|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And now I'm whining. . . you can't just accept my opinion that I LIKE THE GAME THE WAY IT IS AND DON'T WANT WIZARDS NERFED TO THE GROUND and move on?
Dude, if you like the game how it is, don't buy this hypothetical 2e that has reasonable casters and less exponential caster progression.
I enjoy the game the way it is now.
I don't want a new edition.
Then you're in the wrong thread. Maybe you should read the thread title. Or opening post. Or hell, ANY OF THE POSTS IN THIS THREAD SO YOU'D KNOW WHAT IT'S ABOUT.
Why do you have to insult me for liking Pathfinder?I insult you for preferring your own personal fun over improving the design of the game, and using hyperbole and things nobody has suggested as your reasoning for NOT making an improvement to the game.
If the only reason you like Pathfinder is because you can play a Wizard and be the best, you are a child.
Denying any sort of change because it MIGHT, just MIGHT bring casters down to a more reasonable level of power, and martials up so they're roughly equal is selfish and detrimental to the future of the game.
Thanks for at least having the guts to admit that while hiding behind a psuedonym you feel like calling me a child and insulting me.
|
|
NL you can defend your position. Except you refuse to even acknowledge the other position. Anytime someone even remotely suggest any change no matter how small you assume the worst will happen. I can respect someone for defending their position . The constant doom and gloom hyperbole. As well acting like your some sort of victim constantly is well annoying.
Because many people love having things taken away from them and being told they should be happy and like it because "its better".
How about we give fighters nothing new, and put them on d4 hit dice?
Actually, that's my suggestion-- martials are too powerful-- all classes with full BaB get d4 hit dice and are only allowed to use Knives that do d3 damage and nothing else-- trust me its better.
You fighter players interested?
...and now you're not even trying any more. Silly me. :P
NL you can defend your position. Except you refuse to even acknowledge the other position. Anytime someone even remotely suggest any change no matter how small you assume the worst will happen. I can respect someone for defending their position . The constant doom and gloom hyperbole. As well acting like your some sort of victim constantly is well annoying.
And being constantly badgered insulted and called a child by a bunch of people hiding behind fake names and avatars who can't just accept my position constantly is annoying as well.
When I say "If you nerf wizard to the ground" and I reply "No, I like wizard please don't I won't buy a game where Wizard is nerfed to the ground" you don't have to try to convince me that I have been having badwrongfun playing Wizards for the last 20 years and I should join the bandwagon of people who don't like this game and want some other game instead.
But if you argue with me I will respond and defend my enjoyment of the game as it is written and with the wizard as it is written instead of some dumbed down version.
|
|
And being constantly badgered insulted and called a child by a bunch of people hiding behind fake names and avatars who can't just accept my position constantly is annoying as well.
I'm happy to discuss the game. But don't try to be an internet tough guy and accuse posters of "hiding" behind fake names.
If I was talkin' crazy and then regretted it later, I wouldn't want that to be attached to my real name. Just a thought.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Anyone who doesn't like the current Wizard should play a different game, because they obviously hate this one."
"A Wizard who doesn't have access to all the spells on his list (and must therefore make some decisions with consequences) is a dumbed down version. You're dumb for wanting it."
"I've been playing Wizard for 20 years and I'll be damned if anyone tries to take it away from me! You all want to nerf it to the ground! Gut it, until it's a shadow of its former self! Wizards don't need a nerf and you'll never nerf my favorite class, NEVER!"
This is why people call you a child.
And being constantly badgered insulted and called a child by a bunch of people hiding behind fake names and avatars who can't just accept my position constantly is annoying as well.
Whatever bro.
When I say "If you nerf wizard to the ground" and I reply "No, I like wizard please don't I won't buy a game where Wizard is nerfed to the ground" you don't have to try to convince me that I have been having badwrongfun playing Wizards for the last 20 years and I should join the bandwagon of people who don't like this game and want some other game instead.
Nobody has said you've been having badwrongfun.
Nobody has said to nerf the Wizard into the ground.
You're getting worked up over things ONLY YOU HAVE SAID.
You don't see how crazy that makes you look? You're essentially arguing with yourself and hallucinating that it's other people saying the things you've said.
NL you can defend your position. Except you refuse to even acknowledge the other position. Anytime someone even remotely suggest any change no matter how small you assume the worst will happen. I can respect someone for defending their position . The constant doom and gloom hyperbole. As well acting like your some sort of victim constantly is well annoying.And being constantly badgered insulted and called a child by a bunch of people hiding behind fake names and avatars who can't just accept my position constantly is annoying as well.
