| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 14 Aug 2019 : 13:54:31
So, I had gone to gen con last year. I bought the playtest packet for PF 2e, and I had glanced through it. I didn't play it. My first thoughts were that they didn't get the concept of reducing the power level gap between 1st and 20th level, but again, that's without even playing it. That being said, I also feel that 5e went too far to the other end of the spectrum in trying to reduce complexity and lower that gap, such that they lost a lot of depth.
So, that being said, I see that they just released the final version of Pathfinder 2nd edition about 2 weeks back. I'm reading someone's article about the new edition (sounds like a person who never played 2nd edition or earlier, and he knows little about the realms), but it makes me interested in at least looking at the ruleset. It seems they may have gotten to some of the issues I saw at the upper levels in 3.5e and PF with infinitely rising numbers (such that everything becomes either infinitely easy or unachievable no matter what). I just ordered the core rulebook, bestiary, and their world guide on amazon. Oh, and here's the link to the review I was reading
https://www.enworld.org/threads/complexity-vs-depth-a-look-inside-pathfinder-2nd-edition.666521/
So, has anyone else actually gotten it already, and what's your view on the rules themselves. I don't care about view on Golarion versus FR, just rules. Bloat? Hard to Follow? Turns level 20 characters into untouchables? Lots of useful options/feats or just options that feel too small and just become infinite small bonuses to add up?
BTW, some of the things I noted that caught my eye was things like instead of race there's now ancestry... and things like half-elves nd half orcs are just an ancestry choice for humans. That's an interesting change in my view that I want to read. I'm also noting that the "magic item" section is called "crafting and treasure", so it goes back to something that I felt I liked from 3e and that was developing crafting of magic and things such that it becomes something that you actually learn to develop or not for your character.
In all, I'm hopeful, but I'm also not holding my breath... but I also think this makes me want to consider again the idea that making anything for the realms should be rules agnostic as much as I can (while at the same time, some products will HAVE to incorporate rulesets to develop new versions of things like... for instance witches of Rashemen in PF 2e, etc....). |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 23 Aug 2019 : 21:37:30
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Yea, Legendary Resistance are there specifically so Wizards and other casters can't go 'Nova' on them and completely neuter the encounter. You throw some soft "buffer" spells first in hopes they use it on those ones then pack a bigger punch later. It's strategic to say the least. It also allows other characters to shine who have to churn through the Monster's Hit Points to seem effective.
As for Forcecage, you can't dispel it, lol. It's pretty fool proof except by those who make their save when they attempt to Teleport out and even then, it's not a guarantee. But with it costing 1,500 gp per Pop, it should be difficult to get around. But Wizards are supposed to be squishy! That's why you have Fighters and Paladins, to be in the way of missiles and attacks that target the wizard. Really, monster attacks are so low across the board in 5E that even a +3 bump (a la Mage Armor is a significant improvement), not to mention the 8-hour duration.
For your feat, the battlemage, know that the Warcaster feat already removes the Somatic component from spells cast.
Ah, true, so I don't need to add that statement about somatic in 5e (which came from the Raumathari Battlemage prestige class as an option). |
| Diffan |
Posted - 23 Aug 2019 : 21:03:40
Yea, Legendary Resistance are there specifically so Wizards and other casters can't go 'Nova' on them and completely neuter the encounter. You throw some soft "buffer" spells first in hopes they use it on those ones then pack a bigger punch later. It's strategic to say the least. It also allows other characters to shine who have to churn through the Monster's Hit Points to seem effective.
As for Forcecage, you can't dispel it, lol. It's pretty fool proof except by those who make their save when they attempt to Teleport out and even then, it's not a guarantee. But with it costing 1,500 gp per Pop, it should be difficult to get around. But Wizards are supposed to be squishy! That's why you have Fighters and Paladins, to be in the way of missiles and attacks that target the wizard. Really, monster attacks are so low across the board in 5E that even a +3 bump (a la Mage Armor is a significant improvement), not to mention the 8-hour duration.
For your feat, the battlemage, know that the Warcaster feat already removes the Somatic component from spells cast. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 22 Aug 2019 : 16:07:56
Sorry, on the magic immunity, I pretty much meant "you can't affect them with magic because either they're immune to the energy types you have memorized OR they have magic resistance which gives them a second save versus save or be affected stuff". So, beings that wizards would fight like extraplanar entities can ignore spellcasters a lot. Rakshasas can OWN spellcaster since they're immune to any spell under 6th level Then there are creatures with the ability to simply ignore a spell that they failed the save on.
On the why not being able to hold up a defensive spell and an offensive field sucks (for concentration purposes)… it quite simply makes it something that severely hampers a wizard's ability to even put up basic protections (because let's face it... they're not wearing armor... they can't fly away... etc... That being said, your mentioning of forcecage reminds me of old tactics I used to do, but with multiple spells having to be combined (specifically wall of force in a dome, proof from teleportation, and some field effect like cloudkill or I think it was called firestorm, etc...). In 5e, if you had a damaging field affect already placed in said area and then placed a forcecage there, it would be pretty dangerous (one would have to adjudicate the concept of whether pre-existing spells in said area are dispelled when the forcecage forms if they're created by someone outside of the forcecage).
On the theurge, they can actually get higher level spells that you picture in 3.5e. Remember most races had a class that they could ignore when it came to multi-classing (and humans could PICK which class that was). So, if someone when say wiz7/cler3/MT10 they'd get 9th level wizard spells and I think 7th lvl cleric spells. Only mentioning because I agree, they could get nasty in earlier editions simply because of how many spells they had available. Granted, without help, they were still limited by how many they could enact at a time. Pre-3e, this is why red wizards basically were an amazing power source, because ALL of them that were upper level casters (say 17th and up) would have had the spell slots of a 30th level spellcaster due to the circle spell and how it was written for 2e. More than any other caster they would have had the spells ready for almost any encounter.
I actually created some feats for 5e that allowed for theurging and for improving the abilities of people like eldritch knights in my "complete red book of spell strategy" on DMs Guild. I have not playtested them all, but I think it gives viability without destroying power, especially since in 5e feats are a rare commodity. Since we're discussing these kinds of ideas, I'll post the option I created for eldritch knights (which to note, is going to require another feat prior AND several levels in fighter AND wizard)
Raumathari Battlemage
Prerequisites - warcaster feat, at least three levels in fighter class with the eldritch knight archetype class chosen, at least two levels in wizard with the arcane tradition of either School of Abjuration or School of Evocation or War Magic (see Xanathar's Guide to Everything for information on War Magic)
The spellcasters of ancient Raumathar learned to blend their knowledge of sword and battlefield magics, and as a result, many stories of the ancient Raumathari Battlemages have spread throughout Faerun and the Hordelands. Some say that they uncovered these secrets from fey benefactors who wanted to see the foul scourge of Narfell fall. Some say these secrets were a present from the powerful primordial lord, Kossuth, in exchange for some service. Others say they uncovered this lore beneath the Priador in old Sarrukh caverns. Meanwhile, others say that the Raumathari simply developed this style on their own. The truth probably lies somewhere in between all of these.
The character retains all cantrips known from both the wizard and fighter (eldritch knight archetype) classes. However, all spells known as an eldritch knight are lost. In replacement, the "spells known and prepared" and "spell slots" for the character are treated as if the character were a wizard of a level equal to the character's class level in wizard + 1 + 1/2 <the character's class level in fighter (eldritch knight archetype) (rounded down)>. For example, a character with 6 levels of wizard and 7 levels of fighter (eldritch knight archetype) would have spells prepared and spell slots available as if he were a 10th level wizard (6 + 1 +3). If the character were to multiclass with any other spellcasting class, he would still prepare spells as a 9th lvl wizard, but his spell slots would be adjusted as though he were a 9th lvl wizard multiclassing with another class.
In addition, the character's weapons to which he is bonded can act as his arcane focus when casting spells. Also, once per day per six character levels, using his weapons as a focus the character may cast a spell without having to use either the verbal or somatic spell component.
|
| Diffan |
Posted - 21 Aug 2019 : 18:45:22
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Hey, hope you don't mind, but I kinda want to voice some views of mine on 5e with spellcasters. They may be colored by the fact that honestly I haven't studied 5e as much as I did 3.5 and earlier, but its things I've noticed. I also don't think a lot of newer DM's fully adjudicated all of the rules and don't realize the repercussions of a lot of the new things that are in to crimp the spellcaster's power. The problem as I see it with 5e now is that there's only a handful of paths that I really see that are effective for most casters, whereas melee artists have different options. In fact, multi-classing for melee folk doesn't even suck too bad like it does for spellcasters. Granted, I'm looking at things from the standpoints I've played in 5e (which have been all 12th level and under), but at present it looks like their power levels actually aren't that god-like at the upper levels, and at the lower levels their options are pretty much "fireball" tactics. Granted, you can do some other things, but most people that want to play a spellcaster are doing it to try and be creative, and this just sucks that whole thing out of it.
