So there are a ton of complaints (some from me even) that the errata we tend to see is incredibly uneven.
"Martials get all the nerfs while casters stay strong."
The Devs, on the other hand, stick like glue to the line that, "We consider everything equally and make changes where needed; we don't target melee more than casters." (paraphrased)
Well, can we prove that here?
Here's what I'm looking for: As many "caster and/or spell nerfs" as you can think of since Pathfinder started. If the nerfs really do come even-handed, then there should be evidence to back that up, yes?
Here's what I'm not looking for: Snark. I'm honestly, legitimately, interested to see the disparity between caster nerfs and non-caster nerfs. If you wanna just be snarky, please make a different thread, or post in one of the various ones that already exist?
(And yes, before anyone brings it up, the Crane Wing discussions are what make me want to do this. I have a hard time believing that Crane Wing caused more problems for GMs than something like Color Spray, which has gone untouched, afaik, since PF 1.0.)
Just to clarify, I'm talking about in-company errata. Nothing about transitional changes from previous editions.
For example, the Cold Ice Strike change is a perfect example. It's a spell that is less powerful now than when Pathfinder first released it.
Edit - Also, I mean actual functional changes, not just clarification or typo-fixing.
I've seen that it's less powerful, but I'm curious about how Cold Ice Strike read before the errata. I still think it's a good spell.
Just checked my UM, the Cold Ice Strike was indeed a 60 foot cone.
It does not bother me. I want martials to have more utility. Most do, but the fighter is SoL.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The nerfs to warriors from 3.5 to PF are obvious and well-documented: less Power Attack potential, Improved Trip now requires twice as many feats, etc.
Within PF, one example that comes to mind is the "clarification" that Vital Strike pretty much doesn't work with anything else -- not on a charge, not with Spring Attack, etc. -- which robs the feat of a large part of its potential usefulness.
Also, the creation of the Strike Back feat essentially imposes a feat tax for something that most DMs let you do without it.
Also, we'd need to compare the untility of new feats being released. For example, from the APG, which would you rather have: Dazing Spell for your caster, or Greater Drag for your fighter?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Improved Trip and the spiked chain should have been left alone. Power attack was nerfed also.
I never know any GM's let you hit something that was beyond your reach. If it was a houserule they should have kept it.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never know any GM's let you hit something that was beyond your reach.
Maybe it was just mine, who'd say, "OK, you have to ready an action and wait until the dragon lunges to bite you, but then you can swing at its head as it snaps at you." Seemed reasonable at the time. Totally a houserule, yes, but not one that ever strained credibility.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've used a similar ruling for a hydra fight. The player made a case for it and frankly it made sense.
Note that taking a readied action gives you a single standard (or move, or swift, or free) action - ie one attack, not a full attack.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe it was just mine, who'd say, "OK, you have to ready an action and wait until the dragon lunges to bite you, but then you can swing at its head as it snaps at you." Seemed reasonable at the time. Totally a houserule, yes, but not one that ever strained credibility.
I don't even consider that to have ever been a houserule. Or even a corner case. Or even up for discussion.
That's what readied actions were designed to be used for.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Trophy hunters are now actually proficient in the firearms they're expected to use. Also, the Prone Shooter feat now actually gives you a benefit, rather than letting you do something you could already do anyway.
Neither of these are spell nerfs, but they are instances where the errata was trying to make non-spellcasters stronger.
There's a difference between errata that simply tries to fix obvious missing text or nonfunctional rules, and errata that is intended to change a functional rule for balance reasons. The two you cite are both the former.
About nerfing spellcasters:
A few months back they went 180 on their FAQ about metamagiced spells and metamagic rods, now it's not faving the spellcaster.
Maybe it was just mine, who'd say, "OK, you have to ready an action and wait until the dragon lunges to bite you, but then you can swing at its head as it snaps at you." Seemed reasonable at the time. Totally a houserule, yes, but not one that ever strained credibility.I don't even consider that to have ever been a houserule. Or even a corner case. Or even up for discussion.
That's what readied actions were designed to be used for.
