COnsidering the last Crane wing nerf, I wonder How many of hte crazy spells have been nerfed? does somebody have a list?
Since the 3.5 to PF update? little
But if you are counting that...
Ray of enfeeblement
Glitterdust
Polymorph (all of them)
Save or dies out-side of illusion
Summon Natures Ally
A bunch of other stuff...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
COnsidering the last Crane wing nerf, I wonder How many of hte crazy spells have been nerfed? does somebody have a list?
Remember when they nerfed Paragon Surge, Simulacrum, Gate, Summon Monster and my personal favorite: Maze (a no save spells that completely removes the target from the fight)?
Yeah, me neither.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally don't count blood money, dervish dance, or cornugon smash as anything but campaign specific nonsense.
I personally don't count blood money, dervish dance, or cornugon smash as anything but campaign specific nonsense.
Dervish Dance, the only thing that makes Dex-based fighters worthwhile? Cornugon Smash, the only way to Intimidate in combat that doesn't burn your turn?
I personally don't count blood money, dervish dance, or cornugon smash as anything but campaign specific nonsense.
Blood Money is broken, the other two are okay.
I personally don't count blood money, dervish dance, or cornugon smash as anything but campaign specific nonsense.Dervish Dance, the only thing that makes Dex-based fighters worthwhile? Cornugon Smash, the only way to Intimidate in combat that doesn't burn your turn?
So?
I really dislike non-PRD esoteric b#@!&%%%.
I also like playing with Mythics :/
I personally don't count blood money, dervish dance, or cornugon smash as anything but campaign specific nonsense.Blood Money is broken, the other two are okay.
My philosophy as a GM; the baby goes out with the bathwater.
Honesty, I think Dervish Dance is kinda bleh considering its restrictions. I'd vastly prefer to save a feat and just use Agile, unless starting prior to level 8. Dervish Dance makes DEX more viable early game at the cost of a feat late game.
Honesty, I think Dervish Dance is kinda bleh considering its restrictions. I'd vastly prefer to save a feat and just use Agile, unless starting prior to level 8. Dervish Dance makes DEX more viable early game at the cost of a feat late game.
Agile gets expensive too, in the late game. And it's problematic both mechanically and thematically for such an important ability to be a property of the weapon, not the character.
COnsidering the last Crane wing nerf, I wonder How many of hte crazy spells have been nerfed? does somebody have a list?
Hm. Honestly, this is too broad a question for me to be able to answer for Pathfinder as a whole since its publication. I'm not intimately familiar with the errata history nor with every piece of material.
However, one can certainly investigate case studies. I went ahead and downloaded the errata for Ultimate Magic (on grounds of guessing that this book would be most likely to feature potential spell nerfing errata) and skipped to the spells section:
Page 208—In the Battlemind Link spell, add the following entry after the casting time entry: “Components V, S”. In the spell description, at the start of the second paragraph, change “Melee or ranged” to “Melee”.
• Page 208—In the Blood Crow Strike spell, in the School entry, delete “evil,”. Add the following entry after the casting time entry: “Components V, S”.
• Page 209—In the Blood Transcription spell, in the Components entry, add “, S”.
• Page 210—In the Caustic Eruption spell, change the Range entry to “30 ft.”
• Page 211—In the Circle of Clarity spell, in the Effect entry, change “a willing creature” to “a creature, object, or point in space”.
• Page 211—In the Cold Ice Strike spell, add the following entry after the casting time entry: “Components V, S”. Change the Casting Time entry to “1 swift action”. Change the Range entry to “30 feet”. Change the Area entry to “30-ft. line”. In the description, change all instances of “cone” to “line”.
• Pages 211–212—In the Control Construct spell, in the Spell Resistance entry, change “yes” to “no”. In the description, in the last sentence, change “concentration” to “Spellcraft”.
• Page 217—In the Distressing Tone spell, in the Casting Time entry, change “2 standard actions” to “1 round”.• Page 218—In the Ear-Piercing Scream spell, change the Duration entry to “instantaneous; see text”.
• Page 220—In the Fleshworm Infestation spell, delete the Preparation Time entry.
