few if any save or dies, etc.
Casters were significantly nerfed while martials were for the most part given necessary power boosts.
But it goes further than that.
The CR system was streamlined, most of the monsters are more dangerous but also have a CR more in tune with their actual threat to a group of its level. A few hiccups still exist here and there (damnable orcs) but for the most part it's even.
All characters receive more feats but certain feat chains have been extended. Remember Trip? Trip isn't hat great anymore, some would argue it's practically useless. Grappling is harder as well.
Damage has also changed in that there's more of it but fewer ways to flat out multiply it. The actual damage dealers are the martial characters, rogues are frankly terrible because the limitations on their ability far outweigh the benefits. CoDzilla isn't quite what it used to be.
Animal companions and familiars fall under a single rule set now with paladins drawing from the same set of companions rules as druids with a few changes here and there.
Paladin's smite evil is another big change functioning as an all combat bonus rather than an all or nothing attack. In general martials were made better because, whether you believe it or not, martials were a joke in 3.5.
A power charging centaur? That's cute
So yes, the basic mechanics of the game did not change. But much of what made it what it was did change quite drastically to suit the needs of the developers.
Yes, much as changed. This old CharOP lurker knows this very well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fundamental balance of the game didn't change at all.Beyond "casters rule, fighters drool" being still in place, I cannot for the life of me see how you came to this conclusion.
This has been an extremely entertaining conversation regardless. So thanks for that?
Care to explain how it has?
Same combat rules, same way of figuring attack bonus and hit points, same attack progressions for each character class, same way of figuring saving throws and armor classes, exact same available armor types?
Skills changed a little (= your level not your level +3) but that hasn't affected combat in anyway.
I'd say that's irrelevant to balance. If you're wanting to say the basic format of the game has not changed, you'd be mostly correct. But the balance greatly has.
Most of the major game-breaking Prestige Classes, splatbook spells, and bizarre feats didn't make the jump. Thus a nerf for players who were used to aiming their characters - almost universally casters - for some PrC that would wrap the world around their finger once they got to X level. I'd say since this was a major backbone of many powerhouses in 3.5 I'd call that a fairly large nerf to casters in general.
Fighters got a very slight buff. Rogues too, though buffs to other classes have mostly made their buffs irrelevant. Monks basically got a reorganization but got no stronger nor weaker. Paladins and Rangers got a lot of upgrades. Barbarians got a HUGE buff with the revamped Rage and the addition of Rage Powers.
All the caster classes got buffs, and their buffs tended to be drastically greater than the buffs to the non-caster classes. Clerics got extra domain powers. Druids got the alternative to swap their companion for a domain, and some other small tricks. Wizards got their school abilities and discoveries. Sorcerers got bloodlines. Bards got a TON of stuff.
Some of the spells were slightly nerfed, but not enough to remove their overall usefulness. And for the ones that got nerfed into uselessness, many have been replaced with newer spells released in later PF expansions like Ultimate Magic. Other spells weren't nerfed at all, or were buffed up. And new spells that weren't available in 3.5 have added to the caster option list and capabilities, so that's yet another buff.
And Tark goes into other things that I don't have the CharOp experience to speak on, like Divine Metamagic. My group never even touched the stuff.
So no, I'd say very much that the basic fundamental balance of the game is not unchanged.
Now if that's not what you meant, if you meant format, then I'd agree with you and it's just a case of you using the wrong term.
This thread is really amusing.
It really is. Though I think I'll step back from the theorycrafting and numbercrunching and let Tark and other Op-forumers and anyone else with the head for that take over here; I tend to get a headache if I discuss that sort of thing for too long.
I'm not really sure which prestige classes for spell casters were so game-breaking. Spellcasters always went to a prestige class as soon as possible because other than spellcasting they got nothing else off their class table.
That hasn't changed-- the school benefits are cute, but I still feel robbed every time I go up a level in Wizard and get nothing while the fighter/ranger/rogue next to me is gaining ability after ability.
I haven't noticed spells from the PH that didn't make the Pathfinder core rules. There's still Phatasmal Killer at 4th level, Baleful Polymorph at 5th, Finger of Death at 7th, and Power Word Kill at 9th-- basically the exact same set of SoDs that Wizards have been using since at least 2nd edition.
