So I missed the*caster is underpowered now* debates.


Rules Discussion

251 to 267 of 267 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Martialmasters wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Strill wrote:
Quandary wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
My problem with this suggestion is that it kind of 'solves' action economy too much.
I agreed with your broader point as well, but I think this is key concept. Pushing for 100% balance everywhere, "solving" issues as it were, actually doesn't lead to interesting game. The small imbalances and assymetries are perfect foundations to build other mechanics upon, since the preceding "weakness" helps moderate the new mechanic from being too powerful. If everything was tightly locked down in balance, there would be less freedom to expand and innovate.
What weakness? If cantrips were 1-action flourish moves, I'd take them on every martial, because a 1-action Electric Arc beats the crap out of any other 3rd action I can think of.
How so? Your still at minus 10 since they are not agile.
electric arc doesn't use MAP because the enemy must save, so if it were 1 action, you can attack twice and force a save out of 2 opponents.

if used as a flourish it gains the attack trait

/fix?

MAP doesn't effect your Save DC, so it at the very least needs special wording to how it effects your DC.


Bandw2 wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Strill wrote:
Quandary wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
My problem with this suggestion is that it kind of 'solves' action economy too much.
I agreed with your broader point as well, but I think this is key concept. Pushing for 100% balance everywhere, "solving" issues as it were, actually doesn't lead to interesting game. The small imbalances and assymetries are perfect foundations to build other mechanics upon, since the preceding "weakness" helps moderate the new mechanic from being too powerful. If everything was tightly locked down in balance, there would be less freedom to expand and innovate.
What weakness? If cantrips were 1-action flourish moves, I'd take them on every martial, because a 1-action Electric Arc beats the crap out of any other 3rd action I can think of.
How so? Your still at minus 10 since they are not agile.
electric arc doesn't use MAP because the enemy must save, so if it were 1 action, you can attack twice and force a save out of 2 opponents.

if used as a flourish it gains the attack trait

/fix?

MAP doesn't effect your Save DC, so it at the very least needs special wording to how it effects your DC.

if it gains the attack trait it is subject to map no? so suddenly youd need to roll to hit and do the reflex save


Martialmasters wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Strill wrote:
Quandary wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
My problem with this suggestion is that it kind of 'solves' action economy too much.
I agreed with your broader point as well, but I think this is key concept. Pushing for 100% balance everywhere, "solving" issues as it were, actually doesn't lead to interesting game. The small imbalances and assymetries are perfect foundations to build other mechanics upon, since the preceding "weakness" helps moderate the new mechanic from being too powerful. If everything was tightly locked down in balance, there would be less freedom to expand and innovate.
What weakness? If cantrips were 1-action flourish moves, I'd take them on every martial, because a 1-action Electric Arc beats the crap out of any other 3rd action I can think of.
How so? Your still at minus 10 since they are not agile.
electric arc doesn't use MAP because the enemy must save, so if it were 1 action, you can attack twice and force a save out of 2 opponents.

if used as a flourish it gains the attack trait

/fix?

No, because MAP is irrelevant to Electric Arc. You just use it as your last action, and bypass the attack penalty.


Martialmasters wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Strill wrote:
Quandary wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
My problem with this suggestion is that it kind of 'solves' action economy too much.
I agreed with your broader point as well, but I think this is key concept. Pushing for 100% balance everywhere, "solving" issues as it were, actually doesn't lead to interesting game. The small imbalances and assymetries are perfect foundations to build other mechanics upon, since the preceding "weakness" helps moderate the new mechanic from being too powerful. If everything was tightly locked down in balance, there would be less freedom to expand and innovate.
What weakness? If cantrips were 1-action flourish moves, I'd take them on every martial, because a 1-action Electric Arc beats the crap out of any other 3rd action I can think of.
How so? Your still at minus 10 since they are not agile.
electric arc doesn't use MAP because the enemy must save, so if it were 1 action, you can attack twice and force a save out of 2 opponents.

if used as a flourish it gains the attack trait

/fix?

