I think magical lineage (hold person) can easily break the lower parts of APs like giantslayer. And at higher levels casters don't need it any more, they dominate every game.
As a cleric you can throw bouncing hold person around from level 3 on and most likely trivialize many fights.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really, my response is more that you're hurting your own cause.
You don't want casters to get stronger. I can-- intellectually, at least-- understand that. Realistically, I don't see it is as a problem, but that might have to do more with my group than anything else (with six gestalt characters across two games, we only have two ninth-level casters. The Druid is in it for Wild Shape and almost never casts, and the Sorcerer is mine. Instead, when we threw open gestalt we got stuff like Fighter//Warlock and Alchemist//Kineticist).
Sounds like it does have more to do with your gaming group. I doubt I'd much enjoy those games. Not my cup of tea. It's great that you and your table do, but they hold little comparative value to me.
But in my experience as a shameless (and indeed, rather proud) optimizer, the best way to handle the issue is to put something more awesome in front of them.
That is a never ending cycle of the ceiling getting raised over and over and is the exact opposite of what I'd want.
What you've done is enforce that your stereotypical 'god' wizard is the One True Caster, eminently superior to his poor Fireball-chucking rivals. But...
What if you allowed Magical Knack? Well. Does that actually help the One True Caster? It's not like he wants to dip. But you do allow other designs, and if your optimizers seize on that shiny, you come out ahead.
Addressing the specific option, my players aren't huge class dippers so magical knack would likely go unnoticed.
Addressing the spirit of the comment, when I see an option that I feel is underpowered with no palatable official option to fix it that I'm aware of I start homebrewing. Usually in consultation with whomever has a vested interest in it. In the case of damage casters I've tweaked the damage of certain spells, homebrewed a couple others, created a wizard archetype and am contemplating a line of feats. In a similar vein I just completed a total Rogue rewrite, that I and one of my players are very excited to see play tested.
I swear I'm willing to do the work to see an option come together that the player is satisfied to play and I'm comfortable having in my world.
Lineage and Spellhunter are another example-- and your previous response honestly cemented my point. Those 'use these traits to boost a non-blaster spell' builds don't exist. Don't get me wrong, I think it's cool Graystone came up with something to do with them that isn't blasting, but I don't think anyone here thinks that Empowered Lesser Rejuvenate Eidolon is actually threatening in a second-level spell slot. Beyond that... I've seen nothing.
And it'd be one thing for me to be saying "I've seen nothing" in my own games, because table variance is high and we have folks who've been playing tabletops for a heck of a lot longer than me. But when I'm saying that, I'm drawing on the observations I've made of a large group of very varied players, and within them a still-large group of utterly shameless, very good at what they do, and very awesome optimizers
If they're not using Lineage and Spellhunter on their Stinking Clouds, I'm not worried. It means that however those two traits look on paper, the gameplay-driven reality is that they're not all that good for the god Wizard (which really makes perfect sense, since two hallmarks of the god Wizard are his flexibility and his lack of reliance on anything that involves metamagic not named Quicken). But if Lineage and Spellhunter make the Blockbuster build viable, and your group's optimizer decides to play that build instead of the One True Caster... then you're winning..
Great, you've never seen it or heard of anyone who's seen it. You'll forgive me if I don't take your observations as fact and instead rely on my gut, my knowledge of the table I run, and my own sense of balance which have all served me well and created many games that people genuinely seem to enjoy playing in. You are after all "a shameless (and indeed, rather proud) optimizer". The opinions of you and your ilk regarding what is and isn't super powerful likely vary considerably from those of me and my ilk.
That, in and of itself, is why I almost never mind more cogs to play with for a character, as either a GM or a player. Opening up gestalt might mean on paper that I need to prepare for the superTheurge Oracle//Sorcerer who can cast all those spells that we on the forums love to hate. In reality it means I got a Brawler//Hunter and a Monk//Inquisitor.