I've never played a full spellcaster in 5th Edition. My only venture is a current 4th level Moon elf Fighter (Eldritch Knight) and I think I get a few 1st level spells and I have 3 cantrips (Green-flame Blade, Minor Illusion, and Sword Burst) that are all going to go up in power at level 5. Is it the best build ever? Not really, apparently it doesn't get good til about level 7 when I can use a cantrip AND use the Attack action in the same turn. That's when cantrips like True Strike and Bladeward become really good options. But still, I feel on-par with some of the other casters in the game.
The thing is, in 5E they toned ALL the power across the board down. It was pretty much the reverse decision from 4th Edition. Because 3E borked everything power-wise, no one really had a good idea of what parity was past 7th level or so. 4E said OK, casters can shape reality and break games with a casting of a spell while Fighters can basically do some additional damage and that needs to change, so they build up the martial classes more and downgraded the casters more and fit them all into the same per-day Box.
In game-play, this works really well. As a high-level Fighter in 4E I can really contribute to combat and be a protection for my other players. Monsters don't want to mess too much with me but I force them. On the flip side, as a Wizard I can still have memorable and impacting spells that really effect how the outcome of the encounter goes (or I can use Rituals when we're not in combat to help the party) but neither of those two things make someone else obsolete.
Unfortunately, people didn't like that. The old-school thought of the Bell-Curve power (fighters early are great and wizards suck to Fighters suck and Wizards are great at the end) that should be prevalent in D&D. So what was 5th Edition to do? How do you both have good parity through most of the character's career AND yet still make Wizards feel great at later levels?
What they did was compromise - wizards can feel pretty cool about spells later in their career BUT you're not going to own the show the entire day so they decreased the number of slots you have. They balanced this with Cantrips going up in power, Arcane Recovery, and giving caters more versatility than they've ever seen in D&D by making you spend slots instead of prepared spells and allowing you to use higher level slots for greater effects for free.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Basically, with things like concentration as is, someone can either have a defensive spell up OR maintain some kind of field effect, but not both. You can't for instance have up something like stoneskin and also have a cloudkill affecting the enemy. You are also hamstrung in the use of high level spells at the upper levels for any kind of significant dungeon crawl, because you have so few. In a single combat scenario, yes the spellcaster can release it all, but when they may have to hold that spell just in case they need to teleport the group out after the next room down, or they may need to keep some spell just in case they need to remove some magical schtick.
Why are those bad limitations though? You also get Arcane Recovery, allowing a wizard to replace a number of spell-slots a day which allows for more casting. Also many spells have the Ritual tag, meaning you can cast that without using a Spell Slot. The thing is with Concentration, it's purely so Casters can't literally over power encounters.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
In short, I definitely agree that in previous editions... spellcasters were gods. In 2nd edition, definitely. In 3.5, at the upper levels they were pretty dangerous. I can't say for 4e. But, 5e..... I feel they got a little nerfed... while at the same time some spells have been overpowered (clone jumps to the top of that list). They've had their number of spells nerfed.
In 3.5 casters overshadowed everything after 7th level. There literally no need for Rogues, Fighter, Monks, Paladins, or Rangers if the campaign exceeded past that level. Why? Because a Fighter/Cleric or just Cleric could do everything the Paladin could do - but better. Same with the Druid and his animal companion. The Cleric can get a wand of Find Traps, making one of the Rogue's biggest schticks meaningless. Wizards can cast Knock or find a wand of Knock (again, making Rogues meaningless).
I think the reason 5E is designed that way is because of how abused pre-4E did magic and classes and they didn't want to repeat those mistakes. Clone, while being pretty awesome, still requires 3,000 gp in costs, specialized containers or a location that can't be disturbed, and a lot of other odd-and-ends that need to be met for it to be good. I think the costs justify the power of the spell. I mean look at Forcecage. It blocks all non-magical travel, period. If you teleport you still have to make a save, which can fail. You can't etheral step out of it either because it extends to that plane too. But it cots 1,500 gp worth of ruby dust to cast so it's actually pretty good.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
They can't multiclass worth a damn.
See, here's where I think you're wrong. Lets look at 3.5 (sans Prestige Classes) and a Level 20 character (Wizard 10/ Cleric 10). This character can, at best, cast spells from both classes to a maximum 5th level. IF you allow Prestige Classes, like the Mystic Theurge, they can get up to a total of 8th level of each class (Wizard 5/cleric 5/MT 10).
So in 5E, a Wizard 10/Cleric 10 can cast 4/3/3/3/3/2/2/1/1 spells of anything you want. You still prepare spells from each class separately, so a 10th level Cleric can prepared 10 + Wis mod number of spells up to 5th level (not including domain spells). The wizard also gets to prepare spells of up to 5th level, and can prepared 10 + Int modifier spells (not including bonus spells from their Tradition). Now it's true that you don't get access to 6th - 9th level spells but you can still use those slots to make better 1st thru 5th level spells. The only reason why it's better in 3.5 is because there's Prestige Classes that break the normal effects.
Again, having access to 25+ spells per day is a HUGE amount of versatility that few in 5e can compete with.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
The concentration thing if PROPERLY DM'd (and that's the thing here, I bet a lot of DM's aren't paying attention to things like someone having up a defensive spell and an offensive "field" spell at the same time) puts a serious curtail on people's spellcasting. Then magic immunity is rampant as well with certain beings, such that upper level spellcasters can't touch creatures.
I think Concentration works as intended, not to let Spellcasters reign as amazing Gods for battles on-end. You should have to rely on other characters to succeed, not take all the responsibility yourself. By forcing Concentration, it makes other characters in the party important.
As for Magic, the best I've seen is Magic Resistance: meaning they get Advantage on saving throws against spells. The only creature I found that had Magic immunity was the Helmed Horror, to which he got it from 3 distinct spells (chosen by the creator). Even Liches don't get Magic Resistance. Demons, Devils, some Dragons, aberrations like Mind Flayers, etc. do get it. Some get Legendary actions that let them shrug off a spell.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Even a lot of the defensive spells aren't that useful (for instance, stoneskin is ineffective if the person attacking has a simple +1 magical weapon or if their attacks can be treated as magical).
Looking at the Monster Manual, the only monster I saw that had magical weapon attacks were Gith. All other monsters that used weapons were not magical for the purposes of bypassing resistances. I don't make a habit of having my monsters wielding lots of magical gear because of the way 5E works with magic items and the rarity of such things.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Contingency as an example used to be able to teleport a person out of danger, but that's no longer possible since it can only be used with 5th level or less spells that are castable as a single action.
You can certainly use Dimension Door, 4th level and bring one willing creature with you for this exact purpose.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
A LOT of the old schticks that people picture from previous editions, if you really start looking at them, you can't do at all under 5e rulesets either because of new rules, or simply the spells "don't exist". Also, spells not having improved saves for upper level spell slots essentially turns many spells into simple crap shoots. You may blow an upper level spell to no effect whatsoever.
Yes, again that's the balancing part of the game. Failure is possible - as with any other high-risk/reward - in the game. A Fighter that lets off his Action Surge might still roll three 1's on his attacks. He might roll a 1 for his Second Wind. He uses his Maneuver but the creature saves when I tries to drive him off a cliff. I mean, thems the breaks as they say.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Anyway, that's just what I'm seeing. I could be wrong and maybe there's things I haven't considered.
I think you're reading it right, for the most part. I think old tactics and concepts don't translate well because, well, it's a different game with different expectations. Mages simply aren't Gods in 5E. They can do incredible things, to be sure, but it's neither fully automatic fool proof nor is it easy and free. The designers took care to make sure that magic doesn't reign supreme past a certain level.
I also think the designers fully expect people to make their game their own. You can certainly allow Mystic Theuregs in your 5E games. There was a template for Prestige Classes a year or so ago in one of the Unearthed Arcana supplements that you could use to emulate the old PrC. I'd fully expect it to be game breaking though. You can allow casters to take feats that allow multiple Concentration spells to be active at one time, or to hang mantles like Contingency spells, or just give them more spell slots like earlier versions. Understand that when this is done, anyone who's playing your good ol' Champion Fighter of equivalent level could feel completely underpowered, or even detrimental to the party because he isn't really being as big a contributor as any Caster is.
As to how this played to Pathfinder 2e, I guess it depends on their power Levels in later stages of the game. Maybe the final rules put Casters in the driver seat from 7th level onward like the old Version did? I'd assume with 3 spells at each level, with more possible based on things like Specialized school, you're not going to have any parity with other non-casters simply because you can cast more high-powered spells. Though, I didn't see any bonus-spells table based on Ability Scores, so maybe that's not a thing anymore. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 21 Aug 2019 : 15:03:24
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
<snip>
I had a conversation with a friend who, when I pitched my idea of a gritty-like game using the bare-bones of 3.5 but with these tweakes, got mad when I said I'd be strictly enforcing the Components of spells. He literally thought I'd be fine with an 8th level Dread Necromancer having 64 HD worth of undead (but only controlling 48 of them) just being raised up and not factor in the some 1,600 gp of Onyx gems needed to carry out the deed. He was perplexed because apparently no table enforces the Material Components rule for D&D 3.5. I mean, damn no wonder he thought the game was broken, when a wizard casts Stoneskin 5 times from scrolls and spell slots and doesn't take into account the 250 gp worth of Diamond Dust per casting, lol.
