They already moved casters down from world shattering power, it's called 4th edition. Also if the whole purpose of a book is to nerf spell casters then call it something else other then "Spells Unchained".
Call it Unearthed Arcana :P
Unchained actually has rules in it that reduce the power of magic.
Actually, a lot of rules.
Just take your pick.
Unchained actually has rules in it that reduce the power of magic.
Actually, a lot of rules.
Just take your pick.
For instance, a single campaign could use Simplified and Limited magic, and Esoteric Components (Mandatory), which nerfs multiple different areas of spellcasting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF 2 is not inevitable. Neither is humanity living to see tomorrow.
Both are quite likely, however.
And let's face it, that's really what this thread is about: People who don't want a new edition -- ever -- arguing that, despite how this has gone every other time, it will be different this time.
Maybe I'm just grumpy this morning, but...good luck with that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe a new Cleric that gets more class features.
If they properly moved casters down in world shattering power level we would eliminate most issues with the system.
These statements seem to be at odds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
These statements seem to be at odds.Maybe a new Cleric that gets more class features.
If they properly moved casters down in world shattering power level we would eliminate most issues with the system.
It's the spell lists that make casters problematic, not the class features. It's absolutely possible to grant spellcasters more class features and reduce their power at the same time.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe a new Cleric that gets more class features.
If they properly moved casters down in world shattering power level we would eliminate most issues with the system.
These statements seem to be at odds.
Because you think it is the class features that make the Cleric powerful?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, spells are technically a feature...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Polisci major, it's all I know how to do. Sorry.
Maybe a new Cleric that gets more class features.
If they properly moved casters down in world shattering power level we would eliminate most issues with the system.
These statements seem to be at odds.
Oracles, Sorcerors, Wizards, Arcanists, Druids, Witches, Shamans, and I may be missing another full caster all get class features all throughout their career from 1-20.
Comparatively the Cleric gets features at 1st and 8th level. I am only counting Channel energy as one feature.
I've found that most other full casters are more fun. Especially the Shaman who makes a great Cleric replacement.
The chassis themselves for fullcasters are pretty good, the problem comes from spells invalidating skills, role play, and other classes. Stuff like Glibness, knock, planar binding, simulacrum, standard action summons, ect are problems. Spells like fly, dispel magic, create pit, Enervation, illusion spells, ect are for the most part fine.
I have no problem with standard action summons, knock, detect secret doors etc. But I can't stand enervation, energy drain, dominate person/monster, simulacrum/clone, anti-magic field, and planar binding. I am sure there are few other spells but that is off the top of my head.
I also can't stand that casting standard action spells provoke attacks of opportunity. It would be cool if all evocation spells or a subtype of spells were "combat spells" and casting them didn't provoke. It would be nice if clerics didn't provoke when casting healing spells.
It's the spell lists that make casters problematic, not the class features. It's absolutely possible to grant spellcasters more class features and reduce their power at the same time.These statements seem to be at odds.Maybe a new Cleric that gets more class features.
If they properly moved casters down in world shattering power level we would eliminate most issues with the system.
I rather the system we have now than a pedestrian system where there is little difference between the casters and the martial characters.
Martial characters need more options and a power boost at higher levels, and there is a few problem spells that need amendments, apart from that I like the current system.
If a system was to be introduced that gave martial characters more narrative power I would want it to be completely different to the way casters do it.
Game balance often leads to homogenised concepts. and we all know how that worked out in D&D 4e.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Game balance often leads to homogenised concepts. and we all know how that worked out in D&D 4e.
To be fair, you have have balance without homogeneity, but that takes a lot more effort and playtesting. Just making everything the same is the easy way out.
One of the big issues I had with the 4e PHB 1 was that the designers threw out a lot of the broken 3.x stuff instead of fixing it.
Maybe a new Cleric that gets more class features.
If they properly moved casters down in world shattering power level we would eliminate most issues with the system.
These statements seem to be at odds.
Oracles, Sorcerors, Wizards, Arcanists, Druids, Witches, Shamans, and I may be missing another full caster all get class features all throughout their career from 1-20.
Comparatively the Cleric gets features at 1st and 8th level. I am only counting Channel energy as one feature.
I've found that most other full casters are more fun. Especially the Shaman who makes a great Cleric replacement.
The chassis themselves for fullcasters are pretty good, the problem comes from spells invalidating skills, role play, and other classes. Stuff like Glibness, knock, planar binding, simulacrum, standard action summons, ect are problems. Spells like fly, dispel magic, create pit, Enervation, illusion spells, ect are for the most part fine.
