Mmmm. I find it no different then demons being 'fit' into their forms by the powers of Chaos, instead of each one being unique and different.
The 'amount' of power you put into a fireball would represent the maximum effect you can get out of it. As your caster level increases, you get more efficient and 'pure' with the magic that is there, but you don't actually get 'more' of it.
To get more, you increase the spell level. It's like Valences on atoms, the higher ones have more power.
Every single spell cast resonates in the field of magic. WHen you want to create a magical explosion of fire, sympathetic resonance with all the previous millions of cast spells means the magic responds automatically, like a living thing with built-in reflexes, and your spell tends to perform exactly like those that came before, like pouring magic into an existing mold.
Introducing rules where you could raise or lower the power of spells by changing their base stats would result in rapid customization and game-breaking by expert rules lawyers. Double damage fireball if I cut the range and AOE down? Sure!
So, it's less for the sake of realism then additional balance. Metamagic is there to play with magic on the upside. Treating each spell as something with interchangeable parts gets...dangerous, quickly. Spells are the things which break PF the most, you have to be VERY careful about them.
===Aelryinth
I agree. Full casters already get a ton of mileage and utility out of their spell list, making them some of the most powerful casters in the game. If casters could also modify the effects of said spells on the fly, they would get an even larger bump in power.
Introducing rules where you could raise or lower the power of spells by changing their base stats would result in rapid customization and game-breaking by expert rules lawyers. Double damage fireball if I cut the range and AOE down? Sure!
So, it's less for the sake of realism then additional balance. Metamagic is there to play with magic on the upside. Treating each spell as something with interchangeable parts gets...dangerous, quickly. Spells are the things which break PF the most, you have to be VERY careful about them.
I agree. Full casters already get a ton of mileage and utility out of their spell list, making them some of the most powerful casters in the game. If casters could also modify the effects of said spells on the fly, they would get an even larger bump in power.
{pours lamp oil all over the thread's kindling and logs} Hmmm, except modifying a caster's effects on the fly is exactly how the 3.5/DSP power-point-psionics system works... and it's arguably more balanced than Vancian magic. :D
Introducing rules where you could raise or lower the power of spells by changing their base stats would result in rapid customization and game-breaking by expert rules lawyers. Double damage fireball if I cut the range and AOE down? Sure!
So, it's less for the sake of realism then additional balance. Metamagic is there to play with magic on the upside. Treating each spell as something with interchangeable parts gets...dangerous, quickly. Spells are the things which break PF the most, you have to be VERY careful about them.
I agree. Full casters already get a ton of mileage and utility out of their spell list, making them some of the most powerful casters in the game. If casters could also modify the effects of said spells on the fly, they would get an even larger bump in power.{pours lamp oil all over the thread's kindling and logs} Hmmm, except modifying a caster's effects on the fly is exactly how the 3.5/DSP power-point-psionics system works... and it's arguably more balanced than Vancian magic. :D
Let's not forget: Admixture evokers do modify spell effects on the fly ;)
|
Tattooed Mystic with the Blistering Bands Mystic Tattoo. You can do up to 7d6 damage around you when you cast your Evocation cantrip and when an enemy stays next to you on the end of their turn. Add in something like a Wreath of Blades in a Ring of Continuation, and you got yourself a decent deterrent.
|
I have direct experience with 5 methods: PF wizard, PF sorcerer, D&D 4e, D&D Next, and TFT (now GURPS, or so I'm told). I really don't think one is appreciably better or worse than another, although I did not care for the 4e system.
I don't think any system will be perfect; just pick one and go with it.
But back to the original post, I think cantrips' power level is about right for an at-will spell.
Warlord e1, first thing I looked at: Hammer and Anvil, Warlord's Favor, Powerful Warning, Vengeance is Mine, Pin Cushion, Race the Arrow, Overwhelming Force Trap, Hammer Formation, Diabolic Stratagem and Seize the Upper Hand are all good options for that level depending on your group makeup and build.
