The Gaming Den

Oh yeah, I forgot, you're the one who only thinks in hyperbole. It's an ability that can see situational (if uncommon) in-combat usefulness, given to an already viable chassis as a bonus frogurt; and is of use outside combat by at least some margin, even if a diminishing one as you level.

Action Economy. When it takes up your entire turn for all practical purposes it needs to be worthwhile, especially since you could use that action to ya know, use one of those spells your 'solid chassis' gives you.

Getting a few lesser vigor wand charges out of it is inconsequential, and only utilizes a third of it anyways.

If it were a free action, you'd be right. But you aren't.

Wrong about what? Something that's rarely useful, but still is under limited circumstances? I'm not wrong about stating that about Beta's Channel Energy, and I'm certain you're not saying I'm wrong about it getting very heavily nerfed in the final release. Again, 'usually' =/= 'always and forever', no matter how much you close your eyes and ignore it.

That you're claiming it's good because it does 3 different things at once, when the only thing that can justify the action cost is the lesser vigor charge saving... only one thing and not three, and then only because it's out of combat and therefore not eating into Action Economy. So while it was nerfed since beta, in reality it was basically worthless regardless being at best an extremely minor out of combat ability that is quite frankly insulting to even write on your character sheet, that's how pathetic it is. Seriously, it's right up there with DR 5 at level 19. Which by the way is a level 3 ability.

My Favorite part of Pathfinder right now is this



As with the changed rules to Level 0 Spells a Cleric can prepare this to one of the level zero slots and cast it x amount of times a day where x is the number of standard actions in said day

now I haven't bothered to count how many Standard Actions are in a day but at 20th level thats 40 gallons of water a cast

and since the water lasts when not consumed for an entire day

Flooding much?

*smacks head* You have the reading comprehension of a fundie Christian. I never said it was good, I said it was vaguely useful.

At level 1 against a handful of goblin zombies or something, it undoes close to a round of their attacks while acting like a fireball (maybe sending some running afterwards), which sounds useful to me (requires at least both to fully meet it, likely). At higher levels, it's going to be a blue moon at the best of times for the party to be running out of spells/HP and surrounded by mook undead for it to be classed as 'good enough' (still technically better than nothing).

A giant image for the stats on a cantrip was kinda excessive and unneeded. *shrug*

You should be able to maintain 570k gallons by the end of a day, which would be tiring at minimum. The ability to mostly fill an olympic size swimming pool (660k gallons) is a waste of your time and not anywhere near what you should be accomplishing by this point.

It takes two and a half minutes to fill a 5' cube - the standard battlemat square - at 20th level using Create Water. Yes, that will drown people if it can be kept together in the cube, but it's not sufficient when it spreads out over an entire floor. If there's a drainage system (which a dungeon should have if you're trying to make sense) then you probably don't have the rate to fill anything at all since you have a flow of three and a third gallons per second.

Taleran wrote:My Favorite part of Pathfinder right now is this

now I haven't bothered to count how many Standard Actions are in a day but at 20th level thats 40 gallons of water a cast

and since the water lasts when not consumed for an entire day

Flooding much?

It would be 9600 times per day (8 hours rest is taken into account)

Also 8 gallons equals 64 pounds not 60.

virgileso wrote:A giant image for the stats on a cantrip was kinda excessive and unneeded. *shrug*

You should be able to maintain 570k gallons by the end of a day, which would be tiring at minimum. The ability to mostly fill an olympic size swimming pool (660k gallons) is a waste of your time and not anywhere near what you should be accomplishing by this point.

I guess you can't play Dark Sun in either 4.0 or Pathfinder, then.

Or 3.0 or 3.5, if anyone has Create Wondrous Item.

We visited DarkSunLand in a 3.5e Planescape game. Why yes, yes we did cast Create Water to amaze the locals, and sell barrels of the stuff... then went back to Sigil, bought a decanter of water and sold that to an evil wizard back in DSL.

FrankTrollman wrote: How are spellcasters more powerful? Aren't a bunch of spells nerfed?

First of all, nerfing "a spell" doesn't actually do anything to spellcasters in terms of overall power as long as there is still at least one spell that still makes them win at the same level. It makes spellcasters less interesting to have less spells they want to use, but it doesn't make them any worse to use spell X to win instead of spell Y. While many staples of the wizard arsenal (like Glitterdust) have gotten nerfed to make them severely less good, and the literal death spells have been reduced to inconsequential damage dealers, there are still spells that remove enemies from combat at every level. The fine folks at Paizo even added some.

I can't see this being called out anywhere on this thread (if I missed anyone's post, my apologies) - what is this unnamed spell that replaces the nerfed Glitterdust in this example? I've been studying the Pathfinder book over the past week and I can't find anything. In fact, I would suggest Glitterdust (despite being nerfed severely) may still be the best 2nd level combat spell for wizards.