MAP doesn't effect your Save DC, so it at the very least needs special wording to how it effects your DC.
if it gains the attack trait it is subject to map no? so suddenly youd need to roll to hit and do the reflex save

Yes, it's subject to MAP, but MAP only affects attack rolls. It has no effect on saving throws.


Yes but they are saying to make 1 action electric arc an attack cantrip, which means needing to roll to hit. Which also means creatures have to chance to avoid electric arc damage.


Temperans wrote:
Yes but they are saying to make 1 action electric arc an attack cantrip, which means needing to roll to hit. Which also means creatures have to chance to avoid electric arc damage.

There are plenty of spells with the Attack trait, which do not require attack rolls, and some without the Attack trait, which do require attack rolls.


From what I have seen, all spells with the Attack trait have attack rolls, but not all spells with attack rolls have the Attack trait.

So can you please give me an example of one that has the trait but not the roll?


Strill wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Strill wrote:
Quandary wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
My problem with this suggestion is that it kind of 'solves' action economy too much.
I agreed with your broader point as well, but I think this is key concept. Pushing for 100% balance everywhere, "solving" issues as it were, actually doesn't lead to interesting game. The small imbalances and assymetries are perfect foundations to build other mechanics upon, since the preceding "weakness" helps moderate the new mechanic from being too powerful. If everything was tightly locked down in balance, there would be less freedom to expand and innovate.
What weakness? If cantrips were 1-action flourish moves, I'd take them on every martial, because a 1-action Electric Arc beats the crap out of any other 3rd action I can think of.

That seems fine. Your now attacking with it at -5 and they still get a save

How so? Your still at minus 10 since they are not agile.

electric arc doesn't use MAP because the enemy must save, so if it were 1 action, you can attack twice and force a save out of 2 opponents.

if used as a flourish it gains the attack trait

/fix?

MAP doesn't effect your Save DC, so it at the very least needs special wording to how it effects your DC.
if it gains the attack trait it is subject to map no? so suddenly youd need to roll to hit and do the reflex save
Yes, it's subject to MAP, but MAP only affects attack rolls. It has no effect on saving throws.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This whole debate about a hypothetical one action electric arc that functions completely differently seems like it's kind of getting away from the point of the thread a bit.


Squiggit wrote:
This whole debate about a hypothetical one action electric arc that functions completely differently seems like it's kind of getting away from the point of the thread a bit.

Agreed.

If you’re not making a suggestion that’s realistically going to fit into the current paradigm of the game structure, it’s not gonna happen anywhere outside of house rules.


For an effective -10, you could have the single action spell contingent on hitting with 2 consecutive attacks. It's close to math anyway.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
This whole debate about a hypothetical one action electric arc that functions completely differently seems like it's kind of getting away from the point of the thread a bit.

I agree. The problem with casters is that the way to be efficient is to choose the spell that gives the best little debbuf when you fail to do what you really want to do.

Not fun!


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Why are we talking about casting spells at -10 when we can't even land the -0 ones?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
Why are we talking about casting spells at -10 when we can't even land the -0 ones?

Because hyperbole is boring.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think the solution is to make make spells interact more with the 3 action system. Cantrips could be 1 action and get the flourish trait. Cantrips could easily be split so that 1 action is damage, and 1 the rider. Electric arc would just be a second action to make it jump to a second target.

For those that are worried about multiple spell bursts in a round I don't think thats a problem. If a caster wants to blow all their limited resources at once then not have them for the rest of the day then that is their problem. When talking about spells (unlike martial attacks) they are a limited resource this was the balancing factor in old editions and remains one of them now.

Glass cannon is a common mage trope, right now wizards and sorcs are all glass with cannon on par with a fighter under the right circumstances.

The 'almost always has an effect on a fail' is nice but again that's part of the trade off for lower health, defences and limited resources which has to form part of the overall balance equation else may as well say Wizards and sorcs can use all armours and weapons like fighters.

