Okay, this spell has a 60 foot range, but is a 15 foot cone.
Cones have to start from one corner in the same square as the caster, or if they start from another creature or object one corner of their square.
But Vitrifying Blast doesn't state that it starts from another creature or object. Is that just assumed? Or is the AOE (cone) incorrect for this spell? Or is the range incorrect?
The spell seems like just a normal cone spell from the description. so if I had to guess the range is a mistake.
Maybe it's not and it's a cone originating from a point within the range but it'd be nice for the spell to say that more clearly if that was the intent.
Spell description seems to imply it's merely a 15 foot cone, the range entry makes no sense given it doesn't expand on this any further.
That being said, it's pretty uninspiring for a spell of that level. Mass Slow seems more potent by comparison, so maybe if it created a 15 foot cone within 60 feet it would have better parity.
Spell description seems to imply it's merely a 15 foot cone, the range entry makes no sense given it doesn't expand on this any further.
That being said, it's pretty uninspiring for a spell of that level. Mass Slow seems more potent by comparison, so maybe if it created a 15 foot cone within 60 feet it would have better parity.
Being able to force weaknesses is interesting if you have ways to get your party to hit the enemy a bunch. Not very great considering the level but kind of interesting.
Sure, but it's not worth forgoing the enemies being Slowed 1 for the entire fight, which does a lot more in terms of damage mitigation and/or control compared to the weakness, which doesn't work well in any situation (except for maybe overleveled NPC spellcasters).
If they are weaker enemies, the weakness will be minimal for that level to justify using it compared to Slow (because lucky saves means they cease being Slowed), and if they're stronger enemies, they will easily save out of the Slowed effect, which the weakness is expressly tied to. Doubly painful simply because the consecutive saves are Incapacitate, which means the stronger enemies are practically guaranteed to save from them and end the effect within a round.
Even if you get, say, 5 successful hit of the appropriate type in a round, it's only an extra 15 damage, which is basically the average of a 3 action 3rd level Magic Missile, so it's honestly not that potent.
Well, it does say 'cone' twice. Once in the Area entry and once in the RAI sentence.
So... Maybe the Remaster has some rules for casting a cone at range like it does for burst?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, the CRB kinda answers this imo.
Sometimes a spell has an area, which can be a burst, cone, emanation, or line. The method of measuring these areas can be found on page 456. If the spell originates from your position, the spell has only an area; if you can cause the spell’s area to appear farther away from you, the spell has both a range and an area.
Since the spell has both a range and an area, it is reasonable to assume that you can have it project from any square within it's range. Could be nice for shooting around a corner or something I suppose.
And that feels far more in line with a 6th level spell than a standard 15' cone.
Still a very underwhelming spell compared to Slow, which affects 10 creatures in a 30 foot emanation (60 if we use Reach), and doesn't risk friendly fire.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, the CRB kinda answers this imo.
Sometimes a spell has an area, which can be a burst, cone, emanation, or line. The method of measuring these areas can be found on page 456. If the spell originates from your position, the spell has only an area; if you can cause the spell’s area to appear farther away from you, the spell has both a range and an area.
That's a good point.
Also, the rules for Cone do have rules for if you are creating a cone starting from somewhere other than your own character.
We just haven't had a spell with both a cone area and a range before.
Still a very underwhelming spell compared to Slow, which affects 10 creatures in a 30 foot emanation (60 if we use Reach), and doesn't risk friendly fire.
Slow also doesn't do a bunch of damage and add damage weakness to one of the most common types of damage that player characters use.
Still a very underwhelming spell compared to Slow, which affects 10 creatures in a 30 foot emanation (60 if we use Reach), and doesn't risk friendly fire.Slow also doesn't do a bunch of damage and add damage weakness to one of the most common types of damage that player characters use.
If the goal is to do damage, then other spells of the same level are better. At that point Chain Lightning is more effective to cast if we want damage. And it's already acknowledged that the weakness is both underwhelming and fleeting in duration.
And if the idea is we want to inflict a debilitating condition, Slow is better. Even spells that do both debilitations and damage are better than this one. The Venn Diagram for this spell is so counter intuitive it might as well be two separate circles.
