-
Re: [3.5 Magic System] The Codices of Spellshaping
OK... Several things.
First, your first level formulae stick with you until 4th, minimum. All spellshaping classes don't have enough formulae of higher levels to completely avoid first level ones until 5th or higher. So, while it is true that a lot of campaigns start at levels higher than first, how many start at 3rd? Even at 5th level, a savant still has a couple of readied first level formulae, simply because he doesn't know enough higher level ones. And for the ones I labelled as a good level of power, it's better to use those instead of spending an action refreshing. Especially with your upgrade to heighten formulae.
--------------------
Second off, there is a huge discrepency between the powers. Not to the point of "sure, some things are better than others", but to the point of "I feel bad taking some of these, knowing better options were available". A -2 penalty to strength for 2 rounds on a failed save is a lot worse than, say, armor-eating acid, which gives a -4 penalty to AC, no save, for one round. Even if the save was on the acid rather than the strength penalty, it's still better to hit with the -4 to AC, just because the effect is so much more noteworthy. (And it appears you've taken Armor-Eating Acid from the White Raven maneuver, Leading the Charge, so the acid should be pretty well balanced.)
-------------------
Third, at first level, a warblade can use Sapphire Nightmare Blade to deal an extra d6 of damage... which you seem to believe is too powerful (indicated by removing shadow of the new moon). Similarly, a warblade can use Wolf Fang Strike or Steel Wind to get two attacks. Or Leading the Attack to give his allies +4 to hit. A wizard at this level can cast sleep or color spray, effectively save or dies. He can cast grease, knocking multiple enemies prone and leaving them flat-footed. A rogue is hitting for 2d6 per hit, and possibly dual-wielding.
At first level, the people who are dealing damage are doing enough to down level-appropriate creatures. The people who aren't are seriously aiding in that attempt, or are plain removing them from combat. 1d8 and a -2 penalty to strength is underpowered, drastically, compared to what the rest of the table is doing. At a level when PC's hit points <= enemy crit damage most of the time, you want to kill them fast enough so that they can't crit anyone.
-------------------
Regarding Ice Glaze and Wild Growth: I mustn't have been clear, I thought ice glaze and wild growth were too strong, and could use a power-down. The powers I listed as "just right" were the ones I thought should stay as they are. The ones that I listed as just weak (which were all cantrip effects) could use the power-up. Those two were the ones that needed weakening. We disagreed on some of the ones that didn't need anything (you've given 2 of my list the axe). But yeah.
--------------------
Also, considering your concerns for workload, I am willing to help out on this. You've already listed 7 formulae that you wish to replace, so, I'm happy to help find suitable effects for those formulae, and I'm willing to suggest some replacements/alterations for the powers I've said could use some weakening/strengthening. It's your system, of course, so it's up to you whether you use any stuff I write, but the offer is there.
And I apologize if I have come off aggressive or mean-spirited. This looks like a really good system, and I wish to be able to use it in future campaigns. The first step is ensuring that everything is reasonable. As stands, the power discrepency at first level is the main thing standing out to me as unreasonable.
-
Re: [3.5 Magic System] The Codices of Spellshaping
Hello DonQuixote, I have a question; if you take the Spellshape attack feat are you able to learn formulas from that spellshape attack's circle via normal Formula Known progression.
I.e. If I'm playing an Air focused elemental adept and decide to pick up Sonorous Pulse; would I be able to learn Screeching Roc formula via level up, or would I have expend feats on Formula Study to get any formulas for Sonorous Pulse? That said, when I decide to replace an old formula with a newer one can I replace it with one from Screeching Roc?
-
Re: [3.5 Magic System] The Codices of Spellshaping
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chaos_redefined
First, your first level formulae stick with you until 4th, minimum. All spellshaping classes don't have enough formulae of higher levels to completely avoid first level ones until 5th or higher. So, while it is true that a lot of campaigns start at levels higher than first, how many start at 3rd? Even at 5th level, a savant still has a couple of readied first level formulae, simply because he doesn't know enough higher level ones. And for the ones I labelled as a good level of power, it's better to use those instead of spending an action refreshing. Especially with your upgrade to heighten formulae.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chaos_redefined
Second off, there is a huge discrepency between the powers. Not to the point of "sure, some things are better than others", but to the point of "I feel bad taking some of these, knowing better options were available". A -2 penalty to strength for 2 rounds on a failed save is a lot worse than, say, armor-eating acid, which gives a -4 penalty to AC, no save, for one round. Even if the save was on the acid rather than the strength penalty, it's still better to hit with the -4 to AC, just because the effect is so much more noteworthy. (And it appears you've taken Armor-Eating Acid from the White Raven maneuver, Leading the Charge, so the acid should be pretty well balanced.)