I on the other hand do not want more cogs. The bigger the machine the more places it can break. If more cogs are absolutely required to get the job done then I want to either inspect them thoroughly or forge them myself so I'm 100% certain they do the job, no more no less.
And while I might be imposing my group's dynamics on yours,
You are, but then it's really hard to discuss games without doing so at least a little bit so I don't mind :D
I have the feeling that if you opened up traits, you'd see something similar. Sure, if you compare casters-with-traits to casters-without-traits, yeah, the one with a free feat or so is better. But they're not improving any more than the Swashbuckler who effectively got Medium Armor Proficiency and patched up his terrible Will save by applying Cha where it matters: indeed, I'd actually contend that your stereotypical 'god' Wizard is one of the setups that gains the least from traits. The best traits for casters are ones that work directly against the 'god''s strengths and strategies. He doesn't want those, and since those are his best option he gains less.
Hence: in my experience more fiddly bits to play with are usually good, and traits in particular help out others a lot more than they help the One True Caster.
Well with swashbuckler in particular, that's one example of an official solution boosting something I felt needed a boost in a way that I like.
But I understand the point you're trying to make. My response is only that I'd way rather try to fix a problem in a manner that I like then use an official solution that I don't like.
I've never understood why people see official rules as being written in stone by the gods, like being created by paizo employees makes them unassailable and incapable of being bad but that's a tanget and kind of a whole 'nother big discussion.
Finally I feel it's worth noting that I'm not the only GM at my table and all of us, GMs and players alike (except that one guy who's newish) have looked at traits. We all said meh, not worth it.
In any case I've enjoyed our discussion. We game very differently I think but I do enjoy a lively exchange of ideas. ^_^
- Torger
I think magical lineage (hold person) can easily break the lower parts of APs like giantslayer. And at higher levels casters don't need it any more, they dominate every game.
As a cleric you can throw bouncing hold person around from level 3 on and most likely trivialize many fights.
I'm not seeing how bouncing alters things greatly. It'll only matter in fights with multiple humanoid that have great will saves/Spell Resistance. If the target fails the first save it has the same effect as a non-bouncing spell.
|
^ He's apparently been DM'ing for 20 years... You'd think that could prepare him for anything players could throw at him. Two of the party members actually helped create 3.0/3.5 D&D as well... and they are the ones that just Bull Rush into a fight and expect to not die... XD
It's easy to counter what players can bring after a certain point, but doing it without it making the story feel completely contrived is a much more difficult task to pull off.
"So all the city guards have cold iron arrows at all times? Along with potions of true strike?"
I'm not seeing how bouncing alters things greatly. It'll only matter in fights with multiple humanoid that have great will saves/Spell Resistance. If the target fails the first save it has the same effect as a non-bouncing spell.I think magical lineage (hold person) can easily break the lower parts of APs like giantslayer. And at higher levels casters don't need it any more, they dominate every game.
As a cleric you can throw bouncing hold person around from level 3 on and most likely trivialize many fights.
It ensures that at least one of the giants is held. Alternatively he can use persistent either with both magical lineage and wayang spell-hunter or by waiting 'till level 5.
|
|
I liked it much better when traits were specifically tied to events in the campaign, rather than being generic background bonuses.You always can tell your players that they can/should/must create their own traits for their characters concept, and Player & GM decides the accurate bonus that help his build needs.
Indeed, I have heard of games where the GM awards traits based on the background submitted rather than have the player just choose. But that is more overhead for the campaign, and I liked it better when they were included in the adventure, like with Shackled City and other early APs.
I think that campaign traits are fun, especially when they tie the PC to something in the story. Of course some players will roleplay this stuff more than others, but that's kind of how it is with everything.
Simplified Traits:
- +1 damage with any simple weapon
- +1 to a skill and it becomes a class skill
- +1 to a save
- +2 to caster level but not any higher than hit dice (Magical Knack)
- +2 to initiative
- +2 to a class skill
- +2 to concentration
- Society traits
- Proficiency with improvised weapons
- Change CHA skill to INT.