I just had to say, its so refreshing to see someone who examines this stuff like me. This is exactly the kind of thing that I was kind of mentioning about people abusing systems by just not following all the rules. However, at the same time I'll just go ahead and say it... how many of us actually calculated encumbrance. I know some did, and I'll say that I used a basic idea of "what kind of armor do you have on, and does it sound like you're carrying too much extra crap without some kind of bag to put it in and displace the burden".
It sounds like you don't have a lot of pre 3e experience in gaming, and one of the things that was COMMONLY overlooked by everyone in 1e/2e was time to memorize spells at upper levels. They would harp on how powerful spellcasters were when fully prepped... and without a doubt, they were.... BUT when they started using those high level spell slots, it would take HOURS and DAYS and sometimes WEEKS to replenish their spellcasting abilities (not including the time spent resting... just memorization time). Also, the idea that simply destroying their spellbooks could cripple them was never factored in (you don't have to kill that lich up front to make him vastly less effective... just destroy his books). Some of this still applies to the versions of the games today, but not the memorization time. Now its just "zip-itty-do" and you have looked at and memorized multiple complex arcane symbols.
BACK TO THE TOPIC AT HAND (forgive me)
Anyway, I'm still going through the 5e core rulebook. I will say that compared to 5e, their concept for multi-classing seems more doable. Without actually building a character I can't say, but I'm liking the concept so far, especially for gish type characters (whether that be fighter/wizard, or rogue/cleric, or ranger/druid, etc...). I haven't looked at the spell lists heavily either, but I'm noting that the sorcerer is NOT the same as a wizard anymore. They use a spell list based on their bloodline. That makes the concept of the divine soul as a separate class kind of moot.
I'm also surprised at the number of ability boost you get (I think its 4 ability boosts at once, every 5th level). However, that being said, once you get past an 18 in your scores, an ability boost is only a +1 bonus to a score.
|
| Renin |
Posted - 21 Aug 2019 : 03:58:26
The Pathfinder playtest was a stepping stone to PF2. There is a lot that is familiar, but PF2 really took to heart the play test responses with their changes. |
| LordofBones |
Posted - 21 Aug 2019 : 03:33:15
What the designers missed out on is that spells scale exponentially, not linearly.
Unless you're a necromancer, in which case you curl up into a ball and cry at what happened to poor horrid wilting.
Also, I think it's more of a case of people being experienced enough at 3.5e that they know the rules inside and out, and how to break the game. There's nothing wrong with powergaming as long as the DM is okay with it, some players just enjoy the game by seeing how far they can take their characters. It's just as valid as the player who thinks that fireball is the best spell in the game, or sword-and-board fighter, or healbot cleric.
High level gameplay is rocket tag, because balance starts breaking down at 12+. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 20 Aug 2019 : 15:08:10
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Yeah, the 5e spellcasting is definitely curtailed for high levels by the removing of spell slots. Even moreso, multi-classing (theurging) doesn't improve this even if you go say wizard/cleric, etc... You still have the same number of slots. While I was focusing on the idea of multiple concentration slots, OTHER types of ideas for improving spellcasters in 5e that should be available as options but simply aren't are things like the below... again, not everyone should get these, but they should be "paths" that a spellcaster can trod (and I've developed feats for some).
I get why they limited the number of higher level slots, it gives no-casters a bit of parity in that regard. I mean even a high level Fighter with 4 attacks (8 with action surge, 9 fighting with two-weapons or a polearm) isn't going to dish out the amount of damage or have the sort of impact on the battlefield that a caster will with high-level magic. If you're going to have high-level magic be extremely potent then you don't want that happening too many times. Look at 3.5 as the opposite, a high level Wizard gets 2, 3, 4, 5 # of 5th thru 9th level spells. Spell component costs aside, that's quite an astounding amount of firepower per day than what any non-caster can hope to accomplish given the same set of actions.
As to Theurging, I've never tread down the dual-casting road in any edition so I'd have to default to others for how it's handled and the impact it's had or not had.
You're list of paths is kinda cool, but ultimately I feel that in a tightly controlled game that 5e is, it would basically make spellcasters FAR ahead of anyone else in the game. Even if they only pick one of the paths, you're talking about abilities that don't just sometimes circumvent the safegards in place to keep casters on the same planet as non-casters, but shatter them completely. I mean, Contingencies alone can be abused ridiculously by smart and crafty players. Not to mention what people can do with Metamagic shenanigans.
I guess I feel that if casters could choose which things to get rid of, what's the off setting thing non-casters get? More feats or Ability Score bumps don't come close. I'm not sure if there is any parity there? I get wanting the feel that other editions allowed, especially with aspects like mantles and flying around like a mini-God, but I really hope we don't get to the day where every monster needs Anti-Magic Fields up all day just to make the combat fun for everyone.
Hey, hope you don't mind, but I kinda want to voice some views of mine on 5e with spellcasters. They may be colored by the fact that honestly I haven't studied 5e as much as I did 3.5 and earlier, but its things I've noticed. I also don't think a lot of newer DM's fully adjudicated all of the rules and don't realize the repercussions of a lot of the new things that are in to crimp the spellcaster's power. The problem as I see it with 5e now is that there's only a handful of paths that I really see that are effective for most casters, whereas melee artists have different options. In fact, multi-classing for melee folk doesn't even suck too bad like it does for spellcasters. Granted, I'm looking at things from the standpoints I've played in 5e (which have been all 12th level and under), but at present it looks like their power levels actually aren't that god-like at the upper levels, and at the lower levels their options are pretty much "fireball" tactics. Granted, you can do some other things, but most people that want to play a spellcaster are doing it to try and be creative, and this just sucks that whole thing out of it.
Basically, with things like concentration as is, someone can either have a defensive spell up OR maintain some kind of field effect, but not both. You can't for instance have up something like stoneskin and also have a cloudkill affecting the enemy. You are also hamstrung in the use of high level spells at the upper levels for any kind of significant dungeon crawl, because you have so few. In a single combat scenario, yes the spellcaster can release it all, but when they may have to hold that spell just in case they need to teleport the group out after the next room down, or they may need to keep some spell just in case they need to remove some magical schtick.
In short, I definitely agree that in previous editions... spellcasters were gods. In 2nd edition, definitely. In 3.5, at the upper levels they were pretty dangerous. I can't say for 4e. But, 5e..... I feel they got a little nerfed... while at the same time some spells have been overpowered (clone jumps to the top of that list). They've had their number of spells nerfed. They can't multiclass worth a damn. The concentration thing if PROPERLY DM'd (and that's the thing here, I bet a lot of DM's aren't paying attention to things like someone having up a defensive spell and an offensive "field" spell at the same time) puts a serious curtail on people's spellcasting. Then magic immunity is rampant as well with certain beings, such that upper level spellcasters can't touch creatures. Even a lot of the defensive spells aren't that useful (for instance, stoneskin is ineffective if the person attacking has a simple +1 magical weapon or if their attacks can be treated as magical). Contingency as an example used to be able to teleport a person out of danger, but that's no longer possible since it can only be used with 5th level or less spells that are castable as a single action. A LOT of the old schticks that people picture from previous editions, if you really start looking at them, you can't do at all under 5e rulesets either because of new rules, or simply the spells "don't exist". Also, spells not having improved saves for upper level spell slots essentially turns many spells into simple crap shoots. You may blow an upper level spell to no effect whatsoever.
Anyway, that's just what I'm seeing. I could be wrong and maybe there's things I haven't considered. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 20 Aug 2019 : 07:25:19
quote:
Originally posted by BrennonGoldeye
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
• Metamagic feats can only be applied to one spell per casting. No Silent quickened still Magic Missiles for example.
A question, why would anyone do that? Its an act of will with the quickened. I don't think making an entire class of feats incompatible with one another is a good answer. Are you going to also stop the fighter from using Power Attack with her Specialized weapon?
When I saw the Cheater of Mystra build or the Incantrix Prestige Class, or the number of feats that allowed people to remove the level restriction on Metamagic feats with other mundane options (like Divine Metamagic) or when saw someone use feat shenanigans to get a Quickened Maximized Empowered Enervation spell and only use a 5th level spell-slot (of which at the level we were playing at, he had 7 of them) I realized that metamagic stacking (and the feats that reduce them entirely) were absolutely terrible and wouldn't allow them.
