[PF] Mystic Past Life, Isn't it OP?

[isildur]

Mystic Past Life (Su) You can add spells from another spellcasting class to the spell list of your current spellcasting class. You add a number of spells equal to 1 + your spellcasting class's key ability score bonus (Wisdom for clerics, and so on). The spells must be the same type (arcane or divine) as the spellcasting class you're adding them to. For example, you could add divine power to your druid class spell list, but not to your wizard class spell list because divine power is a divine spell. These spells do not have to be spells you can cast as a 1st-level character. The number of spells granted by this ability is set at 1st level. Changes to your ability score do not change the number of spells gained. This racial trait replaces shards of the past.

It grants ability to access other spell lists. combined with summoner or bard spell list, a wizard can cast haste at 3rd level, heroism at 3rd level, black tentacle at 5th level.... and SM8 at 11th level. I think it's quiet powerfull.

[Wagadodo]

The way I would rule it is that it adds a spell to your list if wasn't already there. So a wizard not be able to add haste to their list since it is already on the list. So I would think that the witch would be the one to gain the most from this racail feature with their limited spell list.

I don't if that rai or just how I think it should be done.

[Blyte]

imo it's OP, and extremely OP if your DM allows cherry picking from caster spell lists which cap at 6th, while yours caps at 9th.

[Gemini Lupus]

imo it's OP, and extremely OP if your DM allows cherry picking from caster spell lists which cap at 6th, while yours caps at 9th.

It's not that bad, at most you're getting ~5 new spells. Sure, if you're a Wizard or a Sorcerer you can use the Witch's or Bard's spell lists to get spells that are typically Divine only, or as one of the other arcane classes to get a little more combat spells.

[3WhiteFox3]

I've found that Mystic Past Life is awesome if you need a few spells to round out the class, especially 1-3 level spells. For example, low-level clerics suffer from not having great encounter ending spells. But if they can snag Color Spray, Glitterdust, Sleet Storm, etc... their early game becomes much nicer.

Witches can pick up some battlefield control and buffs, Druids can use some of the Cleric's buffs, even Wizards can cherry pick some nifty spells from other classes.

[Kazuel]

I know it's PF, but that's an awsome feat for Duskblades.

[Psyren]

The primary issue I see was already mentioned - using unconventional lists like those of the Bard or Summoner to access various spells early for your class, e.g. 2nd-level Haste. But I also think the solution presented here is just fine - if a spell is already on your class list you can't get it a second time, even if it is a different level on the list you're taking it from. So a wizard can't choose Haste, since that is already on his list, even though the Summoner's Haste is a different level.

(And yes, I know psions can do this freely thanks to EK - but psionic powers were balanced around being available to other manifesting classes, while spells weren't.)

[isildur]

- if a spell is already on your class list you can't get it a second time,

Even if do that, it's still too powerfull. Druid can get cleric spell, cleric can get druid spell, witch can get haste at 2nd level spell, wizard can get cure series... and so on.

[Erik Vale]

I know it's PF, but that's an awsome feat for Duskblades.

Actualy a racial feature for Sarmasans.

[MeiLeTeng]

Even if do that, it's still too powerfull. Druid can get cleric spell, cleric can get druid spell, witch can get haste at 2nd level spell, wizard can get cure series... and so on.

A Wizard using it to get access to cure spells is about the last thing to be concerned about.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Yes, Samsarans are pretty borked as a race because of that trait. Personally, I would not allow it as a DM. In general, most of the unusual races probably shouldn't be used in actual play, especially if you're going to ignore some of their roleplaying hangups.

I would also say that most of the problems come at early levels where that access to spells like haste is so critical, or the Duergar ability to turn invisibility is so nasty, or the Strix extraordinary flight can be so helpful. I would worry less about these races if you're playing a high level game, where racial benefits normally just fold into your character as minor advantages.


Also, I know haste is a big deal, but there are other annoying things that a sorcerer or wizard can gain early access to because of that ability. From the Summoner list.
- Windwall as level 2: completely negate archery at level 3
- Black Tentacles as a level 3: 'nuff said
- Dimension Door as a level 3: Break campaigns at level 5
- Stoneskin as level 3: DR 10/not going to get beat for another 5 levels.

Yeah. A conjurer wizard will have a field day with this ability.

[Psyren]

Even if do that, it's still too powerfull. Druid can get cleric spell, cleric can get druid spell, witch can get haste at 2nd level spell, wizard can get cure series... and so on.

Bard healing is hardly anything to worry about.

Druids can already get cleric spells and vice-versa... there's these things called domains.

I don't think anyone should get haste at 2nd level, including Summoners.

[isildur]

Bard healing is hardly anything to worry about.
I don't think anyone should get haste at 2nd level, including Summoners.

Well, i wrote '2nd level spell', not '2nd level'.

[Psyren]

Well, i wrote '2nd level spell', not '2nd level'.

Sorry, that's what I meant.

[gartius]

I don't think anyone should get haste at 2nd level, including Summoners.
agree completely, the summoner does a better job at a buffer than the bard, the perceived buff supported. That shouldnt happen

[StreamOfTheSky]

Of course it's overpowered. Anything that lets you go dumpster diving from other spell lists to add to your own tends to be overpowered, and when it's not costing you a CL (ie, a prestige class w/o full progression) or a bunch of worthless feats, it's abso-freaking-positively-lutely broken. It also handily comes on a race that boosts int and wis, making it ideal for most tier 1 casters.