The only hypothetical use for this spell is from NPCs with a bunch of minions because they aren't limited by Incapacitate and have the numbers to properly exploit such a weakness to levels that are significant.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And what if the idea is to do all of the above at the same time?
Do you really think that the spell would be balanced well if it did a debuff as good as Slow, damage as good as Chain Lightning, and caused even a fleeting one-round damage buff - all for one spell slot and two action cast time?
This isn't the only spell in Rage of Elements to have both a range and a cone area. See also Elemental Breath, page 222.
Two mistakes, or new paradigm?
Elemental Breath also has a few other things to consider.
One, it is described as coming from your mouth. It may be the RAI line, but it shouldn't just be ignored.
Also, it is a 60 foot cone. A 15 foot cone (like Vitrifying Blast) is smaller than a 10 foot burst. A 60 foot cone is about the same size as a 30 foot burst.
And what if the idea is to do all of the above at the same time?
Do you really think that the spell would be balanced well if it did a debuff as good as Slow, damage as good as Chain Lightning, and caused even a fleeting one-round damage buff - all for one spell slot and two action cast time?
Then you are trying to do too much with that spell slot, and honestly, having a spell do not even half of either effect is still a pretty bad spell.
Point is, putting this spell compared to Slow or Chain Lightning, there is no contest. The spell is bad because it tries to do too much and is nerfed into uselessness to compensate for its limited versatility.
Then you are trying to do too much with that spell slot, and honestly, having a spell do not even half of either effect is still a pretty bad spell.
OK. See, you should lead with that.
Your point is that you don't like hybrid purpose spells. Similar to Phantasmal Killer (damage and frightened), or Rouse Skeletons (damage and difficult terrain).
It is fine to not like those spells. That doesn't mean that they aren't well designed or well balanced.
I actually like Phantasmal Killer because it does decent single-target damage, has good range, and has a good rider effect. The only Incapacitate part of the spell is the instant death, which makes sense.
All it really needs is some scaling corrections (still doing only 5d8 on a success at the endgame is a glaring issue) and it is solid.
Have not used Rouse Skeletons; probably weaker than Phantasmal Killer, but isn't expressly hindered by Incapacitate.
Meanwhile, this spell has reduced range, targets, and damage for Incapacitate Slow condition with minor weakness. Big oof, big pass.
Meanwhile, this spell has reduced range, targets, and damage for Incapacitate Slow condition with minor weakness. Big oof, big pass.Aghm. Guys, this spell is the new Petrify. Or Flesh to Stone. That is why the area is so small (before it was target: one creature), and the range is not a mistake. Comparing to FtS, it isn't at all worse, adds damage.
I actually completely forgot about this spell because it's also pretty bad. I suppose in this case, it's an improvement, but because it's of the same spell level, and has more broad applications, it's basically power creep.
I'd be more inclined to accept this if it was placed at 7th level (or Flesh to Stone was lowered to 5th level), since honestly, this is more of an NPC tactic than a PC tactic due to the Incapacitate restrictions.
Also, even with this revelation, this spell (as well as Flesh to Stone) is still worse than Slow or Chain Lightning separately.
I actually completely forgot about this spell because it's also pretty bad. I suppose in this case, it's an improvement, but because it's of the same spell level, and has more broad applications, it's basically power creep.Can't be a power creep if FtS would be removed from the game. And I'm almost sure it would be: it's from dnd. Also you yourself say it was too weak. Tuning up weak things is not power creep.
Power creep is defined as new options having a superior function to pre-existing options by nature of being superior to them in every way, often a result of pushing new product to the masses to entice them to purchase it.
By this definition, Vitrifying Blast is power creep towards Flesh to Stone for pre-remaster. Saying that Flesh to Stone won't exist in the remaster, so it's not an issue that Vitrifying Blast power creeps it, doesn't really track when I imagine a lot of home games are still going to be using a large amount of pre-remaster rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's kind of a weird definition of power creep, since it means everything is power creep if Paizo happens to publish a single underpowered option somewhere along the line, even if the new options are worse than or on par with the baseline.
... Like you've spent this whole thread trashing on the spell only to deem it power creep I don't see how that's useful terminology.
This isn't the only spell in Rage of Elements to have both a range and a cone area. See also Elemental Breath, page 222.
Two mistakes, or new paradigm?