The concept is cool, trading off power of a higher level slot for a better version of a lower level spell. Unfortunately casters already get better versions of their lower level spells simply by their caster level. So it was a trade in power, a 5th level spell slot to let off 5 magic missile as a free action or to have a handful of silenced offensive spells in a area affected by Silence. But as more and more and more options rolled out, the hard-level jump of metamagic feats became obsolete. One of the Sorcerer's hindrances to his free non-Vancian casting was that he couldn't easily apply Metamagic feats to his spells without spending his whole action to do it....then Rapid Metamagic came along and said "yea, no more restriction for you." Or Arcane Thesis which said "choose a spell that a metamagic feat applies to, lessen the cost!"
Honestly, I feel spellcasters get SO many obvious buffs in this edition - I mean they can easily shut down entire battles with castings of 2 or less spells and/or buff themselves up enough that makes other characters pointless or summon allies that can do the other's job that this limitation would only hamper their power a bit.
quote:
Originally posted by BrennonGoldeye
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
• Spells cast with target: Personal are subjected to Concentration checks after the first spell. The DC is 10 + spell level (of the highest personal spell cast) + 1/extra spell. Thus a 4th level Wizard who cast Shield and Mirror Image must succeed, at the beginning of their turn, a DC 13 Concentration check (10 + 2 + 1) each round the spells are active. Failure means the spell ends automatically at the beginning of their next turn. It's sort harsh BUT it's supposed to keep wizards and other casters from going SUPERMAN with a ton of low level personal spells AND if they fail it, they still get a whole turn where it's active. Failure means the highest spell fades first. Then you continue with Concentration checks for the next spell down (until only 1 is left, which they use for free).
If you do this you should also greatly lower the levels of any spell affected and take away most needed components. Part of the power of these magics is the fact you DONT have to concentrate on them. This is honestly a major rework on the concept of spellcasting classes. Not a fan.
Some do, some don't. Shield requires zero component. Spell Turning requires a small silver mirror. Again, in a game where you can literally fly (not personal spell), have a Shield, Turn away spells cast at you, and Spell Matrixes where you can have free spells just waiting around to be cast....there's no
limit except how many slots you get and the get dozens.
Not only that but this really limits Clerics going full-blown Aspect of their Deity all day long. They're going to have to really be good at keeping up their Concentration checks when they're stomping around with Divine Power, Divine Favor, and Righteous Might wrecking every monster in a 10'+ radius.
quote:
Originally posted by BrennonGoldeye
Everything else..YES!
Well I'm glad some ideas are cool  . I've been playing with 3.5 for as long as it's been out. I've tried PF (and read PF2) and I've played 4e and 5e. I still see there's some great bones about the 3.5 system, however a LOT of people disregard many of the fail safes that were in place (like Multiclass restrictions on classes, favored classes, etc.) or using Components or making sure they're writing down what Components are Focuses etc.
I had a conversation with a friend who, when I pitched my idea of a gritty-like game using the bare-bones of 3.5 but with these tweakes, got mad when I said I'd be strictly enforcing the Components of spells. He literally thought I'd be fine with an 8th level Dread Necromancer having 64 HD worth of undead (but only controlling 48 of them) just being raised up and not factor in the some 1,600 gp of Onyx gems needed to carry out the deed. He was perplexed because apparently no table enforces the Material Components rule for D&D 3.5. I mean, damn no wonder he thought the game was broken, when a wizard casts Stoneskin 5 times from scrolls and spell slots and doesn't take into account the 250 gp worth of Diamond Dust per casting, lol.
I guess that I've seen just too many games fail at mid level where a guys is playing a Scout or maybe they're a Knight with some add-on Prestige Class and they're excited they went first and did their 47 damage on a charging steed attack. But then the Wizard just says "I cast Enervation, take X level damage" and that enemy just falls over dead....Its funny here and there but when the caster has so many spells that even at 5-6 encounters a day, they're still pumping out excessive magical support it makes mundanes feel like they're just sort of....there. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 20 Aug 2019 : 06:44:58
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Yeah, the 5e spellcasting is definitely curtailed for high levels by the removing of spell slots. Even moreso, multi-classing (theurging) doesn't improve this even if you go say wizard/cleric, etc... You still have the same number of slots. While I was focusing on the idea of multiple concentration slots, OTHER types of ideas for improving spellcasters in 5e that should be available as options but simply aren't are things like the below... again, not everyone should get these, but they should be "paths" that a spellcaster can trod (and I've developed feats for some).
I get why they limited the number of higher level slots, it gives no-casters a bit of parity in that regard. I mean even a high level Fighter with 4 attacks (8 with action surge, 9 fighting with two-weapons or a polearm) isn't going to dish out the amount of damage or have the sort of impact on the battlefield that a caster will with high-level magic. If you're going to have high-level magic be extremely potent then you don't want that happening too many times. Look at 3.5 as the opposite, a high level Wizard gets 2, 3, 4, 5 # of 5th thru 9th level spells. Spell component costs aside, that's quite an astounding amount of firepower per day than what any non-caster can hope to accomplish given the same set of actions.
As to Theurging, I've never tread down the dual-casting road in any edition so I'd have to default to others for how it's handled and the impact it's had or not had.
You're list of paths is kinda cool, but ultimately I feel that in a tightly controlled game that 5e is, it would basically make spellcasters FAR ahead of anyone else in the game. Even if they only pick one of the paths, you're talking about abilities that don't just sometimes circumvent the safegards in place to keep casters on the same planet as non-casters, but shatter them completely. I mean, Contingencies alone can be abused ridiculously by smart and crafty players. Not to mention what people can do with Metamagic shenanigans.
I guess I feel that if casters could choose which things to get rid of, what's the off setting thing non-casters get? More feats or Ability Score bumps don't come close. I'm not sure if there is any parity there? I get wanting the feel that other editions allowed, especially with aspects like mantles and flying around like a mini-God, but I really hope we don't get to the day where every monster needs Anti-Magic Fields up all day just to make the combat fun for everyone. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 19 Aug 2019 : 15:28:52
Responding to several of the things I'm seeing in earlier posts.
Diffan,
I am intrigued with the idea you present as options for the target: Personal in things like 3.5. That could be a good balance.
The meticulous component use thing. Yes, I've seen too many people who don't make note of things like this. I am glad that 5e kind of got rid of minor component tracking, because it was unbelievable in earlier editions that mages would be able to carry all these odd components. In 5e it might also be interesting if casters might be able to have an option to somehow "internalize" their spell focus items, such that if they're stripped of them they can still cast (and this might be part of the anti-magic caster I was describing, because my view is that 5e having "broad view" feats instead of numerous LITTLE ones is the way to go).
Oh, and with the casting defensively... I haven't even found whether PF 2e has this as an option, but since they have 3 action economy, having this take up an action slot might be an idea... again, that's purely without even reviewing those rules, but it popped in my head, so I figured I'd mention the idea.
Oh, and yes, back on topic, PF 2e using shield block is a nice thing. I also noted that they're using a ritual for the creation of undead (and possibly other things). I'm still really early in the book, but the thing in 5e that irked me was the inability to create effective necromancers. At least this gives some kind of mechanic in PF 2e for undead creation without having to have a bajillion specialized spells. I really want to explore their ritual section in depth. I think they've at least got better ritual rules than in 5e, including the idea that some rituals need secondary casters and money and extreme amounts of time. |
| BrennonGoldeye |
Posted - 19 Aug 2019 : 15:11:55
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
• Metamagic feats can only be applied to one spell per casting. No Silent quickened still Magic Missiles for example.
A question, why would anyone do that? Its an act of will with the quickened. I don't think making an entire class of feats incompatible with one another is a good answer. Are you going to also stop the fighter from using Power Attack with her Specialized weapon?
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
• Spells cast with target: Personal are subjected to Concentration checks after the first spell. The DC is 10 + spell level (of the highest personal spell cast) + 1/extra spell. Thus a 4th level Wizard who cast Shield and Mirror Image must succeed, at the beginning of their turn, a DC 13 Concentration check (10 + 2 + 1) each round the spells are active. Failure means the spell ends automatically at the beginning of their next turn. It's sort harsh BUT it's supposed to keep wizards and other casters from going SUPERMAN with a ton of low level personal spells AND if they fail it, they still get a whole turn where it's active. Failure means the highest spell fades first. Then you continue with Concentration checks for the next spell down (until only 1 is left, which they use for free).
If you do this you should also greatly lower the levels of any spell affected and take away most needed components. Part of the power of these magics is the fact you DONT have to concentrate on them. This is honestly a major rework on the concept of spellcasting classes. Not a fan.
Everything else..YES! |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 19 Aug 2019 : 15:07:08
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Gary Dallison
Even without mantles the casters still steal the show by going nova which is in fact their primary purpose and has been since day one of dnd.