- Change INT skill to WIS.
- Change WIS skill to CHA.
Gives plenty for everyone to play with.
I think that campaign traits are fun, especially when they tie the PC to something in the story. Of course some players will roleplay this stuff more than others, but that's kind of how it is with everything.
One of my players absolutely loved his horse. That horse has survived books 1-3 of Kingmaker so far.
Saying that traits break the game is silly. The only traits that are even as powerful as a feat are ones like Magical Lineage/Wayang Spellhunter, and those are only useful for certain specific builds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dice break the game. Damn I hate dice. Maybe next week I'll like them better.
Saying that traits break the game is silly.
Saying that is silly is much more silly.
The traits you mentioned are more powerful than many feats.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Saying that traits break the game is silly.Saying that is silly is much more silly.
The traits you mentioned are more powerful than many feats.
Saying that anything "breaks the game" is silly. Pathfinder is a huge system used differently by each and every person and group that plays. Traits as currently written are very easily used for optimization and with certain builds they are more important than feats. For those of us who want to keep Pathfinder from creeping up in power with each new source of material, taking traits out of the equation is often just one of many steps. Does this mean that I think there's anything wrong with using traits? Of course not, some people just prefer to play a different game of Pathfinder.
Traits are fun. Your GM is a grouch.
|
I have no problem with Traits. In fact they add flavor to characters allowing them to work outside the box and play characters that are not hamstringed by class restrictions on skills. Here is some reasons why Traits are good.
1. Only the Rogue in the core classes gets Disable Device as a class skill (barring any special archetypes for other classes) which pigeon holes you into taking a Rogue to be a trapspringer. I recall a time when I played a game where we had a party with 2 fighters, a cleric and a wizard back in 3.5. We set off every trap in the dungeon and then when we found the locked chest we had to have the fighter bust the chest open, setting off yet another trap and smashing some useful potions in the process. With traits you can get those useful must-have skills without forcing you to take a class to get access to that skill. Especially useful for characters like Inquisitors who are skill buffs but don't have any thieving skills built into their character class.
2. Some classes SHOULD have a class skill but don't get it as base. For instance the Sorcerer. They have a massively high charisma score but don't have Diplomacy as a Class Skill. What the hell is that? You're a CHARISMA based class but you have no means of negotiating without lying your butt off with Bluff? Sure one could say Charisma is "Force of Personalty" but if you want to play the Anti-Social Sorcerer you can chose to not take any ranks in a social skill. But if you want to play a personable Sorcerer you'll suck at it as Diplomacy is not a class skill. Traits provide the means to get those skills you want your character to have as it fits the flavor of your character.
3. As for the Non-Skill Traits, they're useful. Armor Master is good to migrate some of the annoying armor check penalties for armor and can make sense for a warrior-types to take. Maybe you want to get a minor bonus that is thematic for your character. Either way, Traits add flavor to your characters.
Now if you feel that Traits might break your game, you can always put restrictions, like restricting PC's to just Skill-Oriented traits and cutting out the Non-Skill traits. That way you can get the skills you need to work outside the box of your character class and make you more variable. That can help you iron out the edges without forcing a class choice based on a single skill you might need.
Until recently I had no problem with traits. in fact I quite loved them. It added to the fiddly process that is generating a new character and I am one of those poeple who like doing that. Not sixteen times per day, all the time, but still. Looking at raits helped me finding my character, and although I sometimes used the strongest mechanical choices I often did not.
Recently however I grew tired of traits. First, the list is too long. If a GM says "all Paizo materals are in", you have a real, quantifiable problem. Since traits are so unbalanced both in terms of fluff and mechanics, this also adds to the traps newcomers fall into regularly, and my recent experiences in GMing for newcomers have taught me that Pathfinder alread has enought problems as it is.
I have allowed Story Feats as an alternative for my current game and so far I think it works like a charm. The list is shorter and less confusing, the benefits are scaling and provide a real goal for the character to rely on or fall back onto. Also, making a custom, new Story Feat is a lot of fun and allows the GM to really work with the player.
