|
10 months ago ::
Aug 07, 2012 - 11:41AM
#5451
|
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek
Date Joined:
May 31, 2003
|
Did "Sleep" sometimes end a low level encounter in the many years of gaming? Yes it most certaintly did.
Did it do this all the time or even most of the time? No it did not.
But when it did everyone was okay with it because it meant that another battle was soon on it's way.
To be perfectly honest, I take back a few things I have said on these forums.
Success of a game system is not measured by it's sales, it's measured by each group individually.
If a group is having fun with a certain system at their table then it is a success.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 07, 2012 - 12:08PM
#5452
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2006
|
Do you even know what sleep does? From your comment there, apparently you don't.
First, at low levels you aren't anywhere near guaranteed to sleep all of your opponants. Hell, if you are fighting 6-8 orcs (common against a party of 4), you CAN'T sleep all of them. Of the 4 you might be able to sleep (if 4 are in the area), at least one can be counted on to save. Oh, and you have to hope someone from your party isn't in the area of the sleep spell, or you could be putting one of your own to sleep and leaving an orc up.
Second, those that don't fall asleep can easily wake up the sleeping ones.
Third, hours? Really? When was the last time a 1 minute per level spell when cast at low levels lasted for hours?
I've had encounters completely neutered by a sleep spell, I've been GMing for about 26 years give or take a few months, they HAPPEN. So saying that it's not likely doesn't matter it has and will happen.
Save or Suck, Save or Die is pure semantics. I'm using SoD when talking about EFFECTS, not SPELLS. Don't like, tough cookies. Seriously, they end up like hockey pucks up here...
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 07, 2012 - 12:10PM
#5453
|
|
|
LOL.
Schroedinger's Spellcasting Conditions? 
In 3.5 the monster only has a chance to make a save if the wizard allows it. If the wizard doesn't want his spells saved against they won't be. You can jack the save DCs of your spells so high that it's always a 20 to save. At that point, it's effectively no save. Sure, 1/20 times you waste a spell, but 19/20 times you blow away the biggest bad in a fight. That's odds I'll take any day.
Moderated by
ORC_Ragnar
on Aug 07, 2012 - 01:08PM
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 07, 2012 - 12:35PM
#5454
|
|
|
LOL.
Schroedinger's Spellcasting Conditions?
In 3.5 the monster only has a chance to make a save if the wizard allows it. If the wizard doesn't want his spells saved against they won't be. You can jack the save DCs of your spells so high that it's always a 20 to save. At that point, it's effectively no save. Sure, 1/20 times you waste a spell, but 19/20 times you blow away the biggest bad in a fight. That's odds I'll take any day.
Griz, you know I don't support 3.x, so you're telling me nothing I don't already know. Although...it's not really doable (that I know of?) at level 1. But eventually, yah, that's pretty much true so long as you can target it's weak save (and even usually if you can't).
What I find fun is to watch how interactions work in this game compared to a video version though. I'm playing Icewind Dale 2 now for the first time and lemmetellya....I wouldn't trade Gemma, my fighter, out for -20- of my mage. Even on easy more things pass saves than fail. Well...okay, that's not true. More like 50/50. But still.
Moderated by
ORC_Ragnar
on Aug 07, 2012 - 01:09PM
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 07, 2012 - 12:58PM
#5455
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
LOL.
Schroedinger's Spellcasting Conditions?
In 3.5 the monster only has a chance to make a save if the wizard allows it. If the wizard doesn't want his spells saved against they won't be. You can jack the save DCs of your spells so high that it's always a 20 to save. At that point, it's effectively no save. Sure, 1/20 times you waste a spell, but 19/20 times you blow away the biggest bad in a fight. That's odds I'll take any day.
If the DM allows it. If he doesn't, you can't. Like thousands of damage, some things just shouldn't be allowed. 3e was definately overpowered and required some work. It wasn't hard to keep spellcasters from jacking up their prime stat.