The last time I looked at the cleric its spells per day increased at every level ...
Would it be better if it got less spells overall but every level said "Augury 1/day" "daylight 1/day," et cetera?
That's almost a valid argument, except all the mentioned classes get that too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I think the Cleric should loose his extra domain spell slots and give him the ability to spontaneously cast any of his domain spells as well as cure or inflict spells.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing that needs to be done is the entire spell list needs to be gone through. Virtually every spell in the game needs to be rewritten, have it's spell level adjusted, or be eliminated from the game. The problem started in 3.0, where despite large changes to the system, the spell descriptions for most spells remained untouched. A similar lazy approach was taken with both the 3.5 and Pathfinder revisions. This is something that is a decade and a half overdue.
Of course, I'm not sure if Paizo's priorities are to make a good, well-balanced game; or if they are to make spellcasters completely overpowered. It might be more realistic to ask Paizo to just be honest with themselves and their fans and re-classify all non-full casters as NPC classes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It might be more realistic to ask Paizo to just be honest with themselves and their fans and re-classify all non-full casters as NPC classes.
Implying that their current attempt to support martial archetypes is dishonest? That seems a little harsh, no? O.o
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It might be more realistic to ask Paizo to just be honest with themselves and their fans and re-classify all non-full casters as NPC classes.Implying that their current attempt to support martial archetypes is dishonest? That seems a little harsh, no? O.o
Well, Paizo official stance on the matter IS "The martial-caster disparity is a myth propagated by people with an agenda." Presumably an agenda to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing that needs to be done is the entire spell list needs to be gone through. Virtually every spell in the game needs to be rewritten, have it's spell level adjusted, or be eliminated from the game. The problem started in 3.0, where despite large changes to the system, the spell descriptions for most spells remained untouched. A similar lazy approach was taken with both the 3.5 and Pathfinder revisions. This is something that is a decade and a half overdue.
Of course, I'm not sure if Paizo's priorities are to make a good, well-balanced game; or if they are to make spellcasters completely overpowered. It might be more realistic to ask Paizo to just be honest with themselves and their fans and re-classify all non-full casters as NPC classes.
(he says, as though 1st and 2nd Edition didn't contain/create 95% of those broken spells pretty much exactly as they were, anyway...)
WOTC didn't make radical nerfs to 1st and 2nd Ed spells because doing so would have added yet another level of grar to the mix of people already butthurt that the system changed from 2nd to 3rd Ed.
Paizo did make radical changes to Polymorph and the entire subschool to even those spells out, and there was much grar'ing. There are people still complaining over the nerf.
Could Paizo have gone even deeper and done a similar altering to nearly every "problem" spell out there? Probably; but it would have taken much longer in playtesting, and left a lot more people salty because of the changes, anyway, even if the end result was very balanced.
There's an entire, extensive Trope that describes this very issue, and several forum-goers are chronically guilty of.
DMs will ban or allow anything they choose, regardless; that's the nature of the genre. Hell, there are people who think Magic Missile is absurdly broken.
Spells have been banned or allowed since 1974. So if you want to harp on anyone for creating "broken" spells, shake a fist at the smoldering remains of TSR, not the current guys who're trying to offend as few people as possible while keeping alive a legacy of a game tons and tons of people like.
|
|
Well, Paizo official stance on the matter IS "The martial-caster disparity is a myth propagated by people with an agenda." Presumably an agenda to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids.It might be more realistic to ask Paizo to just be honest with themselves and their fans and re-classify all non-full casters as NPC classes.Implying that their current attempt to support martial archetypes is dishonest? That seems a little harsh, no? O.o
Nah, the agenda is a decently well-balanced game.
|
|
(he says, as though 1st and 2nd Edition didn't contain/create 95% of those broken spells pretty much exactly as they were, anyway...)
Yes. And despite massively changing the entire underlying system, the spell descriptions were left virtually unchanged. THIS IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM.
So thanks for reiterating my point, even if it seems lost on you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, Paizo official stance on the matter IS "The martial-caster disparity is a myth propagated by people with an agenda." Presumably an agenda to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids.It might be more realistic to ask Paizo to just be honest with themselves and their fans and re-classify all non-full casters as NPC classes.Implying that their current attempt to support martial archetypes is dishonest? That seems a little harsh, no? O.o
More that they acknowledge that the vast majority of play groups don't have "disparity" because people make suboptimal choices left and right, especially for spellcasters, because they're more concerned with building a theme-based caster than they are with building Batmage (i.e. being prepared for anything at any time, anywhere).