When I say "If you nerf wizard to the ground" and I reply "No, I like wizard please don't I won't buy a game where Wizard is nerfed to the ground" you don't have to try to convince me that I have been having badwrongfun playing Wizards for the last 20 years and I should join the bandwagon of people who don't like this game and want some other game instead.
But if you argue with me I will respond and defend my enjoyment of the game as it is written and with the wizard as it is written instead of some dumbed down version.
So if they nerf or remove spells like Simulacrum, Blood Money, Suffocation, or any of the ridiculously broken spells in the game you'll have a problem with that huh?
Define "Nerfed to the ground." Nobody has used this term but you. Everyone has said bringing them more in line realistically. A Necromancer shouldn't be a master of other magics as well. He shouldn't be able to wake up in the morning and say, "Y'know, I think I'll cast some enchantment spells at full power since the game rewards me for specializing except I'm not really specializing."
This is my problem with the Wizard as is right now. Preparing a forbidden spell of each spell level simply breaks even with non-specializing due to the extra slot Specialists get of each level anyways.
In the game right now there is absolutely no reason to be a Universalist Wizard and I think that's a problem and if you actually do like Wizards, I should hope you think it's a problem too.
@Athaleon and Rynjin
JUST STOP INSULTING ME AND CALLING ME A CHILD AND CRAZY.
Just stop it.
Rynjin, you have done it multiple posts where you bully and harass me and I am getting really sick and tired of it from you.
I get on a roll when people start insulting me and I can't let things go because I have PTSD and anxiety and obsession issues from my time overseas in Kuwait and Iraq, so yes I can't let things go.
You calling me a child has never helped or opened my eyes to your position or in anyway assisted any conversation ever and I am getting incredibly tired of it.
Nathanael.
Please. Take a moment. Think. Most of what you're arguing against is stuff only you have said.
Do you think the game is perfect? If so, good for you. Keep on playing Pathfinder. Some of us believe that the game could be better, for everyone.
Wizards are going to be powerful no matter what. Would you not like seeing Specializing meaning something and Universalists having a place in Pathfinder?
I'll jump in here with my loads of 2 cents.
When - a long time away. At least 5 years if not 10.
Thoughts on 4E and verisimilitude.
If a PC and NPC with the same background, same race, same level (or the equivalent) don't have the same abilities available that kills it. So a 4th level monster Human, can't do the same as a 4th level PC human it just feels wrong. I prefer situations where PCs and antagonists (NPCs or Monsters) are built using primarily the same system.
The other is martial dailies - when I play all my choices are made from the POV of a character, including using limited resources. If a martial guy has an ability that can be used once a day - the character chooses to use it (not the player). And I've never seen any way to have that POV (which is the basis of why I play) work with daily martials as 4E have.
Other thoughts on 4E - there was a lot of good in the game. I stole rituals, implements and residuum for my pathfinder games.
On things to adjust in Pathfinder:
Don't nerf Wizards - let them be universalists if they want to be. Instead of nerfing spellcasters pump up the martials. Make full attack as a standard action a class ability of those that have full BAB. Limiting someone else's fun is never good - just give goodies to the other classes until it is balanced.. given a more powerful balance. This would be the biggest change, and make the system much less backwards compatible with existing material.
Skills - a little fine tuning - bring climbing and swimming into Athletics.
CMB/CMD - just use hit and AC. If you hit you get the effect. Sometimes it hits Touch AC, sometimes flat footed. And rather than have the CMD go up with size just a "you can't throw anything more than 4 times your size" for trip. And some classes remove that - a medium monk can trip a storm giant.
Other small adjustments, but those are the biggest for me.
The OGL was initially written so that the core rules could be improved on and iterated one by third parties, and then any improvements could be then adopted into the core rules, and made the new baseline. Do some of that - the Pathfinder 3PP community is huge and generally very good. Take a lot of the best 3PP material and incorporate into the core game.
I would like to see no 2nd Edition EVER.
Since that is unlikely, I would rather see a Core Rule Book 2 that is radically different but still compatible with Pathfinder. Perhaps something that would allow for the more modular building of classes so classes in effect cease to exist but each character is a selection of "powers" or abilities. This way you could be playing Pathfinder 1 or Pathfinder 2 at the same table because although different the power levels are roughly the same. Obviously this would need a lot of hashing out.
or
a very minor tweek that takes all of the changes that have taken place over the last few years plus a few that I hear are coming like specialty clerics of various gods and add a few revisions to a few classes like fighter and rogue plus getting rid of a few mistakes (I won't name names). That would be enough for a new Core Rule Book but not make my whole bookshelf and many years of buying obsolete because it would still be additive.
Things people have suggested in this thread. . .
Shouldn't "Vancian" casting mean Wizards get around two spells per day?
Enough people like the system that there should be at least one class that keeps it, but spell point casters should be an option as well.
