There should be a way to combat immunity to mind affecting. I’m just not sure what is reasonable. Wizards are already powerful.
Maybe a feat that bypasses immunity to mind affecting for a particular spell.
I think there are so many ways around the various immunities that if it is still a problem, then you haven't asked the right people the right questions to help you find what you are looking for, or you aren't being creative enough in your own searching. And, quite honestly, every spell should NOT work against every target... variety is the spice of life, don't take that away. People have to overcome the defenses of their target, it is part of the game. Enemies do not generally have high Will saves, you need to raise your casting stat/spells' DC's if you think basic enemies have "high" Will saves.
Is it just the Wizard that lacks the necessary tools to overcome this specific challenge? I am not familiar with all the Wizards' archetypes/Discoveries. I'm pretty sure Bards, and Clerics, and Druids, and Mesmerists, and Sorcerers all have ways to affect different targets that would otherwise be immune to their charms.
Now I get it if you want to play a specific class that lacks the appropriate archetype or available class features to overcome this, but some builds/classes don't do certain things... when you specialize with a Greatsword, having to use your backup bow against something with DR really sucks... you simply do not have the necessary feats dedicated to making your backup bow as effective as your Greatsword. Literally no Barbarian has Clustered Shots for their backup bow when they are specializing in a Greatsword. And that's ok.
Constructs, Undead, Vermin... they can all be targeted by charms with a modicum of effort. It's just a matter of picking the right archetype, Bloodline, feat, or prestige class...
The other facet of this is that, failing a save against an enchantment spell is a huge swing of effectiveness for the enemy.
Some of them effectively outright remove an enemy from combat. They might not be dead, but they might as well be.
Others are even worse, not removing the enemy from combat, but turning them into an (unwilling) ally against the rest of their former allies.
If you could succeed with that all of the time, you've completely trivialized combat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Enchantment spells have never really appealed to me, so 'unnerfing' them will have no real impact on me selecting them. Enchantment and Necromancy are my most often selected opposition schools. I suppose the only real effect such a move will do is make it even more likely that I personally target users of said magic more often and make sure that I reinforce my saving throws against it. Screwing with free will is one of my big 'nope' areas.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The other facet of this is that, failing a save against an enchantment spell is a huge swing of effectiveness for the enemy.
Some of them effectively outright remove an enemy from combat. They might not be dead, but they might as well be.
Others are even worse, not removing the enemy from combat, but turning them into an (unwilling) ally against the rest of their former allies.
If you could succeed with that all of the time, you've completely trivialized combat.
this is the "Your Toys are My Toys" controller play style. It really doesn't kick in until mid-levels.
Not only are these "save or suck" spells but casters have the chance to turn the Challenge against itself. It's a powerful flip. In Org Play (not PF) I did this and the organizers killed off my thralls between encounters.
It's true it doesn't kick in till mid-levels, but once it's available every saving throw a GM makes is fraught with fear because a failed saving throw will usually swing an encounter from difficult to easy.
Honestly, it's why I like the idea of the Incapacitation trait if not it's exact execution in 2E.
I will just say it this way.
If enchantment spells always worked there would be no game. The BBEG would always be an enchantment caster that would mind control the party the first chance they got. This is exactly the same thing that the PC enchantment caster would try to do to enemies, but the BBEG being higher level, yeah no chance.
It is to the point that some of the campaigns released by Paizo would be physically impossible to beat because the enemy would easily be able to charm monster/dominate before the PCs even knew what happened.
True, the PCs are often underdogs (at least in theory, but highly optimized players blow it out of the water) and low level the enemy.
If the PCs got to a point where they could always succeed, the enemy should have the same opportunity and the world would be ruled by the One True Enchanting Wizard build that mind-f#&&ed everyone who dare oppose them.
The real problem with enchantment is that there are actually a suprisingly high number of creatures and enemies in APs that are highly resistant to if not flat out immune to mind-affecting effects. Which might I point out is the vast majority of combat useful enchantment spells. No other school of magic has their combat usefulness reduced down to a paltry handful of spells so easily.