Now removing all the "stuff" that let power gamers power game by essentially stripping back down to just the PH is a bit of a change. . . but PF keeps publishing more books, so all of that "creep" is going to be creeping in more and more as the game goes along if it hasn't already.
And like I said, in my games its always been the martial characters who break combat not the spell casters to begin with. So if martial characters got buffed then that's only going to make it balanced WORSE in my playgroup.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not really sure which prestige classes for spell casters were so game-breaking. Spellcasters always went to a prestige class as soon as possible because other than spellcasting they got nothing else off their class table.
In 3.5 there were a few, but in pathfinder not so much. Unfortunately pathfinder doesn't have many nice prestige classes, if any. If it means anything, I do think the psionic prestige classes from DSP are more balanced than paizo's myself.
And like I said, in my games its always been the martial characters who break combat not the spell casters to begin with. So if martial characters got buffed then that's only going to make it balanced WORSE in my playgroup.
To be honest, if I had to buff martials I wouldn't buff their combat damage. I would buff their ability to do things out of combat and options inside of it, because I find that's where they suffer. Lack of options that is.
I'm not really sure which prestige classes for spell casters were so game-breaking. Spellcasters always went to a prestige class as soon as possible because other than spellcasting they got nothing else off their class table.In 3.5 there were a few, but in pathfinder not so much. Unfortunately pathfinder doesn't have many nice prestige classes, if any. If it means anything, I do think the psionic prestige classes from DSP are more balanced than paizo's myself.
And like I said, in my games its always been the martial characters who break combat not the spell casters to begin with. So if martial characters got buffed then that's only going to make it balanced WORSE in my playgroup.To be honest, if I had to buff martials I wouldn't buff their combat damage. I would buff their ability to do things out of combat and options inside of it, because I find that's where they suffer. Lack of options that is.
I think martials CAN suffer from lack of options as well. I'm not so worried about the out of combat stuff--
as a DM I can make out of combat stuff more than just "find the right spell to cast". Outside of combat we do a lot of this thing called "role-playing" where I use my theatre performance degree and speak the words (or an approximation thereof) that the NPCs speak and have the player characters talk to them. I don't need to worry so much about intimidate or diplomacy or bluff because if they tell a decent story role-playing it I'm not going to often make them lose because of a die roll.
I personally get bored playing a character whose option inside of combat boil down to attacking 9/10 times. But the players who really love playing fighters have somehow managed to still enjoy doing that exact same thing through 2nd edition, 3rd edition, 3.5 and now pathfinder. At the end of the day some people want to roll a d20, add their BaB (or subtract THACO the math of which was the same) hear hit or miss and roll some damage. Sometimes they like to go for a ton of attacks, and sometimes they like to stack up for really powerful attacks but I have players who still never feel limited playing a fighter (or ranger, or paladin-- several of them habitually took the no spells option that traded all of a rangers spells for a feat at 4th and 8th levels).
That said I really liked prestige classes. They had a lot of cool factor to them regardless of if they had anything that was über or broken. And as I said, those Wizard levels with blank lines still feel really disheartening.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Outside of combat we do a lot of this thing called "role-playing"
What is this... Role-pla-ying. Surely none of us, no one in the world but you, know this... 'Role-pla-ying'.
But no seriously, cut that out. Most of us do it to. Its not some foreign concept that makes you superior and this isn't a roleplaying vs. rollplaying thing. It also has nothing to do with talks about balance or perceived balance because everyone can do it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
. . . . .
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
is this really happening right now?...
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
That hasn't changed-- the school benefits are cute, but I still feel robbed every time I go up a level in Wizard and get nothing while the fighter/ranger/rogue next to me is gaining ability after ability.
That's funny, I thought wizards got more of the most powerful thing in the entire game at every single level.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't noticed spells from the PH that didn't make the Pathfinder core rules. There's still Phatasmal Killer at 4th level, Baleful Polymorph at 5th, Finger of Death at 7th, and Power Word Kill at 9th-- basically the exact same set of SoDs that Wizards have been using since at least 2nd edition.