Two spells per day total for Wizards sounds like nerfed to the ground to me.
That reminds me. If magic is powerful and common in the setting (in other words, if Spells = Solutions), and players can freely choose to play a mage, that's not necessarily a bad thing.
In that case, however, there shouldn't be a "Cleric" or "Wizard" class that allows any one player access to all the solutions. Instead, there should be specialized mages in each theme, like the old Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, and Warmage. Pathfinder did exactly the opposite: Relaxing all the prohibitions on banned schools, and even introducing the Opposition Research feat.
Now its being suggested not only to reduce spells but to completely eliminate both the Wizard and the Cleric as options. . . sounds like nerfed to the ground to me.
Generalist casters can be fine, as long as they have a limited number of spells known.
Now the Wizards ability to know many spells is under assault. . . yet more nerfing
-More specialized casters. Rather than having each casting class basically be able to do everything in one build, make them choose a bit. Increase spells per day and spells known, but limit acquiring spells outside your area of expertise. Boost the less desirable magic schools (like Illusion) so this is viable.
Here again the ability to play a Wizard who can do all or many of the different things/cast from multiple schools is being assaulted trying to force Wizards to be just Necromancers/Illusionists ect instead of WIZARDS
I'm not arguing against myself-- people keep suggesting gutting the magic system one way or another--
And for the record, yes I consider and I think any reasonable person would consider the following things "nerfing to the ground":
1. Being reduced to two spells per day
2. Having the Cleric and Wizard classed entirely removed from the game
3. Limiting spells known for generalists
4. Forcing Wizards to be mono-school ultra specialists
Those are the suggestions that I consider "nerfed to the ground"
Not things like putting limits on Simulacum (already actually supported by RAW and left as a DM decision) or removing/downgrading a few spells-- but an the above all out assault on the ability to play a true Wizard who can prepare a spell for any situations if he's smart enough to prepare the right ones.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Two spells per day was a joke, referring to Wizards in Vance's setting being able to cast only a few spells per day.
-More specialized casters. Rather than having each casting class basically be able to do everything in one build, make them choose a bit. Increase spells per day and spells known, but limit acquiring spells outside your area of expertise. Boost the less desirable magic schools (like Illusion) so this is viable.Here again the ability to play a Wizard who can do all or many of the different things/cast from multiple schools is being assaulted trying to force Wizards to be just Necromancers/Illusionists ect instead of WIZARDS
Here again the ability to play a Wizard who can do all or many of the different things/cast from multiple schools is being assaulted trying to force Wizards to be just Necromancers/Illusionists ect instead of WIZARDS
I'm not arguing against myself-- people keep suggesting gutting the magic system one way or another--
And for the record, yes I consider and I think any reasonable person would consider the following things "nerfing to the ground":
1. Being reduced to two spells per day
2. Having the Cleric and Wizard classed entirely removed from the game
3. Limiting spells known for generalists
4. Forcing Wizards to be mono-school ultra specialists
You do know that the "Do anything Wizard" is utterly unique to D&D, and even that only the more recent Editions, right?
Spellcasters in almost all media are specialized in some manner. They might be able to pull out some tricks from other schools, but the Evoker isn't sudden;y going to be like "Oh yeah I can also transmute an entire castle into mud".
But we've reached the root of your problem here:
1.) You don't understand what is a suggestion and what is a question. D&D/PF magic is not truly Vancian. Jack Vance's magicians were often limited to just 1 or 2 spells a day. Hence the question you quoted.
2.) You're too attached to the names "Wizard and Cleric" rather than what they actually do.
3.) Your definition of "nerfed into the ground" has been broadened from its usual meaning to "Any change that is made whatsoever", since I suggested a number of things that actually make the class more desirable in some ways (increased spells per day, more spells known, better spells in each school of magic).
4.) You assume "limit" is automatically synonymous to "Restricted to one thing and one thing only forever" even when it's stated right in the post you quoted that that's not what I intend, but chose to ignore it because it didn't suit your purposes to read it.
|
|
Here the thing NL. Your not just saying wizards should not be nerfed. It's said in a way with too much gloom, doom and pessimism. Any change=the end of D&D. It's hard to discuss anything when it's cloaked in over emotional hyperbole. Defend yourself to be sure just take it down a emotional level. I agree with other posters. This is a thread about what we want to see changed in PF. Not what we want don't want to see changed. I get the impression that your making a lot of fuss in the hopes that the thread gets locked. You can try but this topic is just going to keep showing up on the forums.despite your best attempts to silence it.
I don't think there is anything wrong with the wiz and I generally don't care about a martial
/caster disparity.(just so people know where I am coming from).