For those worried about how it reduces the effectiveness of metamagic feats I have 2 arguments. One is meta magic feats are still useful as a 3rd action and two is if they can be made invalid by making a spell more interesting in the way it interacts with 3 action economy then they deserve to be made invalid. No point hindering a better designed to stick with a concept that might not be as good anymore.

Specifically for casters wizards suffer the most. Worst non-spell abilities (weapon and armor profs), most expensive and hardest to learn new spells, reliant on an easily removable spell book. Least powerful and useful focus spells and by far the most boring feats. I am still struggling how wizards shipped given the half done state they are in.

If we are talking balance then all aspects, not just damage/debuffs have to be taken into account, that includes weapon profs, health and defences (armour/saves).

Sorcerers at least have free access to spells, better focus spells and different spell lists to choose from and better weapon prof's.

Wizards for all they give up and the additional burdens of spell acquisition and spellbooks ought to be the king of magic, right now they feel like the worst at it.

But this gives me an idea, I might start a spell list for changing the spell lists to work with the 3 action system. Two action spells would remain the same for 2 actions, with 1 or 3 action versions.

I feel like Paizo started with making spells interact with the 3 action version than ran out of time completing it which is why we have some cool things like magic missile, heal/harm and a few of the focus spells but then it was too hard to complete the rest.


Cyder wrote:

I think the solution is to make make spells interact more with the 3 action system. Cantrips could be 1 action and get the flourish trait. Cantrips could easily be split so that 1 action is damage, and 1 the rider. Electric arc would just be a second action to make it jump to a second target.

For those that are worried about multiple spell bursts in a round I don't think thats a problem. If a caster wants to blow all their limited resources at once then not have them for the rest of the day then that is their problem. When talking about spells (unlike martial attacks) they are a limited resource this was the balancing factor in old editions and remains one of them now.

Glass cannon is a common mage trope, right now wizards and sorcs are all glass with cannon on par with a fighter under the right circumstances.

The 'almost always has an effect on a fail' is nice but again that's part of the trade off for lower health, defences and limited resources which has to form part of the overall balance equation else may as well say Wizards and sorcs can use all armours and weapons like fighters.

For those worried about how it reduces the effectiveness of metamagic feats I have 2 arguments. One is meta magic feats are still useful as a 3rd action and two is if they can be made invalid by making a spell more interesting in the way it interacts with 3 action economy then they deserve to be made invalid. No point hindering a better designed to stick with a concept that might not be as good anymore.

Specifically for casters wizards suffer the most. Worst non-spell abilities (weapon and armor profs), most expensive and hardest to learn new spells, reliant on an easily removable spell book. Least powerful and useful focus spells and by far the most boring feats. I am still struggling how wizards shipped given the half done state they are in.

If we are talking balance then all aspects, not just damage/debuffs have to be taken into account, that includes weapon profs, health and defences (armour/saves)....

just be sure to keep the 2 actions as the 2 action effect, reduce it in some way for 1 action, increase in some way for 3.


Gloom wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
SO I MISSED THE*CASTER IS UNDERPOWERED NOW* DEBATES...
You didn't miss anything of value. This is an old and tired debate that has people divided into two camps. For the most part however, anyone I've played with who has played a caster in a game for a reasonable amount of time has enjoyed it.

I've enjoyed every caster except the wizard and have no experience with the sorcerer.

The cleric is quite potent as is the druid. Both have good 1 action options and lots of flexibility.

Bard is maybe too good. I'm having a blast playing it. You can do a bit of everything and your party boosting power is second to none.

Sorcerer looks interesting, but I haven't tried it yet. I do like how you can make a very diverse sorcerer.

Wizard is very bland. His powers are unimpressive. His vaunted spell versatility is only as good as his spells. Spells in the new edition are limited and damage from spells underwhelm. Given the way you have to heighten to scale spells up, it only leaves you with about 9 to 12 truly dangerous slots depending on the save and if you've perfectly prepared for what you're fighting. I imagine wizards will become better as more options become available and more spell books are released.

251 to 267 of 267 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / So I missed the*caster is underpowered now* debates. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.