Highly-optimal play does see full spellcasters running rampant, because everything is picked over with a fine-toothed comb for effectiveness.
At most tables, though, dedicated casters are very powerful, yes, but hardly the ultra-optimized monsters you'll find on boards devoted to min-maxing them. So while they'll be more than capable of handling themselves in encounters, they're not obsoleting the entire party.
There's also the fact that the majority of class choices are either Martials or 6/9 spellcasters, and those classes generally appeal to more people than 9th-level spellcasters do, due to the "coolness" factor. And since 6/9 spellcasters fall much more in-line with Martials than they do with 9th-level casters, there isn't so much of an issue there, either.
Nah, the agenda is a decently well-balanced game.Well, Paizo official stance on the matter IS "The martial-caster disparity is a myth propagated by people with an agenda." Presumably an agenda to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids.It might be more realistic to ask Paizo to just be honest with themselves and their fans and re-classify all non-full casters as NPC classes.Implying that their current attempt to support martial archetypes is dishonest? That seems a little harsh, no? O.o
I thought that statement was taken back?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(he says, as though 1st and 2nd Edition didn't contain/create 95% of those broken spells pretty much exactly as they were, anyway...)Yes. And despite massively changing the entire underlying system, the spell descriptions were left virtually unchanged. THIS IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM.
So thanks for reiterating my point, even if it seems lost on you.
It seems "lost" because your point isn't a point - it has no weight whatsoever when actually examined without 5-inch thick Nostalgia Goggles on.
The system since 1st edition has always been horrendously skewed towards casters.
Every time someone says "well, if a caster was hit during the casting, the spell ended", they're assuming that the spellcaster was on the ground, in the thick of things, and didn't have some defense up.
Fly was always between 10 minutes and 60 minutes, even if they didn't know the exact time; that means that once they got their Fly spell on, they were more than able to stay in the air and cast spells safely away from any non-flying enemies. If you weren't flying and casting, or some other means of protecting yourself from interruption, you were doing it wrong.
Even Levitate allowed for the sort of "Up and Out of Danger" tactics that would allow a caster to sling spells unimpeded.
The only way the d20 system really made things "worse" is that it allowed spellcasters to regain all spells at the beginning of each day, rather than regaining 1 spell at a time, at 10-15 minutes/spell-level spent regaining the spell. But that's an easy-enough houserule to add back in in order to keep things sane without having to radically change the system.
The changes made from 2nd to 3rd Ed didn't suddenly, "magically" make spellcasting broken - spellcasting was broken for decades before WOTC took hold of things; you're/we're just old enough now to identify it.
Well, Paizo official stance on the matter IS "The martial-caster disparity is a myth propagated by people with an agenda." Presumably an agenda to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids.It might be more realistic to ask Paizo to just be honest with themselves and their fans and re-classify all non-full casters as NPC classes.Implying that their current attempt to support martial archetypes is dishonest? That seems a little harsh, no? O.oMore that they acknowledge that the vast majority of play groups don't have "disparity" because people make suboptimal choices left and right, especially for spellcasters, because they're more concerned with building a theme-based caster than they are with building Batmage (i.e. being prepared for anything at any time, anywhere).
Highly-optimal play does see full spellcasters running rampant, because everything is picked over with a fine-toothed comb for effectiveness.
At most tables, though, dedicated casters are very powerful, yes, but hardly the ultra-optimized monsters you'll find on boards devoted to min-maxing them. So while they'll be more than capable of handling themselves in encounters, they're not obsoleting the entire party.
There's also the fact that the majority of class choices are either Martials or 6/9 spellcasters, and those classes generally appeal to more people than 9th-level spellcasters do, due to the "coolness" factor. And since 6/9 spellcasters fall much more in-line with Martials than they do with 9th-level casters, there isn't so much of an issue there, either.
I will grant that in a lot of the games I played in, the player-player disparity was more important than the difference between given classes. It's not even a matter of how of just how the characters build, either. Some players can take a mediocre build and really make it work, while I once had a player who built a by-the-numbers optimized Witch, but managed to make his character completely terrible by consistently making awful tactical choices (like running into melee with a 1/2 BAB caster class with 10 strength and no melee buffs)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(he says, as though 1st and 2nd Edition didn't contain/create 95% of those broken spells pretty much exactly as they were, anyway...)Yes. And despite massively changing the entire underlying system, the spell descriptions were left virtually unchanged. THIS IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM.
So thanks for reiterating my point, even if it seems lost on you.
It seems "lost" because your point isn't a point - it has no weight whatsoever when actually examined without 5-inch thick Nostalgia Goggles on.
