Printable View
simply put, are the words of power options put for in the Ultimate Magic balanced against normal spell casting? they seem to either be much better at low levels, or much worse at higher ones, or just generally unusable. and if they are unusable, could any of you think of how to salvage them?
Hm... I think I know something about this... Maybe there's... A handbook in production?
:smalltongue:
The way I see it, it give spontaneous casters a bit of an edge with spells. Individual effects seem to be a bit weaker than normal spells, but you get more variety. Of course, you get animate dead as a 2nd level Effect word (Cleric), so... Yeah. It balances out.
i must say, it seems awesome for generalist, but it cannot make good blasters without relying on multiple words. still, it does seem to balance alright.
i wonder though, would this work for a campaign?
All casting is done through words of power, only the most dangerous of quests can gain conventional spells, but characters can use both freely, so long as tey have hunted down the rare and powerful Magic Missile or whatever.
Might work. The spontaneous casters have the ability to learn normal spells built in, though...
I'd fluff it as wordcasting being only spontaneous and standard vanacian being prepared. Seems more... Right to me.
that does seem like a good idea... thanks for the suggestion.
Yeah. The words of power seems more like it's Primal magic, which spontaneous casters are usually fluffed as using. Normal casting is that, but "pinned down", and studied.
You know?
Besides, if either wants to give the other type a shot, there are feats for a small amount of the other to be learned.
yeah that is true. it seems kinda odd though. in a wierd way, even though sorcerers realy benefit from the versatility, my favorite build ( a clever illusionist/shadow conjuration/evocation sorcerer) doesn't work with this (noth without feats though)
I just have to chime in and say this: That isn't a very good benchmark to measure anything against.Quote:
Originally Posted by OracleofSilence
while that is indeed true, even though casting is unbalanced, previous efforts to do similar things to words of power have been an unusable mess.
While I haven't had the luxury of playing either a Truenamer or using the Words of Power options, I believe a better benchmark for balance would be the Beguiler's spellcasting abilities. If it is comparable to that, then it should be balanced.Quote:
Originally Posted by OracleofSilence
Except there are no beguilers in Pathfinder. And even then, he wants to compare their blasting potential, which isn't the beguiler's forte.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Fau
And regular spellcasting isn't quite as broken in PF. There still are ways to abuse it, of course, but most of the problem spells/feats/metamagic reductions have been fixed.
I never noticed that Words of Power guide for some reason. I'll have to check that out :smallsmile:
I'm not going to derail this thread, so I'll just say I disagree with the bolded part and leave it at that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blisstake
Okay, but I disagree with your disagreement *eyeroll*
You're right, this isn't the place, but I don't really think it's appropriate to compare the somewhat niche casting abilities of a non-PF class to a PF magic system.
I'm just saying that the 3.5 Beguiler is a good benchmark for any spellcasting variant. Though I supposed a Swordsage would be a better comparison, considering WoP is blasting-focused.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blisstake
But to reiterate the problem with Blasting: You only need two or three decent blasting spells, not 40 bad ones or even 10 good ones.
Yeah, I realize it's not optimal. I misunderstood what OracleofSilence was saying, and thought he was asking how well blasting works under this new system.
I think it's actually a bit better for blasting because of all the different shapes you get, rather than being stuck to the same one. (Better for spontaneous casters, at any rate, since they can control that at whim.)
I agree the system seems more suitable to spontaneous casters - bard, sorcerer, and oracle. Bards are all about words. Sorcerers get their magic through their bloodline, not study. Oracles are Cursed into their talents, not thorough reflection. Wizards study and learn. Clerics and Druids have established faiths to follow. Paladins are definitely rigid. Rangers would be particular.
It's too late for my Sorcerer to use it, but had the book come out before the campaign started I might have given it a try with a different roleplaying aspect for my character.
Actually, there are feats included in UM to allow you to use some of the words contained within the book.Quote:
Originally Posted by navar100
My feat choices are already committed for what I want, and my character concept requires specific spells.
One thing I don't understand is, how do target and meta words work? Do they increase the spell level, or do they just need a minimum spell level to use?
Right. A wordspell will always have a target word and at least one Effect word.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drahcir
If you want to use a wordspell of, say, 4th level, the spell slot had better be at least 4th level. Other than that, the Target word doesn't effect the spell level.
Nor do meta words. Think of them as... Well, the "Sudden" line of metamagic feats, with all of them drawing from the same pool of uses. You get 1/2 wordcaster level+any bonus from feats per day. Other than the Boost word, which specifically messes with levels, of course.
You know, it occurs to me that using the WoP, you can create a truly free-form magic system within d&d. If you are a sorceror, or any other spontaneous spellcaster, using this system and the spell-point system together, you would have a very flexible and awesomely non-Vancian system of spellcasting. That is totally going to be my character for my next campaign.