• Page 224—In the Icy Prison spell, in the Saving Throw entry, delete “, Fortitude negates (see text)”. In the spell description, in the last sentence, change “break the ice with a successful Strength check” to “break the ice as a full-round action with a successful Strength check”.
• Page 228—In the Mad Monkeys spell, in the fifth sentence, change “against that CMD” to “against that CMB + 10”.
• Page 238—In the Share Memory spell, add the following entry after the Casting Time entry: “Components V, S”.
• Page 240—In the Spear of Purity spell, in the Effect line, change “chaotic” to “good”.
• Page 240—In the Spit Venom spell, add the following entry after the Casting Time entry: “Components V”.
• Page 243—In the Terrible Remorse spell, in the description, change the last sentence to read as follows:
If the creature saves, it is staggered for 1 round and takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, after which the spell ends
It would appear these are mostly bad/missing text fixes, a handful of buffs, one unclear (I do not know what range Caustic Eruption had prior) and zero clear nerfs.
(Terrible Remorse might have qualified, but I am told by several people that adding the staggered effect even on a passed save actually made the spell more powerful).
not sure why were looking at Ultimate Magic spells i never saw anything worth casting in that book.
now ultimate combat has some good spells
that being said the one thing i love in Ultimate Magic is the ranger(trapper) which you give up your spells for go weird right?
As noted, I picked Ultimate Magic mostly on a guess that it might be likely to feature spell nerfs. That said, if you would rather see Ultimate Combat, here you go:
Page 222—In the Air Bubble spell, in the School entry, add “(creation)” after “conjuration”.
• Page 222—In the Air Walk, Communal spell, in the Level entry, change “alchemist 4” to “alchemist 5”.
• Page 224—In the Bestow Weapon Proficiency spell, in the School entry, add “[mind-affecting]” after “(compulsion)”.
• Page 224—In the Bestow Weapon Proficiency spell, in the spell description, delete the last sentence and replace it with the following:
The weapon can be of any type, including an exotic weapon, but the subject of the spell must be holding the weapon.
• Page 225—In the Certain Grip spell, add the following entry on a new line after the Components entry:
Range touch
• Page 226—In the Companion Mind Link spell, in the School entry, add “[mind-affecting]” after “(charm)”.
• Page 227—In the Debilitating Portent spell, in the School entry, add “[mind-affecting]” after “(compulsion)”.
• Page 227—In the Debilitating Portent spell, in the spell description, in the first sentence, change “Charisma (in case of oracles) or Wisdom (in case of clerics)” to “Charisma (in case of oracles), Intelligence (in the case of witches), or Wisdom (in the case of clerics)”.
• Page 228—In the Discovery Torch spell, delete the entire Area entry.
• Page 228—In the Discovery Torch spell, in the spell description, replace the first sentence with the following:
An object you touch emanates a 20-foot radius of bright light.
• Page 229—In the Energy Siege Shot, Greater spell, in the School entry, change “evocation” to “transmutation”.
• Page 230—In the Frightful Aspect spell, add the following on a new line after the School and Level entries:
Casting Time 1 standard action
• Page 233—In the Jury-Rig spell, add the following on a new line after the Casting Time entry:
Components V, S, M (a pinch of tree resin)
• Page 234—In Litany of Eloquence spell, in the School entry, add “, mind-affecting” after “language-dependent”.
• Page 234—In the Litany of Madness spell, in the School entry, add “, mind-affecting” within the brackets after “language dependent.”
• Page 235—In the Litany of Madness spell, in the spell description, in the third sentence, change “a saving throw” to “a Will saving throw”.
• Page 235—In the Litany of Vengeance spell, in the Duration entry, change “instantaneous” to “1 round”.
• Page 237—In the Mutagenic Touch spell, add the following on a new line after the Duration entry:
Saving Throw Fortitude negates (harmless); Spell Resistance yes (harmless)
• Page 238—In the Negative Reaction spell, in the School entry, add “(glamer)” after “illusion”.
• Page 239—In the Phantom Chariot spell, add the following on a new line after the Components entry:
Range 0 ft.