If it's worth anything, Elemental Breath got ruled in PFS:
Remove the range from the elemental breath spell (page 222). The cone is created from the user’s square.
Nothing for Vitrifying Blast though.
That's kind of a weird definition of power creep, since it means everything is power creep if Paizo happens to publish a single underpowered option somewhere along the line, even if the new options are worse than or on par with the baseline.
... Like you've spent this whole thread trashing on the spell only to deem it power creep I don't see how that's useful terminology.
The definition is for comparable options in particular. It's not power creep if Slow or Chain Lightning are the comparison (which is wrong to compare), but for Flesh to Stone, it is.
It's still terrible, but power creep is power creep. It is better than comparable options.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, the better definition for Power Creep is for the top end of the power curve. Adding new options that are better than anything else available.
The reason that this is a better use for the derogatory term is because of its effect on the balance of the game as a whole. By adding Power Creep, the difficulty setpoint of the adventures also increases to match. Which means that options that existed previously are no longer viable - they won't hold up to the new, raised difficulty setpoint.
An option that is below the power ceiling is not Power Creep because it doesn't have that effect on the difficulty setpoint.
No, the better definition for Power Creep is for the top end of the power curve. Adding new options that are better than anything else available.
The reason that this is a better use for the derogatory term is because of its effect on the balance of the game as a whole. By adding Power Creep, the difficulty setpoint of the adventures also increases to match. Which means that options that existed previously are no longer viable - they won't hold up to the new, raised difficulty setpoint.
An option that is below the power ceiling is not Power Creep because it doesn't have that effect on the difficulty setpoint.
Just because it's the most common use of power creep (on the optimized end) doesn't make this not power creep. Before this spell came into existence, the only effect which included a scaling Incapacitate Slowed effect was Flesh to Stone. Now that this option exists, Flesh to Stone is obsolete as a mechanic.
If players were using Flesh to Stone on a regular basis, and then this spell gets published, being the same effect, but more, with no increase in spell level, it is indeed a form of power creep, even if most players prefer to use Slow instead (because having enemies turn to stone is an unrealistic gameplay expectation thanks to Incapacitate).
Setting aside the debate about whether or not improving a weak option counts as power creep, I'd like to object to the idea that Vitrifying Blast completely obsoletes Flesh to Stone. 1) Flesh to Stone has twice the range which is at least some compensation for the lack of AoE; 2) Flesh to Stone targets Fortitude while Vitrifying Blast targets Reflex; 3) Flesh to Stone ends in permanent petrification as soon as a high enough Slowed value is reached (3 in the vast majority of cases), whereas Vitrifying Blast caps at Slowed 3 and keeps allowing saves every turn until the Slowed value reaches 0, at which point the effect ends, 4) Flesh to Stone still inflicts Slow on a successful save, whereas Vitrifying Blast instead inflicts damage and damage weakness.
Different range, different saves, different success states, and different ultimate fail states, ergo different use cases.
Setting aside the debate about whether or not improving a weak option counts as power creep, I'd like to object to the idea that Vitrifying Blast completely obsoletes Flesh to Stone. 1) Flesh to Stone has twice the range which is at least some compensation for the lack of AoE; 2) Flesh to Stone targets Fortitude while Vitrifying Blast targets Reflex; 3) Flesh to Stone ends in permanent petrification as soon as a high enough Slowed value is reached (3 in the vast majority of cases), whereas Vitrifying Blast caps at Slowed 3 and keeps allowing saves every turn until the Slowed value reaches 0, at which point the effect ends, 4) Flesh to Stone still inflicts Slow on a successful save, whereas Vitrifying Blast instead inflicts damage and damage weakness.
Different range, different saves, different success states, and different ultimate fail states, ergo different use cases.
Things being different doesn't constitute that it's not power creep, especially when those differences are precisely what denotes it as power creep.
1. People usually aren't casting Flesh to Stone from 120 feet away every time, much less doing so with relative success, and that is if they are casting it at all. Odds are, they were casting from somewhere in the 30-60 foot range, which this spell covers. That's also not including the spell effect extending past the 60 foot range marker, which puts it even more in its favor (unless the range also means it can't extend past that point, in which case it's at-best a 45 foot range spell; talk about false advertising, in this case, but I'll save this sort of argument for a different thread).