This is why an usually stick to 4e or Epic 6th for 3.5 so that going nova isn't a complete encounter-ending experience.
quote:
Originally posted by Gary Dallison
I was never a fan of needing, nor do I think warriors and rogues should be boosted to equal power levels, everyone has a different role to play but in most rulesets those roles are lost in favour of pew pew your dead.
As someone who enjoys playing warrior and rogue types, being overshadowed entirely by casters not even 1/2 way through your character progression makes me really just not want to play (hence the editions and house rules I use). In older editions (pre-3e) this was balanced by a lot of other factors such as monsters having more magic resistance, multiple rounds to cast a spell, not having tons of spell slots, and losing a spell if you're hit. Basically all of these were removed with 3e and it made it ridiculous. 4e made it better (IMO) by spells not completely breaking the game and giving parity to martials and putting a greater focus on working together as a team.
5e is a weird mix because while spells are pretty strong, it seems monsters HP makes up for it and their still really limited in later slots of spells. Not just that but a spell like Hold Person allows saves every round instead of insta-dead. I haven't played enough mid- to high level 5e yet but I'm sure it's better than mid- to high-level 3.5 in that regard.
quote:
Originally posted by Gary Dallison
I'm thinking that perhaps casting the more powerful spells should be more risky and costly, after all higher levels spells are more difficult to cast but a wizard never fails to cast it, he only fails to overcome his opponents defences, and raistlin was almost killed casting his big spells.
What I wouldn't give for a decent system that ironed out all these kinks.
Eh, how much fun is that tho? What threshold is there between making the spell worth it to cast vs. dire chances of it fails? I think penalizing players for using their resources is a good way to have players stop the game before that happens.
Yeah, the 5e spellcasting is definitely curtailed for high levels by the removing of spell slots. Even moreso, multi-classing (theurging) doesn't improve this even if you go say wizard/cleric, etc... You still have the same number of slots. While I was focusing on the idea of multiple concentration slots, OTHER types of ideas for improving spellcasters in 5e that should be available as options but simply aren't are things like the below... again, not everyone should get these, but they should be "paths" that a spellcaster can trod (and I've developed feats for some).
1) Theurging. Basically feats that improve the LEVEL of spell that you can cast with your lower level secondary multiclass (for instance, if you're highest spellcaster level in wizard is high (like 7th level), but as a cleric you're only getting like 2nd level spells... take a feat and maybe you can memorize like 4th level cleric spells). You still have the limited number of slots, just more options on WHICH spells you can use. Further feats down this path might improve your spells.
2) Improved # of spell slots. Some spellcasters don't want to memorize more, just have more slots to use, especially of upper level spells. 5e is definitely cutthroat compared to previous editions on the number of spell slots you get.
3) Fire and Forget Persistence. Take the need to concentrate on a spell away by letting the weave itself maintain a spell, and have said spell exist as a "ward". Again, this shouldn't be everyone's way to do things, it needs to be a bought option. This could be an improvement after buying some basic options for controlling more concentration or something.
4) Hung Spells and Contingencies. Basically opening up the option to have more contingency type effects for the person who is willing to sit there and define them.
5) Maker and user of Magic Items. Some spellcasters may just be good at making magic items and attuning them to themselves. Maybe they CAN use more items that are attuned to them (forget the 5e term for this, was it attune?). Maybe they can especially do so if they're of a similar type (i.e. the guy who can "attune" multiple magic wands and staves). This path should also include some facility towards making items quicker/more easily, because so many magic items literally take years, which is unbelievable to a degree.
6) The "anti-magic" path. This shouldn't be just for spellcasters. This idea is for a path that revolves around dispelling, functioning within magic dead areas, breaking concentration, etc... It might also help by functioning to absorb magic and make it available in some other form (i.e. use it to fuel something)
7) The retributive aura path. Basically, someone who can take existing wards and turn them into damaging effects as well should someone "hit" them (like how fire shield works). This might also include wards reversing spells back on casters, working like spelltraps, etc...
8) the "multiple spell release on the fly" ... i.e. quicken... spellcaster. This one does at least exist in 5e, but only for certain spellcasting classes. This is diffferent than the guy that "hangs" spells, because they could do it with anything they have available and thus are more versatile. But with versatility should also come less strength (i.e. the hung guy has to prep more, but there's more payoff somehow).
There's other ideas for a "type" of spellcaster, and it might be worth a topic of this sort, but I feel like this gets the idea across. These should all be options, but noone should be able to do all of them. Thus, noone ever knows without researching an opponent what they might have up their sleeve, so to speak.
|
| sleyvas |
Posted - 19 Aug 2019 : 14:47:04
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I could see, possibly, allowing a Mage to Concentrate on two spells at once - but doing so would take up their whole turn. Currently they can Concentrate on one spell, while casting others (and reaction spells too). If you have a mechanic or feat that allows Concentration on two, that would eat up your whole action economy (including moving) except reaction spells. I feel it's similar to 4e where you could Persist certain magical effects if you spent the time doing so.
The issue remains that having mantles, hanging spells, and all these wards up AND casting spells just makes casters super-heroes when it comes to going up against larger threats. It puts a hyper-focus on going 'nova' that other non-casters simply can't compete with in terms of Agency.
As always, yes, you see very much where I'd be going with things. I think adding a second concentration isn't a bad idea as an "easy add". Beyond two should also be a POSSIBILITY if someone were willing to PAY (not in money, but by character giving up other options, money is not a good control device) for the option. This should open up multiple possibilities for this to be done, and it might be a necessity for working out further types of spellcasting (for instance, an abjurer that wants to persist multiple wards on themselves may need to learn to maintain concentration on mutiple wards first). As to how to figure out how to do such a thing, multiple concentration on 3 or more spells might be options for a few interesting reasons, and just for the fun of it I'm going to throw out options.... because ideas generate stories, and stories are what we all are interested in.
So, just for grins... how are some ways someone can picture generating multiple concentration past say 3 concentrations.
First, someone might have done some study of the mind (psionics possibly), such that maybe they learn to "split" their mind and have "subroutines" controlled by their subconscious or somesuch
Second, someone might give over concentration to a being which is intimately tied to them (for instance, a familiar or animal companion, a telthor spirit under their command, a weaveghost to which they have some link, etc...).
Third, someone might give over concentration to an intelligent magic item that can communicate with them telepathically and which HAS the capability to perform this action (this might be a special magic item ability).
Again, just for fun, does anyone see any other ideas that would work like this.
That being said, I've delved off into improving 5e with this, but I did just get in my PF 2e books and digging into them now.
|
| Diffan |
Posted - 19 Aug 2019 : 13:10:41
quote:
Originally posted by LordofBones
That's a good way to handicap blaster casters, who are rarely the problem.
On the other hand, it does little to handicap the Big Two: Conjurers and Transmuters. Equipment and spells already give ways to get around SR (assay resistance, spell vulnerability, robes of the archmagi, otherworldly kimonos, Piercing Spell, the orb line, most <ray> spells), so this just hampers the typical fireball/lightning bolt caster, not minionmancers, conjurers, battlefield control casters, etc.
Lots of spells besides blasting is hampered by SR and Immunity. Minion-mancers generally need a lot of excessive feat/option support. For example, the Tranmuter variant that lets them give up their Scribe Scroll and Familiar for Augment Summoning and allows them to cast summon spells as standard actions. Simply DON'T allow these broken options. They're bad, lol.
I'm currently working on a varied system for a Gritty-styled game with 3.5 as the bare-bones of the system and working my way up. How I plan to deal with the excessiveness of casters:
• Spell restriction. PHB/PH2 spells are allowed. Virtually everything else requires research AND a tutor by someone who knows the spell and is willing to teach you.
• 5-ft step is not a thing anymore. Anytime you leave a threatened reach, it provokes an AoO. So if the caster is put into a melee threat, they'll need to use their turn to disengage.
• Metamagic feats can only be applied to one spell per casting. No Silent quickened still Magic Missiles for example.
• Casting Defensively takes 1 round. So a wizard who decides to be extra careful on casting their fireball can do so, with the usual DC Concentration checks to cast defensively but the spell won't actually go off until the beginning of their next turn.
• Meticulous component indexing. Basically anything over 1gp for Focuses and components needs to be tracked. It sucks, sure, but so does challenging wizards casting 5 uses of Stoneskin without the 1,000 of Diamond Dust.
• Spells cast with target: Personal are subjected to Concentration checks after the first spell. The DC is 10 + spell level (of the highest personal spell cast) + 1/extra spell. Thus a 4th level Wizard who cast Shield and Mirror Image must succeed, at the beginning of their turn, a DC 13 Concentration check (10 + 2 + 1) each round the spells are active. Failure means the spell ends automatically at the beginning of their next turn. It's sort harsh BUT it's supposed to keep wizards and other casters from going SUPERMAN with a ton of low level personal spells AND if they fail it, they still get a whole turn where it's active. Failure means the highest spell fades first. Then you continue with Concentration checks for the next spell down (until only 1 is left, which they use for free).