You're going to make me drag out my books aren't you?
Very well.
Let's start from the top.
The same. Why? Primarily because it's bad. You'll get the party's rogue. So that's somethign I guess. Everyone else will either have good bonuses to one or both saves or be flat out immune.
Slight nerf to old baleful polymorph. Why? Well thanks to the polymorph descriptor all that stuff that would normally be dropped simply meld into the creature. Noo loot for you!. It also maintains a lot of its abilities even if it fails the will save. Congratulations you turned me into a frog but now I'm a frog who will continue to kick your friggin teeth in.
Big nerf. Damage is signifcant on a failure but still very much survivable.
Power Word Kill didn't change. But, at the level you get power word kill there are very very very few things you're going to want to blow a ninth level spell on that has less than a hundred hit points.
But let's face it, these aren't the spells that make the casters get crazy.
Let's ask someone else what's changed.
Spells
Concentration
The most significant change to Pathfinder magic has been the defensive casting nerf. Concentration is no longer a skill - it’s an ability check. Concentration checks are calculated by:
1d20 + caster level + relevant ability score
and the DC for casting defensively is now:
15 + (spell level)x2.
As you can see, casting defensively is now a LOT harder, enough to make it a very bad idea unless you’ve got no other option. Taking a 5’ step away out of an enemy’s range is a much better plan. Of course, if the enemy has Step Up (a new Pathfinder feat that lets you take a 5’ step as an immediate action) you’re kinda hosed. The moral? In Pathfinder, if you’re planning to spend the fight casting spells, keep your distance.
Spell Changes
The Pathfinder spell list is pretty much identical to the 3.5 one, but many of the spells have gotten some significant changes. Here are a few of the highlights for low-level arcane spells.
Grease - Slightly nerfed. Doesn’t flat-foot enemies who don’t move, and moving through it is easier (Balance is a part of Acrobatics now, and loads of things have Acrobatics). Still a great spell.
Ray of Enfeeblement - Nerfed, now allows a save for half.
Glitterdust - Nerfed, now allows repeated saves to un-blind.
Alter Self - Heavily nerfed, lasts a tenth as long and can only give a very limited set of abilities.
Flaming Sphere - Buffed, now does 3d6 damage instead of 2d6. Actually not a bad choice now.
Mirror Image - Targeting rules have changed.
Rope Trick - Rope can no longer be removed or hidden.
Probably the biggest change has been to polymorph spells. Polymorph is gone, replaced by a line of specific transmutation spells - Beast Shape,
Divine Power - Slightly nerfed does not boost BAB gives an extra attack that does not stack with haste.Plant Shape, Elemental Body, and Form of the Dragon. All of them modify your stats rather than replacing them entirely, and can only give benefits from a specified list, rather than giving you anything you can find. In short, polymorph has been dragged out back and beaten with the nerf stick. On the whole, this is probably a good thing, given that 3.5 polymorph is so broken that WotC basically gave up trying to fix it and started printing replacements instead.
Conclusion: Spells in Pathfinder are slightly weaker than in 3.5, as many of the standouts have been nerfed. Note that for every spell that has been nerfed, there are two that haven’t, so you can still put together a good spell list, you just have to look a bit harder. However, having played a wizard for several months in Pathfinder now, I have to admit it does limit your options slightly.
There's more but I have to step out for the moment.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Slight nerf to old baleful polymorph. Why? Well thanks to the polymorph descriptor all that stuff that would normally be dropped simply meld into the creature. Noo loot for you!. It also maintains a lot of its abilities even if it fails the will save. Congratulations you turned me into a frog but now I'm a frog who will continue to kick your friggin teeth in.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Not sure which of the planar shepherd's abilities gives him 10x the actions. . .
2. Incantatrix had to give up a third school of magic. And in 3.5 that meant never ever ever casting or using items with those spells not them costing double slots. For that they got some bonus feats, and twice per day meta-magic without the level adjustment-- 2/3rds the effects of a meta-magic rod for only 9 levels!
3. Baleful polymorph is still a SoD. Phantasmal killer still does the same thing (two failed saves= death). Power Word kill is still no save 100 or less HP= bye bye.