I just recently started running Shattered star and let the PC's pick one trait from the player guide. Ultimate Campaing is the only book I outright banned and yes, it is because of some traits just bug me and give goo much power to the PC's. Also: not a fan of retraining rules.
I did give all characters a trait-ish thingy based on their actions during the first session. Minor bonuses that were not picked from a list but rather my weirdly operating brain.
But yes, I don't think they are a pivotal part of the game and would play without them happily. Traits based on background on the other hand do appeal to me, but they are usually not that powerful to begin with.
Simplified Traits:
- +1 damage with any simple weapon
- +1 to a skill and it becomes a class skill
- +1 to a save
- +2 to caster level but not any higher than hit dice (Magical Knack)
- +2 to initiative
- +2 to a class skill
- +2 to concentration
- Society traits
- Proficiency with improvised weapons
- Change CHA skill to INT.
- Change INT skill to WIS.
- Change WIS skill to CHA.
Gives plenty for everyone to play with.
I like this. For the most part I think traits can be easily replaced with fluff bu t the real key point is that they let my character move a bit beyond the restrictions of their class so I value the ones that effect class skills the most.
Magical Lineage and Wayang Spellhunter are dangerously broken, especially if allowed to stack. Hello, free metamagic? Far more powerful than any feats. And really, does it make sense that every danged spellcasting PC in Golarion "grew up on one of the wayang-populated islands of Minata"???
The most important use of other traits is to give PCs a class list skill that they wouldn't otherwise have, like UMD, perception and diplomacy. IMHO, this is entirely legitimate and helps make up for the shortcomings of many classes (fighters without perception???) but if your DM doesn't like it, hey, it's his call.
Perhaps you could suggest one of two options:
1) allow feats with the exception of the wacky ones like Wayang Spellhunter and Magical Lineage (an anything else the DM has a beef with.
2) use a random background generator like this one and only allow traits specifically mentioned in this background.Or, just roll with the DM's ideosyncrasies. Making up for your characters' shortcomings is half the fun of RPing.
This is close to the route I went down. I got rid of traits in their current form, and made them more generic.
1. Make any non-class skill a class skill2. Add a +1 to any class skill
3. Gain proficiency in any simple or martial weapon.
4. +1 caster level(caster level cannot exceed hit dice)
5. Gain the ability to cast any 1st level spell 1/day.
Traits are fun, but...
When players pick them for their mechanical edge rather than for their backstory fluff...
Come on, you know you do it.
The best thing is to have some simulator of backstory fluff which gives you "access" to specific traits. I like the random backstory generator on the pfsrd site.
I'm not sure if getting trapfinding as a trait would really be particularly unbalanced. I guess you could say that it gives people even less reason to play a Rogue, but I can't see why it would upset game balance in general.
I'm assuming that the trapfinding trait is offered in Mummy's Mask because the AP is heavy on traps. If so that makes me interested in trying that AP in the hopes of seeing some fun and creative traps, but I'd think that offering trapfinding for a trait in an AP where trapfinding will be very useful would actually impact game balance more than offering trapfinding for a trait in a more "typical" game where traps are likely to play a lesser role.
Most traits are pretty mediocre little bonuses that don't add much but flavor.
This is exactly why I like them.
I do not want the ceiling on caster power to be even a millimeter higher than it already is.
- Torger
If you truly believe this, you should allow absolutely zero content outside of the CRB for casters. All any of your caster players should ever need for your games is the book their class comes from and the CRB from which they draw all feats, gear, and spells.
Some of the offending traits, like Wayang Spellhunter, really should not be for general consumption. Why should every spellcaster be able to claim he "grew up on one of the wayang-populated islands of Minata"? Absurd. Magical Lineage, which is the other major offender, isn't as geographically restricted, but it is really ill-considered as a trait and gives far more power than a trait ought to give.
Really, the only thing one needs to do to limit the abuse of the trait system is ban those few offenders that grant powers above and beyond the pale, like the two above.
