Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder Sneak Peeks (Old thread)

[Wulf Ratbane]

eh to me a 2nd level spell should not be a battle ender and yeah blinding most thingsfor the whole fight pretty much does that.

A wizard's top level of spells-- regardless of what level the caster is-- is explicitly designed to be a game ender for his level.

When you're 1st level, sleep is a game ender.

When you're 3rd level, glitterdust or hideous laughter.

When you're 5th level, fireball or hold person or halt undead.

When you're 7th level, resilient sphere or confusion or fear.

etc.

This is all by design. A wizard's top spell level is his "wad" so to speak, and a wizard who blows his wad should rightly expect to dynamically alter the course of events.

 

[dm4hire]

I have to agree with you Ratbane.

The thing to remember also is that we're just now starting to see things as far as the changes that PF has done. Until we see them in full play after a few games we really can't make a proper, full evaluation nor should we. Now that the Bonus Bestiary is available I'm waiting for someone to post battle results and observation from test encounters.

 

[billd91]

A wizard's top level of spells-- regardless of what level the caster is-- is explicitly designed to be a game ender for his level.

When you're 1st level, sleep is a game ender.

When you're 3rd level, glitterdust or hideous laughter.

I really don't think glitterdust was ever intended to be a game ender wizard spell. Glitterdust, in the translation from 2e to 3e became a lot nastier because the blinded condition got a lot closer to the condition it should be instead of just inflicting a -4 penalty to hit, saves, and AC. It became a much tougher spell and probably without many designers realizing it.
Note also that the 2e version caused blindness for 1d4+1 rounds rather than 1 round per level.

Put me in the list of people considering this a good and appropriate nerf to a low level spell.

 

[billd91]

Believe me, if I had the option, I'd play 3.5. But sadly my DM, like many on this site, is a Paizo Fanboy. Apparently Paizo can do no wrong and every stupid change they make to the game is True and Right.

What bugs me is that everything I dislike is shrugged off of smug fanboys. I guess it's wrong that I have a grievence with some of the changes to the game I love.

It's not your disgreement with the necessity of the changes, it's this attitude that's problematic. You expect to have your opinions given proper respect yet you dismiss theirs with contempt as if Paizo somehow has them mesmerized against the use of reason. I'm sorry, but that doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

Paizo's been pretty up-front with a lot of the changes they've been making in the rules, why they've made the changes, and has solicited a lot of feedback. Not every fan of Paizo has agreed with every change, just check out Paizo's own threads on the previews and you'll find a diversity of opinions.

At the end of the day, everybody brings different preferences to the game, different perspectives, and if you expect your own to be respected, you had better be prepared to respect those of others. Your preferences simply may not sway the rest of the players at the table. You need to accept that and decide from there what you will do - play anyway or leave the table.

 

[Starbuck_II]

Note also that the 2e version caused blindness for 1d4+1 rounds rather than 1 round per level.

Glitterdust does 1 rd/lv in Buldar's Gate 2 (which is 2E mostly).

 

[Twowolves]

I really don't think glitterdust was ever intended to be a game ender wizard spell.

That place used to be held by Web. Maybe it is again?

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

Glitterdust does 1 rd/lv in Buldar's Gate 2 (which is 2E mostly).

Not the one I had, it was pretty much a 3.0 clone

 

[RefinedBean]

Heh, I remember playing a Beguiler and just spamming the crap out of Glitterdust at higher levels. That spell could do no wrong...unless one of my allies happened to be in the AoE.

Seriously, though, it needed a nerf. That, or the blinded condition needed a nerf.

 

[EroGaki]

It's not your disgreement with the necessity of the changes, it's this attitude that's problematic. You expect to have your opinions given proper respect yet you dismiss theirs with contempt as if Paizo somehow has them mesmerized against the use of reason. I'm sorry, but that doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

Paizo's been pretty up-front with a lot of the changes they've been making in the rules, why they've made the changes, and has solicited a lot of feedback. Not every fan of Paizo has agreed with every change, just check out Paizo's own threads on the previews and you'll find a diversity of opinions.

At the end of the day, everybody brings different preferences to the game, different perspectives, and if you expect your own to be respected, you had better be prepared to respect those of others. Your preferences simply may not sway the rest of the players at the table. You need to accept that and decide from there what you will do - play anyway or leave the table.

I've already given my apology for my "tone" in past posts. My opinion still stands as is; I don't believe it is right to nerf every option a player can use, and then beef up every tool a DM has in order to challenge said players. That's all I'm seeing in these senseless nerfs; Beef up poisons deadliness, and remove a players chances of neutralizing that poison. It doesn't sound fair, and the game needs fairness on both sides of the screen in order to function.

I hope I am wrong. We will have to wait and see. But all these previews thus far have filled me with dread instead of anticipation.

 

[Stalker0]

After the other previews, the Bard one seems pretty meh to me.

Its not that the Bard didn't get some nice things, but compared to what some of the other classes got it doesn't seem nearly as cool. For what is often considered one of the weaker core classes, I expected more.