2. Targeting Fortitude Saves is almost universally a worse thing to target compared to Reflex or Will. The amount of enemies with bad Fortitude saves while having better Reflex or Will saves is laughably bad. This might be different in regards to PCs, but that's not the part we're comparing. Point in favor of power creep here.
3. This is an edge-case scenario, it is like saying Phantasmal Killer is better/different than Phantasmal Calamity because it has a very, very slim chance of auto-killing lower level enemies. The thing that makes it different is that it's a single target damage effect with a Frightened condition rider, which Phantasmal Calamity does not implement. And honestly, enemies that fail the first save are likely to succeed on consecutive saves unless you get really bad rolls or are facing level-2 enemies (in which case just let the martials mop them up and spend your spell slots on other things). The fact that you can now do this for multiple enemies, combined with dealing damage on top of it, is a sign of power creep.
Just as well, Incapacitate tag basically means "NPC tool," because a PC using it for higher level enemies is futile, against equal level enemies is a wash (in which case the spell you cast doesn't matter, so why limit yourself with Incapacitate effects against the higher level enemies), and using it for lower level enemies is a waste of spell slots (when you can use other better spells, or just let the martials mop it up; it's what they're there for). But given that this is a significant comparison between the two, taking out the edge-case scenario won't change much in the grand scheme of things.
4. I find this to be a consequence of the spell providing multiple functions beyond the obvious comparison, and not a case of "This spell is an entirely different effect that just so happens to include XYZ as a rider," so listing it as a significant difference doesn't track. By that logic, Flesh to Stone and Slow are the same effect, yet they are not, even if both provide the Slowed condition, because they have actual significant differences, such as heightening for multiple targets, lacking Incapacitate, and having constant effects versus varying effects/duration(s). The differences presented for these two spells are far more insignificant or are in favor of power creep more than it is not in favor, in which case listing it as a difference doesn't really matter.
Maybe Flesh to Stone could use the power creep, it's a pretty terrible GM-only spell as it is. But saying it's not power creep isn't exactly an accurate take either.
@Darksol the Painbringer, I wasn't making any statement about whether or not the differences were power creep. Rather, I'm saying the differences are significant enough that both spells could meaningfully coexist.
On the topic of power creep, do you think power creep is inherently bad?
@Darksol the Painbringer, I wasn't making any statement about whether or not the differences were power creep. Rather, I'm saying the differences are significant enough that both spells could meaningfully coexist.
On the topic of power creep, do you think power creep is inherently bad?
Power Creep has inherent issues of invalidating previously viable options. From a balance standpoint, this is really only felt on the optimized end of things, because it changes the "meta," but one issue that isn't discussed or regarded as much is invalidating content altogether. Flesh to Stone is already a pretty bad spell, so while it's not imbalanced to publish this spell, it invalidates Flesh to Stone existing even more, pushing it into the "Why bother" territory, which ultimately wastes valuable textbook space for other, better options that offer more parity, which is what I have a problem with.
|
Power Creep has inherent issues of invalidating previously viable options. From a balance standpoint, this is really only felt on the optimized end of things, because it changes the "meta," but one issue that isn't discussed or regarded as much is invalidating content altogether. Flesh to Stone is already a pretty bad spell, so while it's not imbalanced to publish this spell, it invalidates Flesh to Stone existing even more, pushing it into the "Why bother" territory, which ultimately wastes valuable textbook space for other, better options that offer more parity, which is what I have a problem with.@Darksol the Painbringer, I wasn't making any statement about whether or not the differences were power creep. Rather, I'm saying the differences are significant enough that both spells could meaningfully coexist.
On the topic of power creep, do you think power creep is inherently bad?
Legitimate question - if they were able to continue using the name Flesh to Stone here and printed this new version as errata, would it be power creep? Similarly, will the new witch be power creep because it's more powerful than the APG witch? I feel like it's not taking any textbook space from other options if it's a replacement for that option, and the only reason it isn't using the same name is because they no longer can use the original name without legal issues.