Oh, Level Drain - either by a SLA from a monster like a Vampire or the spell, simply drops the creature's attacks/saves/etc. but never actually effects their actual level. A 10th level Fighter that drops 7 levels will still have Feats of a 10th level Fighter, as an example.
For an On-Topic note, I really like how Pathfinder 2e allows warriors to use Shield Block, basically a Reaction when you're hit to have the shield absorb the damage. This might dent the shield, if it bypasses it's Hardness. Two dents "breaks" the item and denting a broken item destroys it. I thought this was a cool concept. |
| LordofBones |
Posted - 19 Aug 2019 : 12:37:13
That's a good way to handicap blaster casters, who are rarely the problem.
On the other hand, it does little to handicap the Big Two: Conjurers and Transmuters. Equipment and spells already give ways to get around SR (assay resistance, spell vulnerability, robes of the archmagi, otherworldly kimonos, Piercing Spell, the orb line, most <ray> spells), so this just hampers the typical fireball/lightning bolt caster, not minionmancers, conjurers, battlefield control casters, etc. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 18 Aug 2019 : 22:07:22
quote:
Originally posted by Cards77
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Gary Dallison
Given that a fighter or rogue can fail to perform any of their tasks I don't see why casters should be any different, if anything it levels the playing field.
It's not any different. Fighters and rogues can miss, or their attacks can fail to get thru their opponent's protections.
And the same applies to spells.
If we adopted your system, the only way to "level the playing field" would then be to make it so that a fighter might somehow fail to swing his sword, or a rogue might suddenly be unable to hold his dagger.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't think it's a good idea to penalize someone for using their class features.
Agreed, did people forget about concentration checks? Action economy? Spell resistance and spell immunity?
Really depends on the edition though. I mean, if we're talking about 3e/3.5/PF1e then Concentration becomes pointless after a certain level when you simply cast defensively and you can make the check on a natural 1 (since skill checks don't automatically fail on nat 1's). Action economy is another aspect some mages get around via Quicken Spell shenanigans. I mean, clerics have Divine Meta-Magic for a reason and one of those is to dump 5 turn checks to cast any spell they have as a free action (at least in 3.5). 3.5 also has LOTS of ways around the +4 level bump for Quicken Spell to reduce the price almost to nothing.
As for Spell Immunity/Spell Resistance, I wish monsters were given more of it. You mostly find these things on Undead, Constructs, and creatures of different planes. Drow have it and a few other humanoids can get it, but it's not build-in and - again - there's things PCs can grab that circumvent the obstacle. What's the point of SR 25 if the 14th level Mage has Greater Spell Penetration and simply needs to roll a 7 or better to beat it?
quote:
Originally posted by Cards77
Having just fought a massive construct and a lich, I can tell you who was LEAST effective...the mage.
The archer is OP if anything is.
Many creatures are IMMUNE to MAGIC...ALL MAGIC.
Curious, is there anyway to get a comprehensive list of monsters with SR and immunity? I think that'd be a pretty cool thing to have right at hand just to throw into some encounters.
quote:
Originally posted by Cards77
Spell resistance and immunity are the balance for physical classes that deal with Damage Reduction
100% agree, just need to add more of it and remove things like Spell Penetration/Greater SP to keep the balance. |
| Cards77 |
Posted - 18 Aug 2019 : 16:31:21
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Gary Dallison
Given that a fighter or rogue can fail to perform any of their tasks I don't see why casters should be any different, if anything it levels the playing field.
It's not any different. Fighters and rogues can miss, or their attacks can fail to get thru their opponent's protections.
And the same applies to spells.
If we adopted your system, the only way to "level the playing field" would then be to make it so that a fighter might somehow fail to swing his sword, or a rogue might suddenly be unable to hold his dagger.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't think it's a good idea to penalize someone for using their class features.
Agreed, did people forget about concentration checks? Action economy? Spell resistance and spell immunity?
Having just fought a massive construct and a lich, I can tell you who was LEAST effective...the mage.
The archer is OP if anything is.
Many creatures are IMMUNE to MAGIC...ALL MAGIC.
Spell resistance and immunity are the balance for physical classes that deal with Damage Reduction |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 17 Aug 2019 : 17:46:49
quote:
Originally posted by Gary Dallison
Given that a fighter or rogue can fail to perform any of their tasks I don't see why casters should be any different, if anything it levels the playing field.
It's not any different. Fighters and rogues can miss, or their attacks can fail to get thru their opponent's protections.
And the same applies to spells.
If we adopted your system, the only way to "level the playing field" would then be to make it so that a fighter might somehow fail to swing his sword, or a rogue might suddenly be unable to hold his dagger.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't think it's a good idea to penalize someone for using their class features. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 17 Aug 2019 : 11:07:49
Given that a fighter or rogue can fail to perform any of their tasks I don't see why casters should be any different, if anything it levels the playing field. And if everyone incurred some cost for the actions they perform then perhaps casters wouldn't mind incurring a greater cost to do the awesome things if they can also do the every round things like fighters.
I've long thought that Harry Potter version of wand combat was a missed opportunity. They clearly don't use spells like vancian casters so perhaps a wand allows a caster to do unlimited attacks (like cantrips but without spell casting) so they can join in combat and only do the big pew pew when needed instead of doing big pew pew because they can and have nothing else.
Just a thought or two. I'll definitely be looking at pf2 to see what they did to make wizards more versatile and whether it over powers them or not. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 17 Aug 2019 : 05:02:32
quote:
Originally posted by Gary Dallison
Even without mantles the casters still steal the show by going nova which is in fact their primary purpose and has been since day one of dnd.
This is why an usually stick to 4e or Epic 6th for 3.5 so that going nova isn't a complete encounter-ending experience.
quote:
Originally posted by Gary Dallison
I was never a fan of needing, nor do I think warriors and rogues should be boosted to equal power levels, everyone has a different role to play but in most rulesets those roles are lost in favour of pew pew your dead.
As someone who enjoys playing warrior and rogue types, being overshadowed entirely by casters not even 1/2 way through your character progression makes me really just not want to play (hence the editions and house rules I use). In older editions (pre-3e) this was balanced by a lot of other factors such as monsters having more magic resistance, multiple rounds to cast a spell, not having tons of spell slots, and losing a spell if you're hit. Basically all of these were removed with 3e and it made it ridiculous. 4e made it better (IMO) by spells not completely breaking the game and giving parity to martials and putting a greater focus on working together as a team.
5e is a weird mix because while spells are pretty strong, it seems monsters HP makes up for it and their still really limited in later slots of spells. Not just that but a spell like Hold Person allows saves every round instead of insta-dead. I haven't played enough mid- to high level 5e yet but I'm sure it's better than mid- to high-level 3.5 in that regard.
quote:
Originally posted by Gary Dallison
I'm thinking that perhaps casting the more powerful spells should be more risky and costly, after all higher levels spells are more difficult to cast but a wizard never fails to cast it, he only fails to overcome his opponents defences, and raistlin was almost killed casting his big spells.
What I wouldn't give for a decent system that ironed out all these kinks.
Eh, how much fun is that tho? What threshold is there between making the spell worth it to cast vs. dire chances of it fails? I think penalizing players for using their resources is a good way to have players stop the game before that happens. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 16 Aug 2019 : 22:16:57
Even without mantles the casters still steal the show by going nova which is in fact their primary purpose and has been since day one of dnd.
I was never a fan of needing, nor do I think warriors and rogues should be boosted to equal power levels, everyone has a different role to play but in most rulesets those roles are lost in favour of pew pew your dead.
I'm thinking that perhaps casting the more powerful spells should be more risky and costly, after all higher levels spells are more difficult to cast but a wizard never fails to cast it, he only fails to overcome his opponents defences, and raistlin was almost killed casting his big spells.
What I wouldn't give for a decent system that ironed out all these kinks. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 16 Aug 2019 : 21:41:10
I could see, possibly, allowing a Mage to Concentrate on two spells at once - but doing so would take up their whole turn. Currently they can Concentrate on one spell, while casting others (and reaction spells too). If you have a mechanic or feat that allows Concentration on two, that would eat up your whole action economy (including moving) except reaction spells. I feel it's similar to 4e where you could Persist certain magical effects if you spent the time doing so.
The issue remains that having mantles, hanging spells, and all these wards up AND casting spells just makes casters super-heroes when it comes to going up against larger threats. It puts a hyper-focus on going 'nova' that other non-casters simply can't compete with in terms of Agency. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 16 Aug 2019 : 21:35:37
So feats for very specific additional spells, not a bad idea. I'll steal that one if you dont mind.