Well, if it is really that important, I'll do another revision pass on the 1st-level formulae after I finish revising the prestige classes. Just 1st-level formulae, making sure everything lines up. I really want to get the rest of the circles their first revision pass, though, and prestige class tweaking is a lot more relaxing for me, so it will be a nice break before I put my nose back to
It is worth pointing out, though, that I have no idea exactly what my balance point will end up being. While Ice Glaze and Wild Growth will probably have to find new jobs, whether the other formulae will be buffed or nerfed is anyone's guess. (By "anyone's guess," of course, we mean "whichever option involves Searing Flame coming out ahead." What. Don't give me that look. Stop judging me!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chaos_redefined
Third, at first level, a warblade can use Sapphire Nightmare Blade to deal an extra d6 of damage... which you seem to believe is too powerful (indicated by removing shadow of the new moon).
Shadow of the New Moon is being removed for synergy and structure concerns, not balance issues. I don't like the way that it functions: it's just too different from other formulae. It's one of those things that makes a lot of a sense as a maneuver--"Hoh, from which direction am I attacking? You do not know! The shadow knows!"--but less sense as a formula--"Hoh, I am blasting you with moonlight! Feel arbitrarily colder depending on how accurate I am!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chaos_redefined
A wizard at this level can cast sleep or color spray, effectively save or dies. He can cast grease, knocking multiple enemies prone and leaving them flat-footed.
Spellshapers are supposed to be weaker than spellcasters. Something like sleep or color spray is not showing up in the low-level register. Note the lack of true save-or-dies at any level. And the grease analogue may well be removed in the 1st-level revision.
To give you an idea of where spellshaping is situated in my head, it's supposed to be much more on the Evocation side of things. (Damned Conjuration, coming over here and taking our jobs.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chaos_redefined
At first level, the people who are dealing damage are doing enough to down level-appropriate creatures. The people who aren't are seriously aiding in that attempt, or are plain removing them from combat. 1d8 and a -2 penalty to strength is underpowered, drastically, compared to what the rest of the table is doing. At a level when PC's hit points <= enemy crit damage most of the time, you want to kill them fast enough so that they can't crit anyone.
I've never seen warlocks underperforming at our table. They seem pretty competitive, all told. Granted, we're a pretty low-op table. On the other hand, I'm pitching a low-op product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chaos_redefined
Regarding Ice Glaze and Wild Growth: I mustn't have been clear, I thought ice glaze and wild growth were too strong, and could use a power-down. The powers I listed as "just right" were the ones I thought should stay as they are. The ones that I listed as just weak (which were all cantrip effects) could use the power-up. Those two were the ones that needed weakening. We disagreed on some of the ones that didn't need anything (you've given 2 of my list the axe). But yeah.
Right, I was saying that I could out-and-out axe those two formulae, then weaken the others. I'm no longer certain whether or not that would be the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chaos_redefined
Also, considering your concerns for workload, I am willing to help out on this. You've already listed 7 formulae that you wish to replace, so, I'm happy to help find suitable effects for those formulae, and I'm willing to suggest some replacements/alterations for the powers I've said could use some weakening/strengthening. It's your system, of course, so it's up to you whether you use any stuff I write, but the offer is there.
Ehh...well, the best way to put this is that I'm neurotic and possessive. Incredibly so. I really want as much of the process to remain in-house as possible, especially given how eclectic my work time is at the moment. Being master of my domain means that I don't have to worry about coordinating with other people or disappointing them by not getting back to them on time. It also lets me throw the schedule for loops and so on.