Legitimate question - if they were able to continue using the name Flesh to Stone here and printed this new version as errata, would it be power creep? Similarly, will the new witch be power creep because it's more powerful than the APG witch? I feel like it's not taking any textbook space from other options if it's a replacement for that option, and the only reason it isn't using the same name is because they no longer can use the original name without legal issues.Power Creep has inherent issues of invalidating previously viable options. From a balance standpoint, this is really only felt on the optimized end of things, because it changes the "meta," but one issue that isn't discussed or regarded as much is invalidating content altogether. Flesh to Stone is already a pretty bad spell, so while it's not imbalanced to publish this spell, it invalidates Flesh to Stone existing even more, pushing it into the "Why bother" territory, which ultimately wastes valuable textbook space for other, better options that offer more parity, which is what I have a problem with.@Darksol the Painbringer, I wasn't making any statement about whether or not the differences were power creep. Rather, I'm saying the differences are significant enough that both spells could meaningfully coexist.
On the topic of power creep, do you think power creep is inherently bad?
If they ultimately reprinted Flesh to Stone to function in this manner in the Remaster instead of making this its own unique spell separate from what we have, then no, it's not power creep in either sense. From a balance standpoint, spells like Slow and Chain Lightning are going to be superior to it, meaning it doesn't break the power ceiling, as well as it not competing with similar effects. And from a content standpoint, it's still fulfilling the same niche it did before, it's just doing so more competently by adding damage and affecting more targets, meaning it's not invalidating previously published content (as far as the Remastered is concerned with, anyway).
The same goes for remastered Witch; it's not power creep in the sense that it's breaking the power ceiling, and it's not power creep in the sense that it's competing with similar options, because short of Familiar Master Wizard (or the Familiar Master archetype), it's not exactly competing with much, and honestly, both of those things in general need a boost, not unlike Witch who still needs a boost IMO.
Now, this is really only pertinent if you're sticking to OGL or ORC, but if you mix and match them, then this is a common problem among many things (not just these two spells), where either the ORC content is subpar, or the OGL content is subpar, but it's clear that XYZ for either is supposed to fulfill niche 123 for the game. But I suspect this impact is significantly lessened if you're either team OGL or team ORC.
Power Creep has inherent issues of invalidating previously viable options.
... But part of your thesis is that both the new option and the thing it's power creeping aren't worth using in the first place.
... But part of your thesis is that both the new option and the thing it's power creeping aren't worth using in the first place.
Power Creep has inherent issues of invalidating previously viable options.
That's irrelevant to the discussion of power creep. I might not personally like these spells because I find Incapacitate to be more of a GM/NPC tool than a player/PC tool, but that doesn't mean it's not power creep in the sense that one is obviously superior to the other in most every notable fashion, so it invalidates that other option, which is ultimately my point behind saying it's power creep.
Power creep is obviously most noticed on the optimized end of things, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist in non-optimized situations either.
|
|
If they ultimately reprinted Flesh to Stone to function in this manner in the Remaster instead of making this its own unique spell separate from what we have, then no, it's not power creep in either sense. From a balance standpoint, spells like Slow and Chain Lightning are going to be superior to it, meaning it doesn't break the power ceiling, as well as it not competing with similar effects. And from a content standpoint, it's still fulfilling the same niche it did before, it's just doing so more competently by adding damage and affecting more targets, meaning...Legitimate question - if they were able to continue using the name Flesh to Stone here and printed this new version as errata, would it be power creep? Similarly, will the new witch be power creep because it's more powerful than the APG witch? I feel like it's not taking any textbook space from other options if it's a replacement for that option, and the only reason it isn't using the same name is because they no longer can use the original name without legal issues.Power Creep has inherent issues of invalidating previously viable options. From a balance standpoint, this is really only felt on the optimized end of things, because it changes the "meta," but one issue that isn't discussed or regarded as much is invalidating content altogether. Flesh to Stone is already a pretty bad spell, so while it's not imbalanced to publish this spell, it invalidates Flesh to Stone existing even more, pushing it into the "Why bother" territory, which ultimately wastes valuable textbook space for other, better options that offer more parity, which is what I have a problem with.@Darksol the Painbringer, I wasn't making any statement about whether or not the differences were power creep. Rather, I'm saying the differences are significant enough that both spells could meaningfully coexist.
On the topic of power creep, do you think power creep is inherently bad?