Moderated by
ORC_Ragnar
on Aug 07, 2012 - 01:09PM
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 07, 2012 - 1:00PM
#5456
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
LOL.
Schroedinger's Spellcasting Conditions?
In 3.5 the monster only has a chance to make a save if the wizard allows it. If the wizard doesn't want his spells saved against they won't be. You can jack the save DCs of your spells so high that it's always a 20 to save. At that point, it's effectively no save. Sure, 1/20 times you waste a spell, but 19/20 times you blow away the biggest bad in a fight. That's odds I'll take any day.
If the DM allows it. If he doesn't, you can't. Like thousands of damage, some things just shouldn't be allowed. 3e was definately overpowered and required some work. It wasn't hard to keep spellcasters from jacking up their prime stat.
'Wizards are balanced. As long as you ban half their class."
Moderated by
ORC_Ragnar
on Aug 07, 2012 - 01:10PM
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 07, 2012 - 1:10PM
#5457
|
|
|
Ive removed content from this thread because harassment and trolling/baiting are violations of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively. If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Post button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 07, 2012 - 2:03PM
#5458
|
Date Joined:
Mar 27, 2012
|
The only thing 4e really did to roles was..
1.Label them
2.Give Defender roles a way to actually defend that doesn't hinge on the DM metagaming.
And 3 Which no one says here strangly, Give the Striker, Esp the rogue Ranger and Warlock Extra Damage Just for being Strikers, something that makes a role change for another class impossible.
Oh and if this was not enough they get the only non +1 feats to bump that spare damage that They are given to make it more obscene when compared to any other class in the game. So yes Role matters a lot there. As for defenders, I can armor up a Controller, use feats and bump Con if necessary and defend better than a defender Control by turn Is not Really "Control" It's duration is too short to be impactful at all but the highest levels, Even the strongest,(Save ends) powers are useless against elites and Solos who get huge bonuses to saves, and as for push pull slide, every one gets these powers at every level as far as I have seen.
Further AoE does not do enough damage to enemies to be worth while, but does does enough to be a true liability to allies. Striker bumps are deliberately prevented from being used on non striker powers, so there goes the hybrid fighter ranger, or wizard Warlock. Effectively Wizards has said Here is your Role Stick with it or suffer, not a stance I personally like, and one that dampens the general creativity of the game.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 07, 2012 - 3:27PM
#5459
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
To me, the issue is not so much the Vancian system, but how the spells themselves are written. If 4e had Evard's Black Tentacles written and mechanically doing exactly as it did in earlier editions, it would be just as broken in the AEDU system.
Would it? As one of only 4 dailies, only 3 of which you can choose each day, with no duplicates? Compared to being able to cast it two or three or more times a day, with Metamagic as you get to higher spell levels?
No doubt it's power would be substantially reduced, but even for a one time per day spell it is very powerful. It covers a 20' radius area, gives no save and no SR. The tentacles can make a grapple attempt at anyone entering the area having an BaB of a large creature + the caster's level + a 19 Str. If it hits, it does damage. It creates difficult terrain in the area as well. It lasts a round a level. Factor in 3e/Pf's broken grapple rules and you get an "I win spell." So while Tony has a very good point, this is the case where the spell itself still needs a recalibrating.
Well, in pasting it into 4e, actually, a lot of that would go away. The grapple rules aren't broken, for instance, and durrations aren't round/level anymore, it'd more likely be an action to sustain.
But, the point still stands: the Vancian casting system makes a broken spell /much more available/ and thus more abuseable than the AEDU system did. And, no system is going to be perfect, there will be broken spells in any book, not to mention situational or borderline arguably-best spells. Under AEDU, the player who spots the broken spell picks it and uses it 1/day (or 1/encounter if it's a less powerful, encounter attack spell, I suppose), he still needs to pick out and use other spells. Under Vancian, he can stack his rack with it, in every slot that can hold it - possibly with scrolls and wands, besides. ( Spellpoints? XOMG, he can cast nothing else all day long.)