• Page 239—In the Phantom Chariot spell, in the spell description, in the third sentence, delete “with metal scythes”.
• Page 240—In the Protection from Good, Communal spell, in the Level entry, remove “paladin 2,”.
• Page 240—In Protection from Law, Communal spell, in the Level entry, remove “paladin 2,”.
• Page 243—In the Returning Weapon, Communal spell, in the Target entry, change “creatures touched” to “weapons that can be thrown”.
• Page 243—In the Returning Weapon, Communal spell, in the spell description, change “weapons touched” to “targeted weapons”.
• Page 244—In the Siege of Trees spell, add the following on a new line after the Casting Time entry:
Components V, S, DF
• Page 244—In the Siege of Trees spell, in the spell description, add the following after the second sentence:
The catapult uses your caster level as its targeting bonus.
• Page 247—In the Terrain Bond spell, in the School entry, add “(compulsion) [mind-affecting]” after “enchantment”.
• Page 247—In the Touch Injection spell, add the following on a new line after the Range entry:
Target you
• Page 248—In the Walk through Space spell, add the following on a new line after the School and Level entries:
Casting Time 1 standard action
Almost all missing/erroneous text fixes or tag standardization. I don't see any nerfs here either.
communal spells so good
When did they give a casting time to Walk Through Space?! Dang, this spell really did get a beating when it was converted from 3.5.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of what makes spells so powerful is the manner in which the game is played. A more continuous adventuring day, more difficulty in recovery, and other resource burning narratives weaken limited resource heavy classes. With the lifestyle of my gaming group, in of the time we only have one or two combat encounters then wrap up the game to allow a rest for ease of book keeping. When I was younger, I had a gaming group where I was able to run games with 5-8 encounters in a session, restrict resting, and still have easy book keeping between sessions. The game and adventures are generally written with a middle ground narrative in mind but the practical reality does not always match that. This narrative effect on limited resources is a hard feature in most pre-4E D&D based games. This leads to a design where spells need to be powerful for what they do.
In addition to the that, spells tend to be designed around a different system than that of 'mundane' activities. Non-magical activities are a die roll. Spellcasting creates an effect, then allows a reactive die roll. This really switches the burden around.
Also, the effort for spellcasting is small in these games. The action economy and exhaustion of spellcasting tends to be less efficient than weapon-combat, but not by much nor in all cases. That appears to be a feature of the Vancian system, however I have never read Vance so do not know if that is true to the source. If we look at some of the other major influences in D&D like Lankhmar and Hyboria spellcasting is more intensive not just in training but also the act. Amber has a spell system similar to D&D, where spells are "hung" for quick usage later. Imagine a D&D system that took a different approach though. Some systems there is a basic increase in casting time when increasing power. If Pathfinder required at minimum 1 round per spell level that would heavily change the action economy and how magic works in combat. The game isn't designed for that, but as a thought exercise shows how magic can be altered without necessarily changing the effects of spells.
A simpler method of favoring certain schools for speed would also do that.
If all Evocation damage spells were standard actions, 'normal' spells were full round actions, and anything longer then that was a minute or more, that would also change emphasis on combat from save or dies to improved blasting. "Combat" magic would actually mean something.
==Aelryinth
Nah just give spells spells known and spells prepared requirements.
A simpler method of favoring certain schools for speed would also do that.
If all Evocation damage spells were standard actions, 'normal' spells were full round actions, and anything longer then that was a minute or more, that would also change emphasis on combat from save or dies to improved blasting. "Combat" magic would actually mean something.
==Aelryinth
really don't like this i mean what would call combat magic?
theirs not one school that i don't use some spell from for combat.
it just seem like one more thing you have to stop the game for so the caster or gm could look up
just my to cents we need combat turn speed up not slowed down
'Combat' would simply be a keyword you apply to a spell. It would basically mean 'this spell is cast quickly and designed for use in combat'
Evocation should have the majority of them. Blasting things for damage is basically the whole intent of the school. It doesn't have a downtime use.