If the Remastered witch doesn't count as power creep because it has the same name, but this does because it has a different name, then I can't fully get behind that definition of power creep. I understand it may cause some confusion if people don't realise it's connected - I'm not sure if Paizo is allowed to come out with a list of spells they changed in this way, that might be legally dubious, but if they can, it seems a pretty simple solution to the problem at hand. If they can't, it's marginally more likely to confuse people who use online tools, but I don't think that's a sufficient reason to call something power creep.
I've had players come in using older versions of published material because they didn't use online tools before - but I don't think it's fair to say that the buffed option they had available to them was now power creep because they didn't realise an errata existed. Hopefully Paizo can make it clear to people which options are errata for existing mechanical choices :)
If the Remastered witch doesn't count as power creep because it has the same name, but this does because it has a different name, then I can't fully get behind that definition of power creep.
I can't get behind a definition of Power Creep that effectively boils down to "nothing new can ever be created unless it is strictly less powerful than everything else that has ever existed".
If the Remastered witch doesn't count as power creep because it has the same name, but this does because it has a different name, then I can't fully get behind that definition of power creep. I understand it may cause some confusion if people don't realise it's connected - I'm not sure if Paizo is allowed to come out with a list of spells they changed in this way, that might be legally dubious, but if they can, it seems a pretty simple solution to the problem at hand. If they can't, it's marginally more likely to confuse people who use online tools, but I don't think that's a sufficient reason to call something power creep.
I've had players come in using older versions of published material because they didn't use online tools before - but I don't think it's fair to say that the buffed option they had available to them was now power creep because they didn't realise an errata existed. Hopefully Paizo can make it clear to people which options are errata for existing mechanical choices :)
Updating an option is not the same as making a completely new option that is a separate thing from the previous option and outright invalidating everything about it. The latter is power creep. The former is not. Guess which one of these the Witch falls under. (And no, it can't be both, these are mutually exclusive.)
The Witch in the Remaster and the Witch in the OGL are essentially the same character/option, just a different version of the same thing, not unlike the Alchemist that got all of its errata over the years, or players using different versions of the Playtest back when the Core was in development. Power creep requires two separate options to compare against and notice that they are both intended to accomplish the same function, but one is notably better than the other in every way. These are not regarded as separate options, so it fundamentally fails at a key component of power creep.
If it turns out Vitrifying Blast is the new Flesh to Stone in the remaster, then all of this speculation is meaningless, in which case I'm glad they're giving it a buff, though I think it's still a little weak for what it does. A devastating NPC tool, though, since PCs won't get the save degree boost for it.
I can't get behind a definition of Power Creep that effectively boils down to "nothing new can ever be created unless it is strictly less powerful than everything else that has ever existed".
It's not that definition, even though you might seem to think it is. And I get it.
But, if you've noticed how the APG, SoM, DA, and RoE classes have been published, they are usually on-par with or weaker than any potential Core counterparts, as well as the lack of published "broke" options in the game (i.e. stuff that breaks math, expected abilities at expected levels, etc). The most notable dip from expectation is from the APG, where you have classes that have more bloated mechanics to them to put them slightly or significantly under Core expectations. So really, based on this publishing pattern, this system has gone out of its way to actively tried to avoid power creep at all costs ever since the APG onward (it does resurface one way or another eventually, but often it's hidden or contrived at this point, and GMs are probably aware of them before the players are, meaning it can be kiboshed before it hits the table), only very steadily bringing things back to Core expectations (or slightly above, in the case of Kineticist, though this falls more under "new" options that actually perform in certain areas, instead of "this is standard martial gameplay with extra steps and moar numbers") with each new release.
It's not like you have one group of Ancestries unlocking flight at 13th and another singular one at 9th/5th, for example, which is obvious and blatant power creep, but implementing new spells that outstretch the effects of other similar spells of the same level is a problem of the same vein, as there now becomes even less of a reason for the original spell to be prepared/learned and cast. The factor that there are specific balance points in this system that the game assumes to be there (and not overblown or underblown) is a feature of the system actively avoiding power creep taking place to maintain balance and prevent system shutdown, not a bug, meaning that yes, one of the side-effects of treating power creep is a reduction of basic solutions (aka numbers padding) and a reliance on more creative ones (aka Kineticist, Psychic, and Thaumaturge), which Paizo has demonstrated to be getting better at with each release.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not that definition, even though you might seem to think it is. And I get it.
