I have absolutely seen players ruin carefully laid plans with unexpected solutions. Things that the writers just didn't think of. Sometimes they're super obvious (speak with dead stopping a poorly thought out murder-mystery), sometimes you have to stretch a bit (Legend Lore covers a lot of stuff, especially if there's no time limit), sometimes it's suicidal with a low chance of success (weaponizing sealed evil-in-a-can).
I have seen the writers themselves ruin their own laid plans. Take Skull and Shackles, for example: There is an important scene that is supposed to occur because the PCs are forced to go out and find fresh water to renew their ship's water stores--even though the module places an NPC cleric capable of casting create water on their ship as an especially helpful member of the crew.
As written, that key scene should never happen as they would never need to make landfall for water in the first place!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder and the magic rules embedded within it are both dynamic systems, and there are many paths which lead to Rome. I'm sure Lazar could lay out his specific house-rules for a non-nerfed magic system, but nobody would care to read them. Moreover, some judgments will always have to be made on the fly, if for no other reason than because there will always be more splatbooks.Is your critique really that he doesn't properly understand a system which is, by definition, open-ended and beyond rational reckoning? Quite a cheap shot, that.
I think the critique -- with which I concur, by the way -- is that it's very easy to say "oh, you just hit the magical Goldilocks zone between destroying the effectiveness of the wizard and allowing him to control the narrative," but it's very difficult to do. I don't believe that LazarX can do it, precisely because the whole point of high-level magic is narrative control.
And, yes, usually people making statements like that don't understand what they're actually suggesting.
I have absolutely seen players ruin carefully laid plans with unexpected solutions. Things that the writers just didn't think of. Sometimes they're super obvious (speak with dead stopping a poorly thought out murder-mystery), sometimes you have to stretch a bit (Legend Lore covers a lot of stuff, especially if there's no time limit), sometimes it's suicidal with a low chance of success (weaponizing sealed evil-in-a-can).I have seen the writers themselves ruin their own laid plans. Take Skull and Shackles, for example: There is an important scene that is supposed to occur because the PCs are forced to go out and find fresh water to renew their ship's water stores--even though the module places an NPC cleric capable of casting create water on their ship as an especially helpful member of the crew.
As written, that key scene should never happen as they would never need to make landfall for water in the first place!
IIRC from when we ran that particular module, it was hand-waved away as "sailors think drinking magically-created water is bad luck." Which at least has the advantage of being a believable GM backpedalling, given the number of other stupid nautical superstitions that are actually documented.
But, yes, that's a very good illustration of the issue. The point of utility spells is that they're useful ways to solve problems.
If there was such a thing as an "idiot proof" rpg, I'd be an idiot to even consider playing it. RPGs are not built for, nor conceived as a past time for idiots. The people who created the hobby were considerately more intelligent than the norm, and were not looking to sell the game to illiterate morons who refuse to think.I'm not sure if I should be insulted or amazed at the pure elitism you're oozing right now.
I think I'm going to go with: both.
LOL, all I meant was that the game's mechanics have not been refined down to the point of scientific precision.
It is not a "well oiled machine" there is still a lot of room for design improvement.
I'm not saying to do away with the GM or anything.I mean there are still a lot of inconsistent interactions between the rules themselves.
RAW should not conflict with itself or actively hinder storytelling.
It may be impossible to design a "flawless" system,but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
We'll hopefully just keep getting closer to that unreachable goal.
I think PF is a drastic improvement over 3.5...although it's largely the same.
There will be a next step,probably PF 2.0 whenever that may be.
I've checked out 5ed and I don't think it's that way.
They did do some good things though.It's certainly a more "accessible" game.
Like to point out that magically created water only sticks around for 24 hours. You can't actually build up a reserve and a supply with it. So if you want to build up your stores, you need to find the real stuff.
And if you lose the cleric, you're SOL.
The real question is if he can PURIFY the water. If that's the case, you just haul up the salt water and purify it...but there's a volume limit with that.
==Aelryinth
@ Anarchy_Kanya - I know you weren't quoting me..I just included your comment because it was related.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The whole "you can house rule it" is a cop out. If you have to house rule something to make the game work, the game is messed up to begin with. We didn't have to house rule anything to limit a magic user's impact in 1e, since the rules themselves, if followed, made casting in combat difficult.