I completely agree that "nerfing "a spell" doesn't actually do anything to spellcasters in terms of overall power as long as there is still at least one spell that still makes them win at the same level."(emphasis mine) - however, this post implies that Glitterdust has some such equal replacement. What is it?

It's not Alter Self - that got nerfed
It's not Web - that got nerfed

In order for the entire premise that the gap between casters and non-casters increased in Pathfinder to hold, this statement must hold as well, a Wizard's strength is not HP, Class Abilities, or Feats - it's spells. If the best spells were made weaker, and there are not equivalent spells in which to replace them - then the Wizard (and all spellcasters in turn) are weaker as well, and the gap has in fact been reduced, not increased.

(Though there is clearly still a gap, even nerfed spells are more versatile than no spells)

Another point that is often made in pointing out the "Gap" between casters and non-casters in 3.5 was replacability (not necessarily by FT). A Wizard could easily replace a fighter with Polymorph, A Druid could easily replace a fighter with Wildshape, A Cleric could easily replace a fighter with DMM persist.

Non-casters however could not fufil the roles of the caster: utility, Debuff, Buff, Battlefield Control.

Therefore, from an optimization standpoint, non-casters were essentially obsolete. Why play a non-caster when you could make a caster who could do the non-casters job and have extra spells to spare?

Has anyone addressed this with Pathfinder? It seems to me the ability of a Wizard to take the place of a fighter is far reduced from 3.5. Has anyone found tricks in Pathfinder for doing this? This would certainly add to the "Gap" argument.

If a Wizard can perform the fighter's job, that's an apples to apples comparison that makes the fighter largely redundant. This is the case with 3.5. However, if the caster cannot fufill the non-caster's role adequitely - then they become harder to compare.

If the non-casters are the best at melee now, this certainly makes comparison between casters and non-casters harder to accomplish, and hard to argue a larger "gap".

"Melee combat" isn't a job. It's a way of going about whatever the character's job is. A warrior-type class's "job" on the team is either Debuff (tripping, grappling) or Damage (chargers).

Wizards can inflict so many more status effects more easily than a fighter that it isn't even funny. Damage dealing is still a fool's game compared to save-or-dies unless your damage output is high enough to actually be a dodge-or-die.

Quantumboost wrote:"Melee combat" isn't a job. It's a way of going about whatever the character's job is. A warrior-type class's "job" on the team is either Debuff (tripping, grappling) or Damage (chargers).

Wizards can inflict so many more status effects more easily than a fighter that it isn't even funny. Damage dealing is still a fool's game compared to save-or-dies unless your damage output is high enough to actually be a dodge-or-die.

I'm using polite language here (Melee combat), allow me to use more familiar language.

In 3.5, there is a role in the party I like to refer to as "Big Stupid Fighter". The BSF has 3 primary jobs:

1) Take a licking and keep on ticking (Big)
2) Make himself an obsticle between the enemy and the squishy members of the party, making himself the only easy target for the enemy. (Stupid)
3) Do HP damage to the enemy (Fighter)

Many BSF's are trippers or grapplers, as this is one way to achieve the first job even better. Some charge to do job #3 better. Some focus on AC to do job #2 better.

However, in the end, the job is to be the guy who melee's with the enemy.

You can subdivide this job if you want - but I would suggest that a fighter who trips, a fighter who locks, or a fighter who stands between the enemy and the caster and stabs forward with his big pointy stick are all performing the same job in different ways.

I label them "fighter", though often they are different classes. Fighter is often a dip though if not a required class for the role.

If that's cleared up - any response to my original questions?

(P.S.: A wizard has always been a better debuffer than a BSF - this is nothing new with Pathfinder. This is still true with the nerfed Glitterdust - anyone got that replacement Frank was referring to yet?)

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/spells-of ... oul-hunger

Seems to have been nerfed from the last time we saw it.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/spells-of ... eil-of-ash is better though.

Hey Archerpwr - this is where you hang out now eh?

ubernoob wrote:http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/spells-of ... oul-hunger

Seems to have been nerfed from the last time we saw it..

Yeah - seems to be a ghoulish charm person spell. Effectually the same for combat - mind affecting will save to negate. Fail and you are out of the combat for 1 round/level. Hmmmm...maybe not quite as good as Charm person.

ubernoob wrote:http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/spells-of ... eil-of-ash is better though.

It is better. Potentially as good as the nerfed Glitterdust (one target only, but requires a new save each round). Nowhere near as good as the 3.5 version of Glitterdust though.

Did Frank have a replacement in mind to replace Glitterdust in his example? It still seems to me a Wizard has inferior options for top rank spells compared to his 3.5 counterpart.

Treantmonklvl20 wrote:Hey Archerpwr - this is where you hang out now eh?

ubernoob wrote:http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/spells-of ... oul-hunger

Seems to have been nerfed from the last time we saw it..

Yeah - seems to be a ghoulish charm person spell. Effectually the same for combat - mind affecting will save to negate. Fail and you are out of the combat for 1 round/level. Hmmmm...maybe not quite as good as Charm person.