However, I am also old and can remember a time when all wizards had a percentage chance to learn a new spell and that was only if he found one during an adventure and even then there was a cap based on int as to how many spells a wiz could learn.
I had a lot of fun playing that game and guess what high level wizards still kicked butt and "broke" the game.
Back then you played a class because that is what you wanted to play or that was what the party needed. Not because everything was perfectly balanced. I liked that game. I also like pathfinder now the way it is.
Things can be improved. Keeping the feel and "heart" of the game is what matters most to me. Vague concepts I admit.
I am also of a conservative opinion.
There is no sense in nerfing casters, although some of the spell exploits could stand for closing (limited wish geas/quest).
I would also rather classes like monk/fighter/rogue stay where they are than get more classes like the Human superstitious invulnerable rager pouncing come and get me barbar.
The things I actually want can be done in the current system.
Ritual magic
Fleshed out combat rules (mounted combat, maneuvers, ect.)
Skill synergies (action that require 2 or more skills to pull off like creating a diversion via bluff to stealth)
More flesh out skill system
More flesh out custom item creation rules that GMs would actually run.
More interesting magical items
Artifact creation rules for GMs.
Simulacrum template
Fleshed out planar binding ruling suggestions
Actual Illusion rules
A clean up of the FUBAR that is the general rules. Explanations, clarifications, wording reworks.
Defined ready action rules (what all about strike back is novel?)
There is actually a lot of gaps in the rules. The era of GM rulings as opposed to rule interpretations is far from over. This may not be a bad thing, but I for one would rather the GM focus on other things than making up the needed rules for what their PCs are trying to do. Ultimate campaign is a great book for how I want the rules fleshed out (although I could use simple mass combat rules and complex mass combat rules).
Wizards in Medium who aren't "limited" in the fashion you describe include but are not limited to:
Doctor Strange from Marvel
Dr. Fate and Zatanna from DC
Wizards in Harry Potter-- limited only by needing a wand and having to have learned the spell
Morgan Le Fey and Merlin from Arthurian Myth/legends
Belgareth in the Belgariad from David Eddings
|
|
Some domains especially the ones related to the environment are not worth takinf. The abilities they give are underpowered. What is it with the devs love of obscuring must. Was there no other spell that they could give. Some domain abilities are not worth taking or too underpowered and should be given a upgrade. Why does the speak with animal ability from the Animal domain not a at will ability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards in Medium who aren't "limited" in the fashion you describe include but are not limited to:
Doctor Strange from Marvel
Dr. Fate and Zatanna from DC
Wizards in Harry Potter-- limited only by needing a wand and having to have learned the spell
Morgan Le Fey and Merlin from Arthurian Myth/legends
Belgareth in the Belgariad from David Eddings
Really the list goes on and on.
Postulating that authors of media have not been using unbound wizards is baffling.
|
Well personally I'm not looking forward to another restart haha.
I'm too invested in the rules as of current and will be several long dark nights with a red moon before I switch to something entirely different.
I see there is a nerf the spell casters debate going on, I suppose to be expected, when spells keep getting added some things will be better than others. Same goes for magic items, class options, ect. Really I like having all these options, if something seems broken as a GM you can simply say no. Unless in PFS but they tend to block many broken things themselves.
In the end the rules as always are really more a guideline in any home game, and with the current rules it is really pretty flexible to simply say stick to core mainly if there are things outside you want run it by me.
PFS is a different can of worms but that is trying to balance rules in a way to keep everyone having fun.
Where was I... I think I've lost my train of thought. Ah right, I would not be happy with a rules change unless it makes more logical sense in almost every change I see (which was a rare event that got me off my first system, dnd 3.5, to pathfinder) or I prefer the older system with more material at my disposal for use both by the GM to keep things interesting, and by the players to specialize awesomely. May be that's just me but if this system doesn't change extremely and just evolves over time I would greatly prefer that.
I think there is a way to make specialists more special without limiting generalists. I see nothing wrong with the idea that a generalist can cast necromancy spells but a necromancer will do it better in exchange for a trade off.
Maybe a plus caster level minus caster level type of thing. Generalists cast on level while specialists cast at level +1 in there speciality in exchange for -1 in an opposition school or two. That might work better than 2 spell slots instead of one.
There is lots of literature where the hero wiz can do whatever but might not be as good as a specialist at a particular kind of magic.
Wizards in Medium who aren't "limited" in the fashion you describe include but are not limited to:
Doctor Strange from Marvel
Dr. Fate and Zatanna from DC
Wizards in Harry Potter-- limited only by needing a wand and having to have learned the spell
Morgan Le Fey and Merlin from Arthurian Myth/legends
Belgareth in the Belgariad from David Eddings
An exceedingly small list, and you'll note a few things about your examples.