Really, feedback of the sort that you've given is already plenty helpful. Drawing my attention to issues (and putting up with my slothful attitude towards actually changing things) lets me know what needs to be done. And that means that I can make the system better, which is pretty rewarding for everyone involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chaos_redefined
And I apologize if I have come off aggressive or mean-spirited. This looks like a really good system, and I wish to be able to use it in future campaigns. The first step is ensuring that everything is reasonable. As stands, the power discrepency at first level is the main thing standing out to me as unreasonable.
Oh, no, I didn't think you were being odious in the slightest! I just have a crippling fear of coming off as brusque and ill-tempered, and want to make sure that people don't feel like their feedback isn't welcome. I'm glad to see that you're so interested and invested in the material, and pleased that this is the only point that sticks out as unreasonable.
-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Regalus
Hello DonQuixote, I have a question; if you take the Spellshape attack feat are you able to learn formulas from that spellshape attack's circle via normal Formula Known progression.
I.e. If I'm playing an Air focused elemental adept and decide to pick up Sonorous Pulse; would I be able to learn Screeching Roc formula via level up, or would I have expend feats on Formula Study to get any formulas for Sonorous Pulse? That said, when I decide to replace an old formula with a newer one can I replace it with one from Screeching Roc?
No. Spellshape Study only lets you learn the spellshape attack, it doesn't grant you access to the circle. This can be useful for qualifying for prestige classes--some of which require a certain number of spellshape attacks or suchlike--but doesn't let you learn formulae from other circles from your class levels. You can, however, use the Formula Study feat to learn formulae from any circle, regardless of class access, so long as you know the relevant spellshape attack.
-
Re: [3.5 Magic System] The Codices of Spellshaping
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DonQuixote
Well, if it is really that important, I'll do another revision pass on the 1st-level formulae after I finish revising the prestige classes. Just 1st-level formulae, making sure everything lines up. I really want to get the rest of the circles their first revision pass, though, and prestige class tweaking is a lot more relaxing for me, so it will be a nice break before I put my nose back to
That's fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DonQuixote
It is worth pointing out, though, that I have no idea exactly what my balance point will end up being. While Ice Glaze and Wild Growth will probably have to find new jobs, whether the other formulae will be buffed or nerfed is anyone's guess. (By "anyone's guess," of course, we mean "whichever option involves Searing Flame coming out ahead." What. Don't give me that look. Stop judging me!)
Smoking Flames => Normal blast and fort vs being sickened. (They cough on the flames)
Lingering Flames => Normal blast + faerie fire or -4 penalty to AC. (The flames give your allies an idea of where to attack)
Most of your effects can be shuffled around a bit and still make sense flavour-wise. If you really want Searing Flame to look good, find a couple of the other effects from other circles that you feel are definitely pulling their weight, and carry them over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DonQuixote
Shadow of the New Moon is being removed for synergy and structure concerns, not balance issues. I don't like the way that it functions: it's just too different from other formulae. It's one of those things that makes a lot of a sense as a maneuver--"Hoh, from which direction am I attacking? You do not know! The shadow knows!"--but less sense as a formula--"Hoh, I am blasting you with moonlight! Feel arbitrarily colder depending on how accurate I am!"
Shadow of the New Moon: Make two Moonflare attacks. If the first hits, it deals no fire damage (still half cold damage). If the second hits, it deals no cold damage (still half fire damage).
That cover what you're after? (Also makes a great delivery for your minor formulae)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DonQuixote
Spellshapers are supposed to be weaker than spellcasters. Something like sleep or color spray is not showing up in the low-level register. Note the lack of true save-or-dies at any level. And the grease analogue may well be removed in the 1st-level revision.
While there aren't save or dies, I find being dazed for several rounds to be similar :D. In any case, that's why I included warblade first. A greatsword-weilding warblade at first level using punisher's stance and steel wind, flat out kills any two CR1 creatures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DonQuixote
To give you an idea of where spellshaping is situated in my head, it's supposed to be much more on the Evocation side of things. (Damned Conjuration, coming over here and taking our jobs.)