4. That mystra build is obviously pretty ridiculous. I guess they didn't playtest stuff pushed out in web enhancements that well. But that doesn't mean that the dozens of non-broken prestige classes out there are all bad, or that the concept of them isn't a solid one.
5. I'm sure I can make a martial character that can do as much HP damage on average as any spell caster. You don't think that's useful/relevant to balance-- but since amount of damage dealt is a pretty important part of the game being able to build martial characters who do on average more damage on average is a big part of balance.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
5. I'm sure I can make a martial character that can do as much HP damage on average as any spell caster. You don't think that's useful/relevant to balance-- but since amount of damage dealt is a pretty important part of the game being able to build martial characters who do on average more damage on average is a big part of balance.
Oh my this goes deeper than I feared.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the issue is "more dice = more damage." Which isn't true, even for dedicated boasters.
EDIT: more damage than flat bonuses to less dice, that is.
You know, as much as I disagree with Nathanael Love, making fun of him is not cool, and doesn't help matters in any way. Check the most important rule before you post.But Tark, the internet is a happy place, and people should be able to post whatever baseless drivel they want without fear of anyone pointing it out.
Didn't you get the memo?
But...I like sarcasm :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. Not sure which of the planar shepherd's abilities gives him 10x the actions. . .
2. Incantatrix had to give up a third school of magic. And in 3.5 that meant never ever ever casting or using items with those spells not them costing double slots. For that they got some bonus feats, and twice per day meta-magic without the level adjustment-- 2/3rds the effects of a meta-magic rod for only 9 levels!
3. Baleful polymorph is still a SoD. Phantasmal killer still does the same thing (two failed saves= death). Power Word kill is still no save 100 or less HP= bye bye.
4. That mystra build is obviously pretty ridiculous. I guess they didn't playtest stuff pushed out in web enhancements that well. But that doesn't mean that the dozens of non-broken prestige classes out there are all bad, or that the concept of them isn't a solid one.
5. I'm sure I can make a martial character that can do as much HP damage on average as any spell caster. You don't think that's useful/relevant to balance-- but since amount of damage dealt is a pretty important part of the game being able to build martial characters who do on average more damage on average is a big part of balance.
can't speak to 1, as I never had that book. but,
2.as long as none of those 3 schools were conjuration, you basically set in 3.5.3. yes save or dies and save and sucks are a lynchpin in the caster superiority corner, though power word kill is essentially a mook killer at the levels it shows up.
4. too bad those not broken prc's aren't legal in pathfinder (3.5 compatibility is the stuff of home games). this is one of my complaints of the system actually. I personally converted a whole bunch of prc's and started a thread on the boards for it.
5. yeah dealing lots of damage is nice, but it's kinda hard to b$++! about 3 and then try and bring this up.
My point in saying that there are still most of the same SoD spells is pointing out that the fundamental paradigm of the game hasn't changed that much.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
5. I'm sure I can make a martial character that can do as much HP damage on average as any spell caster. You don't think that's useful/relevant to balance-- but since amount of damage dealt is a pretty important part of the game being able to build martial characters who do on average more damage on average is a big part of balance.Oh my this goes deeper than I feared
Yeah.
Let's just put it this way dude. If you think "how much damage can I deal" is the way to measure the power of a class... let's just say you haven't been introduced to the way casters actually do break the game.
Because they can do it without dealing a single point of damage. If you've never had a caster screw things up in any other way but blasting... you have yet to be exposed to the full potential power of casting classes.
No wonder you think martials break the game more than casters. You've never seen a caster played to the hilt, have you?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alrighty after some thought put towards this I've decided on a proper course of action that may benefit all involved. No more point in arguing this is a case where education, not criticism, is called for.
Nathanael here is what I suggest you do to gain a better understanding of where everyone is coming from while simultaneously having a bit of fun yourself I ask you do the following three things. None of these change the way you run your games anything that happens there is entirely upon you.
First, go here. Pick something you like that is pathfinder and apply for it. if you don't get in try for something else until you succeed. And just, play in it. If the format does not interest you than find a game under one that does. The point being is to set aside the gm reins, set aside your normal play group and simply experience other tables.