Evocation: energy resistance and immunity just means use a different energy type
Conjuration: same as evocation…
Abjuration: you only cast spells on yourself and allies, enemy stats mean nothing to you.
Necromancy: negative energy resistance or immunity just means you focus on minions, curses, or use physical damage spells like boneshaker. Negative energy spells are actually one of the smallest selection of necromancy spells even.
Necromancy (cont.): death effect immunity, just means use literally everything else on your spell list… death effects make up even less of the necromancy spell list than negative energy effects do.
Illusion: Mind-effecting resistance and immunity removes a few spells from use… Blind enemies are actually their worst enemy, since that does eliminate the effectiveness of nearly their entire spell list… but when you look exclusively at their combat useful spells, blindness is much less of a problem. In fact, their most effective combat useful spells don’t even care if the target can see it or not.
Divination: just like Abjuration, you are not a combat focused caster, your roll in combat is focused on your party not the enemy. The only thing an enemy can do that affects you at all is block you from scrying on them.
Transmutation: energy resistance effects you the same as Evocation, and even if something were immune to every energy type on the transmutation list you still have physical damage spells and the vast majority of your spell list is comprised of buffs.
Note: I ignored antimagic in all of the above statements deliberately because it straight shuts down all casters equally.
When a target is highly resistant or immune to mind effecting, an enchantment focused caster is forced to focus on buffs for their allies. They can’t affect enemies anymore.
Now, I understand enchantment spells CAN be devastatingly powerful. But even still, how easy it is to completely shut down the effectiveness of enchantment is crazy…
If you're a GM looking for a good compromise, perhaps remove the blanket mind affecting immunity based on creature type and consider just implementing incapacitation rules.
Now the enemy just needs to be one level higher than you and everything buy a critical failure will protect them.
I don't think histrionics or dread over spellcasters is helpful or enlightening and is easily remedied through experience.
GMs need to run a wizard in a high level high magic campaign. This will give them some experience in both the magic system and how it works (spellcasting). I run into too many who just don't understand spellcasting or take a hostile attitude towards it and unnecessary dread of the behemoth of interactions. They feel their narrative will be overridden by a spellcaster. That's really impossible as a Home GM has a PLETHORA OF TOOLS at his disposal along with being the set that the PC's play upon.
Not to mention the fact that most of the “high power world altering spells” such GMs tend to be scared of are designed to be GM tools rather than player tools… in a players hands many of those spells are actually rarely ever useful.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So basically what is says on the tin...what is Enchanment and its spells wasn't nerfed.
As in what if enemies didnt have such high will saves, mind affecting immunities, or if even the spells were more appropriately scaled, would you choose Enchantment as a Wizard?
No, people would probably play Slumber hex Witches until they get bored and fall asleep themselves...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, people would probably play Slumber hex Witches until they get bored and fall asleep themselves...So basically what is says on the tin...what is Enchanment and its spells wasn't nerfed.
As in what if enemies didnt have such high will saves, mind affecting immunities, or if even the spells were more appropriately scaled, would you choose Enchantment as a Wizard?
Not all, because some people would get bored on easy mode.
But certainly a portion of people would run this kind of character where they completely trivialize an encounter by casting a single spell.
Of course, as Azothat noted a GM can control it to an extent. Don't run single enemy fights (that's just generally good advice, not even specific to the issue of spells removing an enemy from a fight). As a GM, I look to always have at least as many enemies as their are PCs. Generally, I will have run a bunch of mooks to get in the way and take us space that effectively contribute nothing to offensive output but are there to soak action economy and make it difficult to move around and freely do things. It also let's players feel really good when they're easily feeling big groups of enemies, and then they identify the real threats which have a roughly equal number to the PCs.
A lot of spells that remove an enemy from combat do exactly that, remove one enemy not multiple. So if your power budget isn't wrapped up in 1 NPC but several, it's not a big deal that one of them get's removed. You also have a chance that an ally (to the NPC) can do something to help them. Not in all cases, or even many, but sometimes.