I disagree. I don't think the rules support it (sans feat), and with good reason. In fact, I'd say the RAW clearly disallows it. It definitely takes a house rule to make this work baseline.
About nerfing spellcasters:
A few months back they went 180 on their FAQ about metamagiced spells and metamagic rods, now it's not faving the spellcaster.
Could you say more about this? I'm not familiar with this issue, and am curious!
Now metamagic works in the least advantageous way for a sorcerer. Lets say that you have memorised an Empowered Fireball in a level 5 slot:
It counts as a level 3 spell for:
Setting the DC
Determining if it will pierce things like Globe of InvulnerabilityIt counts as a level 5 spell for:
Concentration DC's
What sort of metamagic rod can affect it so you need a normal rather than a lesserI am not sure it was a reversal of a previous ruling but it definitely changed the strength of Rods.
And pearls of power and spell recall.
Now metamagic works in the least advantageous way for a sorcerer. Lets say that you have memorised an Empowered Fireball in a level 5 slot:
[...]
It counts as a level 5 spell for:
Concentration DC's
What sort of metamagic rod can affect it so you need a normal rather than a lesserI am not sure it was a reversal of a previous ruling but it definitely changed the strength of Rods.
Oh, that's unfortunate! If this is a change, it's definitely one for the worse... I don't suppose you have a link to the relevant FAQ entry?
|
Yeah I'd like to see that FAQ too, because this:
What sort of metamagic rod can affect it so you need a normal rather than a lesser
...is huge. I just did a check of the PRD, and it doesn't mention it under Metamagic Rods.
Maybe it was just mine, who'd say, "OK, you have to ready an action and wait until the dragon lunges to bite you, but then you can swing at its head as it snaps at you." Seemed reasonable at the time. Totally a houserule, yes, but not one that ever strained credibility.I don't even consider that to have ever been a houserule. Or even a corner case. Or even up for discussion.
That's what readied actions were designed to be used for.
By the rules you have to threaten a creature(the space it occupies) to attack it. It having long limbs does not mean it occupies the squares it is reaching across. I do agree it is a reasonable houserule, but if a GM knows he is houseruling he should just ignore any rule that goes against that houserule. I think the feat made people realize they were actually breaking a rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Terrible remorse as printed in Ultimate Magic was an auto-win spell. I quickly made a thread as soon as I had my subscriber copy and saw the spell, and then they errataed it to a weird intermediate state where repeatedly casting the spell was an auto-win if the enemy succeeded on their save but not if they failed. Eventually, they weakened it yet again, and now it isn't an auto-win period.
I'm all for pointing out overpowered rules items for every class, particularly spells, and I try to do so as soon as I identify them.
I don't like the metagmagic rod nerf. By RAW it goes by spell level, not spell slot so they need to change the rod description if they want to go by slot level.
Maybe the arcanist has something to do with it since it seems like it will be really good with metamagic.
Well at the risk of people bringing up interpretations that don't really work with the text, you could always replace your metamagic rods with Staff of the Master (Necromancy). You do have to actually have the feat you want to add... but let be honest you were adding Quicken anyway and you already took the feat.
I think most of the erratas have been fine.
Take the crane wing fix, as an example. It isn't a discussion on "Casters vs. Martials", it is a matter of internal balancing of martial characters. One option shouldn't be vastly better than the others, if it is, it probably need fixing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think most of the erratas have been fine.
Take the crane wing fix, as an example. It isn't a discussion on "Casters vs. Martials", it is a matter of internal balancing of martial characters. One option shouldn't be vastly better than the others, if it is, it probably need fixing.
As a single, alienated issue, I totally agree: The Crane Wing nerf is not about Caster v Martial disparity.
That's not what this is about though. This is more about actually discovering if said disparity actually exists.
The Devs stance is that there is no disparity, and that errata is always done for overall balance, and doesn't favor caster or non-caster.
The perception, however, is that "Crane Wing (as an example) is too broken to continue functioning as is, but Heavens Oracles (again, as an example) are just fine."
