@Ἄρτεμις Neither really changes very much. Yes, enervation is never going to be the only spell you ever use—but it’s a case-in-point about the versatility of the spell lists and their ability to get around any blanket solution like this. Also, if you are comparing enervation against high-level targets, you have to consider a metamagic’d enervation, and enervation responds very nicely to metamagic.

@Ἄρτεμις You are fixating on a specific example and ignoring the bigger problem.

I think it needs to be considered, that casters would use Heighten Spell to raise the DC's as needed, but they do have less high level slots to do that with.

I think the question isn't really answered. "Is there a problem," your answer says YES. "Does this fix it," your answer says NO. I am going to modify the question to include "Does this make it better/*more* playable?"

@Ἄρτεμις It’s a series of broad-stroke band-aid fixes, some good, some bad. Overall, is it an improvement? Probably. Does it actually fix the problems? Emphatically no, it does not.

@Ἄρτεμις Well, I have answered that more explicitly, and I addressed the Heighten Spell thing, and removed the mention of enervate because it apparently is drawing too much attention. The really important bit, the bit to focus on, is there are no shortcuts. Pathfinder just isn’t that great a system, and it just doesn’t scale into higher levels well. This is a huge, systemic problem that is the result of the sum total of all the various components of the game working in concert and how those things change as levels increase. There is no quick fix. If there was, you’d hear about it.

OK. I see the math problem on the limited magic system...The table could be altered to allow a new metamagic feat (+1 spell level) that applies any additional bonus from the casters attribute (So casting fire ball with 22 INT would use a 4th level slot, 5d6 dmg, and raise the DC to 18. Or they heighten it to 6th level, it does 11d6 with DC of 19, or both: 7th level slot, 11d6, DC 23. I see your point, I am afraid of too many modifications scaring players away that can no longer use "Hero's Lab" or something to make their characters as well, as another problem. But my players seem amenable.

yeah, you could give them that

you could even give it to them free

but why would anyone use it?

or, I guess prepared spellcasters might

to raise the dc, obviously?

you take the second-highest level spells you can cast, apply that metamagic to them, maybe

but

here's the thing

that's taking up one of your highest spell slots

each level of spell is leagues better than the previous

so you're better off taking a spell that allows no save instead

and that being the case

why even bother taking the feat?

of course, spontaneous casters can just-about-never take any save-allowing spells

because it's going to become uncastably obsolete in a few levels

OK. Maybe the reduced spell slots + limited magic is too much? honestly, other than enervation, which we discussed wasn't as good as you thought in practice, what spells really allow no save and eliminate the threat?

no, it's every bit as good as I thought it was

I just don't care to argue with you about it

because it is besides the point

limited magic is a bad idea, period, for every game

it's actually kind of embarrassing that Paizo published it

If a caster has to take 2 rounds to get a -8 on the great wrym gold dragon, that is a lot of time.

but then, in that regard, it's hardly the worst offender in Pathfinder

I am not going to argue with you about enervate

stop arguing about it, it's irrelevant

i am not trying to argue, i just don't get it.

I removed it from my answer to stop you from thinking it's this one spell that is the problem

it's never this one spell

OK. So you are suggesting that limited magic is just going to suck trying to use.

you seem to keep latching on to one idea after another thinking it's going to be the quick fix you want

but there is no such thing

@Ἄρτεμις yes, and it sharply limits the functional approaches to spellcasting without eliminating overpowered spellcasters

the buffer, for example

that one still works

the blaster, the curser? dead, no one should ever play those under those rules

battlefield control? well, a lot of the spells are dead, but others are untouched

so still overpowered, but now with more traps

and that is the real problem

limited magic doesn't say "spellcasters can no longer be overpowered"

what it says is "spellcasters can still be overpowered, but there are now way, way more traps in building a spellcaster that can easily lead a player to producing a useless character"

OK, assuming you are right with this (I can't really believe it completely with out playtest), the less spell slots by it self, means the caster can only cast such a spell once or at most twice per day most likely. So yeah, they get an over powered spell, but its a one shot for the day. And you are assuming conditions are such that it will be useful in every encounter.

why does the character keep going after using their spell?

there are ample spells available for producing safe havens in the middle of enemy territory

it's trivial to just rest and go to sleep

are they always going to be in such a hurry that they cannot wait a few hours?

probably not

and even if they are, that to me is balance-by-inconvenience

"Oh, well, this isn't a boss or miniboss and I expect one soon, so. I guess I'm sitting this fight out. Sure am glad to be playing this character."

well, it depends on what scenario they are in, in 5e for example, it is balanced such that the system assumes multiple encounters between rests.