'Hammer and Anvil' and 'Warlord's Favor' don't count as they key off two different primary stats (charisma and intelligence respectively). Note how you didn't even mention 'Leaf on the Wind' and 'Guarding Attack'. Thus that grouping fall into the first category:
1) Outright terrible, no one will ever use it
2) HIGHLY situational, some people will take it depending on what they expect from the campaign
3) Amazing (if Stat 1 is primary) otherwise crap
4) Amazing (if Stat 2 is primary) otherwise crap
If you don't have a rockin' charisma, then Hammer and Anvil is only "kind of ok." If you don't have intelligence (AND Tactical Presence) then Warlord's Favor is only "kind of ok." It's an easy choice: which of those two stats is higher? Ok, take that power.
Leaf on the Wind is situational, highly situational. Guarding Attack is just bad.The rest of those aren't PHB powers, so I never encountered them before having been completely turned off by the system.
Looking them up on the D&D Wiki:
Powerful Warning: doesn't qualify (keys off a stat and Insightful Presence)
Vengeance is Mine: very good, I'll give you that one. But it took until Martial Power 2.
Pin Cushion: doesn't qualify, (keys off a stat)
Race the Arrow: doesn't qualify, (keys off a stat and Skirmishing Presence)
Overwhelming force trap: Actually a trap. Wow.
Hammer Formation: doesn't qualify, (keys off a stat and Resourceful Presence)
Diabolic stratagem: Situational and/or a trap. I would have to look up how Marks work again. Also, why the hell is the warlord getting Marks? I thought that was the Fighter's shtick.
Seize the upper hand: Trap (keys off having combat advantage, but doesn't grant it) and doesn't qualify for keying off Charisma.
Wasn't your point that you could predict with 80% accuracy though? You should be grouping the powers that key off the same stat rather than just disqualifying them.
I will apologize about what I meant and how it was interpreted when I said "different attributes."
And yeah. Didn't mention stuff like Leaf or Guarding attack. Yeah, they're definitely pretty crappy, I just more disagreed with the assertion that there were only one choice per level.
The argument I was trying to make was over the amount of material for the game that I was conscious of which only included the PHB where in any given category for any given level there are only four powers.
With the release of more books there are now something like twenty.
Unfortunately I decided that the system was junk long before those additional books. The system failed to hook me, I lost interest, and therefore did not keep up with future material. As much as it may have fixed, it was already too late.
Thus with only the original four powers you get a choice between:
Leaf in the Wind
Guarding attack
Hammer and Anvil
Warlord's Favor
Two of them are crap (you agree) and the other two key off different primary attributes. The choice is painfully obvious which one you take (I played a warlord once, I went charisma, IIRC--I remember having Hammer and Anvil).
EVERY SINGLE CLASS was like this. Our wizard complained about getting a choice of THREE powers out of his FOUR and liking ONLY ONE of them.
The two adventures we played (before I ran a conversion of Dragon Mountain, ending my group's foray with 4E) we all agreed that the first adventure was very well written, but not mechanically balanced (that is: the story was awesome, but the monsters/traps had clearly been put together before the game's rules/mechanics had been finalized, thus leaving the encounters themselves unbalanced) while the second adventure was mechanically much better (well rounded and balanced encounters) but dull and boring.
By "dull and boring" I mean you start in a town with a bunch of places to visit and the ONLY adventure lead is in the tavern. Party actually split up to investigate different locations only to find nothing, nothing, nothing, and nothing. Oh adventure lead. The first adventure? Totally had side quests and hidden gems if you went a little off-plot.
Introducing rules where you could raise or lower the power of spells by changing their base stats would result in rapid customization and game-breaking by expert rules lawyers. Double damage fireball if I cut the range and AOE down? Sure!
So, it's less for the sake of realism then additional balance. Metamagic is there to play with magic on the upside. Treating each spell as something with interchangeable parts gets...dangerous, quickly. Spells are the things which break PF the most, you have to be VERY careful about them.
I agree. Full casters already get a ton of mileage and utility out of their spell list, making them some of the most powerful casters in the game. If casters could also modify the effects of said spells on the fly, they would get an even larger bump in power.{pours lamp oil all over the thread's kindling and logs} Hmmm, except modifying a caster's effects on the fly is exactly how the 3.5/DSP power-point-psionics system works... and it's arguably more balanced than Vancian magic. :D
This is untrue.