The comments about campaign traits are spot on as well - they must be limited exclusively to the campaigns in question.
I would very much like to see an expanded version of the backstory generator on the prd, one that includes the various traits that have come out since Ultimate Campaign (where I believe it first appeared). Then the traits a character has could be truly linked to his character background, rather than selected for their game mechanics benefits.
If you truly believe this, you should allow absolutely zero content outside of the CRB for casters. All any of your caster players should ever need for your games is the book their class comes from and the CRB from which they draw all feats, gear, and spells.I do not want the ceiling on caster power to be even a millimeter higher than it already is.
- Torger
I monitor any content from outside the CRB (and honestly CRB content too) that players want to use very carefully and vet it to the best of my ability before giving it the green light.
Many options (possibly even most) aren't a vertical growth of power but a lateral one, those I'm usually ok with.
- Torger
Traits you have to watch out for, and generally ban for general use, are AP campaign traits. Since they are written for the AP and intended to be exclusively for that AP, you'll get a few that are really out of balance as traits, such as the one that gives trapfinding to anyone who takes it.
That one should pretty much be banned outside of the Mummy's Mask AP where it came from.
Bad example. Trapfinding is worth about a feat. 2 traits are worth one feat so it works out pretty closely. Trapfinding has pretty much never messed up any game either...
Better example. The trait that allows morale bonuses to extend an extra 1d4 rounds. That thing is crazy.
I monitor any content from outside the CRB (and honestly CRB content too) that players want to use very carefully and vet it to the best of my ability before giving it the green light.
Many options (possibly even most) aren't a vertical growth of power but a lateral one, those I'm usually ok with.
- Torger
Interesting. What would you consider a vertical growth of power? I've not seen anything that tops wish except mythic wish and even that only modifies a couple of the particular usages in terms of resurrections, affliction removal, and being able to choose the outcome of a reroll.
Bad example. Trapfinding is worth about a feat. 2 traits are worth one feat so it works out pretty closely. Trapfinding has pretty much never messed up any game either...
Better example. The trait that allows morale bonuses to extend an extra 1d4 rounds. That thing is crazy.
Or the one that always lets you act in surprise rounds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting. What would you consider a vertical growth of power? I've not seen anything that tops wish except mythic wish and even that only modifies a couple of the particular usages in terms of resurrections, affliction removal, and being able to choose the outcome of a reroll.I monitor any content from outside the CRB (and honestly CRB content too) that players want to use very carefully and vet it to the best of my ability before giving it the green light.
Many options (possibly even most) aren't a vertical growth of power but a lateral one, those I'm usually ok with.
- Torger
Vertical growth doesn't mean "has to be more powerful than the most powerful 9th level spell". A first level spell that's more powerful than other similar first level spells would also represent vertical growth in power, for example.
Vertical growth doesn't mean "has to be more powerful than the most powerful 9th level spell". A first level spell that's more powerful than other similar first level spells would also represent vertical growth in power, for example.
That's not really growth then if it's just a matter of demonstrating an outlier in normal power for a given spell level as that exists in CRB-only spells.
Interesting. What would you consider a vertical growth of power? I've not seen anything that tops wish except mythic wish and even that only modifies a couple of the particular usages in terms of resurrections, affliction removal, and being able to choose the outcome of a reroll.
Since this thread is about traits I'll use my go to trait example. Reactionary is a prefer example of what I consider vertical power growth. The maximum possible initiative modifier is two higher in a game that allows it than it is in a game that doesn't.
If reactionary had the text, "this bonus does not stack with any other bonus to initiative modifier" it would be lateral power growth. It would be a new way to have a better initiative modifier but it wouldn't raise the ceiling.
As to spells bringing up wish is skewing the comparison, wish only needs to be balanced with the other options available to the party once they can get their hands on wish.
An example of vertical power growth in spells would be something like the snowball spell. It's a first level damage dealing spell and is pretty clearly better than other first level damage dealing spells.