3x, and, after they had a chance to fix it but didn't (and basically banned everyone who was mechanically correct but rude to the "we can just house rule it" cheerleading squad), Pathfinder, has the imbalance built in. 3x took away every mechanical limitation to spell casting AD&D contained, and took away a lot of what made non-magical characters competitive.
I hope they decide they don't need to be restrained by "backward compatibility" when Pathfinder 2e becomes necessary. Maybe they can actually fix everything (or at least a lot of) what was wrong with 3x.
The fact that a "Good GM" is needed, in order to correct the many 'on the fly' wonky imbalances that are created by the players simply using the powers they were allowed to have,just goes to show the amount of improvement the system still has left in it.
It's far from "Idiot proof".
*folded hands* ... I guess the system itself is not yet fully understood.
I have over 65 house rules to correct the things that I feel are off...and that's just me.Even if half my opinions turn out be be objectively wrong,that still leaves a lot of questionable issues.
A "Normal" GM should be able to have his PCs do everything on their sheets without breaking the scenario.
If I as a player have teleportation,using it to get to distant objectives is a "no brainer". It should be the first idea that comes to mind.Asking the player not to do so is just ridiculous.
Might as well ask them to stop attacking so much,so that the bad guys can get a few licks in and make the story better.
Or better yet,take a dive this fight,so your comeback will be more heroic!
The above is good natured sarcasm..I know it doesn't always translate well on the inter-tubes :)The number one thing that people here complaining about are the things like Fly and Teleportation. These are now suddenly "wonnky"? These have been around since the first interations of RPGs. A good DM/publisher is going to understand these things and take them into account in an adventure. I can't even guess how many campaigns I have run. I have never been bent over backwards by those spells.
If you want to get rid of magic that breaks the game start with Raise Dead.
Teleport isn't "Wonky" ,I think the greater 'without error' verisions can be a bit excessive,but that's a matter of taste.
Limited wish is when things start to get "Wonky" for me.Raise dead has it's limitations,but the greater versions like true resurrect totally trivialize death.
There's nothing wrong with 'Fly' either.It's just a way to get places.
My message was saying that players SHOULD do these things,and the game shouldn't be any less for it.
If players using these abilities "ruins" the story.The story was wrong in the first place.
The whole martial/caster things is partially what's being rehashed again...and it always seems to come down to the massive divide once 7th level and higher spells come on line.
Just grinding the ol' dead horse :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The whole "you can house rule it" is a cop out. If you have to house rule something to make the game work, the game is messed up to begin with. We didn't have to house rule anything to limit a magic user's impact in 1e, since the rules themselves, if followed, made casting in combat difficult.
3x, and, after they had a chance to fix it but didn't (and basically banned everyone who was mechanically correct but rude to the "we can just house rule it" cheerleading squad), Pathfinder, has the imbalance built in. 3x took away every mechanical limitation to spell casting AD&D contained, and took away a lot of what made non-magical characters competitive.
I hope they decide they don't need to be restrained by "backward compatibility" when Pathfinder 2e becomes necessary. Maybe they can actually fix everything (or at least a lot of) what was wrong with 3x.
I would not say it does not work. I would say it does not work for everyone's game. One also has to consider that PF changes at certain levels, and that is part of the problem. It needs to be the same game from 1 to 20 for the most part, if the intent is for it to work for more people's games, while still allowing for playstyle differences. However in its current state the game changes enough that certain people are better off not going above or below level ___ depending on what they want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The whole "you can house rule it" is a cop out. If you have to house rule something to make the game work, the game is messed up to begin with. We didn't have to house rule anything to limit a magic user's impact in 1e, since the rules themselves, if followed, made casting in combat difficult.
3x, and, after they had a chance to fix it but didn't (and basically banned everyone who was mechanically correct but rude to the "we can just house rule it" cheerleading squad), Pathfinder, has the imbalance built in. 3x took away every mechanical limitation to spell casting AD&D contained, and took away a lot of what made non-magical characters competitive.
I hope they decide they don't need to be restrained by "backward compatibility" when Pathfinder 2e becomes necessary. Maybe they can actually fix everything (or at least a lot of) what was wrong with 3x.
I agree and disagree. Some structural aspects of PF are just objectively imbalanced, and should be tossed from the game or seriously altered unless the actual goal is to create wide power disparities. The full attack, the traits system and the infinite crappitude of Rogue talents, for example. Certain spells like Paragon Surge (or at least that one specific corner case) and Planar Binding, as well, perhaps.