I did notice that the damage was stacking up. I just wrote up a boss as a level 7 character, who could deal a hell of a lot of damage on her most damaging attack. (Mind you, that attack was Degenerative Necrosis, heightened to 4th level. I find that with the way heighten works, low-level powers end up being quite effective sources of damage.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DonQuixote
I've never seen warlocks underperforming at our table. They seem pretty competitive, all told. Granted, we're a pretty low-op table. On the other hand, I'm pitching a low-op product.
My table had someone play a warlock. I felt bad with the damage I was dishing out as a swordsage. He got to do it from across the room, but it wasn't enough to be relevant. In any case, they get to sicken people. That's like half a "Leading the Charge" with the other half being turned into a penalty for the target to attack. And the bonus for everyone attacking him also applying to casting spells on him. Plus something about skill checks being lowered. It even lasts a minute. It really pulls its weight when you stop and think about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DonQuixote
Right, I was saying that I could out-and-out axe those two formulae, then weaken the others. I'm no longer certain whether or not that would be the case.
While axing might not be the only solution, I wouldn't bat an eyelid if you decided to cut entangle+damage and grease+damage. You could probably replace them with making the area difficult terrain, no save vs entangle, no "make them fall down" effect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DonQuixote
Ehh...well, the best way to put this is that I'm neurotic and possessive. Incredibly so. I really want as much of the process to remain in-house as possible, especially given how eclectic my work time is at the moment. Being master of my domain means that I don't have to worry about coordinating with other people or disappointing them by not getting back to them on time. It also lets me throw the schedule for loops and so on.
Really, feedback of the sort that you've given is already plenty helpful. Drawing my attention to issues (and putting up with my slothful attitude towards actually changing things) lets me know what needs to be done. And that means that I can make the system better, which is pretty rewarding for everyone involved.
Sure. I was offering to write up some formulae to fill gaps. Considering you are reviewing 16 circles, each with 21 formulae (336 formulae total), I could definitely see some cause for concern. Getting back to me, using them, or even reading them is optional, although appreciated. (Reading them would only be optional if you reconsidered the formulae that you originally ditched...)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DonQuixote
Oh, no, I didn't think you were being odious in the slightest! I just have a crippling fear of coming off as brusque and ill-tempered, and want to make sure that people don't feel like their feedback isn't welcome. I'm glad to see that you're so interested and invested in the material, and pleased that this is the only point that sticks out as unreasonable.
Awesome. I will admit I have a second concern, but it would have already showed up in playtesting for you if it was a problem. (Essentially, I'm worried about how high the damage can get. But if that was a concern, you'd have already seen it.)
-
Re: [3.5 Magic System] The Codices of Spellshaping
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chaos_redefined
Smoking Flames => Normal blast and fort vs being sickened. (They cough on the flames)
Lingering Flames => Normal blast + faerie fire or -4 penalty to AC. (The flames give your allies an idea of where to attack)
Most of your effects can be shuffled around a bit and still make sense flavour-wise. If you really want Searing Flame to look good, find a couple of the other effects from other circles that you feel are definitely pulling their weight, and carry them over.
Well, it was actually a joke--Searing Flame is my favorite circle--but it does bring up a good point: I'm trying to do this thing without duplication. Moving a formula from another circle into Searing Flame would then require coming up with a new formula for that circle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chaos_redefined
Shadow of the New Moon: Make two Moonflare attacks. If the first hits, it deals no fire damage (still half cold damage). If the second hits, it deals no cold damage (still half fire damage).
That cover what you're after? (Also makes a great delivery for your minor formulae)
It's more that there's no mechanical consistency between the way that Shadow of the New Moon works and the way that other formulae work. I'd much rather simply rewrite it to be something more magical, as opposed to just multiple attacks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chaos_redefined
While there aren't save or dies, I find being dazed for several rounds to be similar :D. In any case, that's why I included warblade first. A greatsword-weilding warblade at first level using punisher's stance and steel wind, flat out kills any two CR1 creatures.
Then I view that as a problem with greatsword-wielding warblades at first level using punisher's stance and steel wind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chaos_redefined
I did notice that the damage was stacking up. I just wrote up a boss as a level 7 character, who could deal a hell of a lot of damage on her most damaging attack. (Mind you, that attack was Degenerative Necrosis, heightened to 4th level. I find that with the way heighten works, low-level powers end up being quite effective sources of damage.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chaos_redefined
Awesome. I will admit I have a second concern, but it would have already showed up in playtesting for you if it was a problem. (Essentially, I'm worried about how high the damage can get. But if that was a concern, you'd have already seen it.)