That is the impression that I am getting from you in comments like this:
Just because it's the most common use of power creep (on the optimized end) doesn't make this not power creep. Before this spell came into existence, the only effect which included a scaling Incapacitate Slowed effect was Flesh to Stone. Now that this option exists, Flesh to Stone is obsolete as a mechanic.
because that seems to be saying that even at the low end of the power curve, if anything exists that is more useful than a similar option then it is bad and shouldn't have been created.
So it feels like you are saying that the classes in Secrets of Magic needed to be less powerful than anything in the CRB and that the classes in Guns & Gears needed to be weaker still. Then Dark Archive needs to be even weaker than anything printed thus far. Because a Psychic is similar to an Oracle and we wouldn't want the Oracle to become obsolete.
if anything exists that is more useful than a similar option then it is bad and shouldn't have been created.
I couldn't have said it any better myself. Wasting printing space on obsolete options (aka trap options), or creating options that will obsolete existing options, isn't exactly good design. It's the same design behind card games like MTG and Pokemon, or with roster-building/pay-to-win games; literally just publish new cards/characters that invalidate old cards/characters all the time, with maybe a couple unique cards/characters that jack up trading value to ridiculous amounts to generate flak for people to invest in your game. Good thing Paizo doesn't resort to such scummy tactics to make a business. They stick to blue collar work, and don't cheese things with white collar schemes (for the most part, anyway).
Saying Paizo should make bad design choices like the above (even if it makes sense from a business standpoint) isn't really a helpful argument to make in favor of this spell existing in the first place, assuming it's meant to (or at least be able to) operate in the same space as pre-remastered content, because Paizo published this game to not follow the same apparent rules as the ones described above.
That being said, classes are far less likely to suffer power creep by way of niche protection. That is, each class excels at certain things that other similar classes do not. Either by way of better feats, better features, focus spells, proficiencies, etc. With there being numerous facets to a class (compared to a spell, which can easily be singularly faceted), the odds of classes being subject to power creep are relatively small, meaning this isn't exactly a fair comparison to make compared to a spell being invalidated.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
if anything exists that is more useful than a similar option then it is bad and shouldn't have been created.I couldn't have said it any better myself. Wasting printing space on obsolete options (aka trap options), or creating options that will obsolete existing options, isn't exactly good design.
Well, have fun playing with core rules only. I guess.
Some of us like having new fun things.
It's the same design behind card games like MTG and Pokemon, or with roster-building/pay-to-win games; literally just publish new cards/characters that invalidate old cards/characters all the time, with maybe a couple unique cards/characters that jack up trading value to ridiculous amounts to generate flak for people to invest in your game.
No, that is the high-end power creep. Very much different than adding new options that are below the top end power.
Note that I avoid using the term 'power creep' for that process of adding new options. The term 'power creep' has a lot of emotional baggage around it. Mostly because of games like MTG. So calling a new spell 'power creep' simply because it is similar to an already existing spell is going to cause a lot of bad reactions that you may not actually be intending.
Make sure to make a clear distinction between high end 'power creep' and low/mid tier option adds.
And to be clear, Vitrifying Blast is an option add. Even if it is not a replacement for Flesh to Stone, the two spells have different effects.
Vitrifying Blast does damage and causes a damage weakness. Those are the only effects that it has on a successful save. It can never cause permanent petrification.
Flesh to Stone only does the slowing/petrifying effect, not damage. It does slowed 1 for one round on a successful save. It can permanently petrify the target.
Isn't it weird to have a problem with Power Creep in a (generally) non-competitive game where the one running the game has the right to veto any content they wish, or modify it at their will?
Like, sure, it feels bad that a spell could be "replaced" by a spell that fills it's niche in a better way. But at the same time, if we never got spells or abilities that stretch what is possible in the game, then we will always have the same exact experience, just with a variety of flavors. No ability to play a hyper powerful Rare class or ancestry that comes out of the box with extra features. Or the ability to play a low-tech game set in the Stone age.
Maybe if it became a problem in PFS I could see complaining. But with PFS' structured nature, that is only a problem until they ban the offending content. Or restrict it.