Other stuff...eh, the Pathfinder system is meant to function as a smorgasbord of options from which the DM may pick and choose when constructing his world. The sheer volume and variety of material in the game is meant to provide options, not act as a straightjacket on the DM's creativity or his ability to control what exists in his world.
I find that a whole lot of the imbalances that people complain about disappear when the DM simply exercises a bit of executive discretion.
The whole "you can house rule it" is a cop out. If you have to house rule something to make the game work, the game is messed up to begin with. We didn't have to house rule anything to limit a magic user's impact in 1e, since the rules themselves, if followed, made casting in combat difficult.
3x, and, after they had a chance to fix it but didn't (and basically banned everyone who was mechanically correct but rude to the "we can just house rule it" cheerleading squad), Pathfinder, has the imbalance built in. 3x took away every mechanical limitation to spell casting AD&D contained, and took away a lot of what made non-magical characters competitive.
I hope they decide they don't need to be restrained by "backward compatibility" when Pathfinder 2e becomes necessary. Maybe they can actually fix everything (or at least a lot of) what was wrong with 3x.
The system actually has a lot more balance than most people realize. The biggest thing they need to do with PF 2.0 is rework the feats (not the feats concept, just the feats themselves), rework the spell lists for what each class gets (again, just the lists; most of the spells themselves and the core system is actually not that problematic), and completely reorganize the books from scratch. 3x has most of mechanical strengths and limitations that late AD&D as it was actually usually played had, they just completely botched most of the presentation, hiding the previously clear stuff unnecessarily and burying the previously hidden stuff even deeper. Reworking the spell lists to fit the assumptions made in the rest of 3rd edition rather than holding them to the assumptions of the original classic party would get rid of a lot of the lingering problems that PF inherited. Streamlining and reorganizing the book would take care of the vast majority of the rest, leaving a pretty solid system that could be fairly easy to pick up the basics up right away and learn the rest as the campaign progressed.
Question, though: why? What is gained by going there, if "there" is not what those who okay them want them to be?
This is not rhetorical or dismissive. I am honestly asking: what is to be gained by forcing the game dynamic to remain unchanged?
EDIT: for clarity...
"Remain unchanged" in this case meaning that the dynamic currently shifts as you level up. That is known and accepted. The question is should we alter that changing dynamic, and, if so, why should we?
At present, the major problem in these levels is imbalance, not power, per se.
If the goal is exclusively to create "the same dynamic" as at lower levels, the only thing you end up with is bigger numbers.
Not enough play time? Slower XP gain.
Not enough wealth? Increased wealth gain.
Crafting problems? It can be a problem for some play styles (though not mine), but easily house-ruled, and mostly limited to what already exists in the game outside of specific permission anyway, making it firmly GM-territory already.
The system is already so modular, I have a hard time understanding what can be gained only by toning things down. Hence my question.
If players using these abilities "ruins" the story.The story was wrong in the first place.
Easy teleportion (backed up by scrying) can ruin an awful lot of stories. Race against time? Teleport. Need to escape from dangerous foe? Teleport. Mountain to climb? Teleport. Trapped in arena and forced to fight? Teleport. Rescue the prisoner / free the slaves? Teleport in, grab target(s), teleport out. Great journey across hostile lands and seas? Teleport. Enemy needs to be killed? Teleport in when they're sleeping, kill them, teleport out. Steal legendary artifact? Teleport in, grab item, teleport out.
Enter a dungeon and kill everything and steal their stuff? Yes, teleportation doesn't completely ruin that! That's clearly a 'better' story.Either that or you can place unbreakable anti-teleportation wards everywhere.
Either that or you can place unbreakable anti-teleportation wards everywhere.
Well, the thing is...in a world where teleportation is really common, you'd sort of expect wards to be put up by those who can. It's sort of like how police in some European countries rarely walk around in bulletproof vests, but police in America are almost never without them. There are two sides to an arms race.
There's nothing unbelievable about the existence of widespread counters to widespread magics.
|
That seems to be a lot of uses of teleport in one round, most casters wont be able to do all that. Play to their weaknesses? Sure they can teleport in but than have the BBEG activate a dimension lock on the area they just got into, they have to kill him to break it. Or it is tied to something they have to locate.