Most other schools should take full round actions and be much more vulnerable. It would shift the focus of spells from 'I can do anything and blasting sucks' to 'wow, blasting will get off reliably, but if I want the really cool stuff I have to risk being interrupted.' It would also force the mages back into worrying about getting hit more, since they'd be more vulnerable longer.
Of course, if you believe casting is perfectly balanced vs martial, then that's a very bad idea.
==Aelryinth
A longer cast time only hurts low level casters, since high level casters have shorter combats and better spells, like greater invisibility. And low level casters are actually weaker than martials...
Also, by "full round cast time" do you mean "1 round" like summon monster?
Yes.
But it adds a 'do I dare' mechanic to spellcasting. It's very easy to get interrupted on a full round spell. Combat spells wouldn't have the problem.
Stronger spells, esp no save, no SR or save and die, should definitely be full rounders. You want the power, you take the time.
Blasting spells should be shorter duration.
==Aelryinth
I think spells should be nerfed. That doesn't make martials fun. It just makes casters less fun.
No desire to see the game become less fun.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or... maybe we could just make Martials not terrible? Cause I mean right now their locked into the "martials must be mundane", which kind of locks them into level 1-6 style effects.
Or even worse the idea that "well of course casters are supposed to be better" which is just a toxic idea to the whole idea of a class based system that provides options for players.
Or... maybe we could just make Martials not terrible? Cause I mean right now their locked into the "martials must be mundane", which kind of locks them into level 1-6 style effects.
Or even worse the idea that "well of course casters are supposed to be better" which is just a toxic idea to the whole idea of a class based system that provides options for players.
I gestalt fighter and rogues together and let monks add their non-wis monk armor bonus to AC, CMD, CMB, attack rolls, and damage rolls.
If martials "must be mundane" -aside from barbar, then might as well just start combining the mundane classes together (which by the way fighter/rogue gestalt is still underpowered)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I think many spells could use a nerf/revision, I'm more concerned about buffing martial classes.
Unfortunately, I have never seen any spell being nerfed by errata. Martial options, OTOH, are screwed with all the time.
"Crane Wing is OP! LET'S NERF IT! What? Summon Monster, Maze, Simulacrum and Black Tentacles? Nah, those are all fine..."
While I think many spells could use a nerf/revision, I'm more concerned about buffing martial classes.
Unfortunately, I have never seen any spell being nerfed by errata. Martial options, OTOH, are screwed with all the tie.
"Crane is OP! LET'S NERF IT! What? Summon Monster, Maze, Simulacrum and Black Tentacles? Nah, those are all fine..."
Exactly! Don't get me wrong I'm one of the first point out how broken many spells are, but I think that focusing on making martials not awful should really be goal one, since it a bigger and far more systemic problem. Nerfing spells is comparatively easy.
well, thats the problem, casters are so powerful that they do not need any other classes around at all. Seriously, do a mid level adventure with a 50/50 mage/cleric split, then do it with a fighter/rogue split party. Then tell me if you see the issue.I seem to think that most of these threads circle around over- and underpowered classes, abilities, etc. You have people saying all casters are overpowered, martials are underpowered, and the monk, the fighter, and the rogue give leprosy upon reading their class abilities. If I might, I'd like to derail things for a second to get a look at the bigger picture.
What class is balanced? What, in everyone's mind is the perfectly balanced class in the game? I'm just so confused by these sorts of threads, I no longer have a baseline.
Perfect balanced classes?
Alchemist, Bard, Ranger
Balanced but on the powerful side
Druid, cleric, wizard, summoner, Paladin
Unbalanced but not OP
Barbarian
S!$+ tier
Fighter, Monk, Rogue
done the 50/50 split there are problems with both groups the fighter group is just more in you face
look if you raise the casting time of spells, then pick spell 1 to be at a lower time even tho it in ench it will bring headache.
player won't know that spell is lower time to cast why be case wiz and caster have a tone of book work to keep track of and most people don't do the work this is why i see players cast sleep as a stander act and the gm don't know any better so they let it happen.
