I noticed that on DND NEXT a couple of cantrips do more damage than their Pathfinder counterparts. If we had that it could mean that low level wizards could use cantrips instead of the not so magical crossbows. Is there any chance that we ever going to get this kind of changes in Pathfinder?
Sure.... when spring rises in Irrisen.
LOL!!!!!
I seriously doubt it. Pathfinder is based on 3.5, where cantrips tended to suck. And they tend to focus heavily on 3.5 as far as the general focus on balance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nah. PF seems to be allergic to at-will abilities.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will cheer when DnD ditches the Vancian magic system. Frankly I think it's the basis of the LinearWarriorQuadraticWizard problem in the first place.
#ElderScrollsRules
I will cheer when DnD ditches the Vancian magic system. Frankly I think it's the basis of the LinearWarriorQuadraticWizard problem in the first place.
#ElderScrollsRules
If D&D was going to lose Vancian Magic, it would have happened in third edition, when one of the designer was also one of the designers behind Ars Magica.
Truth be told, that is actually the point when the LinearWarriorQuadraticWizard problem you refer to really started becoming severe. Prior to third edition, there were a lot more checks & balances on higher level magic, not least of which the fact that many of the higher levels spells took much longer to cast & were a lot easier to disrupt in the process.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will cheer when DnD ditches the Vancian magic system. Frankly I think it's the basis of the LinearWarriorQuadraticWizard problem in the first place.
#ElderScrollsRules
Forget about spring in Irrisen, they'd be building year round summer resorts in Whitethrone first.
Like it or not Vancian Magic IS one of the things that makes D+D, D+D, that makes Pathfinder a D+D successor instead of just another failed wannabe. Scrapping Vancian magic would pretty much require that they ball up every book they've made, toss it into the scrap heap and start fresh.
We already saw how well that worked out for WOTC.
Mechanically, you will fail to convince me every time that 4e is inferior to any other edition. Ditching Vancian magic made martial classes FEEL relevant (and cool) at high levels, without damaging the power of Mages.
The problem with 4e is that WOTC made it feel too much like a highly customizable board game than an RPG. They made their rules too ironclad in some cases - especially concerning skills and skill challenges, and their writing staff wrote their adventures too linearly and prepackaged, with little DM fiat.
I will cheer when DnD ditches the Vancian magic system. Frankly I think it's the basis of the LinearWarriorQuadraticWizard problem in the first place.
#ElderScrollsRules
Forget about spring in Irrisen, they'd be building year round summer resorts in Whitethrone first.
Like it or not Vancian Magic IS one of the things that makes D+D, D+D, that makes Pathfinder a D+D successor instead of just another failed wannabe. Scrapping Vancian magic would pretty much require that they ball up every book they've made, toss it into the scrap heap and start fresh.
We already saw how well that worked out for WOTC.
Mechanically, you will fail to convince me every time that 4e is inferior to any other edition. Ditching Vancian magic made martial classes FEEL relevant (and cool) at high levels, without damaging the power of Mages.
The problem with 4e is that WOTC made it feel too much like a highly customizable board game than an RPG. They made their rules too ironclad in some cases - especially concerning skills and skill challenges, and their writing staff wrote their adventures too linearly and prepackaged, with little DM fiat.
5E is bringing back Vancian magic, and PFS has the same issues with adventures and GM fiat.
The problem with 4E was not that it was a radical change. The problem was that there was no actual, meaningful choice, you could make about your character.
Tell me your class and which of two stats is going to be your primary stat and I can guess with 80% accuracy every single power you will ever take.
Because you get four choices:
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
Of course there's some variance:
1) Obvious trap
2) Just bad
3) Meh <-- your probably taking this one...
4) Actually a tap, because it looks amazing on paper and never works in practice <-- unless you fell for the trap
For example, there's a rogue daily that is BETTER when it misses, because if you are successful, the target gets a save to end the effect before their turn. The effect? Granting you (and only you) combat advantage. If you miss the target, they are forced to maintain the effect for exactly 1 round (until the end of your next turn). That's a daily power with a 55% chance of doing NOTHING if you are successful.
Another example, the warlord daily power that gives all your allies 5-foot steps for free on someone else's turn. The reason it's a trap: requires that everyone be adjacent to everyone else. Oh, and it targets AC (the defense that flies through the roof faster than your attack roll) and isn't reliable.
That said:
There were changes I liked. But the combined whole is just so bland and meaningless. You feel like you have a lot of choice, but once you start giving it a hard look, it collapses like a house of cards.