Scrying can be protected against too, are you playing the BBEG as a moron or as their nemesis?
Play him like a bond villan, someone smart and has a lair, their lair will be protected, that is what Guards and Wards spell is for plus they wound have areas protected against just what the PCs have been doing for the last couple of levels.
Who knows maybe they are being scryed and a group of NPCs will teleport in and attack them while they are making camp for the night?
Why always let the PCs come to you, that is no fun, go to them, exhaust them, wear them down, burn those resources they have been stock piling for the last 5 levels and haven't bothered to use because they are always on the offense.
Also the BBEG could have a body double or dozen who he does most of his dealings through, when they are scrying for your BBEG what happens then they locate 10 of the exact same person? Whom do they kill? Magic has its draw backs.
Perhaps the umbalances have something to do with this, perhas if there were less crazy stuff more games would go there.The vast, vast majority of campaigns don't even get there.
I do love the circular logic that has seemingly lead to upper level play never being all that well developed in 3.X games.
- High levels are kind of broken/confusing/near unplayable most of the time ->
- No one really plays high level games because they're so messy ->
- Devs don't put as much focus on the higher level games because no one really plays high level games->
- High levels are kind of broken/confusing/near unplayable most of the time -> Repeat
. . . The problem starts with the invisible flying wizard at level 5. That's an encounter that's basically impossible without magic. A martial can use a bow, but only after a friend has glitterdusted or faerie fired the enemy and if he's not an archer he probably doesn't have a magic bow and has to chew through protection from arrows before doing any damage unless a friend casts magic weapon or he has an oil. Things only get worse from there. Where they reach unacceptable varies with who you ask.
And this probably falls into the realm of DM fiat, but if one of the players decides to tie an alchemist's fire or two to a bag of flour and toss it in the air while another player hits it with an arrow, I have no problem with it exploding and making the caster visible until he can remove the flour.
I've always thought that most spells should have a mundane weakness. If you, as the storyteller, warn your players and incorporate that element into the game then cool. But I accept that it's not standard, and as such, falls out of the area of discussion.
. . . The problem starts with the invisible flying wizard at level 5. That's an encounter that's basically impossible without magic. A martial can use a bow, but only after a friend has glitterdusted or faerie fired the enemy and if he's not an archer he probably doesn't have a magic bow and has to chew through protection from arrows before doing any damage unless a friend casts magic weapon or he has an oil. Things only get worse from there. Where they reach unacceptable varies with who you ask.And this probably falls into the realm of DM fiat, but if one of the players decides to tie an alchemist's fire or two to a bag of flour and toss it in the air while another player hits it with an arrow, I have no problem with it exploding and making the caster visible until he can remove the flour.
I've always thought that most spells should have a mundane weakness. If you, as the storyteller, warn your players and incorporate that element into the game then cool. But I accept that it's not standard, and as such, falls out of the area of discussion.
In 3.5 this would work. In PF the flour would also turn invisible just like any other object the target of the spell picks up.
In 3.5 this would work. In PF the flour would also turn invisible just like any other object the target of the spell picks up.
I've always thought that most spells should have a mundane weakness. If you, as the storyteller, warn your players and incorporate that element into the game then cool. But I accept that it's not standard, and as such, falls out of the area of discussion.
The flour would turn invisible, but the effect would be to "momentarily" reveal (and pinpoint) the invisible wizard. Still quite effective against a wizard who thinks she's untouchable.
|
|
Maybe don't let it work like that? I agree that some spells should have mundane weaknesses.
Hell why not when/if you get your hands on the caster break their fingers, dislocate their jaw?
Drench them in water, they will leave foot prints and drip water everywhere. Plus at 5th level how long can the wizard stay in flight? doesn't invisibility break upon attack? Just hold your action, they would burn a lot of spells per day to fly, invis, mage armor, protection from arrows, *cast said attack spell*.
5 spells per day/slots to do one thing? Then be visible to everyone? Why not an arrow with a rope attached? Pull them down and pound on them.
Maybe don't let it work like that? I agree that some spells should have mundane weaknesses.
Hell why not when/if you get your hands on the caster break their fingers, dislocate their jaw?
Drench them in water, they will leave foot prints and drip water everywhere. Plus at 5th level how long can the wizard stay in flight? doesn't invisibility break upon attack? Just hold your action, they would burn a lot of spells per day to fly, invis, mage armor, protection from arrows, *cast said attack spell*.