Comparing snowball to wish is ridiculous because they use a different resource (1st level spell slots vs 9th level spell slots) but in a game where snowball exists casters have a better damage option from a 1st level spell slot (to say nothing of metamagiced higher level slots). Ergo they are slightly more powerful in a game with it than they are in a game without it. I consider that vertical power growth.
On the other hand there are any number of non CRB spells out there that are about the same power level as existing 1st level spells. I consider those lateral power growth.
It's obviously not as cut and dried as that and I do enjoy new things, so keeping a water tight lid on it is impossible, but keeping it down as much as I can is a goal I try very hard to achieve.
- Torger
P.S. I used snowball as an example because direct damage spells are the easiest to compare and come to an obvious conclusion of better vs worse. My full opinion on snowball and caster direct damage is more nuanced but it made an easy example here.
P.P.S. I'm aware there are a number of cheese ball shenanigan methods to get early access to wish. As part of my ongoing crusade to reign in the insanity they certainly don't work in my game.
*edit and pretty much concisely ninja'd by Ian Bell
Using reactionary and that traits are designed to be half a feat, that it gives a +2, and Improved Initiative feat gives +4, isn't that right on the money power-wise?
Vertical growth doesn't mean "has to be more powerful than the most powerful 9th level spell". A first level spell that's more powerful than other similar first level spells would also represent vertical growth in power, for example.That's not really growth then if it's just a matter of demonstrating an outlier in normal power for a given spell level as that exists in CRB-only spells.
Point one. The current existence of outliers doesn't mean more outliers is a good thing.
Point two. New options often come along that make the current outliers seem less like outliers at all. This is the rising ceiling.
Point three. Before the introduction of a given new option the best a 9th level character could do was X. After the introduction of a new option the best a 9th level character can do is X+2. Why does it matter that wish is roughly X+231254973? It wasn't an option for the 9th level character anyway and now the DM for a 9th level game has to be prepared for X+2.
This is what I consider the rising ceiling. Perhaps you prefer the term ceiling to mean the most powerful option ever available at any point in a characters career. That's fine. You can call what I'm describing whatever you like. But it's definitely a thing, and I don't like it.
- Torger
Using reactionary and that traits are designed to be half a feat, that it gives a +2, and Improved Initiative feat gives +4, isn't that right on the money power-wise?
The maximum possible initiative modifier is two higher in a game that allows it than it is in a game that doesn't.
I don't know how to express why I think the addition of reactionary is a net increase to the rising ceiling any better than that.
- Torger
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Using reactionary and that traits are designed to be half a feat, that it gives a +2, and Improved Initiative feat gives +4, isn't that right on the money power-wise?The maximum possible initiative modifier is two higher in a game that allows it than it is in a game that doesn't.I don't know how to express why I think the addition of reactionary is a net increase to the rising ceiling any better than that.
- Torger
That's fair. Thank you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Vertical growth doesn't mean "has to be more powerful than the most powerful 9th level spell". A first level spell that's more powerful than other similar first level spells would also represent vertical growth in power, for example.That's not really growth then if it's just a matter of demonstrating an outlier in normal power for a given spell level as that exists in CRB-only spells.
So your argument would be that vertical growth/power creep can only happen at level 17+? I disagree.
So your argument would be that vertical growth/power creep can only happen at level 17+? I disagree.
Depending on a measure that tests the whole range of abilities, hence floor to ceiling, absolutely. What you seem to be implying are plateaus which are different from the ceiling.
To illustrate, if CRB spells of a certain spell level were graphed as such:
S1++++++++
S2++++++
S3++++++
S4++++++++
S5+++++++++++++++++
And another book came along that introduced a set graphed as such:
S6+++
S7++++++++++++
S8+++++++++++
S9+++++
No plateau has been raised. The CRB has only ever bookended the absolute range to the game. Paizo's job all these years has been to fill in the middle with interesting options. I have yet to see something that actually breaks these plateaus or even the ceiling outside of mythic. Mythic's whole point was to do so and, even then, Paizo was very conservative in how they did it. It could have been much, much worse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So your argument would be that vertical growth/power creep can only happen at level 17+? I disagree.Depending on a measure that tests the whole range of abilities, hence floor to ceiling, absolutely. What you seem to be implying are plateaus which are different from the ceiling.