The system since 1st edition has always been horrendously skewed towards casters..
That's what he's saying - he thinks they should have adjusted spell power and spell levels when 3.0 came out because of the early edition caster-martial disparity. Presuming they intended to create a balanced game.
If he was looking with "nostalgia goggles" he wouldn't be arguing for more change than actually occurred, would he?
That's what he's saying - he thinks they should have adjusted spell power and spell levels when 3.0 came out because of the early edition caster-martial disparity. Presuming they intended to create a balanced game.
If he was looking with "nostalgia goggles" he wouldn't be arguing for more change than actually occurred, would he?
I see what you're saying (and it's an excellent point), but this post:
(he says, as though 1st and 2nd Edition didn't contain/create 95% of those broken spells pretty much exactly as they were, anyway...)Yes. And despite massively changing the entire underlying system, the spell descriptions were left virtually unchanged. THIS IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM.
So thanks for reiterating my point, even if it seems lost on you.
... plus his posting history (i.e. his usual stance on the topics at large) seem to be exactly the concept of "the old edition was better" - in Kthulhu's case (from what he's said before) it seems he didn't mind the spells because there were "safeguards" (i.e. you hit the caster once and the spell was ruined), while in 3rd that changed and thus casters became overpowered.
In chbgraphicscart's opinion (based on what I'm reading) the casters were always overpowered, because they had many different options for self-protection and avoidance of the one thing that could bring them down, and thus any complaint about 3rd edition's (or any d20 iteration, such as PF's) casters is relatively banal in the face of the fact that prior edition casters, if run carefully, could, in fact, be just as invulnerable, and even more so (due to the fact that their dangerous damage-dealing spells were even more dangerous in addition to their various super-powered spellcasting shenanigans).
This argument (iterated multiple times) seems to be at the crux of chb's rebuttal to Kthulu's specific objection.
That said, I'm not sure Kthulu is arguing from a place of "older editions were better" exactly (though his post implies they were with, "And despite massively changing the entire underlying system, the spell descriptions were left virtually unchanged. THIS IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM."), but rather that the current spells and descriptions are errant.
I both agree and disagree - I agree, because I recognize the problems people have, but I disagree, because I love all the neat things magic can do.
My solution would always be to buff the martials instead of nerf the casters. But that's just because I like stuff.
Personally, the capitals seem to me to be confirming my interpretation - he may like OSRIC games better, but he thinks that in the massive change to 3.0, leaving spells virtually unchanged was lazy.
FWIW, I don't agree. I like 0E/AD&D better, in large part because they are unbalanced. I prefer games with a martial/caster disparity.
Nonetheless, despite his consistent posting history, I think kthulhu was not making his usual argument here.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
0e, 1e, the flavors of Basic D&D, and 2 were unbalanced. But, in my opinion, comparing their level of unbalance to that in 3.x/PFRPG is akin to comparing a running faucet to a fire hydrant with the value fully opened. And part of that is because they didn't make many adjustments to spells when they changed from 2e to 3.0.
The change from 2e to 3.0 was a VERY substantial change. For the most part, I think practically everyone can agree with this. When you change the underlying system, but you don't change certain elements, then those elements are going to react differently in the new system.
Imagine if they had taken the same approach with monsters. Imagine, for example, that an Ancient Red Dragon had the following stats:
AC: -1
Hit Dice: 9-11 (72 - 88 hit points)
# Attacks: 3
Damage: 1d8 / 1d8 / 3-30
75% that it can speak
40% that it can use magic
20% that it's asleep
This is an Ancient Red Dragon...the most terrifying non-unique evil dragon in the world. In 3.x/PFRPG terms, it underwhelms, doesn't it?
Why? Because if you change the underlying system, the how the elements you don't change will react differently.
Contributing to this, as Steve also pointed out, 3.0 also reduced or removed most of the checks on a spellcaster's power. They can completely nova out, and one hour of studying can refill every spell slot with just an hour of skimming through your spellbooks. You get the skill Concentration, which lets you continue to cast your spells even through things that used to automatically disrupt them. Pathfinder even did away with having to sacrifice skill points to power this. If you specialize, instead of finding spells of your opposition school impossible to cast, they're just a bit harder to cast.
Spellcasting in Oe to 2e was overpowered, that's true. But, in my opinion, using that imbalance to justify the outright brokenness of spellcasting in 3.x/PFRGP is simply telling the developers that you don't care. And they'll use that to continue to morph even more into the CASTER EDITION. Paizo already has a tendency to be quick to issue errata for any "overpowered" martial options that happen to somehow slip through when someone brings to their attention, while basically ignoring it when the same happens for spellcaster options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo already has a tendency to be quick to issue errata for any "overpowered" martial options that happen to somehow slip through when someone brings to their attention, while basically ignoring it when the same happens for spellcaster options.