5 spells per day/slots to do one thing? Then be visible to everyone? Why not an arrow with a rope attached? Pull them down and pound on them.
That's not how Pathfinder works. That would make for an entertaining fight where a mundane class used ingenuity to take down a caster, but that's not how Pathfinder works.
Teleport isn't "Wonky" ,I think the greater 'without error' verisions can be a bit excessive,but that's a matter of taste.
Limited wish is when things start to get "Wonky" for me.
Raise dead has it's limitations,but the greater versions like true resurrect totally trivialize death.
There's nothing wrong with 'Fly' either.It's...Ok, so your beef is with 7th level spells, or 13th level wizards? That's where the game breaks down for you? This has been my point all along. The power curve doesn't start to break until 9th level (with 5th level spells) and then 13th level is where it starts to shift more dramatically. The vast, vast majority of campaigns don't even get there.
You got it Bave,I see what your talking about as well...there is a jump around 9th also.
That's also my pet theory about why organized play just happens to wrap up around 12th level.At least it was last I checked.
|
|
The creature or object touched becomes invisible. If the recipient is a creature carrying gear, that vanishes, too. If you cast the spell on someone else, neither you nor your allies can see the subject, unless you can normally see invisible things or you employ magic to do so.
Items dropped or put down by an invisible creature become visible; items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature. Light, however, never becomes invisible, although a source of light can become so (thus, the effect is that of a light with no visible source). Any part of an item that the subject carries but that extends more than 10 feet from it becomes visible.
Of course, the subject is not magically silenced, and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as swimming in water or stepping in a puddle). If a check is required, a stationary invisible creature has a +40 bonus on its Stealth checks. This bonus is reduced to +20 if the creature is moving. The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions. Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear. Spells such as bless that specifically affect allies but not foes are not attacks for this purpose, even when they include foes in their area.
Invisibility can be made permanent (on objects only) with a permanency spell.
I did bold a part, to me the RAW don't say anything about not being able to coat an area in flour and finding your invisible person. It does say that if they pick an item up it does become invisible, so if you're of the mind that they are "picking up" said floating flour than by the same logic you just look for the "area" missing flour.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's not how Pathfinder works. That would make for an entertaining fight where a mundane class used ingenuity to take down a caster, but that's not how Pathfinder works.Maybe don't let it work like that? I agree that some spells should have mundane weaknesses.
Hell why not when/if you get your hands on the caster break their fingers, dislocate their jaw?
Drench them in water, they will leave foot prints and drip water everywhere. Plus at 5th level how long can the wizard stay in flight? doesn't invisibility break upon attack? Just hold your action, they would burn a lot of spells per day to fly, invis, mage armor, protection from arrows, *cast said attack spell*.
5 spells per day/slots to do one thing? Then be visible to everyone? Why not an arrow with a rope attached? Pull them down and pound on them.
Because there's not a specific rule for it? Then I got news for you, buddy...you've just turned Pathfinder into an extremely limited game.
Are you saying that ingenuity should always be shut down, and never considered?
Or maybe just ingenuity that comes from non-spellcasters?
I will note that if you tie alchemist's fire to a sack of fire and shoot it, you're going to end up with burning flour in every direction.
I will think a section of the air that is staying on fire would be pretty obvious.
==Aelryinth
.
.
.
.
.
PROGRESS LEVELS
PL 0: STONE AGE
PL 1: BRONZE/IRON AGE
PL 2: MIDDLE AGES
PL 3: AGE OF REASON
PL 4: INDUSTRIAL AGE
PL 5: INFORMATION AGE
PL 6: FUSION AGE
PL 7: GRAVITY AGE
PL 8: ENERGY AGE
PL 9+AND HIGHER
Now apply the spell level to this chart.
Teleport level 5 = ok a level early, but has restrictions.
Greater Teleport level 7 = about right for a Star Trek transport.
The problem with magic, is not magic. The problem is with D&D. IT is that you live in a 9th level, High Fantasy Magic World, except that your trying to keep the Technology level of the world stuck in the Middle Ages = level 2 power level.
If you do not want magic to over shadow the melee players, then just cap magic at a lower level. Some GM, do not want the magic level to go above what Modern Technology ( or close to it), and cap magic spells at level 5. You still have access to heal and raise dead, but just bearly.