First, Wizards in Harry Potter DO specialize. Flitwick is good at Charm...he's not going to beat McGonnagal at a Transfiguration contest. There is no Wizard that is equally good at every sort of magic in that universe. Even Dumbledore and Voldemort were essentially Evocation specialists with a side in Necromancy for Voldemort and Divination for Dumbledore.
Second, the rest of your examples are considered exemplary among their kind, the best of the best...or even the ONLY.
Doctor Strange is the Sorcerer Supreme...note most other magic users in the Marvel universe are limited to cheap tricks or a specific sub-set of magic...usually "Pew pew laz0rs".
Dr. Fate likewise, isn't he some god-like energy being who's possessing a man via a helmet? I'm not up on my Dr. Fate though, and all my knowledge of him comes entirely from the Justice League and Young Justice cartoons.
Zatanna can TECHNICALLY do anything...but realistically never does.
Morgan Le Fay and Merlin I covered in the "they're basically the only magic users" bit.
It's been super forever since I read any of the Belgariad, but as I recall that was another setting where magic users were exceedingly rare and special...and I seem to remember something about being chosen by the god or some such? Magic orb doohicky. Something like that.
Compare to *take a deep breath*:
-Dark Sword Trilogy
-Pre 3rd Ed D&D stories
-Dresden Files
-Obsidian Trilogy
-Dragon Age (you can at most fully "master" about three magic disciplines).
-Most video games, really. I can't actually think of a single example where magic users are as versatile as this.
I could go on and on just based on my bookshelf but it's all packed up in the basement ATM so I can't look at it.
@Rynjin
The limited casters you are talking about are low level, which current PF wizards at low levels DO focus on their specialization AND many of your examples are sorcerers not wizards.
Doctor Strange is better represented by a high level caster.
In Harry Potter they may not be as skilled in a particular style of magic-- but they could cast any spell, they weren't limited to "X only"
Dr. Strange is Sorcerer supreme. . . yes, but even during times he's not he has a vast array of spells as his disposal, as do other powerful sorcerers like Dr. Voodoo in that universe-- even Dr. Doom who is at best secondarily a sorcerer can cast many powerful enchantments of various "schools".
Dr. Fate has a magic helmet that boosts his power, but Kent and Inza Fate are sorcerers in their own right and can cast a variety of spells even when not inside the helmet-- Zatarra and Zatanna can theoretically do ANYTHING with their magic-- limited only by their moral codes.
In Arthurian Myths Morgan Le Fey and Merlin are FAR from the only magic users-- there are dozens of witches, sorcerers all the fey, the ladies who live at Avalon. . . those two are just the ones featured most often in stories because they are the ones central to the main character's journey (being his mentor and sister/lover respectively).
Yes there are many settings where magic is limited-- but its not exclusively the case.
Good grief. It's barely a week and there's 10 pages going on
Here are mine, they may echo other people's elsewhere that I did not read.
1) Three core books: a book of races, a book of classes, and a beastiary. Things that can be used as races cannot be in the beastiary.
Races ought to cover anything with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher (to be honest, I'd probably put the minimum at 5 or 6). The racial book would also include the do-it-yourself race builder at the end.
The class book should include all the current classes with some improvements to those (like fighter and rogue) that seem to be perennially whined about for not being quite up to things compared to casters. I think there also should be some form of artificer since everyone and their grandmother keeps making it. Finally, there should be a do-it-yourself class-builder guide at the end similar to the
2) E6 rules to help with early adventures.
3) No more alignments or, at least, make it so they can't be used as a hammer.
4) Rename the Barbarian "Berserker", eliminate or create some multiple choice Paladin.
|
In Harry Potter they may not be as skilled in a particular style of magic-- but they could cast any spell, they weren't limited to "X only"
Dr. Strange is Sorcerer supreme. . . yes, but even during times he's not he has a vast array of spells as his disposal, as do other powerful sorcerers like Dr. Voodoo in that universe-- even Dr. Doom who is at best secondarily a sorcerer can cast many powerful enchantments of various "schools".
Dr. Fate has a magic helmet that boosts his power, but Kent and Inza Fate are sorcerers in their own right and can cast a variety of spells even when not inside the helmet-- Zatarra and Zatanna can theoretically do ANYTHING with their magic-- limited only by their moral codes.
In Arthurian Myths Morgan Le Fey and Merlin are FAR from the only magic users-- there are dozens of witches, sorcerers all the fey, the ladies who live at Avalon. . . those two are just the ones featured most often in stories because they are the ones central to the main character's journey (being his mentor and sister/lover respectively).
Yes there are many settings where magic is limited-- but its not exclusively the case.