What you could do with PP is add to a spell's damage by adding in more power. IN effect, you were applying spontaneous metamagic.
I'm talking about modifying area, save DC/no save, range, casting time, potential attack roll, spell penetration and damage interchangeably without changing the base power of the spell, or even decreasing the level.
i.e. I reduce the AoE of Fireball to 10'r and turn its range to short. Now it's dealing 2d6/level. Or I drop it down to single target and eliminate SR. Or I make it close range and suddenly it's level 2.
You know, swapping in and out the modular components of the spell to overpower it in some desired aspect. We know players would never crunch the numbers to do that. Turning a fireball into an long range single target SR:no save:no spell would never occur to them, or doubling the damage it inflicts without changing the spell level/PP cost.
Adding PP is the same as casting at a higher spell level, or adding metamagic to a spell. Nothing to change there.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And, no offense, those systems can get pretty broken if you apply the rules that way, no? Modular spell systems have always broken down if you use them, unless they are so fundamentally weak anyways that it doesn't matter.
==Aelryinth
That's what the GM is for. "No, you can't do that" fixes it perfectly.
IF the system is so broken the GM has to basically say you can't use it, then it shouldn't be used, period, and so not a set of rules.
hence why spells are not modular.
In D&D, the poster child of this is the Epic Spell Rules. Completely modular, and oh, boy, could you crack those things open.
==Aelryinth
IF the system is so broken the GM has to basically say you can't use it, then it shouldn't be used, period, and so not a set of rules.
hence why spells are not modular.
In D&D, the poster child of this is the Epic Spell Rules. Completely modular, and oh, boy, could you crack those things open.
==Aelryinth
That was the system working as intended in the case of Epic Spell Rules >.>
The entire Epic book was pretty much devoted to the idea that overpowered was the baseline and you would be going way, way beyond overpowered.
IF the system is so broken the GM has to basically say you can't use it, then it shouldn't be used, period, and so not a set of rules.
hence why spells are not modular.
In D&D, the poster child of this is the Epic Spell Rules. Completely modular, and oh, boy, could you crack those things open.
==Aelryinth
Well, that's a stupid thing to say. The whole game is already predicated on the GM can disallow whatever he's in the damn mood for. If someone presents a 1st level spell in PF that deals 500 damage, he says no. Same principle applies to point-based. "Yeah, that's too much. Let's revise that."
And HERO system works just fine under that principle, thankyouverymuch.
Mechanics that don't work are not something any GM should have to deny. They should be eliminated beforehand. Players insisting that these rules are 'valid' because they are in the game cause lots of problems.
and GM's vary from table to table. Rules do not. Rules are there to establish a baseline so we're all playing the same game.
Just like bringing a standard character into a PFS game can cause problems, because there are specific things PFS recognizes as problems and doesn't allow, rules that are so broken that they shouldn't be allowed in ANY game should not rely on Rule 0.
Rule 0 is fine for a house game where this and that are different in THIS campaign. That's what it's designed to do.
Not to handle things that should not have been rules to begin with. GM's should not have to fix the mistakes of the game...they should be tailoring it, not mending it.
==Aelryinth
What you need to understand that above all.... Pathfinder Magic isn't about writing great classic literature. It's about gaming. It's about producing a consistent set of rules, so that you can write adventures for wide variety of people and give them approximately the same level of challenge. As fine as a work of literature it is, (and it's nice part of my collection) There are reasons why Ars Magica, for instance hasn't swept the planet, and why Pathfinder's D20 based structure has persisted despite the arguably better written, more engrossing competitors that have come and gone since then. It's a consistent set of buildin blocks that are generally easy to understand, but don't have the homogenous feeling of GURPS 1d6 magic.
It certainly isnt the worst system ever developed. But it represents a very specific view of magic. One that doesnt mesh with the overwhelming majority of fantasy, and requires whole host of setting specific elements that pathfinder/golarion dont have.In dieing earth you literally have to learn the spell that a specific person came up with. (remember the named spells in 3rd edition thats every spell). You have to learn it from books, or from someone teaching it to you. You then copy it exactly into your own book for future reference. It requires an extremely talented wizard to make up his own spells(literally name in the history books sort of people).