......................
Personally, i like Very High Magic Worlds. Were magic is used a lot more. After all, magic is what separates this game from other game were you are just soldiers or investigator or other.
I do not think the game break down, i just think that every 5 level, the game changes, to a new type of game. If you are level 15 or higher, your not some lowly soldier or priest, your a explore of other worlds, rule of nations, and owner of your own magic vessel.
That's not how Pathfinder works. That would make for an entertaining fight where a mundane class used ingenuity to take down a caster, but that's not how Pathfinder works.Because there's not a specific rule for it? Then I got news for you, buddy...you've just turned Pathfinder into an extremely limited game.
Are you saying that ingenuity should always be shut down, and never considered?
Or maybe just ingenuity that comes from non-spellcasters?
The way I see it... is if the rules is the rules and the only rules, then why have a DM to adjudicate situations?
The rules don't cover everything, and even when there are rules for some things, people have different views on how they should be interpreted.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find that a whole lot of the imbalances that people complain about disappear when the DM simply exercises a bit of executive discretion.
So, basically, ignoring and house ruling.
I wish people didn't forget Pathfinder is 3x with a different grapple system and some consolidated skills. It isn't a "fix" of 3x and still has all of the same problems. 3x was fun from a playing standpoint, builds are interesting to create, but in actual play it is a sluggish mess that breaks down as soon as spell casters realize they can do everything.
Houseruling doesn't excuse poor design, nor does it make up for it. It's a bandaid.
I find that a whole lot of the imbalances that people complain about disappear when the DM simply exercises a bit of executive discretion.
So, basically, ignoring and house ruling.
I wish people didn't forget Pathfinder is 3x with a different grapple system and some consolidated skills. It isn't a "fix" of 3x and still has all of the same problems. 3x was fun from a playing standpoint, builds are interesting to create, but in actual play it is a sluggish mess that breaks down as soon as spell casters realize they can do everything.
Houseruling doesn't excuse poor design, nor does it make up for it. It's a bandaid.
Perhaps it doesn't excuse or make up for it, but house rules --- whether they are small or as complicated as Kirth's documents -- can make the game function quite well. It may be a bandaid, but unless or until something else comes along that answers all the questions and corrects all the problems it certainly allows the game to function. And for quite a number of people, that's all they are asking for.
I asked because I'd never heard the term before, and while there is a large temporal gap in my D&D experience - roughly anything after AD&D up to Pathfinder, which I discovered seven months ago, I've read pretty much everything I could find on the latter.
Sounds like this is nothing official, just various peoples' opinions on the relative power (or merit, I suppose) of the classes. Seems to me though that if the disparity is that wide (leaving aside the NPC classes) there's something wrong with the system's balance. Or perhaps not - some characters, it seems to me, ought to be a lot more powerful than others.
The problem there though unlike AD&D the more powerful classes level up at the same speed and they do not have the AD&D restrictions.
BECMI wizard is more powerful than the fighter at higher levels. Said fighter has 1-4 levels on the wizard by level 20 or so and has double the hit points and maybe other stuff depending on the rules used like the Rules Cyclopedia.
High level fighters were still usefull to have around in OSR games as well due to the way magic resistance worked. Its a bit different in 3.x and a Druid for example can often out fight the fighter as well especially in 3.0 and 3.5.
All of the 3.x games are also more complicated than OSR, 4E and 5E even ignoring balance. In 2008 I wanted a fixed 3.5 type game instead of 4E. In 2014 I am still waiting on a fixed 3.5 type game.
5E got some of it right (bye bye to full attacks) dropped the ball on others.
due to the way magic resistance workedYeah, crazy f***ing notion, it actually made things resistant to magic.
I know. I liked 2E MR as 1st E MR scaled +/- 5% for each level above and below level 11.
Also antimagic which technically does exist in PF. PH has pther problems though like two handed fighters/archers killing everything so fast AKA rocket tag. 5E is a bit like that as well.
|
|
I've been thinking about a neat little item that could be introduced into the game. I don't have a name for it yet, but it would be a small orb, approximately the size of a marble. And it basically radiates a dead magic zone in a 25 foot radius. The really fun bit is that when you bring two or more of these little orbs together, instead of it being two 25 foot radius spheres of dead magic zone, they merge together and form a single dead magic zone sphere, with twice the radius (ie, 50 ft).