That is more about how the dm frames the game.

@Ἄρτεμις Pathfinder assumes it too, but that doesn't mean it happens

also, the quote above is a pretty accurate description of how I felt playing 5e as a wizard

it's one of the reasons I didn't care for the system

"yeah, it's better balanced, but it mostly feels like I'm constrained by being bored, not because my abilities are actually better-balanced."

Ultimately, its up to my players, as I change to much shit, they might stop playing. BTW, in the previous chat, we have been having no issues to the changes in mobility rules at all. Haven't even had this problem, which I dug up from a game designer: enworld.org/forum/…

Maybe Ill just do the spell slot thing for now, and see how it goes. That requires minimal player effort.

fyi, here was our previous chat: chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/54379/…

@Ἄρτεμις that's certainly a concern, monsters were designed around the original rules and the monsters cheat to get around a lot of the problems in the system, which means if you open things up for everybody, you can run into problems

but then he goes and says something positive about the Mobility feat

which tells me he's a piss-poor designer

(by the way, I am also a designer)

i don't thing he was talking about the feat? I thought he just meant ability to move around

@Ἄρτεμις I agree with that, and I also think nixing the arcanist and the summoner (or unchaining the summoner) are good, easy ideas

@Ἄρτεμις oh whoops, I saw the different color and assumed it was a link

i finalized the previous changes we discussed at the bottom of the last chat. I got rid of dodge, moved it into mobility, and spring attack lets you withdraw as swift action. Not sure what bonus to give with creatures that have pounce now though.

Dodge+Mobility is still a huge trap

that effect is not worth a feat at all

the Spring Attack change is kind of weird, by "withdraw" do you mean "treat my starting square as not threatened"?

essentially

I want;ed to find something decent for a two feat adjustment

investement

it's not

I mean, no one should ever spend two feats that way

feats are so ridiculously valuable

and like, that's a good effect, the withdraw thing

but it's not worth two feats

one, maybe

but whatever, it's not the end of the world

hmm. oh well. I have a player that likes attacking and moving away. Those changes weren't necessarily trying to fix anything in the game, but to make the 5e players more comfortable.

as that kind of movement is normal in 5 e

fair

and I mean, so I'm a designer and I tend to think of things in very broad terms, and also in terms of worst cases, because I have to consider my work being used by many, many, many different tables, and my #1 goal is to ensure that none of them have a problem

ultimately, it might be more accurate to think of a lot of these "problems" as "risks of problems"

there are people who play Pathfinder and have never run into any of these problems

OK. I think for now Ill just do the spell slot thing and see how it goes. limited magic (especially esoteric components) might be too much time investment for the players. IDK, Ill run it by them, reminding them that it all effects npc casters as well.

but the risks really do get quite large at middle-high levels, and outright more-likely-than-not at high levels

it won't affect NPC casters they run into much at all

unless you are actively simulating their days up to the point the PCs show up before hand

err

the spell slots thing

not the limited magic thing

I really cannot too emphatically state how bad I think the limited magic rules are

i think it is closer to 5e, at least the part of having to use higher level slots for more damage, etc (although it doesn't affect DC's in 5e).

But I think the DC thing, you're right, might mess things up

and as you say repeatedly, damage is not the balance issues with spells, its the save or lose or no save stuff, if I understand your viewpoint

actually, forcing people to use higher slots for better effect (the stuff within the text block, not the duration or DC or whatever) is not a terrible idea

that is actually how psionics works

(disclaimer: I work with the publisher who produces psionics in Pathfinder)

@Ἄρτεμις that is true, yes

some of the effects of caster level can be relevant though

but yeah, you're right there that making people pay for damage or whatever other effects might just be a trap

One small think i noticed for my 11th level wizard in 5e. I can cast a fireball at third level for 8d6 damage (average 38) (save for half, evasion/resistance applies), or I can cast chromatic orb (no save, touch attack, can chose damage type), for 5d8 dmg (average 36)

sorry, typo, avg for fireball 28

ugh. typo. chromatic orb avg 22.5

so less damage, but garunteed if I hit

anyway, irrelevant.

I mean, Pathfinder definitely has similar issues; fireball is a pretty shitty spell

question on the quicken rod: what actions does it use? Swift and movement?

then you still have standard action left?

OK, to summarize, only things I am going to do for now is the spell progression tables, the metamagic rods being full round actions (except quicken) and more expensive, and balancing the spontaneous casters.

and adding arcanist to banned

@Ἄρτεμις seems reasonable enough

OK. thanks for the help here. I keeping sending links to my players for your answers!

heh, glad it helps