Pathfinder does not in any way shape or form represent this reality. Sorceror pull spells out of their arse. Wizards still come up with spells every level, whether they are studying in their academy, or in the middle of the jungle or on another plane. A witch gets spells wispered into their ear by a familiar, a cleric gets his spells directly from a deity, or from worshiping an ideal. And yet, despite all of this, the spells are always the same, and behave precisely the same way every time.
I am not interested in creating literature. I am interested in creating a world building tool. I also dont think its difficult to make magic both simple to use in game, and less irrational. Things like gurps and ars magica make changes to EVERYTHING making the entire game more consistent. I am simply talking about magic, and the vancian rules. In fact a simple change to spell points over spell slots not only is a big help, it also is generally much easier for players to understand in this day and age.
Simplicity and consistency are not mutually exclusive.
Mechanics that don't work are not something any GM should have to deny.
And, as has been proven, they do work, as other successful, long-running game systems use them.
Just 'cause you don't like it don't mean it's broke, and the fact that you're not willing to believe that it can work doesn't mean it don't.
And I couldn't give two squirts of urine about PFS.
Ah, the 'ignore the problems and pretend they aren't there' solution. Well, YMMV.
==Aelryinth
Ah, the 'ignore the problems and pretend they aren't there' solution. Well, YMMV.
==Aelryinth
If you used them for the power level they were designed for, there were no problems. It's hard to cite them as broken when everything in that book was broken. Which was the whole point of the book.
It was a massive demonstration of just how poorly 3E scaled above level 20.
Mechanics that don't work are not something any GM should have to deny. They should be eliminated beforehand. Players insisting that these rules are 'valid' because they are in the game cause lots of problems.
Rule 0 is fine for a house game where this and that are different in THIS campaign. That's what it's designed to do.
Not to handle things that should not have been rules to begin with. GM's should not have to fix the mistakes of the game...they should be tailoring it, not mending it.
I somewhat agree. But Rule 0 is also legit when used for odd combos where obviously no one had thought of that broken idea before. Strained interpretations of RAW, etc.
It's not to be used as a broad edged sword to fix a rules system.
|
That's what the GM is for. "No, you can't do that" fixes it perfectly.And, no offense, those systems can get pretty broken if you apply the rules that way, no? Modular spell systems have always broken down if you use them, unless they are so fundamentally weak anyways that it doesn't matter.
==Aelryinth
In other words, Oberoni?
Precisely.
==Aelryinth
As long as we are discussing other games' magic systems, in MtAw i have seen the best wishcasting system of magic, yes it was difficult to learn/understand/utilize but after you passed that stage it was very good.
PS. I know that when you streched the system, quite a bit, it broke apart but that may have had more to do with the whole system of nWoD which was pretty pretty bad.
Words of Power is pretty snazzy, but suffers from having not nearly enough playtesting and polishing and a lack of support.
Coulda been a great idea tho
I really liked the Words of Power concept, as it did, on face, feel more 'natural' than the Vancian system - but after giving it a full read, I agree it is a rough system. Further refined, it could be just awesome. Unfortunately, I don't see Paizo refining it any further. A 3rd party might do so (just as 3rd parties have attempted improvements on Kingdom Building, Mass Combat, mundane crafting, etc).
Another non-vancian system, that is maybe a little more bookkeeping, would be a system based on energies. Instead of spell 'levels', you've got pools of energy that can be drawn from. Spell effects are crafted from those pools. Specialists would have larger pools of a given type, etc. Unfortunately, the bookkeeping aspect would likely keep a system such as this off of most tables (unless there was significant digital assistance to it).
Which brings me to my real point. Vancian magic is perfect for tabletop pen & paper games because they are pen & paper games. As this evolves into more digitally assisted tabletop games, I can see newer systems winning favor. As much as I love classic pen and paper gaming, I could also very much get behind a digital tabletop that handled a lot of the pen and paper stuff for you... But it'd be much easier to do that with a rule system designed for it, instead of trying to make a pen&paper ruleset work on it. (This is likely the reason it hasn't really been done well yet - all the VTT projects out there are trying to take a complicated pen & paper system and make it work in their environment, instead of developing their own rule system that works well in the VTT environment).