To illustrate, if CRB spells of a certain spell level were graphed as such:
S1++++++++
S2++++++
S3++++++
S4++++++++
S5+++++++++++++++++And another book came along that introduced a set graphed as such:
S6+++
S7++++++++++++
S8+++++++++++
S9+++++No plateau has been raised. The CRB has only ever bookended the absolute range to the game. Paizo's job all these years has been to fill in the middle with interesting options. I have yet to see something that actually breaks these plateaus or even the ceiling outside of mythic. Mythic's whole point was to do so and, even then, Paizo was very conservative in how they did it. It could have been much, much worse.
But games spend significant time at all those in between levels. If spellcasters are now more powerful at 5th level with a certain option in play, then for those X months of game time power creep has demonstrably occurred. As a DM you have to care about how the game plays the whole way through, not just for the final encounter when they've hit whatever the maximum level for your campaign is going to be.
But games spend significant time at all those in between levels. If spellcasters are now more powerful at 5th level with a certain option in play, then for those X months of game time power creep has demonstrably occurred. As a DM you have to care about how the game plays the whole way through, not just for the final encounter when they've hit whatever the maximum level for your campaign is going to be.
As long as the new materials restrain themselves by the overall cap of power presented in the CRB, even if you examine such a thing in a level to level basis, nothing is "more powerful" in an objective sense. You may dislike a player having two moderately powerful options compared to one. However, they're no more powerful simply because the other option also exists. They're just as powerful but in different ways. From all evaluation I've done of the game (which includes all the hardback line and most of the companion and setting splats) I am wholly unconvinced Paizo has actually impinged on the boundaries of the CRB from both a 1-20 sense as well as any increment thereof.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As long as the new materials restrain themselves by the overall cap of power presented in the CRB, even if you examine such a thing in a level to level basis, nothing is "more powerful" in an objective sense. You may dislike a player having two moderately powerful options compared to one. However, they're no more powerful simply because the other option also exists. They're just as powerful but in different ways. From all evaluation I've done of the game (which includes all the hardback line and most of the companion and setting splats) I am wholly unconvinced Paizo has actually impinged on the boundaries of the CRB from both a 1-20 sense as well as any increment thereof.
I love players having two moderately powerful options to choose from, that's the definition of perfect for me.
Feel free to show me a core rule book feat that stacks up to Spell Perfection (APG) in terms of power level as an option for 15th level casters.
The only one I can think of is Quicken spell. Interesting how quicken spell itself can be made a more powerful option If you also take spell perfection.
Call it the ceiling, call it the "level 15 plateau" call it power creep, call it w/e. For me this is options getting tougher and again, I don't like it.
Maybe you don't see it that way and that's fine, but some of us do. As "wholly unconvinced" as you are that Paizo has not "impinged on the boundaries of the CRB" I am equally convinced that they have.
- Torger
Yeah and that's kind of my point - I allow (most) traits, but there's obviously room to make a judgement call here and it's not something I'd ever criticize another DM for not allowing (other than perhaps for banning them in an AP context where there are campaign traits, or whatever.)
I love players having two moderately powerful options to choose from, that's the definition of perfect for me.
Feel free to show me a core rule book feat that stacks up to Spell Perfection (APG) in terms of power level as an option for 15th level casters.
The only one I can think of is maybe Quicken spell. Interesting how quicken spell itself can be made a more powerful option If you also take spell perfection.
Call it the ceiling, call it the "level 15 plateau" call it power creep, call it w/e. For me this is options getting tougher and again, I don't like it.
Maybe you don't see it that way and that's fine, but some of us do. As "wholly unconvinced" as you are that Paizo has not "impinged on the boundaries of the CRB" I am equally convinced that they have.
