DreadArchon
First Post
Quartz said:
The disparity is intentional and (IMHO) functional, and thus (again, IMHO) does not need "correction."
Making magic orthogonal
- Thread starter Quartz
- Start date
The disparity is intentional and (IMHO) functional, and thus (again, IMHO) does not need "correction."
Arkhandus
First Post
I too agree that your point, Quartz, does not really make all that much sense and is an unnecessary change. A waste of time to work on. It seems like much ado about nothing.
It is an intentional fact of the design that classes who don't focus on spellcasting are not as good at it as others. Of course their spells have lower save DCs and effective caster level, it's an auxillery class feature to begin with, not their main strength, nor is it a focus of their training. It does not make their spells useless. It just makes them less mighty than those of dedicated spellcasters, who give up a lot of personal strength, which is all to the good.
What's a paladin or ranger going to miss out on when they face the occasional foe with a Globe of Invulnerability, anyway? Not much. If the enemy's a lich, the paladin may bemoan the fact that he can't hurt it with Cure Serious Wounds or Cure Moderate Wounds spells, but then, he's probably using those spell slots anyway to buff his party with Death Wards, Magic Circles against Evil, and Greater Magic Weapons. Paladin spells are nearly all restorative or buffing spells; hardly any of them have any use at all in directly smiting a foe (cure spells against undead are pretty much it, IIRC). Ranger spells are similarly focused on stuff other than blasting.
Paladin and ranger spells don't have high save DCs, but so what? They aren't generally meant for blasting or stopping enemies, they're made for pumping up the paladin's or ranger's team, or patching them up later. Sure rangers have a few spells with saves that matter, but they're not that important, and some are only for critters that tend to have low saves anyway (Hold Animal? Exactly how many animals have a Will save that doesn't suck noodles?).
How common are Globes of Invulnerability? Kinda rare actually. It's a sorcerer/wizard spell. How often are paladins and rangers going to face such a foe? How often will it really matter, since these are foes a paladin or ranger can pound into mincemeat after about 1-3 rounds of melee combat or archery, without any need for spells?
It is an intentional fact of the design that classes who don't focus on spellcasting are not as good at it as others. Of course their spells have lower save DCs and effective caster level, it's an auxillery class feature to begin with, not their main strength, nor is it a focus of their training. It does not make their spells useless. It just makes them less mighty than those of dedicated spellcasters, who give up a lot of personal strength, which is all to the good.
What's a paladin or ranger going to miss out on when they face the occasional foe with a Globe of Invulnerability, anyway? Not much. If the enemy's a lich, the paladin may bemoan the fact that he can't hurt it with Cure Serious Wounds or Cure Moderate Wounds spells, but then, he's probably using those spell slots anyway to buff his party with Death Wards, Magic Circles against Evil, and Greater Magic Weapons. Paladin spells are nearly all restorative or buffing spells; hardly any of them have any use at all in directly smiting a foe (cure spells against undead are pretty much it, IIRC). Ranger spells are similarly focused on stuff other than blasting.
Paladin and ranger spells don't have high save DCs, but so what? They aren't generally meant for blasting or stopping enemies, they're made for pumping up the paladin's or ranger's team, or patching them up later. Sure rangers have a few spells with saves that matter, but they're not that important, and some are only for critters that tend to have low saves anyway (Hold Animal? Exactly how many animals have a Will save that doesn't suck noodles?).
How common are Globes of Invulnerability? Kinda rare actually. It's a sorcerer/wizard spell. How often are paladins and rangers going to face such a foe? How often will it really matter, since these are foes a paladin or ranger can pound into mincemeat after about 1-3 rounds of melee combat or archery, without any need for spells?
FireLance
Legend
If I was running the paladin, I'd do something more productive - like making a melee touch attack and pouring an entire day's worth of lay on hands positive energy into the lich.Quartz said:
On topic, I think it would be nice if all classes used a single table to determine spells per day (say, the wizard table), and things like bonus spells (for a sorcerer) and domain spells (for a cleric) could be class abilities. Classes like the paladin and the ranger could advance on that table one step per two levels (eventually gaining 5th-level spell slots) and classes like the bard could advance on that table three steps per four levels (eventually gaining 8th-level spell slots). Advancement on the table would stack for multiclassed spellcasters, so a Ranger 4/Cleric 4 would have the spell slots of a 6th-level primary spellcaster and have access to 3rd-level spells.
If a spellcaster had higher-level spell slots than the spells he is able to cast by virtue of class and level, he could use them for metamagic spells, or (if he has no metamagic feats) just for lower-level spells.
Arkhandus
First Post
Paladins have Dispel Magic on their spell list too, so they can try dispelling the Globe of Invulnerability with a targeted dispel. And even if they don't, the party's mage or healer likely has Dispel Magic prepared, and he or hs she certainly has more incentive to take down that globe. And the paladin's certainly not worse off than the party's fighter in this kinda situation.