Just a note, the next big FAQ/Errata is for an overpowered spellcaster option, Simulacrum.
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo already has a tendency to be quick to issue errata for any "overpowered" martial options that happen to somehow slip through when someone brings to their attention, while basically ignoring it when the same happens for spellcaster options.Just a note, the next big FAQ/Errata is for an overpowered spellcaster option, Simulacrum.
Possibly.
It's so big that they might not think they can cover it yet, no matter where it is in the FAQueue.
Unless they've confirmed that it's coming tomorrow, and I missed it. ^_^
Paizo already has a tendency to be quick to issue errata for any "overpowered" martial options that happen to somehow slip through when someone brings to their attention, while basically ignoring it when the same happens for spellcaster options.Just a note, the next big FAQ/Errata is for an overpowered spellcaster option, Simulacrum.
Source cite?
|
|
Paizo already has a tendency to be quick to issue errata for any "overpowered" martial options that happen to somehow slip through when someone brings to their attention, while basically ignoring it when the same happens for spellcaster options.Just a note, the next big FAQ/Errata is for an overpowered spellcaster option, Simulacrum.Possibly.
It's so big that they might not think they can cover it yet, no matter where it is in the FAQueue.
Unless they've confirmed that it's coming tomorrow, and I missed it. ^_^
Paizo is shoring up the weaknesses inherent in the spell CONFIRMED!
Or rather, they're responding to the number of requests found in the FAQ queue...
Paizo already has a tendency to be quick to issue errata for any "overpowered" martial options that happen to somehow slip through when someone brings to their attention, while basically ignoring it when the same happens for spellcaster options.Just a note, the next big FAQ/Errata is for an overpowered spellcaster option, Simulacrum.
I will believe this when I see it. I don't think it's possible to do without contradicting actual simulacrums they've used though...
Possibly.
It's so big that they might not think they can cover it yet, no matter where it is in the FAQueue.
Unless they've confirmed that it's coming tomorrow, and I missed it. ^_^
It's apparently planned as a blog post one, because of it's size, but there are currently no openings when it comes to the blog schedule because of the cons and previews and such.
Source cite?
Mark Seifer on Know Direction yesterday, and I think he said it in his Ask Mark thread before that as well. He's rather open about FAQ's and what might be next on the list.
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's apparently planned as a blog post one, because of it's size, but there are currently no openings when it comes to the blog schedule because of the cons and previews and such.Possibly.
It's so big that they might not think they can cover it yet, no matter where it is in the FAQueue.
Unless they've confirmed that it's coming tomorrow, and I missed it. ^_^
I knew about this. I was saying that, because of the size and complexity (as well as the blog schedule issue), they might give this week's slot to a smaller FAQ while they iron out the Profession (ice sculpture) details.
That said, I went back and reread your post.
"Just a note, the next big FAQ/Errata is for an overpowered spellcaster option, Simulacrum. "
You're definitely on the money there. I skimmed over the "big" in my haste to respond. ^_^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Possibly.
It's so big that they might not think they can cover it yet, no matter where it is in the FAQueue.
Unless they've confirmed that it's coming tomorrow, and I missed it. ^_^
It's apparently planned as a blog post one, because of it's size, but there are currently no openings when it comes to the blog schedule because of the cons and previews and such.
Source cite?Mark Seifer on Know Direction yesterday, and I think he said it in his Ask Mark thread before that as well. He's rather open about FAQ's and what might be next on the list.
Hm, yea, "what might come sometime in the future," and "what will definitely be next cause it's already in the pipe," are different things. Also, with recent FAQ reversals I won't actually believe it until about 2 years after it's posted.
How many FAQ reversals have there been? I can only think of the Flurry of Blows controversy. The SLA early-access thing might qualify too, I suppose, but I saw that more as two separate FAQs.
Those are good examples. Free Action FAQ as well comes to mind.
|
Contributor
|
How many FAQ reversals have there been? I can only think of the Flurry of Blows controversy. The SLA early-access thing might qualify too, I suppose, but I saw that more as two separate FAQs.Those are good examples. Free Action FAQ as well comes to mind.
I hadn't heard of any reversal there. Do you have a link so I can educate myself? ^_^
There are 5 links in that post, plus the thread this link goes to get pretty interesting as well.