And still devolves into "I swing with my at-will power" *roll* "16, I miss."
|
Vancian magic needs updated, going away from the fire and forget parigam and using the Spontanious casting mechanic, much like the Arcanist without the severly limited spell slots. Point pools, like Ki and such, should be with every class in the next version of PF. Not Mana, mind, but pools to tweak spells and use extrodinary powers.
About that other... version of the brand name... The main problem was the fact that all the classes never seperated themselves from one another and was just powers with different flavors. Most didn't do much but the basic damage and targeted a defense. It was boring design.
Yeah I'm really glad Pathfinder manages to avoid having trap options here. Nothing but high quality, competitive, thought provoking choices here.
Are there trap options in Pathfinder? Sure.
But that wasn't my point was it?
My point that every option was a trap. Except maybe one or two. It'd be like having Pathfinder looking like this:
Sorcerer: if you don't pick the arcana bloodline, you fell into a trap.
Fighter: if you don't take Cleave, you fell into a trap.
Cleric: if you cast anything other than Cure spells, you fell into a trap.
Wizard: if you take metamagic feats, you fell into a trap.
As an unrelated aside. If this ever actually happened to you in 4e you... I'm not even sure how to phrase it. Just wow. That's like "wizard built to use his spellbook as a throwing weapon" levels of doing-it-wrong.
I completely understand wanting to not like a game, it's cool. No one here likes 4e. At all, but trying to talk about it in any sort of technical light when you have that level of system mastery seems... bizarre. Just don't.
Never played the official modules, did you? The boss fight for the first one was literally "swing and hit on a 17" because the fight lasted long enough that the only thing you had LEFT was at-will powers and its defenses were so high that you only hit on a 17.
And then if you looked at the GM guidelines on how to run a campaign you'd have found out that the boss monster was ACTUALLY four levels higher than it should have been. As in, an appropriate (non-boss) monster for a party of level 8 PCs. Not a single-monster encounter for a party of level 4 PCs...
I think it would be pretty cool to take a feat that would power up one of your cantrips. Something like:
Feat: Cantrip Focus (Ray of Frost)
Your Ray of Frost cantrip deals increased damage equal to your intelligence modifier and threatens a critical on 19-20/x2. At 10th level the base damage increases to 1d6.
This makes it basically a magic damage light crossbow at the cost of a feat.
|
|
Don't get me wrong, I still want to see the spellbook used, just not the forgetful Wizard/Cleric that is all to easily ill prepared for given situations.
I still don't understand why the Wizard and the Sorcerer was in the same book in 3.0. Nothing was different between them except mechanics and limitations.
Yes, a part of this is because of my own dislike of the Vancian way. It makes no sense compared to the other classes in the same ruleset, let alone other products. I, myself, do not want to go to the other extreme with Mana points (or Psionics PP) to fuel spells, as it would take away from the core of the product itself.
It needs to adopt the Sorcerer "spontanious" casting mechanics, with adjustments to fit a universal magic mechanic instead of having classes make up their own. Mem "known" spells (like the Arcanist) and have a way to cast from traveling spellbooks. It need not trudge out the same "fire and forgetful" trope that needed killed in 3.0.
Hyperbole doesn't get you anywhere.
My point that every option was a trap. Except maybe one or two. It'd be like having Pathfinder looking like this:
You know what:
Prove it.
Find me two powers from the same class from the same level that aren't traps and which don't key off different ability scores.
Minor stipulation: wizard can't be capable of taking both of them. Ie. a choice must be made.
|
Don't get me wrong, I still want to see the spellbook used, just not the forgetful Wizard/Cleric that is all to easily ill prepared for given situations.
I still don't understand why the Wizard and the Sorcerer was in the same book in 3.0. Nothing was different between them except mechanics and limitations.
Yes, a part of this is because of my own dislike of the Vancian way. It makes no sense compared to the other classes in the same ruleset, let alone other products. I, myself, do not want to go to the other extreme with Mana points (or Psionics PP) to fuel spells, as it would take away from the core of the product itself.
It needs to adopt the Sorcerer "spontanious" casting mechanics, with adjustments to fit a universal magic mechanic instead of having classes make up their own. Mem "known" spells (like the Arcanist) and have a way to cast from traveling spellbooks. It need not trudge out the same "fire and forgetful" trope that needed killed in 3.0.
The ill-prepared resource managing vancian caster is the heart of the game for me. Why cant you have a spontaneous MM machine gun and there be a vancian option for those who prefer?
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.
Nah. PF seems to be allergic to at-will abilities.
Yeah, they'd never do a class like a Witch who could use hexes at will all day long.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Vancian magic needs updated, going away from the fire and forget
Thax, we have reminded you dozens and dozens of times that in PF Vancian magic no longer has anything to do with "forgetting".