I did some stupid amount of math a while ago, demonstrating that a spellshaper optimized for damage still did less damage than a sorcerer optimized for damage. Since then, I actually removed some of the elements that the optimized spellshaper used. I think that, in general, the damage can be on the high end, but it never breaks through anything. At least, it didn't when I played in a game that ran to level thirty.
Note also that spellshaping is primarily balanced for player character use. I'm much more concerned with how a spellshaping character performs against a group of monsters than against a group of PCs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chaos_redefined
While axing might not be the only solution, I wouldn't bat an eyelid if you decided to cut entangle+damage and grease+damage. You could probably replace them with making the area difficult terrain, no save vs entangle, no "make them fall down" effect.
We'll see when I get there. Axing tends to be my gut reaction when it comes to area effects, since they can also mess up your allies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chaos_redefined
Sure. I was offering to write up some formulae to fill gaps. Considering you are reviewing 16 circles, each with 21 formulae (336 formulae total), I could definitely see some cause for concern. Getting back to me, using them, or even reading them is optional, although appreciated. (Reading them would only be optional if you reconsidered the formulae that you originally ditched...)
Again, neurotic. Being the only one who directly writes any of the material lets me do so at my pace, without leaving anyone frustrated because they're getting cut out. It also lets me ruminate on things and throw up certain ideas that have been altered by contact with the rest of everything in my brain.
This is part of why all the spellshaping material that has been written by other homebrewers is being sneakily swept into the Appendices under one excuse or another. It lets me worry about working through the bulk of the material in the ways that are most conducive to my creative process while also ensuring that everything sees the light of day somewhere.
-
Re: [3.5 Magic System] The Codices of Spellshaping
AoE's are something that require tactical use. I've seen it mess up an ally once, and that was a fireball anyway. Don't axe things just coz they are AoE's. (The ally was told "eh, you had evasion. I thought you'd be fine.")
-
Re: [3.5 Magic System] The Codices of Spellshaping
...Okay. Big thing I noticed was that dragonheart adepts can get absurd AC. Suggest removing armor proficiencies. :smalleek:
-
Re: [3.5 Magic System] The Codices of Spellshaping
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chaos_redefined
AoE's are something that require tactical use. I've seen it mess up an ally once, and that was a fireball anyway. Don't axe things just coz they are AoE's. (The ally was told "eh, you had evasion. I thought you'd be fine.")
It's more that, given the format, I figure that the majority of your attacks should not be making area effects. Note that I'm not removing them all--rather, I'm reducing the number of "attack one target, then create something centered on them." Since there were a lot of things that did that for lack of anything better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
vasharanpaladin
...Okay. Big thing I noticed was that dragonheart adepts can get absurd AC. Suggest removing armor proficiencies. :smalleek:
I...thought I fixed that! They only get light armor as is, and lose their Charisma bonus to AC if they ever wear anything heavier than that. Does light armor really make that much of a difference?
-
Re: [3.5 Magic System] The Codices of Spellshaping
You can make almost anything into light armor... I don't think it's a problem, I'm just saying.
-
Re: [3.5 Magic System] The Codices of Spellshaping
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sirpercival
You can make almost anything into light armor... I don't think it's a problem, I'm just saying.
But...then...why do they even...armor categories...argh.
I do remember having this conversation a while ago, though. I could have sworn I fixed it to the satisfaction of all concerned parties.
----------------------------
Crushing Stone has been revised! On to Devouring Shadow.
-
Re: [3.5 Magic System] The Codices of Spellshaping
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DonQuixote
But...then...why do they even...armor categories...argh.
I do remember having this conversation a while ago, though. I could have sworn I fixed it to the satisfaction of all concerned parties.
I mean, it takes investment. But mithril breastplate is pretty common, for example.
-
Re: [3.5 Magic System] The Codices of Spellshaping
Mithral breastplates are light armor.
-
Re: [3.5 Magic System] The Codices of Spellshaping
How much AC are we talking "Absurd"?