But it does mean a lot more work for GMs, especially if you goal was to run a premade adventure because you don't have time to do this level of work in the first place.
The thing to remember is that any changes to the rules affect both the PC’s and their opponents.
So, if enchantments were no longer “nerfed” any class that does not have a good will saves would be absolutely useless. WIS based casters would become a lot more powerful, and probably be the dominant class. Martial classes except the paladin would become a lot less powerful, and in many cases may even become a hindrance.
The game balance would be altered because casters would become more of a target than they already are. In order to survive you will need to neutralize the caster above anything else. That would mean that most martial classes will focus on ranged combat so they can attack the caster even if they are not on the front line. Basically, the game becomes rocket tag even more that it already is.
Boosting the will save would become the top priority over anything else. All resources would be focused on that leaving little for anything else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
tldr: SoD/SoS bad.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm actually playing an Enchanter Wizard in a game right now. Yeah, sometimes your Enchantment spells won't work. So what? You're a Wizard, you can easily prepare a variety of spells while still having Enchantment at your fingertips for when it does work. When Enchantment does work, it does more than just win combats; it can completely change the course of the narrative.
No, people would probably play Slumber hex Witches until they get bored and fall asleep themselves...Not all, because some people would get bored on easy mode.
Either one makes the game worse. Players who want to use "cast a spell and the fight is reliably over" spells would warp campaigns or ruin the game for other players, and players who don't want that couldn't use enchantment spells at all.
If it also effected PCs (and not just monsters via lowered saves and removed immunities), it would also make the game much more rocket tag, and lead to frustation when players can't actually play the game in many combats because they don't have a character to control.
Of course, as Azothat noted a GM can control it to an extent. Don't run single enemy fights (that's just generally good advice, not even specific to the issue of spells removing an enemy from a fight).
That pretty much stops working when Confusion becomes aviable. 9th+ level Clerics could also just shut down entire groups of enemies with Greater Command.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, the best improvement that enchantment could get would actually be to have the weaker “mind affecting” spells loose the mind-affecting tag. This would allow enchantment to be used in far more situations while keeping the stronger options that can instantly end combat locked down to rarer usage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The real problem with enchantment is that there are actually a suprisingly high number of creatures and enemies in APs that are highly resistant to if not flat out immune to mind-affecting effects. Which might I point out is the vast majority of combat useful enchantment spells. No other school of magic has their combat usefulness reduced down to a paltry handful of spells so easily.
{. . .}
Abjuration: you only cast spells on yourself and allies, enemy stats mean nothing to you.
{. . .}
Divination: just like Abjuration, you are not a combat focused caster, your roll in combat is focused on your party not the enemy. The only thing an enemy can do that affects you at all is block you from scrying on them.
Transmutation: energy resistance effects you the same as Evocation, and even if something were immune to every energy type on the transmutation list you still have physical damage spells and the vast majority of your spell list is comprised of buffs.
{. . .}
So an approach to fixing Enchantment that wouldn't make it broken would be to add more self/party-buffing options to it, with enough decent ones at each spell so that you could fill all your Enchantment specialist slots (even if doubled) with these and not regret it, so that even if you were up against enemies totally immune to Enchantment, you could still get good use out of your Specialty spells. Since the Bard spell list already pretty much does this, even though they aren't technically Enchantment specialists, judicious addition of Bard spells to the Wizard spell list would fix this for spell levels 1 - 6 (or even more since some of these spells would really need to be of higher level on a 9/9 caster).
|
A well built enchantment caster is possibly one of the most dangerous characters in the game, save DCs at a level where most things don't stand a chance, a failed save at best removes them from the fight but more often repurposes them to the casters side resulting in a huge swing in power balance, even immunities to mind affecting can be avoided for most things with appropriate sorcerer bloodlines or other options.
Enchantment isn't "nerfed", it's just also not a solo game winner (though it can sure come close).
Now, in second edition maybe it's a stronger argument but for 1e enchantment is very strong.