I might also put in a mantle or ward spell that allows you to replace it with a lower level spell so you can cast extra defensive spells upon yourself (for me a spell can be of any level so lower level spells does not restrict what spells you can use), that way anyone can still do it even without the feat, but the feat guy can do it without sacrificing a spell (which are always a premium resource for casters) |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 16 Aug 2019 : 21:00:04
quote:
Originally posted by Gary Dallison
Interesting stuff about the spells. I decided on a limited for the number of spells for my game for balance reasons and also because I figure that magic interferes with magic, so in a similar way that you cannot wear multiple magic items on the same body part, you cannot have multiple spells cast on the same person.
Then I realised only allowing one spell on a person is mean so revised it to you cannot have multiple spells on the same target from the same caster. Instantaneous spells don't count. So that means you get one defensive spell per person per caster and one curse like spell per enemy per caster.
But I hadn't catered for wards and mantles. You make a good point that you should be able to cast more than just the one spell on a person but it should require more from the caster to do so. Should that cost be health/vitality based (I have spells cost hp like raistlin in dragonlance) or should it require additional spells be wasted to make a single extra spell work.
I do wish someone would come up with a properly thought out system and not put in arbitrary rules or things for nostalgias sake.
Thinking about skills, has anyone ever run skill encounters like combat, ie you roll your skill check against a target DC and then deal "damage" that gradually reduces until the task is successful. If two people were trying to haggle each could take turns trying to deplete the others skill check until one is reduced to zero and loses. Against environment it is just a time thing to complete (with reduction in skill check for failure).
Skills are always the most boring part of a system but if it could be made more combat like it might encourage people to start murder hoboing everything.
The thing with making it that you just use extra spells to put up a second spell means that its not unique and everyone can do it. So, one week you can be THAT guy, and then another week you can do some other tricks. So, if the idea is to make a unique wizard who can do this instead of say having planned out contingent effects OR decided to focus on item creation to get his protections via crafting OR some other focus like they want to be the multiple release caster and defense be damned OR they want to be the guy that can cast spells even if silenced, stilled, and don't have material components OR they want to be that melee mage with retributed shields up OR... I could go on and on with the "types" of different spellcaster specializations.
That's the idea, make it so that you're picking something that you can do that's different, and very few can do it. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 16 Aug 2019 : 15:17:54
Interesting stuff about the spells. I decided on a limited for the number of spells for my game for balance reasons and also because I figure that magic interferes with magic, so in a similar way that you cannot wear multiple magic items on the same body part, you cannot have multiple spells cast on the same person.
Then I realised only allowing one spell on a person is mean so revised it to you cannot have multiple spells on the same target from the same caster. Instantaneous spells don't count. So that means you get one defensive spell per person per caster and one curse like spell per enemy per caster.
But I hadn't catered for wards and mantles. You make a good point that you should be able to cast more than just the one spell on a person but it should require more from the caster to do so. Should that cost be health/vitality based (I have spells cost hp like raistlin in dragonlance) or should it require additional spells be wasted to make a single extra spell work.
I do wish someone would come up with a properly thought out system and not put in arbitrary rules or things for nostalgias sake.
Thinking about skills, has anyone ever run skill encounters like combat, ie you roll your skill check against a target DC and then deal "damage" that gradually reduces until the task is successful. If two people were trying to haggle each could take turns trying to deplete the others skill check until one is reduced to zero and loses. Against environment it is just a time thing to complete (with reduction in skill check for failure).
Skills are always the most boring part of a system but if it could be made more combat like it might encourage people to start murder hoboing everything. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 16 Aug 2019 : 14:51:12
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
[quote]I will also give 5e some props. Concentration is a great addition, though they also need to introduce ways to bypass it. It basically introduces the concept of making a "different kind of caster". The change of casting to be somewhat less Vancian is also great (though it kind of nerfs the sorcerer, which means they need help). There were some other improvements, but its lunch time.
See, I think having a way to bypass Concentration is a slippery slop to brokenville. The whole reason why it's there is so that casters can't basically be Iron Man, flying around shooting lazers all the time with a ton of self-buff spells. That's what we got in 3.5 and it made non-casters invalid. If there was a feat, then that would be an automatic Requirement for every casters, to the point that you might as well make it a class feature or a systemic-rule.
5e's Sorcerer schtick is the whole Metamagic aspect and buffing the spells they get (or at least I think so, I haven't played one). That really should've been their thing - or at least something other than nothing for 19 levels - in 3rd Edition but the designers really only seemed to have a vague clue about what they were doing when designing 3e.
Going back to PF2e, I haven't read up on what their spellcasters get, just the Wizard for the first couple of levels. I know they can boosts spells and the get LOTS of spells. I do know that they have a LOT more options they're not essentially locked into place for the remainder of their character's career (a la spells) and that's better than what the Fighter or Paladin can say.
Thanks for this discussion. Hopefully the books show up today, and I'm going to delve more.
On the concentration thing, let me explain my perception here in comparison to prior editions (starting with 2e). In 2e there were some GREAT concepts that came out (many from Ed via his spells). The problem was that there was no CONTROL in place to stop any caster getting those spells other than "the DM says no". The same concept was a problem with say the Circle spell in 2e, and I can remember at the time writing up a VERY convoluted concept for how the red wizards tried to keep the circle spell secret. The idea of "mantles" with hung spells that you can target on the fly, or making spells that are contingent and react at any time, or having the ability to counter being silenced by always having an item that can cast a spell that temporarily let's you bypass silence, or having persistent spells up all the time, or some spell effect that let's you release 4 spells at once, etc.... It was amazingly overpowered.
3e/3.5e then came out with the concept of feats. The control here was that you could learn SOME of the concepts (i.e. you maybe can learn to do contingency tricks, but if you do, you're not making persistent spells... and maybe you are hampered by silence... maybe being "held" is a problem because you don't have still spell …. maybe you can't change the energy type of your spells...
maybe you can't make a single magic item, etc... So, basically you can become a caster who has a "trick". Maybe you're really good with using wands, maybe you're good at creating "shields" that attack those that melee you, etc....
Still, in all these old editions, there was the ability to put 4 or 5 defensive spells up at once. In 5e, that's gone, but let's face it, it should be possible for someone to have up say stoneskin and maybe globe of invulnerability at the same time IF THEY ARE WILLING TO GIVE UP SOMETHING FOR IT. Other options that I'd like to see in 5e revolve around giving options for contingent effects in some form, hanging spells as defensive wards (i.e. glyphs, spell gems, etc...), being really good at making certain types of magic items (which in 5e should reduce the time and cost... especially time), etc...
In other words, I'd like to see 5e do 2 things
A) put in more of a facility to "buy" specializations of some sort with all classes (i.e. like feats) more often
B) put in MORE options to buy such that you can realistically have different kinds of classes. Granted some of this is done via things like within the wizard class you choose an arcane school, but I don't think that goes near far enough.
In the end, I'm picturing something in which people might have to "research" an enemy to find out what "secret" abilities they may have. Or there may be whisperings that "that wizard over there has been known to cast spells even while paralyzed". While the players may understand what's going on if they hear this, to the rest of the realms, these specializations are relatively unique things. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 15 Aug 2019 : 21:33:02
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
You pretty much nailed my worries (but went more in depth of your review of their playtest package than me). I do hope they fixed the issues, because I enjoy 5e.... but I find it so lean with options that I find playing a wizard actually kind of boring and unbelievable.
Well I haven't played the wizard yet in 5e (or PF2e), though I know what you mean. In our Horde of the Dragon Queen adventure, I'm playing a moon elf Eldritch Knight (4th level) and there's many times when I feel very ineffective. Now that could be because we only play once a month or because the adventure is horribly written but at times it doesn't feel like I contribute much in the game. Apparently in a few more levels I will see a lot of other aspects come into play which will make it a lot more fun, but I don't think you should have to wait 7 levels in a clasas before the game starts to become fun. I'm also basing these feelings against what I could do in 4E as a similar concept. Either the Swordmage, Bladesinger, Eldritch Knight, or Hell even a Hybrid Fighter|Wizard can do a lot of really cool things even at low levels, and actually had a purpose like drawing enemies fire and being kind of like a tank. Not so with 5e...And I wouldn't even know where to begin doing this with PF2e?
quote:
I know we'll disagree on 4e (my views were that it basically broke the wizard concept for me), but I will give it props for some things it did. The idea of rituals was a great addition. I also find some of their planar ideas intriguing.... just not their realmsian REMOVALS (that being said, I've warmed up to their additions). I never did understand the earthmote hatred, given that the concept has been around forever (as long as they aren't everywhere). Some of the storylines were interesting as well.
I think we can all agree that the changes to the Realms with 4e killed a lot of interests overall in the system because of what it did to the setting. I vehemently disagree with the notion that Mystra needed to be killed to somehow usher in 4e's magic system. That just didn't make sense at all, especially because the novels and overall narrative didn't make use of previous editions magic systems in any great detail that would've made a different with 4e. And since when did the novels ever reflect the game's mechanics greatly?