-
Re: [3.5 Magic System] The Codices of Spellshaping
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NineThePuma
How much AC are we talking "Absurd"?
+40 hits on 19+.
-
Re: [3.5 Magic System] The Codices of Spellshaping
So, an AC of 59?
At what level? And how much money has he poured into his AC? Coz that might not be a problem with the class, and more a problem that you are playing at the higher levels, or even epic... Especially if there are creatures with +40 to hit.
-
Re: [3.5 Magic System] The Codices of Spellshaping
Quote:
Originally Posted by
vasharanpaladin
+40 hits on 19+.
I'm not quite used to the format you're using for this. Are you saying that a creature with a +40 attack bonus only hits on rolls of 19 or higher?
In that case, yeah, I'm going to have to ask what level the character is. Also, how much has he been focusing on AC over other things? Your last comment had him not doing too well, so what changed?
-
Re: [3.5 Magic System] The Codices of Spellshaping
I'm still trying to get hold of the character sheet, but yeah, they were supposed to be level 20 and the only defensive item I was aware of was the maxed-out mithral breatplate. Which probably would've been fine if she didn't also have the most ferocious offense of the party... might just be colored by that one delve, but with three subsystems for class features, and in-built AC and epic weapons by 20th? Something's gotta give, don't you think?
Or, at the very least, it's not the T3 balance point (I hope) you were shooting for...
EDIT: As compared to a harrowed, Kellus's truenamer and a vanilla crusader kitted in Mechanus gear and swinging a minotaur greathammer, mind, so it might just be notable because she's the only one that couldn't be touched. :smallannoyed:
-
Re: [3.5 Magic System] The Codices of Spellshaping
To be fair, the harrowed is being redone due to significant issues.
-
Re: [3.5 Magic System] The Codices of Spellshaping
Quote:
Originally Posted by
vasharanpaladin
I'm still trying to get hold of the character sheet, but yeah, they were supposed to be level 20 and the only defensive item I was aware of was the maxed-out mithral breatplate. Which probably would've been fine if she didn't also have the most ferocious offense of the party... might just be colored by that one delve, but with three subsystems for class features, and in-built AC and epic weapons by 20th? Something's gotta give, don't you think?
Epic weapons by 20th? What are you...
...god damn it.
Okay, so, Draconic Empowerment is tweaked to be +1 per 4 levels, capping it at +5 at 20th level. That bit of stupid is fixed.
Then, the Charisma bonus to AC is dropped.
That fix things on your end?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
vasharanpaladin
Or, at the very least, it's not the T3 balance point (I hope) you were shooting for...
Yup, that's still the goal. It just gets messy with complicated ones like the dragonheart adept.
-
Re: [3.5 Magic System] The Codices of Spellshaping
Devouring Shadow has been revised.
- Terrorize has been replaced with False Vitality, which gives you a number of temporary hit points equal to your shaper level.
- Infect has been switched from actual diseases to disease-like effects, defined in-formula.
- Wracking Pain has been replaced with Ward of Retribution, which forces attackers to make Fortitude saves or take damage equal to the damage they inflict upon you.
- Petrifying Gaze has been replaced with Pox, which allows you to combine two disease effects from Infect and makes them contagious.
Comments? Criticism? Rituals to bring about my death and unending torment?
-
Re: [3.5 Magic System] The Codices of Spellshaping
Are you going to go through and "rerole" the various circles?
-
Re: [3.5 Magic System] The Codices of Spellshaping
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NineThePuma
Are you going to go through and "rerole" the various circles?
I'm...not entirely certain what you mean, but I'm going to try to answer anyway! I will be answering as though the question were meant to be interpreted as: "I have noticed that some types of effects are being moved out of some circles, while new formulae seem to focus on different aspects of combat. Are you intentionally skewing circles to fit different combat roles?" If that wasn't what you meant to ask, let me know.
Anyway! The most important part of the refocusing has to do with the fact that, when circles were originally written, other circles didn't exist. For example, Shocking Current is going to be losing a decent number of things to accommodate the new existence of Screeching Roc. That sort of thing. Brilliant Dawn and Glimmering Moon are losing a few things to Fleeting Image, and so on.