that being said i do have a idea for wiz if you want to go down that path
i say we put all spell at a casting time of 1 round but if you are a necro then the spell form the necro school cast as a stander but all others don't
soc and cleric would be harder but maybe you could do a blood line thing or domain thing
but i think pathfinder is on the right track for spells most new spell i see come out do not put the core spell to shame unlike 3.5 where at the end know one want to use any but spell for other books as they were better and op look at you wrack
well, thats the problem, casters are so powerful that they do not need any other classes around at all. Seriously, do a mid level adventure with a 50/50 mage/cleric split, then do it with a fighter/rogue split party. Then tell me if you see the issue.I seem to think that most of these threads circle around over- and underpowered classes, abilities, etc. You have people saying all casters are overpowered, martials are underpowered, and the monk, the fighter, and the rogue give leprosy upon reading their class abilities. If I might, I'd like to derail things for a second to get a look at the bigger picture.
What class is balanced? What, in everyone's mind is the perfectly balanced class in the game? I'm just so confused by these sorts of threads, I no longer have a baseline.
Perfect balanced classes?
Alchemist, Bard, Ranger
Balanced but on the powerful side
Druid, cleric, wizard, summoner, PaladinUnbalanced but not OP
BarbarianS~$! tier
Fighter, Monk, Rogue
Well, most of these threads ,at least IMO, are a mix of reality-issues, whining-for good reasons and somewhat "complains" about the theoretical(actual) game balance. It's sort of like "Why they have all the options while the others have so much less."
In an actual game, many are the factors that affect game balance and flow (player experience above all)and these issues might, or might not come up.Generally, nobody will go and play a caster to just ruin your game intentionally(accidents happen though). The question is, why he can.
well, thats the problem, casters are so powerful that they do not need any other classes around at all. Seriously, do a mid level adventure with a 50/50 mage/cleric split, then do it with a fighter/rogue split party. Then tell me if you see the issue.I seem to think that most of these threads circle around over- and underpowered classes, abilities, etc. You have people saying all casters are overpowered, martials are underpowered, and the monk, the fighter, and the rogue give leprosy upon reading their class abilities. If I might, I'd like to derail things for a second to get a look at the bigger picture.
What class is balanced? What, in everyone's mind is the perfectly balanced class in the game? I'm just so confused by these sorts of threads, I no longer have a baseline.
Perfect balanced classes?
Alchemist, Bard, Ranger
Balanced but on the powerful side
Druid, cleric, wizard, summoner, PaladinUnbalanced but not OP
BarbarianS@$! tier
Fighter, Monk, Rogue
Uh... your list is... very unusual. Though I'll agree that Alchemist and Bard are pretty well balanced along with the Inquisitor. But while Barbarian has some decent tricks, its overall less useful then even those three classes, let alone things like Wizard and Druid which overshadow all the above.
Fullcasters is what the game is balanced around.
Barbarians are not OP, but they are unbalanced. They just get a +6 to all rolls and then muscle through encounters.
How does +6 and muscling through encounters compare with "obviate entire encounters as a standard action"? In my mind, it compares unfavorably. Also, if the game is balanced around full casters... it is balanced extremely poorly, since they simply put are not balanced options nor are most of their options evidently taken into consideration.
Hmm...Aasimar Barbarian with wings and pounce at 10 th level...
Unfortunately, I have never seen any spell being nerfed by errata. Martial options, OTOH, are screwed with all the time.
Protection From Evil: Does the "protection against possession and mental control" aspect work against non-evil controlling spells and effects?
No. The spell says "This second effect only functions against spells and effects created by evil creatures or objects." So if a chaotic neutral enemy casts charm person on you, protection from evil doesn't have any effect because neither the spell nor the caster is evil.Protection From Evil: Does this work against all charm and compulsion effects? Or just against charm and compulsion effects where the caster is able to exercise control over the target, such as charm person, command, and dominate person (and thus not effects like sleep or confusion, as the caster does not have ongoing influence or puppet-like control of the target)?
The latter interpretation is correct: protection from evil only works on charm and compulsion effects where the caster is able to exercise control over the target, such as command, charm person, and dominate person; it doesn't work on sleep or confusion. (Sleep is a border case for this issue, but the designers feel that "this spell overrides your brain's sleep centers" is different enough than "this spell overrides your resistance to commands from others.")