1) Still better than charm person, since it doesn't break when you start eating their face.

2) When Frank posted it, Ghoulish Hunger was I believe a no save spell that did the same thing, IE took away their actions for one round per level.

3) Yes, after we have pointed out all their level 2 good spells, they have finally got to the part where level 2 Wizards cast Color Spray, and level 5 Wizards cast Stinking Cloud and Slow, and level 3-4 Wizards cast Color Sprays and Glitterdusts or Ash clouds.

One entire spell level is worse than before. Every other level is better or the same, I'm sure going to cry all the way home.

Treantmonklvl20 wrote:Hey Archerpwr - this is where you hang out now eh?

More or less. I don't even read most threads at the Den these days though. A bit busy with my various distractions.

Treantmonklvl20 wrote:

ubernoob wrote:http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/spells-of ... oul-hunger

Seems to have been nerfed from the last time we saw it..

Yeah - seems to be a ghoulish charm person spell. Effectually the same for combat - mind affecting will save to negate. Fail and you are out of the combat for 1 round/level. Hmmmm...maybe not quite as good as Charm person.

Yeah, not as good now.

Treantmonklvl20 wrote:

ubernoob wrote:http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/spells-of ... eil-of-ash is better though.

It is better. Potentially as good as the nerfed Glitterdust (one target only, but requires a new save each round). Nowhere near as good as the 3.5 version of Glitterdust though.

Glitterdust is better when you have more than one creature you can hit with it. Veil of Ash is better against any single target because a successful save doesn't totally end the effect.

Did Frank have a replacement in mind to replace Glitterdust in his example? It still seems to me a Wizard has inferior options for top rank spells compared to his 3.5 counterpart.

Ghoulish hunger was better back then.

Kaelik wrote: One entire spell level is worse than before. Every other level is better or the same, I'm sure going to cry all the way home.

Ahhh...I see. The spells at all other levels are equal or better overall except for the one example FT gave in his post (level 2). That I would bring up that level is wild coincidence, since at no other level would we find Pathfinder anything but equal or better than core 3.5.

So, for example, if I were to suggest that a core 3.5 wizard would want Polymorph and Evard's Black Tentacles as their primary two spells when 4th level spells became available - you could name two other spells they could take in Pathfinder of equivalent value as the originals before Pathfinder nerfing.

Very well - I'm curious to find out what spells I've been missing...proceed.

If this thing here (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spell ... litterdust is the new version of glitterdust I don't know why you aren't just taking glitterdust. Seriously, how exactly has this been nerfed?

shau wrote:If this thing here (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spell ... litterdust is the new version of glitterdust I don't know why you aren't just taking glitterdust. Seriously, how exactly has this been nerfed?

Each round people get a save to end the blindness.

Treantmonklvl20 wrote:

Kaelik wrote: One entire spell level is worse than before. Every other level is better or the same, I'm sure going to cry all the way home.

Ahhh...I see. The spells at all other levels are equal or better overall except for the one example FT gave in his post (level 2). That I would bring up that level is wild coincidence, since at no other level would we find Pathfinder anything but equal or better than core 3.5.

So, for example, if I were to suggest that a core 3.5 wizard would want Polymorph and Evard's Black Tentacles as their primary two spells when 4th level spells became available - you could name two other spells they could take in Pathfinder of equivalent value as the originals before Pathfinder nerfing.

Very well - I'm curious to find out what spells I've been missing...proceed.

Congratulations, you can keep naming specific nerfed spells. No one cares.

But the answer is 'it depends' because I don't know whether or not you are a backwards compatibility asshole or not.

Of course, you can still pick one of the eight unnerfed spells that are all better than Polymorph because Polymorph is a shitty spell and you should feel bad for bringing it up as something actually worth taking. But yes, if you want your AoE spell that limits weak creatures that can't fly or teleport, you have to deal with a slightly weaker version that has pretty much the same chance of success.

# blindness
# cloud of bewilderment (SpC)
# ghoul touch
# glitterdust
# lam's finger darts (BoVD)
# phantasmal assailants (SpC)
# shadowspray (SpC)
# web

I'm assuming shadowspray, phantasmal assailants and finger darts weren't nerfed, nor was cloud of bewilderment, go wild.

For level 4,

* call of stone
* charm monster
* evard's black tentacles
* fear
* finger of agony (Complete Mage)
* iceweb (Cold Outside)
* phantasmal killer
* solid fog
* greater rebuke (SpC)
* wall of good (SpC)
* wings of flurry (RotD)

That's five more spells that definitely haven't been nerfed, and a bunch that might have been.

Wizard still standing strong.

Vnonymous wrote:
I'm assuming shadowspray, phantasmal assailants and finger darts weren't nerfed, nor was cloud of bewilderment, go wild.

Well no, they're noncore, so PF can't fix them... but I mean if you're going to use the broken stuff like Shivering touch from the splatbooks, then you might as well not even bother buying Pathfinder. It'd be like selling your dick for condom money.