To answer Tony's query about Pathfinder being buff oriented above: It is, but not in the 3e way. It is not about cast and rock. The buffs by themselves are ho-hum, but pair them up with the right class features (whether on yourself or a team mate) and yes, it is "awesome sauce."
Thanks. But, I was also very curious: how did Pathfinder nerf SoDs?
The spells that get the biggest boost in Pathfinder are the summoning spells....The affect of all this in Pathfinder seems to be either a build is pure epic win or it sucks with very little in between. Somewhere between levels 4 and 8 you will know which builds in your party rules and which ones drool; and by 13th PF simply breaks. I ran a Pathfinder game that made it to 18th level. Never again...
Well, that certainly /sounds/ like a rightful successor to D&D. 
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 07, 2012 - 6:04PM
#5460
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2008
|
@ Tony_Vargas, "Thanks. But, I was also very curious: how did Pathfinder nerf SoDs?" To answer your question about SoDs in Pathfinder-- Most of the old SoDs don't kill anymore outright. Most deal damage, a lot of damage, and if the target saves, less damage. I'll simply post the relevant parts of some sample spells that were/are SoDs and let you see for yourself. For example, Finger of Death:"This spell instantly delivers 10 points of damage per caster level. If the target's Fortitude saving throw succeeds, it instead takes 3d6 points of damage + 1 point per caster level. The subject might die from damage even if it succeeds on its saving throw."Disintegrate:"A thin, green ray springs from your pointing finger. You must make a successful ranged touch attack to hit. Any creature struck by the ray takes 2d6 points of damage per caster level (to a maximum of 40d6). Any creature reduced to 0 or fewer hit points by this spell is entirely disintegrated, leaving behind only a trace of fine dust. A disintegrated creature's equipment is unaffected.... ... A creature or object that makes a successful Fortitude save is partially affected, taking only 5d6 points of damage. If this damage reduces the creature or object to 0 or fewer hit points, it is entirely disintegrated."Flesh to Stone:"The subject, along with all its carried gear, turns into a mindless, inert statue. If the statue resulting from this spell is broken or damaged, the subject (if ever returned to its original state) has similar damage or deformities. The creature is not dead, but it does not seem to be alive either when viewed with spells such as deathwatch. Only creatures made of flesh are affected by this spell."This 8th level spell actually kills outright-- Symbol of Death:"This spell allows you to scribe a potent rune of power upon a surface. When triggered, a symbol of death kills one or more creatures within 60 feet of the symbol (treat as a burst) whose combined total current hit points do not exceed 150. The symbol of death affects the closest creatures first, skipping creatures with too many hit points to affect. Once triggered, the symbol becomes active and glows, lasting for 10 minutes per caster level or until it has affected 150 hit points' worth of creatures, whichever comes first. A creature that enters the area while the symbol of death is active is subject to its effect, whether or not that creature was in the area when it was triggered. A creature need save against the symbol only once as long as it remains within the area, though if it leaves the area and returns while the symbol is still active, it must save again... " Most of Pathfinder's deadly spells follows this trend. The Save or Suck spells often allow a save every round such as Hold Person. Note, I am not claiming the Vancian System is better than AEDU. I am maintaining that there are spells that need a rewrite no matter what system they are in. To keep the Vance debate going-- Isn't the only difference between a Vancian Daily vs an AEDU daily the amount of castings a higher level caster gets? Think about it, a wizard who just hit 14th level gets only one 7th level spell per day, so it is exactly a daily at that point. It is when he gains enough levels to get 3 or more castings (of 7th level spells in this case) that Vancian can get out of hand. It might be a simple thing to put in a module rule that limits a caster to 1 to 3 uses of any one particular spell per day to stop spell spamming. As I said earlier, I am not a Vance fan, though it's inclusion to DDN is not a deal breaker for me. I prefer lower powered abilities paired up with a gradually refreshing stamina type system and that isn't happening in D&D Next. To be honest, if D&DN used a variation of AEDU, I would be OK with that too. I just want things to be balanced, fun and easy to play and DM.
|
|
|