Words of Power is pretty snazzy, but suffers from having not nearly enough playtesting and polishing and a lack of support.
Coulda been a great idea tho
I really liked the Words of Power concept, as it did, on face, feel more 'natural' than the Vancian system - but after giving it a full read, I agree it is a rough system. Further refined, it could be just awesome. Unfortunately, I don't see Paizo refining it any further. A 3rd party might do so (just as 3rd parties have attempted improvements on Kingdom Building, Mass Combat, mundane crafting, etc).
Another non-vancian system, that is maybe a little more bookkeeping, would be a system based on energies. Instead of spell 'levels', you've got pools of energy that can be drawn from. Spell effects are crafted from those pools. Specialists would have larger pools of a given type, etc. Unfortunately, the bookkeeping aspect would likely keep a system such as this off of most tables (unless there was significant digital assistance to it).
Which brings me to my real point. Vancian magic is perfect for tabletop pen & paper games because they are pen & paper games. As this evolves into more digitally assisted tabletop games, I can see newer systems winning favor. As much as I love classic pen and paper gaming, I could also very much get behind a digital tabletop that handled a lot of the pen and paper stuff for you... But it'd be much easier to do that with a rule system designed for it, instead of trying to make a pen&paper ruleset work on it. (This is likely the reason it hasn't really been done well yet - all the VTT projects out there are trying to take a complicated pen & paper system and make it work in their environment, instead of developing their own rule system that works well in the VTT environment).
A pool system could totally work with stacks of colored markers you combine to cast the spell then hand to the DM who keeps them until you rest.
Sooooo... cantrips?
Sooooo... cantrips?Low-level casters can't have nice things. That's when fighters are supposed to enjoy the game.
You mean classes with multiple natural attacks, right?
And yeah, I liked the Reserve feats in 3.x.
<<<<<<wants a skill based magic system even fighters could spend a few points in to get some stuff.
Shadowrun.
Even a mage can pick up a gun and wear armor (up to his encumbrance limit, of course, which can be as high as he'd like to raise his CON and STR attributes).|
|
<<<<<<wants a skill based magic system even fighters could spend a few points in to get some stuff.
Rolemaster
Anyone can learn spells, or how to use a weapon, for a price.
You mean classes with multiple natural attacks, right?
Multiple natural attacks look impressive, until you do the math and realize a full BAB class with a two-handed weapon deals significantly more damage.
<<<<<<wants a skill based magic system even fighters could spend a few points in to get some stuff.
In Legend you can use Acrobatics/Athletics to Jump Good (enough to simulate flight for a few rounds, like Samurai Jack or anime ninjas) or to literally climb air (and simulate flight for a few rounds) when you're good enough to make those DCs. You can also use Vigor to get fast healing, etc.
<<<<<<wants a skill based magic system even fighters could spend a few points in to get some stuff.Rolemaster
Anyone can learn spells, or how to use a weapon, for a price.
You mean classes with multiple natural attacks, right?Multiple natural attacks look impressive, until you do the math and realize a full BAB class with a two-handed weapon deals significantly more damage.
Whiiiiiiiich all depends on how many natural attacks and exactly how strong you are. Once you are strong enough to consistently hit the enemy, extra attacks rules the roost.
As many pouncing eidolons have been happy to display.
==Aelryinth
If a psionics-type spell point system were implemented, it would get rid of a lot of these complaints. Sure, you may not technically have unlimited uses of your low-level powers, but with 343 power points you were never going to run out of far hand or whatever.
I think cantrip power levels are fine. They are in many cases about half the power of 1st level spells. Ray of Frost: 1d3 damage to 1 target; Chill Touch: 1d6 damage to potentially multiple targets (level dependent). They can also be cast all day. The only thing I wish is that there was scalability with them the way there is with every other level's attack and defense spells.
This. At level 20, I want my ray of frost dealing 3d6 points of cold damage.