At the same time, getting more experience and understanding under my belt has shown me that certain types of effects have...complications. I'm axing anything that renders targets helpless to avoid coup de grace shenanigans. I'm also removing things that seem disproportionate for their level.
In terms of the additions, getting the chance to play a bit more has shown me that not every formula in a circle has to be relevant to every character. In most cases, you won't know every formula from a circle, and you'll almost never have them all prepared. Since it's now the case that one-third of the spellshaping base classes are melee-based, I'm sliding in a few formulae here and there that they might find attractive.
Assuming that this inquiry was sparked by False Vitality and Ward of Retribution, that's what's going on there. Devouring Shadow had a lot of affliction elements going on, but I needed minor formulae at 1st and 5th. False Vitality struck me as a great way to toy with the back-and-forth between positive and negative energy. After I had that, I figured I might as well put something defensive in the 5th-level slot, so Ward of Retribution came to be. Given the amount of backlash necromancy effects, it seems thematically appropriate--though it might need a new name.
In general, though, I'm not planning to push circles towards specific combat roles. The formulae in a circle are grouped thematically, not cladistically, and I think I want it to stay that way.
-
Re: [3.5 Magic System] The Codices of Spellshaping
I have a player that uses a Spellshaping class in my game, specifically the Spellshot Marksman.
At level 3rd and 4th, she (a player who's playing their FIRST real, serious game) outshines completely the rest of the team, being now:
Warblade3/Crusader1, spiked chain tripper, getting close in terms of usefullness
Magus4 (a dwarf who's rarely in combat in time)
Fire-themed Wizard3/Crusader1 (going JPM and atm being a dead weight mostly).
We're playing 3.P.
And as I noticed, I still have some problems wrapping my head around the Command Projectile ability. How exactly is it supposed to work? Can the player declare it's use shooting the arrow and just... Shoot it through 2 targets for example? I mean, her Rapid Shot + Command Projectile means 3 attacks per round (12 CHA), which means that even now she completely outdamages the other party members. Not to say she rarely uses the spellshapes at all...
How do I balance it without completely taking the toys from the player? I've talked to her and she's willing to cooperate, not too bitter with the fact I'll probably slap the character with a nerfhammer.
-
Re: [3.5 Magic System] The Codices of Spellshaping
Command Projectile does not give an extra attack. What it does is allow you to make your subsequent ranged attacks with the same bullet/arrow/what have you, thus not spending ammunition. In addition, you determine range, cover, and other combat modifiers as though you were firing the projectile from any square adjacent to the projectile's most recent target. More useful in situations where terrain obstructs the marksman's line of sight.
Also, note that Rapid Shot requires that you take a full attack option, which means that you cannot channel formulae in a turn in which you use Rapid Shot.
In terms of outshining the party, I'm not sure how spellshot marksman is contributing to the problem if she's rarely using any formulae. Simply channeling the spellshape attack doesn't increase the damage dealt by the weapon--it just changes the damage type. The misreading of Command Projectile is the only thing I can think of. Do note, however, that I know absolutely nothing about the changes made in Pathfinder.
However, it should be noted that a user on MinMax recently performed a Same Game Test on the spellsage, which displayed rather more competence than I would like. As such, I'm contemplating leveling the additional damage from major formulae to something like:
{table]2nd|+1d6
3rd|+2d6
4th|+3d6
5th|+4d6
6th|+5d6
7th|+6d6
8th|+7d6
9th|+8d6[/table]
(With appropriate die sizes for the relevant circles.)
While this may seem like a pretty significant damage nerf, note that the spellshape attacks are continuing to scale up to 5d6. That means that you'll be doing 13d6 damage at level 17, without any feats or other damage increases. With the spellshape focus feats and the relevant lamen, a spellshaper would be able to get up to 16d6 damage, plus the effects of whatever formula was actually being shaped. Which, you know, seems like where we actually should be.
-
Re: [3.5 Magic System] The Codices of Spellshaping
Thanks for explaining. I was just assuming the command projectile was an additional attack (which seemed really ridiculous and strange, i must say), what sometimes doubled the damage. Now it seems more sensible (WTF was I thinking, really, additional iterative, full-BAB attacks equal to the CHA bonus? For free? on 4th level? Not very smart of me).