Having essentially unlimited wizards as a PC class is fine. Having them alongside something very limited ALSO as a PC class is....bad game design. Now, wizards have always been a bit overpowered at the highest levels, but it wasn't TOO big of a problem until 3.0, when lots of the weaknesses / balances were either eliminated or made much less severe. And the former weaknesses were bolstered even further with 3.5, and then again with Pathfinder.
My more serious list of Pathfinder 2E "fixes" would largely consist of returning most of those vulnerabilities to spellcasters. Another "fix" I would make in the Magic rules would be to make both spontaneous and prepared casters actually have to abide by the basic restrictions of their chosen type of spellcasting. The wizard wouldn't have a dozen ways to cast spontaneously, as he currently does. The sorcerer Paragon Surge exploit would be eliminated.
In Harry Potter they may not be as skilled in a particular style of magic-- but they could cast any spell, they weren't limited to "X only"
Nor did I say to limit people to "X only" I said limit their access to schools they weren't specialized in.
Essentially the idea would be, say, you have 6 spells known of each level, you can only have 2 of those be from schools you're not specialized in. Something to that effect.
Perhaps provide a better Universalist who can draw from any school, but must have a certain number of each. So he has to have at least one spell from each School before learning another of that school.
What I want to head off is every Wizard or Cleric essentially being able to go "I've got a spell for that" for every conceivable scenario, but increase their effectiveness in their specialized schools.
Yes there are many settings where magic is limited-- but its not exclusively the case.
I never said it was exclusive. I will also say none of those use D&D's/PF's bastardized version of Vancian casting either, all of the above have a sort of Spell Points type system where they can cast anything but are tired out or spent when they're out of magic, which is where most of the problems arise from.
But I personally don't want to shift to a PP based system (they function oddly to me, though I do like Psionics okay), so the remaining option is to mitigate the other problems that arise from the system, teh most egregious of which is the "Got an app for that" syndrome.
Since people are arguing about wizards in other medium...
I don't know anything about Dr. Strange.I do know, however, that a large portion of Rowling's time during the first five years planning her series was spent deciding what magic couldn't do.
From Notably, Potterverse wizards cannot create permanent, strong objects out of nothing--anything created via conjuration is either temporary or weak (AFAIK she has never made the precise limitations of creation spells publicly available). Also, no magic can reverse death, ever, no exceptions.
From accio quote, she said
The most important thing to decide when you're creating a fantasy world is what the characters CAN'T do.".
...so much for wizards who can do anything.Merlin and Morgan Le Fey come from myths, and so their abilities vary wildly depending on the telling. I don't know of any one story in which Merlin does everything a D&D wizard can do, but I would not be surprised if, for each task a D&D wizard can do, there exists SOME version of the myths in which Merlin can do something similar. You still aren't likely to find one single story in which Merlin can do everything, but maybe someone more familiar with the early legends could surprise me?
There are plenty of things that Wizards in D&D can't do-- their summons are all temporary, illusionary, or gated in creatures they have to bargain with.
They aren't good at permanent creations of actual physical objects. (See Major Creation and all the limits on it).
They can't heal and cannot restore life-- two things that get glossed over a lot but which actually matter.
No, there is no single tale where Merlin does all the things-- after all the individual stories are super jumbled up and an absolute mish mash of a lot of different things. He wasn't even Merlin in the earliest tales, but all in all there is a very powerful wizard there.
Of course, don't forget, in most version of Arthurian myth there is exactly ONE magic sword ever mentioned, but no one ever suggests that magic items should be as few and far between as they are in literature. . .
-More specialized casters. Rather than having each casting class basically be able to do everything in one build, make them choose a bit. Increase spells per day and spells known, but limit acquiring spells outside your area of expertise. Boost the less desirable magic schools (like Illusion) so this is viable.
I'm going to nitpick here and say that Illusion is probably one of my favorite schools in Pathfinder, and arguably one of the strongest. It's certainly better than Enchantment, Necromancy, and Evocation, and probably Abjuration. It's not Conjuration or Transmutation, but if you ignore the school powers (cause foresight is so silly good), it's probably comparable to Divination for spell power and effectiveness.
With it's spells that work until someone interacts with the illusion, and the shadow X line, it's probably my 3rd favorite school to specialize in behind conjuration and divination.
@Nathaniel: Only going to slightly disagree with your assertion that wizards aren't that great at creating physical objects and can't heal.
Creating Objects
- Wall of Stone/Iron, Rampart and a couple other spells are permanent, pretty solid objects. Notably useful in their aid for creating forts
- At a certain point, that's not too far away (Level 13), wizards can gain the ability to create alternate planes of existence
You are correct in the major creation rules being pretty limiting.