Cold Ice Strike (page 211): What are the components for this spell? Is its casting time 1 swift action?
The Components should be: V, S
The casting time is 1 swift action.
The Range should be 30 ft. and the Area should be a 30-ft. line. All references to "cone" in the spell description should be "line."
Update: Page 211, cold ice strike, after Casting Time, add a line with "Components V, S." Change Range to "30 ft." Change Area to "30-ft. line." Change two references in the spell description from "cone" to "line."
Terrible Remorse: If I make my saving throw against terrible remorse (page 243), do I become paralyzed for the duration of the spell?
No. The spell is a bit unclear here. When you are targeted by terrible remorse you do not make a saving throw until your turn. On your turn, you must make a Will saving throw. If you make the saving throw, you are frozen with sorrow and can take no actions, but this causes the spell to end. If you fail the saving throw, you deal damage to yourself, but can otherwise act normally.
Update: Page 243, in the description of the terrible remorse spell, change the final sentence to read as follows.
If the creature saves, it is instead frozen with sorrow for 1 round, during which time it can take no actions and takes a -2 penalty to Armor Class, after which the spell ends.
Not to mention scores of spells were nerfed going from 3.5 to PF.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ignoring the "op" thing for a while, spells tend to be so niche stealing that is not cool anymore.
The wizard stealing the rogue job even once a day is enough if the day only needed the rogue once.
If there is a rogue in the party, why would you take spells that attempt to do his job? I get tired of hearing this lame ass excuse. In all my years of gaming, I have rarely seen a wizard take these spells when there is a rogue in the party who can do the same thing all day long.
Instead of having: "We don't need the rogue because the wizard took such and such spells", how about we have "We don't need the Wizard taking such and such spells because we have a rogue"?
Ignoring the "op" thing for a while, spells tend to be so niche stealing that is not cool anymore.
The wizard stealing the rogue job even once a day is enough if the day only needed the rogue once.
If there is a rogue in the party, why would you take spells that attempt to do his job? I get tired of hearing this lame ass excuse. In all my years of gaming, I have rarely seen a wizard take these spells when there is a rogue in the party who can do the same thing all day long.
Instead of having: "We don't need the rogue because the wizard took such and such spells", how about we have "We don't need the Wizard taking such and such spells because we have a rogue"?
Because spells can also sometimes do the job better.
Invisibility sphere means the whole group can go stealthy with a +20 on their moving stealth checks.
well, thats the problem, casters are so powerful that they do not need any other classes around at all. Seriously, do a mid level adventure with a 50/50 mage/cleric split, then do it with a fighter/rogue split party. Then tell me if you see the issue.I seem to think that most of these threads circle around over- and underpowered classes, abilities, etc. You have people saying all casters are overpowered, martials are underpowered, and the monk, the fighter, and the rogue give leprosy upon reading their class abilities. If I might, I'd like to derail things for a second to get a look at the bigger picture.
What class is balanced? What, in everyone's mind is the perfectly balanced class in the game? I'm just so confused by these sorts of threads, I no longer have a baseline.
Perfect balanced classes?
Alchemist, Bard, Ranger
Balanced but on the powerful side
Druid, cleric, wizard, summoner, PaladinUnbalanced but not OP
BarbarianS~@+ tier
Fighter, Monk, Rogue
I think I'm going to need to have a sharp disagreement with you here. In a recent enough high level game I was in, I was playing a crafter/blaster sorcerer with a team consisting of an alchemist, a gunslinger, a rogue, and a barbarian. And out of the lot, it was the barbarian that did high and away the most hurt during the entire campaign. And the rogue was keeping up with the twin pistol gunslinger! I was kept along mostly for the area of effect spells and a discount on items.
But while this may have been about how my play style wasn't trying to break the game's mechanics for infinite free wishes, or the other silly cheats you see about on these boards, I cannot think as barbarians as not OP when I've seen a level 13 one destroy at least three kraken by himself.
|
|
Ignoring the "op" thing for a while, spells tend to be so niche stealing that is not cool anymore.
The wizard stealing the rogue job even once a day is enough if the day only needed the rogue once.