I do like 4E's separation of Ritual spells and other magics. I actually made a bunch of Feats someone with the Ritual Caster feat can take that makes some rituals faster to cast and use less components. As for the 4e Wizard, I think it's about expectations. For example my Father-in-Law loves his 4e Tiefling Wizard. He grumbles when we switch to 5e because he feels too restricted vs. what his 4E wizard can do, lol. But I digress...
quote:
I will also give 5e some props. Concentration is a great addition, though they also need to introduce ways to bypass it. It basically introduces the concept of making a "different kind of caster". The change of casting to be somewhat less Vancian is also great (though it kind of nerfs the sorcerer, which means they need help). There were some other improvements, but its lunch time.
See, I think having a way to bypass Concentration is a slippery slop to brokenville. The whole reason why it's there is so that casters can't basically be Iron Man, flying around shooting lazers all the time with a ton of self-buff spells. That's what we got in 3.5 and it made non-casters invalid. If there was a feat, then that would be an automatic Requirement for every casters, to the point that you might as well make it a class feature or a systemic-rule.
5e's Sorcerer schtick is the whole Metamagic aspect and buffing the spells they get (or at least I think so, I haven't played one). That really should've been their thing - or at least something other than nothing for 19 levels - in 3rd Edition but the designers really only seemed to have a vague clue about what they were doing when designing 3e.
Going back to PF2e, I haven't read up on what their spellcasters get, just the Wizard for the first couple of levels. I know they can boosts spells and the get LOTS of spells. I do know that they have a LOT more options they're not essentially locked into place for the remainder of their character's career (a la spells) and that's better than what the Fighter or Paladin can say. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 15 Aug 2019 : 18:08:11
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Mind you I've only seen and read the Playtest version of the game, so I'm basing my opinions off of that. I'm not sure what's changed significantly with the game in those regards. The last version I got was dated August 12, 2018 - so just over a year ago.
When I first heard they were doing a PF2e I was really excited. I was hoping they'd see how many flaws and broken aspects were rampant with the 3e SRD/PF model and how terrible later levels were - especially to non-casters and maybe address things like LFQW issues. Some ideas I was hoping they'd pilfer from 5e was the removal of piddly nuanced modifiers for everything, a +2 here, -2 there, +1 here...wait that doesn't stack....etc. Basically what Mike Mearls talked about doing away with in 5E (because it's a pain the A** to track turn-in and turn-out).
So when I opened up the PDF for the Playtest, I was mostly unimpressed. Keep in mind, it's dated 08/12/18
Here were some of my basic issues:
• The number of actions and the icons that they represent. in the Playtest, in which they get 3 actions plus a reaction. There's icons that represent them......and they're tiny and easy to miss. A lot of parts have these and you have to keep track of which ones you've used and so forth. Not excessively difficult, but enough that it's a small task.
• Ability Flaws....*sigh* I thought we'd have moved past ability score penalties....nope. I find this is one of those dumb nods to nostalgia simply because they have to be different from D&D, because D&D decided that these weren't fun anymore and did away with them over a decade ago.
• Ancestry feats: Cool concept, but basically they're just turning a ton of racial abilities that every other version you got for free into paying for them at later levels. Want to be harder to move as a Dwarf, gonna be a feat but you won't be good at resisting poison...not til X-level. You're a keen hearing elf, but because you chose that, you're affected by sleep. *yawn*
• The number of ability score boosts you get overall. Ancestry boost, class boos, backround boost and that's simply at 1st level....it's super convoluted IMO.
From here on out, it's mostly class issues and general mechanics that seemed to irk me. So most classes get both features and Feats (every class gets specific class feats). Features are basically picked out but you get to select both Skill Feats and Class Feats. Class Feats are basically 4E Powers without the pretty colored-boxes. But here's the problem I have, you can't interchange them at all and that sucks. If you're a Fighter and grab Double Slice but get a cool greatsword later, you can't swap out that feat. They learned nothing from the 3.5 Warblade's Weapon Aptitude ability (swapping feats out for other stuff) or their own 1e stuff. If the Paladin grabs the Steed Ally at level 3, she will always forever have a magical steed, a completely useless feature the moment she enters a dungeon. That's just dumb and bad mechanics.
Also, you have to spend actions doing certain things like raising your shield. Like, if you forget to say "oh, I spend my remaining action to keep my shield up" you lose that bonus for a round. Then your shield takes damage and breaks. Ok, so that's kinda cool because it adds a sense of upkeep with your items....but I'm not the kind of person that really likes keeping track of fiddly bits all day long. That's just not my cup of tea. Then there's the alignment mechanics and restrictions.....like why? Why is that still a thing? Also, no spells for the Paladin or Ranger. That really irked me for some reason. EDIT: They get spells called champion powers that are spells at 1/2 level. Like, a Paladin has to choose between Divine Health and being Courageous? Why?
I think, though, that I could really look past some of these issues - especially the 'locked into specific decision 24/7' spot if the game flowed well. To me, that means less worrying about the plethora of math and abundance of penalties/exception-based design. Unfortunately PF2e is full of it. My one biggest gripe with 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder was the incessant need to penalize every damn thing. Want to grapple, that's a penalty. Want to dual-wield? That's a penalty. Want to disarm a bad-guy? That's a penalty. BUT...BUT you can remove said penalty if you grab this widget. IF you jump through hoops X, Y, and Z. If you grab these 4 feat chains in specific order with specific stats......THEN maybe you can do the thing with some proficiency. Maybe you can use that one skill a few times before you're at a level where the mechanic is pretty pointless because creatures are fighting now easily get out of your grapple or aren't stunned by fear, or don't often wield weapons.
That's my biggest problem. All the -2 penalties to attacks and junk. No, I don't want to have to re-calculate my attack roll because i'm making an Opportunity Attack. No I don't want to recalculate my attacks because I have Bless and I'm wielding two-weapons AND the monster cast grease and I'm wearing a belt of giant strength....etc.
Casters, on the other hand, well they pretty much get cool stuff abound. One of the cool concepts is using additional actions to buff up your spells. And you still get Cantrips all day long (4 per day, 5 if you're specialized) plus what appears to be the same amount of slots from PF1e. While I don't think you add your ability modifier to the number of extra slots, that's still a LOT per day. At 1st level you're getting 4/5 cantrips and 2/3 1st level spells plus Drain Arcane Focus, giving you an extra spell slot (thus 4 if you're specialized).
Nah, I'm pretty much past the phase of uber-hyper customization to the umpteenth level where every single decision MUST have an identical mechanical change/disadvantage/alteration to my character. I'm past wanting to read through Character Build guides because it's pretty much a prerequisite for making a character. I'm past every single character decision needed a previous feat, skill set, or Ability score to take.
So yeah, a lot of that sounded negative. I guess it was. But I feel they wanted to be different yet adhere to a LOT of the same old stuff that people accepted before. I was hoping it would've done a lot of stuff right, taken ideas from their Unchained line of classes (because apparently Dexterity to damage is still a 'no-no'  ). I feel they had a great chance to merge a LOT of what made 3e good without falling into the myriad of pit-traps that plagued the system but instead fell into each one deliberately because they felt that some how added the 'old school' vibe.
But whatever you do, take this somewhat lengthy opinion-piece with a bit of salt. Go and play it for yourself. Go and see what it's all about it, read it at length, try to learn the rules and play a few sessions. One thing I learned since 4E is that internet reviews are a dime a dozen and often over-inflated with bias. Yes, I'm bias because I saw wasted potential and I'm coming from a point of view that I don't need every single widget and fiddly-bit to have fun playing D&D.
Maybe it scratches every single itch you have with other Versions of the game. Maybe it does what you want with Skills. I dunno, maybe you'll love it? I certainly felt that way about 4th Edition, it hit all the right chords for me and our group that we're still playing it a decade later - despite heavily written anti-4e reviews and an online smear campaign before the game got published. So go play it and make changes and make it yours. That's the best I can say.
You pretty much nailed my worries (but went more in depth of your review of their playtest package than me). I do hope they fixed the issues, because I enjoy 5e.... but I find it so lean with options that I find playing a wizard actually kind of boring and unbelievable.
I know we'll disagree on 4e (my views were that it basically broke the wizard concept for me), but I will give it props for some things it did. The idea of rituals was a great addition. I also find some of their planar ideas intriguing.... just not their realmsian REMOVALS (that being said, I've warmed up to their additions). I never did understand the earthmote hatred, given that the concept has been around forever (as long as they aren't everywhere). Some of the storylines were interesting as well.
I will also give 5e some props. Concentration is a great addition, though they also need to introduce ways to bypass it. It basically introduces the concept of making a "different kind of caster". The change of casting to be somewhat less Vancian is also great (though it kind of nerfs the sorcerer, which means they need help). There were some other improvements, but its lunch time. |
| LordofBones |
Posted - 15 Aug 2019 : 14:47:41
The 9th level arcane necromancy spell made me die a little inside. Who even used massacre back in 1e when wail and mass suffocation were the better spells? |
|
|