The problem with 4E was not that it was a radical change. The problem was that there was no actual, meaningful choice, you could make about your character.
Tell me your class and which of two stats is going to be your primary stat and I can guess with 80% accuracy every single power you will ever take.
Unlike in 3.x/PF, right?
You're a full arcane caster: Enlarge Person/Sleep/Color Spray/Glitterdust/Create Pit/Haste/Fly/Summon Monster (Lantern Archons), etc etc.
Magus: Shocking Grasp (or Snowball).
Vancian magic needs updated, going away from the fire and forgetThax, we have reminded you dozens and dozens of times that in PF Vancian magic no longer has anything to do with "forgetting".
I dont think he was refering to the original jack vance of memorizing and 'forgetting' spells when you cast them.
I think he is refering to the common military term for 'fire and forget' weaponry.
Essentially a 'spell' in vancian magic performs an extremely specific task exactly the same every time you cast the spell. And not just you, but everyone on the planet. Every low level caster that wants to attack with magical force uses magic missile to create multiple small bolts of magic that hit unerringly. Why not some that are one big bolt? Or some that are a ray of force?
Even though spells are extermely varied (you get spells in pretty much every pathfinder product) the behavior of each spell is radically specific. You just cast it, and it does its thing. The caster normally does not further interact directly. He doesnt use his spellcasting skill against the target. He fires the spell, the target saves or doesnt, and the spell happens. Its like a fire and forget missile, lock on, fire, your task is done.
Conceptually this is kind of weird. Baring specific feats/class abilities, every single fireball cast by an int 13 5th level wizard has the exact same degree of accuracy (DC 14) and does the same damage (5d6) and requires the precisely same investment of resources (a 3rd level spell slot). Every. Single. Time. If a million fireballs are cast by a million 5th level wizards they all do precisely the same thing. Sure you might have metamagic or other specialized training that changes it, but for a normal casting of the spell, by a normal wizard of 5th level, its precisely the same.
Magic in most fantasy literature (besides ofcourse dnd/pathfinder novels, and jack vance's work) doesnt work like this. Different casters visualize the effects of their magic differently. They behave differently. Each time you cast the spell it varies in power and strength (and the investment of energy or whatever from the caster).
Instead vancian magic works like modern ordinance. A 500lb bomb is a 500lb bomb. You might have MORE 500lb bombs, or you might also have some sidewinder missiles, and some radar guided missiles. But in the end, neither the pilot nor the plane have any impact on what those bombs/missiles do. A side winder fired from an F22, or a F16, or the back of a truck all do the exact same thing.
Conceptually this is kind of weird. Baring specific feats/class abilities, every single fireball cast by an int 13 5th level wizard has the exact same degree of accuracy (DC 14) and does the same damage (5d6) and requires the precisely same investment of resources (a 3rd level spell slot). Every. Single. Time. If a million fireballs are cast by a million 5th level wizards they all do precisely the same thing. Sure you might have metamagic or other specialized training that changes it, but for a normal casting of the spell, by a normal wizard of 5th level, its precisely the same.
You may be interested in this.
Your analogy is somewhat off base.
A sidewinder doesn't indeed care who launched in.
But a 'ranged attack dealing 10d6 explosive damage' can have many variations, from Russian, Chinese, British, French or German variations of the Sidewinder, to a group cluster of other rockets.
Regardless of how they are delivered, they are going to hit the main source and do the same thing.
So, yes, you can describe a fireball any of a hundred ways, and it will have the same mechanical effects. But it's up to the caster to give them flavor. The rules deal with the mechanics, not the fluff.
Now, if you're talking 'alternate schools' versions of fireballs, that's a different story. And the reason they don't exist is simply balance. If you could duplicate the effect of any one school with other schools, there would be no reason for it to exist, and it should be done away with.
Transmutation, for example, could probably duplicate most of Evocation, Abjuration, Illusion, Charm, and even Divination, if you spin it right.
==Aelryinth
Your analogy is somewhat off base.
A sidewinder doesn't indeed care who launched in.
But a 'ranged attack dealing 10d6 explosive damage' can have many variations, from Russian, Chinese, British, French or German variations of the Sidewinder, to a group cluster of other rockets.
Regardless of how they are delivered, they are going to hit the main source and do the same thing.
So, yes, you can describe a fireball any of a hundred ways, and it will have the same mechanical effects. But it's up to the caster to give them flavor. The rules deal with the mechanics, not the fluff.
Precisely. And this is what I am saying makes no sense. Yes you can describe fireball different ways, but its BEHAVIOR is identical. I dont care what the fluff is. There is fire, it is PRECISELY 20ft in diamter, does the same damage every single time. Yes, that makes sense for rockets build in mass production. It does not make sense in the forces of creation conjured by millions of different individuals who have had no, little or lots of contact with eachohter.