Healing
- Infernal Healing allows for very limited healing.
- Wish/Limited Wish allow for access to raise dead and other healing spells if necessary. Not True Resurrection of course.
I've never had super good luck with most Illusion spells that actually have to do with creating illusions in the sense that immediately comes to mind when you think of it.
There are some gems (like Mirror Image) but the spells I think of when I think Illusion are like Silent/Minor/Major Image and spells along that line, fooling the enemy's senses and making them believe what is not real is reality and vice versa, and they're not so hot in this game.
I want to make a character like Iris (Xanth), basically, and PF isn't good at that.
I will admit that illusion is one of the two schools most up to DM adjudication on how certain terms should be worked out in gameplay, enchantment being other. I'll also admit to not having too much issue with the spells, and being pretty lenient towards the magic user when it comes to how much interaction I require from an NPC/PC before I let them make the disbelief check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a "Hardcore" Magic-user player (note the choice of name) I must say...
-A paring down of spells that obsolete skills, or a reworking of them. Spider Climb giving a bonus on Climb Checks, or a Climb Speed based on your Climb ranks rather than a flat "Yep, no reason to take Climb".
-More specialized casters. Rather than having each casting class basically be able to do everything in one build, make them choose a bit. Increase spells per day and spells known, but limit acquiring spells outside your area of expertise. Boost the less desirable magic schools (like Illusion) so this is viable.
I like your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
|
|
Saving throw is an abstract concept that requires abstract terminology to describe.
So is a Power (whether At Will, Encounter, or Daily). The same can be said for an Attack Roll, a Skill Check, Ability Score etc.
"wargame" is just slang, It implies that the mechanic basically assumes the game is mostly combat with adjoining sections that are just an excuse to do more combat. Which "encounter power" exemplifies this.
I think we will have to agree to disagree - "Encounter" in 4e is not synonymous with "combat" indeed you have Combat Encounters and Non-Combat Encounters. So for me Encounter is more like "Scene" and thus is no more wargamey than "Saving Throw", "Skill Check" or "Ability Score" IMHO.
As far as PCs being different than NPCs. Only to an extent. Part of the (overused word) verisimilitude of being a PC is knowing that you are working with the same rules as your foes. What you do is something that an enemy can do.
But in PF that isn't necessarily true if the NPC doesn't have the same build as your PC. Your Rogue may be able to Sneak Attack, but that Fighter NPC can't for example.
Also, as soon as a GM uses some resources to create NPCs that he decrees as off-limits to PCs, e.g. Evil prestige classes, Monster Races, Feats, Spells etc then you have that divide between PC and NPC creation - what the NPC does cannot be done by your PC.
Breaking to far away from this begins to make the tabletop feel like a WoW dungeon.
I am glad I don't get that impression; for me a tabletop RPG is a tabletop RPG (I don't enjoy computer games really so that is important).
Nathanael, when Tequila Sunrise started this thread, it was 'What do you want to see in a new edition?'
You, apparently, don't want a new edition. You are happy with the system as it stands. I am happy for you.
Move along. I don't imagine there will be anything in this discussion that is going to be positive for you. It's like a religious conservative popping in at a secular humanist meeting and expecting to hear things that jive with what he believes. It's possible, but highly improbable.
I really like the edition, as is evidenced by the fact that I invested in some of the books and play it with other gamers. But I don't like everything about it. I look to threads like this one to get ideas. Some of them won't mesh with mine. If I don't like an idea, I try to take it with a grain of salt and move on. I'm probably not changing anybody's mind, and they are probably not changing mine.
Wizards in Medium who aren't "limited" in the fashion you describe include but are not limited to:
Doctor Strange from Marvel
Dr. Fate and Zatanna from DC
Wizards in Harry Potter-- limited only by needing a wand and having to have learned the spell
Morgan Le Fey and Merlin from Arthurian Myth/legends
Belgareth in the Belgariad from David Eddings
Quite a few fictional characters have to have the obligatory take a level in bad@$$ or plot device. Characters have story immunity unless it makes the story better that they don't. And comics are horrendous because different writers change powers up, power down, power up, or retcon things out of existence.
I would like tabletop rpgs to be more like popular fiction/myths/legends. But that isn't always easy when an author just tells a story and a D&D game is a collaborative event.
As already mentioned, Doctor Strange could be any high level spell caster. He's called the Sorcerer Supreme because he is high level, and he is THE GUY who hangs out patching holes between our reality and the lovecraftian horror next door.
Dr. Fate has the super spiffy artifact helmet with the soul of an epic level caster inside. The source of her/his powers has also alternately been the Forces of Chaos and Order and Every Living Thing on Earth. Yeah, squeeze that into a playable character.