In the hobby at large? What is the point of complaining? If a crazy imbalanced book comes out that shakes the foundation of your groups play experience, and you don't like it? Don't play with it.
if anything exists that is more useful than a similar option then it is bad and shouldn't have been created.I couldn't have said it any better myself. Wasting printing space on obsolete options (aka trap options), or creating options that will obsolete existing options, isn't exactly good design.Well, have fun playing with core rules only. I guess.
Some of us like having new fun things.
It's the same design behind card games like MTG and Pokemon, or with roster-building/pay-to-win games; literally just publish new cards/characters that invalidate old cards/characters all the time, with maybe a couple unique cards/characters that jack up trading value to ridiculous amounts to generate flak for people to invest in your game.No, that is the high-end power creep. Very much different than adding new options that are below the top end power.
Note that I avoid using the term 'power creep' for that process of adding new options. The term 'power creep' has a lot of emotional baggage around it. Mostly because of games like MTG. So calling a new spell 'power creep' simply because it is similar to an already existing spell is going to cause a lot of bad reactions that you may not actually be intending.
Make sure to make a clear distinction between high end 'power creep' and low/mid tier option adds.
And to be clear, Vitrifying Blast is an option add. Even if it is not a replacement for Flesh to Stone, the two spells have different effects.
Vitrifying Blast does damage and causes a damage weakness. Those are the only effects that it has on a successful save. It can never cause permanent petrification.
Flesh to Stone only does the slowing/petrifying effect, not damage. It does slowed 1 for one round on a successful save. It can permanently petrify the target.
This is acting like the only options to print are options that obsolete existing ones, which is hardly the case, as Paizo disproves it with each new release. Of course, the alternative of "Why bother" options aren't much better, as evidenced by the APG, but I'd say from SoM onward, they've figured out how to balance/design their classes/spells a bit better (whether that will show in the Remaster or not remains to be seen).
Adding new options that just so happen to invalidate other existing options, is power creep. That's literally how power creep works. "Oh, you have this +1 card? Cool, I just purchased their new theme pack, and it has this new +2 card, it's just like the one you got, but better!" Same concept here. "Oh, you have Flesh to Stone? Cool, I just bought the new book, and it has this new Vitrifying Blast spell! It's just like the spell you got, but it does damage and forces a weakness too!" Just because it doesn't change the top-end doesn't mean it's not power creep.
Just because it can't cause permanent petrification doesn't mean it's not fundamentally the same thing, since in-play, you won't really notice the difference in a combat setting. And honestly, if the spell's main purpose is to inflict damage from a ranged cone and apply a weakness, why even inhibit the spell power's budget with some garbage irrelevant mechanic that is a core identity to another spell and risk power creep in the first place? Just bump up the base effects, inflict Slowed 1 for 1 round on a critical failure, and be done with it. I mean, it's basically already how it works in actual play 95% of the time.
These arguments are getting circular, though, so until we get confirmation of Flesh to Stone's status in the remaster, there isn't going to be much left to change my opinion on things.
power creep
Power creep is a general tendency where new options are better than old options. Having one option being better than another one doesn't qualify as power creep. It's actually expected, when you release a bunch of options some will be strong some will be weak and you can't avoid comparisons.
Also, spells are not strongly defining characters. If a bunch of new spells are better than older ones, casters just have to learn them. So even if there was a general tendency for spells to get better, there won't really be a feeling of power creep. On the other hand, classes are strongly defining characters. If a bunch of new classes are better than older ones, the feeling of power creep will be immediate.And to finish, spells are also story elements. Sometimes, players will use a weak spell because it defines their character more than the more efficient spell. Similarly, the GM can choose to use Flesh to Stone because they wrote a story about petrification. That's why a lot of spells are pure garbage if you look at them from a mechanical point of view, because their role is to expand stories and possibilities not to kill enemies faster.
As of now, there's no real power creep in PF2. There's a general improvement of efficiency because more options means more power (choice is power) and because Paizo regularly rebalances weak options. But there's no feeling of power creep as old options are perfectly competitive with new options.
This is acting like the only options to print are options that obsolete existing ones
Well normally no, but when your definition of power creep becomes so uselessly broad that something can be both unusably bad and game wrecking power creep, then this kind of happens just by default.