And yes, the mechanics matter. I dont care what you fluff something to be. The mechanics, 10d6 fire damage 20ft radius, 800ft range, describes it more then any flavor text.
Its not a ball of ice. Its not 4 balls of fire. Its one, ball of fire, behaving a very specific way and costing a very specific amount of magic.
Now, if you're talking 'alternate schools' versions of fireballs, that's a different story. And the reason they don't exist is simply balance. If you could duplicate the effect of any one school with other schools, there would be no reason for it to exist, and it should be done away with.
Transmutation, for example, could probably duplicate most of Evocation, Abjuration, Illusion, Charm, and even Divination, if you spin it right.
==Aelryinth
No I am not talking about schools. I am talking about individual casters.
Joe Bobly lives in sargava, he just became a 5th level wizard, he has a 14 intelligence. He wants to burn something with fire and comes up (On his own mind you) with the fireball spell as one of his 2 new spells.
Bob Joely lives in Minkai. He just became a 5th level wizard with a 14 intelligence. He studies in the capital's wizard academy. He learns fireball from the ancient master teaching his massive academy.
These two people, will cast precisely the same fireball, every single time the cast it. Despite the fact that one is in the jungle in the middle of no where, the other is on the other side of the planet in a giant magic academy.
That makes no friggan sense.
Vancian magic is the worst system ever developed, except for all the others.
(Sorry, Sir Winston.)
I unno. Shadowrun's magic system is a pretty good system.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Vancian magic is the worst system ever developed, except for all the others.
(Sorry, Sir Winston.)
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.
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
Conceptually this is kind of weird. Baring specific feats/class abilities, every single fireball cast by an int 13 5th level wizard has the exact same degree of accuracy (DC 14) and does the same damage (5d6) and requires the precisely same investment of resources (a 3rd level spell slot). Every. Single. Time. If a million fireballs are cast by a million 5th level wizards they all do precisely the same thing. Sure you might have metamagic or other specialized training that changes it, but for a normal casting of the spell, by a normal wizard of 5th level, its precisely the same.Magic in most fantasy literature (besides ofcourse dnd/pathfinder novels, and jack vance's work) doesnt work like this. Different casters visualize the...
They VARY in damage from 5-30 points.
Note that Vancian casting is used by many many fantasy authors- not just Vance. Zelazny, Prachett, Glen Cook, Lawrence Watt-Evans, Diane Duane, Patricia C. Wrede, etc.
I unno. Shadowrun's magic system is a pretty good system.Vancian magic is the worst system ever developed, except for all the others.
(Sorry, Sir Winston.)
D&D outsells it by what? Ten times?
And personally, I thought that system wasnt very good.
Runequest was OK. Still, in that game, just about every adventurer was a spellcaster.
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!
Many game systems do this just fine, typically point-based games like HERO System.
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
Have you tried Word Magic from Ultimate Magic?
Conceptually this is kind of weird. Baring specific feats/class abilities, every single fireball cast by an int 13 5th level wizard has the exact same degree of accuracy (DC 14) and does the same damage (5d6) and requires the precisely same investment of resources (a 3rd level spell slot). Every. Single. Time. If a million fireballs are cast by a million 5th level wizards they all do precisely the same thing. Sure you might have metamagic or other specialized training that changes it, but for a normal casting of the spell, by a normal wizard of 5th level, its precisely the same.Magic in most fantasy literature (besides ofcourse dnd/pathfinder novels, and jack vance's work) doesnt work like this. Different casters visualize the...
They VARY in damage from 5-30 points.
Note that Vancian casting is used by many many fantasy authors- not just Vance. Zelazny, Prachett, Glen Cook, Lawrence Watt-Evans, Diane Duane, Patricia C. Wrede, etc.
Yes, the same way a sword varies in how much damage it deals, chance. The game is full of it. But the power/potential of the spell is the same every time.
I am not saying vancian magic has no place in fantasy. But it is rahter specific and represents a very specific style of magic. One that is not well represented in the behavior of pathfinder or in golarion.
Have you tried Word Magic from Ultimate Magic?
Words of Power?
I'm sorry, but every time I hear this I think of the guy who insisted there was nothing wrong with a class because he could make an item with the level 2 self-only haste effect from Word of Power and so get the benefits of haste cheap and easy. :P
==Aelryinth
Have you tried Word Magic from Ultimate Magic?
Given it a try. It was a massive headache. No one in my group uses it because they don't like it just due to lack of easy usage.