The Harry Potter verse. Everyone is a sorcerer. Really. You have to be born with the ability. If you aren't, you can't. Just look at Squibs. Everyone just takes the extra spell feat or spends favored class bonus on extra spells. Maybe they are all rocking the racial/paragon surge ability... You really only see the characters using a handful of spells. This includes the adults/instructors.
Belgarath the Sorcerer (or Polgara or Belgarion or any or the others actually) is easily represented by a Psion. Really. It's called the Will and the Word. No arcane spell failure. No somatics. No focus items. No components. They will it and it happens. The energy (usually) comes from within. They pick a couple of versatile powers and augment them appropriately to create a variety of effects. Metamorphosis is definitely on that list.
. . .
No, there is no single tale where Merlin does all the things-- after all the individual stories are super jumbled up and an absolute mish mash of a lot of different things. He wasn't even Merlin in the earliest tales, but all in all there is a very powerful wizard there.Of course, don't forget, in most version of Arthurian myth there is exactly ONE magic sword ever mentioned, but no one ever suggests that magic items should be as few and far between as they are in literature. . .
Actually, arguing against the Christmas Tree effect is pretty much asking for magic items to be much more rare and unique, which is exactly what some on these boards want. So yes, some want a low magic game, or a game wherein magic items are rare.
And borrowing from T.H. White, Merlin was the offspring of a demon who knew the future by living backwards through time... He was more of a plot device than a figure.
On the other hand, some scholars point out the tales of King Arthur as an amalgamation of many other war lords before it was later romanticized in the late middle ages.
So... after saying a lot of nothing, I say this. It's about telling a fun story. If the edition allows for that for you, Rock The #!@% On. If something interferes with you and yours sharing a fun story, leave it behind. This thread is others mentioning what they would like to see different because they feel it would help the game experience in some fashion for them. And they won't all agree because we don't always game for the same reasons.
As a "Hardcore" Magic-user player (note the choice of name) I must say...
I like your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.-A paring down of spells that obsolete skills, or a reworking of them. Spider Climb giving a bonus on Climb Checks, or a Climb Speed based on your Climb ranks rather than a flat "Yep, no reason to take Climb".
-More specialized casters. Rather than having each casting class basically be able to do everything in one build, make them choose a bit. Increase spells per day and spells known, but limit acquiring spells outside your area of expertise. Boost the less desirable magic schools (like Illusion) so this is viable.
I was talking about this a bit yesterday, too. I also wanted to remove things that takes an enemy out of a fight (which includes "short" durations such as 1d6 rounds which can quite often be to the end of the fight). Those spells should be replaced with penalties and perhaps even LARGE penalties (like can't take move actions and takes a -5 to AC as the monster is mostly frozen, or even stagger effects are fine). That way, the wizard is still a super useful "controller" but his allies get to feel useful too as they are the ones who are actually going to finish the job.
Maybe there should be an instant death somewhere, but it should always be locked behind multiple saves and probably not happen all at once. As much as I disliked a lot of aspects of 4e, I feel like they sort of went in this direction for their "insta-kills"; they only gave "insta-kills" to monsters, though.
Edit: If you change prevalence of instant kills and the like, then you can pull back on every strong monster having will and fort saves of infinity too, so the new weaker spells are actually more likely to go off than their fight-ending ancestors.
I could see save or dies becoming more granular.
Like, flesh to stone could be just -caster level movement speed debuff, and only actually turns the target into stone if you reach -10 movement speed.
Even save or suck spells could work like that. Like, a spell that dazes could instead -X to attack rolls, and only daze if the penalty exceeds your CON or something.
Yes. Exactly like that. Also see my edit.
|
Replying to your edit: weak and strong saves probably shouldn't exist anyway. The distinction is just too great.
I wonder how the 5e bounded accuracy will work out for spells and stuffs. Feels like there's a lot to pillage from there.
Unfortunately, from what I read they have allowed DCs to climb once again extending the bounds on BA to the upper limits. Saves cant keep up making spells unbeleivably good again. :(
I for one love SOS/SOD but wish there was additional conditions in order for them to be one shot knock outs. Something like only kill if you are bloodied that way fights dont end instantly. However, I would worry about people screaming for HEALZ all the time making the healbot role even more in demand than it is now.
Well, I sort of like weak/strong saves to a certain extent (it is a piece of flavor for certain classes and major draw of a lot of classes *cough monk cough*), but I think they could stand to scale more closely and have DCs themselves have fewer avenues of increasing. I think a lot of people dislike bounded accuracy because it is game-y but it may be the solution. If it can be implemented without the world burning down then I would be in favor.
Most high level monsters are just designed with a high fort and will as goal as it stands, I think. Either that or they just have immunity to everything.