- Torger
I didn't mean to start an argument about it with you. I was doing so with Ian Bell. I simply probed your meaning to see what you meant by your original statements. I find them perfectly valid as they are subjective as are my own. However, no, I don't think anything has impinged on the CRB.
The quicken spell feat simply highlights that. It has no prerequisites. Therefore, you can start swift action casting spells for two spells in one round as early as level 9 or even level 7, if you'd want to quicken a cantrip for some reason. Taken then, you get double blasts of fireball by level 13 "for free," basically. Also at level 7 you can grab up leadership and grant yourself effectively two full rounds of actions every round. Apart from casters, you have smite which bypasses dr/- and dr/epic from level 1 as a swift action. These boundaries (and others) have not been made obsolete by other materials.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Torger's point was probably that while Quicken Spell is powerful Spell Perfection can make using Quicken Spell free. That seems more powerful than using Quicken Spell for the normal cost just like using metamagic at reduced cost due to a trait seems more powerful than using metamagic at the normal cost.
Of course you could already use metamagic at no spell slot cost by paying the gold cost for a metamagic rod, which is a CRB item, but back to Torger's way of thinking I guess that a rod can only add one free metamagic whereas using a rod combined with Spell Perfection might add two. I guess one could debate what the gold piece value of a 15th level feat should be and how much of a limiting factor Spell Perfection working with just one particular spell is.
As an aside, I think almost everybody agrees that Leadership is a little crazy. This doesn't stop me from taking it when a DM allows it and I think the party could use a little help. Some campaigns are much tougher than others, and some parties are much less competent than others.
My only goal was to demonstrate the overall power level of the game, as a whole, has not changed except for the single sourcebook whose entire purpose was to do so. The middle ground between the top and bottom has simply gotten more and more fleshed out.
I didn't mean to start an argument about it with you. I was doing so with Ian Bell. I simply probed your meaning to see what you meant by your original statements. I find them perfectly valid as they are subjective as are my own. However, no, I don't think anything has impinged on the CRB.The quicken spell feat simply highlights that. It has no prerequisites. Therefore, you can start swift action casting spells for two spells in one round as early as level 9 or even level 7, if you'd want to quicken a cantrip for some reason. Taken then, you get double blasts of fireball by level 13 "for free," basically. Also at level 7 you can grab up leadership and grant yourself effectively two full rounds of actions every round. Apart from casters, you have smite which bypasses dr/- and dr/epic from level 1 as a swift action. These boundaries (and others) have not been made obsolete by other materials.
No for sure, I've been considering this a conversation between three (or more) parties and it has yet to escalate to an argument for me. So we're all good there ^_^
The two spells per round boundary has indeed not been violated yet (thank god). Though it has gotten easier to achieve. That's one boundary. And doesn't change the fact that quicken is even more appealing with spell perfection on the table.
Yup... Leadership...
Leadership is funny in that it's likely the most banned option in the game so it's telling that you had to go there. I will grant you that from a pure numbers stand point no option ever is as good as leadership.
Unless you start looking at it like this, useless followers not withstanding leadership increases the party size by one, really less than 1 when you consider that the cohort is going to be lower level than all the other party members.
If the party size was increased by one in the standard fashion (another player joins) most DMs won't bat an eye. They'll simply beef things up a bit.
In that sense leadership doesn't really make a character more powerful, it just increases the party size. It absolutely gives a single player more influence over the game, and if that's something you want to limit then ban that sucker! But the limits to what a single character is capable of aren't really effected by it.
In any case I think it's fair to say that the consensus is that Leadership is a borked option balance wise and has been from day one. Pointing to it as the bench mark by which new options should be judged doesn't seem fair. Is that me raising the bar? Absolutely it is but sometimes that's required as a discussion develops.
Since you moved it past casters, let's talk about martial power creep.
Barbarians getting pounce.
How is that not "impinging on the boundaries of the CRB"?
- Torger