If there is a rogue in the party, why would you take spells that attempt to do his job? I get tired of hearing this lame ass excuse. In all my years of gaming, I have rarely seen a wizard take these spells when there is a rogue in the party who can do the same thing all day long.
Instead of having: "We don't need the rogue because the wizard took such and such spells", how about we have "We don't need the Wizard taking such and such spells because we have a rogue"?
Because spells can also sometimes do the job better.
Invisibility sphere means the whole group can go stealthy with a +20 on their moving stealth checks.
Invisibility doesn't make you quiet I'm afraid. That fighter in his clunky armour is going to give your party's position away. Also, it's susceptible to dispel and is only usable a certain number of times per day.
Sorry but in this example, the rogue is purely better.
Invisibility doesn't make you quiet I'm afraid. That fighter in his clunky armour is going to give your party's position away.Invisibility doesn't negate all sound (though invisibility with a silence spell...) but it does make one quiter:
If a check is required, a stationary invisible creature has a +40 bonus on its Stealth checks. This bonus is reduced to +20 if the creature is moving.
Making the fighter invisible does make his armor less clangy. The +20 more than overcomes the ACP to the fighter's Stealth checks.
Also, it's susceptible to dispel
Mostly a moot point: they won't know to dispel your invisibility if they don't know you're there.
and is only usable a certain number of times per day.
Also mostly a moot point. If a few castings of invisibility sphere is enough for the day, then it's enough.
Sorry but in this example, the rogue is purely better.
No. You're ignoring the main benefit of invisibility spells: they allow you to make Stealth checks anywhere. The rogue has to have concealment or cover to make Stealth checks.
well, thats the problem, casters are so powerful that they do not need any other classes around at all. Seriously, do a mid level adventure with a 50/50 mage/cleric split, then do it with a fighter/rogue split party. Then tell me if you see the issue.I seem to think that most of these threads circle around over- and underpowered classes, abilities, etc. You have people saying all casters are overpowered, martials are underpowered, and the monk, the fighter, and the rogue give leprosy upon reading their class abilities. If I might, I'd like to derail things for a second to get a look at the bigger picture.
What class is balanced? What, in everyone's mind is the perfectly balanced class in the game? I'm just so confused by these sorts of threads, I no longer have a baseline.
Perfect balanced classes?
Alchemist, Bard, Ranger
Balanced but on the powerful side
Druid, cleric, wizard, summoner, PaladinUnbalanced but not OP
BarbarianS~@+ tier
Fighter, Monk, RogueI think I'm going to need to have a sharp disagreement with you here. In a recent enough high level game I was in, I was playing a crafter/blaster sorcerer with a team consisting of an alchemist, a gunslinger, a rogue, and a barbarian. And out of the lot, it was the barbarian that did high and away the most hurt during the entire campaign. And the rogue was keeping up with the twin pistol gunslinger! I was kept along mostly for the area of effect spells and a discount on items.
But while this may have been about how my play style wasn't trying to break the game's mechanics for infinite free wishes, or the other silly cheats you see about on these boards, I cannot think as barbarians as not OP when I've seen a level 13 one destroy at least three kraken by himself.
I've seen wizards perform similar feats. The barbar is unbalanced because he can do that just by going "AM BARBARIAN SMASH!"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thing that I don't get. Magic can do just about anything so what are the mundane resources? Saves, Skills, BAB and Feats. I imagine that for balance the more spells you can cast the fewer of the other things that you have. so classes with zero spells should be the kings of skills, BAB Saves and Feats.
Full casters should have one good save, 1/2 BAB, few bonus feats, and 2+INT skills per level.
6/9 casters should have two good saves, 3/4 BAB, Medium amounts of bonus feats, and 4+INT skills per level.
4/9 to non casters should get three good saves, Full BAB, lots of bonus feats, and 6+INT skills per level.
Now if the Fighter had all good saves, and 6+INT skills per level what would you be able to do with him?
Just having higher saves would be good enough as far as defenses against spells go.
Ask the Barbar
I agree that strong saves would be good enough to cover the ground of a class that is strong against magic, and SR is likely not needed.