The goal here is to find out, using actual evidence instead of just "trust me" comments, if there has actually been a disproportionate amount of adjusting, in favor of casters.
Because, unfortunately, the reality is what you see happening in the Crane Wing thread - lots of people with a, "this is the straw that broke the camels back" attitude when it comes to design direction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The goal here is to find out, using actual evidence instead of just "trust me" comments, if there has actually been a disproportionate amount of adjusting, in favor of casters.
Because, unfortunately, the reality is what you see happening in the Crane Wing thread - lots of people with a, "this is the straw that broke the camels back" attitude when it comes to design direction.
For me the fact that dazing spell, rime spell and some others exist and don't have any errata is evidence that we have a disparity.
You don't just see things like that when looking at what WAS changed but also by looking at was WAS NOT changed.
Could you say more about this? I'm not familiar with this issue, and am curious!About nerfing spellcasters:
A few months back they went 180 on their FAQ about metamagiced spells and metamagic rods, now it's not faving the spellcaster.
Here is the FAQ entry.
Before that you could (for example) use your lesser rod of quicken on your empowered fireball, now you can't.I am pretty sure that this goes against RAW, it hurts more blasters than other wizards and makes metamagic a little more troublesome to use than before, having said that i am ok with the FAQ since there are a few metamagic tricks that are too powerful for most games.
I think most of the erratas have been fine.
Take the crane wing fix, as an example. It isn't a discussion on "Casters vs. Martials", it is a matter of internal balancing of martial characters. One option shouldn't be vastly better than the others, if it is, it probably need fixing.
Power Attack...
Argument now invalid.(For things that are vastly better than everything else)
|
|
taken from another thread:
And while I don't think the disparity is nearly as wide as some people make it out to be, I also think it doesn't help matters that the Paizo devs seem to have that same attitude as you. Despite the fact that they are well aware that their customer bases considers the matter a problem since the Core Rules were first published, subsequent releases and errata to the system have actually tended to strengthen spellcasters and nerf non-spellcasters.I think it's more complicated than that - I think there are some (admittedly self-imposed) restrictions, based on building Pathfinder on top of 3.5. As I understand it, the "core" of 3.5 was renowned for casters dominating martial classes. Being backwards compatible necessitated some level of imbalance, it seems to me.
The thing is, you can adhere to the SRD without being a slave to it's assumptions (like the assumption that anything that any class can do, there MUST be a spell that does it...usually better and easier). Ultimate Combat introduces a few cool things that martial characters could do...and of course immediately introduced spells that duplicated those things. Because it seems that the Paizo devs can't comprehend the concept of spellcasters NOT being able to do literally everything that is possible to do using other means.
It's a rather huge failing on their part, in my less-than-humble opinion.
|
I think most of the erratas have been fine.
Take the crane wing fix, as an example. It isn't a discussion on "Casters vs. Martials", it is a matter of internal balancing of martial characters. One option shouldn't be vastly better than the others, if it is, it probably need fixing.
Power Attack...
Argument now invalid.(For things that are vastly better than everything else)
People don't dip 2 levels of MoMS for power attack...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
People don't dip 2 levels of MoMS for power attack...I think most of the erratas have been fine.
Take the crane wing fix, as an example. It isn't a discussion on "Casters vs. Martials", it is a matter of internal balancing of martial characters. One option shouldn't be vastly better than the others, if it is, it probably need fixing.
Power Attack...
Argument now invalid.(For things that are vastly better than everything else)
If Power attack were a style feat, that otherwise required +5 BAB and two other (subpar) feats, they most certainly would.
Just to clarify, I'm talking about in-company errata. Nothing about transitional changes from previous editions.
For example, the Cold Ice Strike change is a perfect example. It's a spell that is less powerful now than when Pathfinder first released it.
Edit - Also, I mean actual functional changes, not just clarification or typo-fixing.
Actually, Cold Ice Strike is a perfect example of nerfing martials more than casters. The ORIGINAL version was indeed a swift action 60 ft cone. But it also had an implied expensive material component, which could have easily lessened the appeal.