Thanks again, I guess it will bring her to about the warblade's level, which is nice.
One more question, though
Can the commanded arrow be used only in the same round it was fired, given there are any attacks to be made, or in the following one too? Does it remain in flight?
For the damage thing, yes, I do know this, and I was actually wondering if the formulae channeling added the damage to the bow-made shapings as normal. As it stands, I figure it does.
Pathfinder's most significant change building-wise is feats gained every odd (1, 3, 5 etc) level now, i guess.
-
Re: [3.5 Magic System] The Codices of Spellshaping
Quote:
Command Projectile (Su): When you reach 4th level, you gain the ability to exert your will on projectiles that you fire. As a free action following a ranged attack, you can choose to command your projectile, keeping it aloft and allowing it to follow impossible trajectories.
First paragraph, really just explains what the ability does without getting into nitty-gritty rules. Only mechanical bit here is that the decision is made as a free action that you take after making a ranged attack.
Quote:
A commanded projectile is not destroyed, even if it hits its target. Instead, it remains in the air under your command. You can make attacks and channel spellshape attacks and formulae through the projectile as though you were firing it normally, except that you determine range, cover, and other combat modifiers as though you were firing the projectile from any square adjacent to the projectile's most recent target.
Here's where the rules stuff starts. Normally, a projectile is destroyed on hitting its target, and has a chance to be destroyed even on a miss. That doesn't happen if you command a projectile--instead, it remains in the air. This allows you to continue using the projectile, meaning you don't consume any more ammunition.
In addition, since you're commanding a projectile that isn't being fired from your position, you get to aim from the projectile's position, rather than your own. There's a bit rock in the way that's obscuring your shot of the enemy caster? Shoot the warrior next to the rock, then shoot the wizard from that position, since the rock's no longer in the way.
Quote:
You may only command one projectile at a time, and you can only maintain control for a number of rounds equal to your Charisma modifier. Maintaining control of a commanded projectile is a free action. You can abandon a commanded projectile at any time as a free action, destroying the projectile in the process.
In order to avoid shenanigans, you can only command one projectile at once, even if you ask really nicely. You can, technically, shoot another projectile while commanding one, in which case the commanded one just...sort of sits there, feeling awkward. If you choose to command the new projectile, you must first abandon the first, which causes it to disembowel itself in shame.
Assuming you choose to keep commanding the first one, however, it stays in flight--and under your control--for a number of rounds equal to your Charisma modifier. Maintaining control of the thing only takes a free action, but actually taking a shot with it still takes the same action normally required to take the shot in question.
----
To summarize: You take a shot. Upon taking your shot, you decide to use your magic to control the arrow. For a number of rounds equal to your Charisma modifier after taking the original shot, you can continue to make attacks with that arrow, acting as if it was being shot from any square adjacent to its most recent target. Your number of attacks does not change, nor does the action required to make an attack. The primary relevant rules change is that it allows you to make shots from different angles and locations while remaining stock-still in order to gain your Careful Aim bonuses.
Sorry for the late reply, I've been drowning in examinations.
-
Re: [3.5 Magic System] The Codices of Spellshaping
Well, first, wanted to say that I'm really grateful to you for your explanations here.
Whew. All good.
In my defense, English is not my main language so I couldn't process the ability description as well as I should.
Also, I ran some playtests against random opponents straight off the appropriate challenge rating chart. It seems the class is sitting on about the crusader power-level, so it's nice and stuff.
Also, with the player having taken the Surging Spirit circle, I have to cope with questions if she can shoot herself in the face... But the ridiculous roleplaying more than makes up for it.
Oh well. I'm happy now. Thanks. Damn, now I might run my players through the Spellplague just to have a reason to make spellshaping the main magic system. ;D
-
Re: [3.5 Magic System] The Codices of Spellshaping
Glad I could help! I'm very happy with how spellshaping has turned out in general, and it's great to hear that it's serving your party well! Shooting yourself in the face for healing benefits is, admittedly, a little weird. I have no clue how I'd handle that one, but I should probably figure it out--my parties tend to be on that side of wacky.
Sorry, again, for the late reply. Exams have been killing me over here.