Second Read these.. Start with the ones that interest you most though I'd recommend Treatnmonk's guides to start as they lay out much of the foundation on how much of it is written.
Last, Read this. For the sake of your sanity don't reply. Just read and think on it. Also be entertained because AM BARBARIAN is among the most entertaining entities to ever crop up. Understand that all of these arguments come from RAW (rules as written) and are exclusive to Paizo's written works.
The goal here is understanding and teaching. Expanding your horizons beyond the scope of merely what you know to the gathered knowledge out there for your benefit.
Nathanael Love: You're not playing Pathfinder. You're playing something else using some of Pathfinder's rules.
Disagree.
Also?I don't need to worry so much about intimidate or diplomacy or bluff because if they tell a decent story role-playing it I'm not going to often make them lose because of a die roll.In game experience I have never had a player want to play a Psionic character who wasn't trying to break the system one way or another.So, are your players roleplaying or trying to break the game?
If you don't care about their Diplomacy or Intimidate or Bluff rolls, why do you care about their damage rolls?
Because they can't roleplay combat? And every player is different. There's always 1-2 guys at the table just trying to get the most ridiculous build he can. There's always that guy who doesn't care about anything until the dice start rolling.
Also because I like the combats to be interesting and enjoyable. Combat is a big part of the game.
Because they can do it without dealing a single point of damage. If you've never had a caster screw things up in any other way but blasting... you have yet to be exposed to the full potential power of casting classes.
I've never met a caster I couldn't thwart if/when needed. I've had a few situations avoided/trumped-- but if that could NEVER happen then the game would be lacking that level of fun. Some of the most fun times I've had have been games where something unexpected happens and it goes a different way.
If you're the GM, no caster can stand in your way, but they can really make you work for it.
If you're the GM, no caster can stand in your way, but they can really make you work for it.
Which makes the game more fun for me?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, and if you have to work that hard to stop the casters, you're proving how powerful they are. You're working for it, like I said.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
and I have never met a martial I couldn't thwart, and it never takes much effort if i've decided to do it. The gm can just say "rocks fall everybody dies" so this is kinda a hollow argument. it's also straying off topic. this topic is "is psionics overpowered" and in the beginning dreamscarred press' psionics were expressly called out. so if you want to address that you can, but quoting a feat from Psionics expanded that also had a spellcasting equivalent(practiced spellcaster) and didn't make the cut in the conversion don't help.
btw
My point in saying that there are still most of the same SoD spells is pointing out that the fundamental paradigm of the game hasn't changed that much.
most of the spells PERIOD didn't make the conversion, mostly just the ones in original core set. There were alot more than those 3, and as far as damage goes none of the more broken conjuration spells made the transition. could more balance be done, sure, but you seem to be missing the point on where.
PS. I am actually starting to believe you're trolling us.
and I have never met a martial I couldn't thwart, and it never takes much effort if i've decided to do it. The gm can just say "rocks fall everybody dies" so this is kinda a hollow argument. it's also straying off topic. this topic is "is psionics overpowered" and in the beginning dreamscarred press' psionics were expressly called out. so if you want to address that you can, but quoting a feat from Psionics expanded that also had a spellcasting equivalent(practiced spellcaster) and didn't make the cut in the conversion don't help.
btw
My point in saying that there are still most of the same SoD spells is pointing out that the fundamental paradigm of the game hasn't changed that much.most of the spells PERIOD didn't make the conversion, mostly just the ones in original core set. There were alot more than those 3, and as far as damage goes none of the more broken conjuration spells made the transition. could more balance be done, sure, but you seem to be missing the point on where.
PS. I am actually starting to believe you're trolling us.
We solved the psionics question pages ago. There is nothing else that needs to be said about it.
I realize that the spells from the other books didn't make the conversion-- but lets be honest with ourselves here, the majority of them didn't beat out the "standards". Phantasmal Killer was still the lowest level SoD spell, Baleful Polymorph was still the gold standard 5th level SoD, ect. The entire Spell Compendium had mostly clones and slight variations-- so pointing out that those didn't make the switch (which they couldn't because they weren't OGL) isn't really relevant to anything in anyway.