In the same book as CIS, we got the Qinggong Monk. One of his higher level ki powers was CIS, as a spell-like ability. As in, he could ignore any expensive component costs. Perhaps that's why it cost a whopping 3 ki points to use...
So then paizo had a choice on how to nerf/fix CIS. They could impose a pricy component on it and leave it as written (good for the Monk, bad for the casters), or nerf the spell effect itself and have it be free to cast (good for the casters, bad for the monk).
Guess which direction they went?
Actually, Cold Ice Strike is a perfect example of nerfing martials more than casters. The ORIGINAL version was indeed a swift action 60 ft cone. But it also had an implied expensive material component, which could have easily lessened the appeal.
Wait, what? My copy of UM has no such component... what are you referring to?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Things to nerf for casters:
Make Concentration a skill again. Force them to spend skill points on it.
Re-impose Wizard's specialty penalty of not being able to cast / use items of prohibited schools *at all*.
Get rid of nearly all the +mental stats of races, and only ones who come with a -2 Con can have one. In 3E, there were about half a dozen +Int races w/o level adjustment despite all of the splat books, a couple +Cha ones, and...+Wis was almost unheard of. And many of them featured a Con penalty.
Get rid of the flight skill. It serves as an impediment to martial flight (via winged boots, fly spell from allied wizard, etc...) due to needing the ability to fly to take ranks in it.
Make Mirror Image work like it did in 3E. Where the images only had AC of 10 + your dex. And you explicitly had to wait until your next turn to "re-shuffle" them (if a foe hit "the real you," all his buddies could then pinpoint your ass till your next turn). And Cleave cut down multiple images. As did Whirlwind Attack. As did Magic Missile.
Now for some things that were entirely new, and not just bad houserules of 3E...
Remove Dazing Spell from the game.
Remove Spell Perfection from the game.
Remove Bouncing Spell from the game.
Remove Persistent Spell from the game.
Remove Blood Money from the game.
Remove Paragon Surge from the game.
Remove Divine Interference from the game.
Remove the spell that gives Oracles Paladin class features (forgot the name) from the game.
Remove Teleport Conjuror from the game.
Remove Opposition Research from the game.
(I say "remove from the game" for simplicity, but nerfing it into the ground to the point of uselessness - like they did to Crane Wing - works as well).
Just some things off the top of my head...
Wait, what? My copy of UM has no such component... what are you referring to?
Actually, Cold Ice Strike is a perfect example of nerfing martials more than casters. The ORIGINAL version was indeed a swift action 60 ft cone. But it also had an implied expensive material component, which could have easily lessened the appeal.
It originally listed M in the components line but had no reference as to any material component in the text. Many thought it was supposed to have an expensive component to make up for its benefits. It's really hard to find old threads/info from paizo's forums. I found this mentioning that both the effect and the components had been modified by the FAQ. Sorry I can't find anything better.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Greater Teleport used to be able to get you to the moon or other celestial body with its unlimited range. However, its range suddenly became limited when Paizo came out with the Interplanetary Teleport spell.
The nerfs to warriors from 3.5 to PF are obvious and well-documented: less Power Attack potential, Improved Trip now requires twice as many feats, etc.
I was under the impression that the new Power Attack's damage potential was greater than the old one's.
Also Improved Trip still only needs Combat Expertise and STR 13.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was under the impression that the new Power Attack's damage potential was greater than the old one's.
Not really - 3.5's Power Attack let you decide for yourself what the damage to accuracy balance would, there were various options available (like Leap Attack) to improve the scaling of Power attack, be and with certain feats (primarily Shock Trooper) you could completely sidestep the accuracy penalty.
Though for what it's worth, personally I'm happy the leap attacking shock trooper barbarian has been toned down.
Also Improved Trip still only needs Combat Expertise and STR 13.
3.5's Improved Trip was broken into two feats in Pathfinder, Improved and Greater trip. If you want the same effect Improved Trip gave in 3.5, you need both feats.
It should also be noted that 3.5's Improved Trip was available at level 1, whereas Greater Trip comes online at level 6 due to the base attack bonus requirement.