I'm shocked and horrified that there are people who DON'T think it's overpowered.

[Grod_The_Giant]

It's pretty minor for a T1 caster like a Druid or Cleric-- adding 5 new spells to a list of 500 is a pretty tiny bonus. Sorcerer/Wizard list already have access to almost every arcane spell out there. If it lets a wizard scribe a few otherwise-unique spells... see point one. If it adds a couple spells directly to the spells known of a spontaneous T2 caster, it's extremely good, sure. But on a cleric or wizard? Drop in the bucket.

All that is assuming you're not allowed to take spells at a lower level than they appear on your own list, which is pretty common-sensical.

[Psyren]

Really, what does this add to a cleric or druid? Or even a Wizard? Almost nothing, really. Certainly nothing they couldn't get by other means.

The one area I consider it to be troublesome is accessing spells early, e.g. via the Summoner list. As Grod said, interpreting it such that you can't add the same spell to your list twice is not much of a stretch and solves the problem neatly.

So no, the sky is not falling, cats and dogs are not mating in the streets etc. It's strong but not broken.

[Raven777]

Even if this was used to add 4~5 more spells known to a Sorcerer's list, the Human alternate Favored Class Bonus still trumps it by miles.

[Psyren]

I'm not a fan of the Human FC bonus myself - I think it should have been 1/4 or 1/6 of a new spell.

But this doesn't even come close - it adds the spells to your list, meaning a Samsaran Sorcerer would still have to burn spells known on them. They don't just get them for free.

[StreamOfTheSky]

It's pretty minor for a T1 caster like a Druid or Cleric-- adding 5 new spells to a list of 500 is a pretty tiny bonus. Sorcerer/Wizard list already have access to almost every arcane spell out there. If it lets a wizard scribe a few otherwise-unique spells... see point one. If it adds a couple spells directly to the spells known of a spontaneous T2 caster, it's extremely good, sure. But on a cleric or wizard? Drop in the bucket.

All that is assuming you're not allowed to take spells at a lower level than they appear on your own list, which is pretty common-sensical.

Cute, you seem to think quantity matters more than quality. The whole point is getting things you just plain COULD NOT GET before. Whether that be entirely new spells or spells drastically earlier than normal. Also, it's six spells. 1 + casting modifier, on a race that adds +2 int and wis.

And why are you making that assumption? Absolutely nothing in Mystic Past Life indicates you can't select spells on your own list already to get them lower. Sure, if something's broken and you ban all the broken parts, it's no longer broken. Doesn't change the fact that as written, it is broken.

And it is still VERY useful even if limited to only adding new spells you didn't have before. Especially for Cleric and Druid, who actually have a decent amount of spell variety between them (and multiple non-prime divine casters like inquisitor and paladin to leech off of). Samsaran also allows a Witch to single-handedly ignore the one thing that seems to be their balance point / drawback -- a ridiculously narrow spell list. With Samsaran, you can pick up Command Undead and Disintigrate to turn some of your toughest encounters into cake walks and still have 4 more spells to pick. Perhaps some good blasty spells to use with Dazing Spell? You already have a large variety of spells and unlimited use hexes for will and fort save or lose, having a good reflex save or lose option really helps round out the O in GOD caster.

[Psyren]

"As written" is debatable. It specifically says spells on another list, which could be interpreted to mean spells not on yours. It's a matter of interpretation (i.e. up to the DM) not a matter of "fixing."

Witches can already get command undead if they want it (Gravewalker archetype.) Disintegrate is nice to have but isn't going to break any campaigns wide open, and neither will any blasting spell that isn't Wings of Flurry or Streamers. At CR 11+ your undead should really be spellcasters themselves, incorporeal, or just plain not getting taken down a little green laser.

Witches still have sharply limited spells/day (same as a generalist wizard) and adding a few more spells to their list won't change that. And yes, there are nice hexes, but more than half of them are turkeys too.

Finally, every single "uncommon race" in the ARG explicitly requires DM approval, unlike the core races. If you still think Samsarans are too powerful, just say no.

[Cheiromancer]

I'm with StreamOfTheSky on this one. If it was just one spell, fine. That's what I think Extra Spell does in 3.5. But 5 or 6 spells, cherry picked from another class list? No.

The level of the spell you get must be determined by the class you get it from, not your own. That is the only workable rule for a spell that doesn't appear on your spell list, and I don't see any reason for applying a different rule if it does. It would be like saying that sure you get the spell, but it's a 9th level spell for you.

[Psyren]

The level of the spell you get must be determined by the class you get it from, not your own. That is the only workable rule for a spell that doesn't appear on your spell list, and I don't see any reason for applying a different rule if it does. It would be like saying that sure you get the spell, but it's a 9th level spell for you.

That's not what I'm saying at all. Rather, I'm saying that if it's already on your list, then it's not "from another list" and you can't choose it. So a Samsaran Wizard can't select "Summoner Haste" so that he doesn't have to learn "Wizard Haste."

[Cheiromancer]

That's not what I'm saying at all. Rather, I'm saying that if it's already on your list, then it's not "from another list" and you can't choose it. So a Samsaran Wizard can't select "Summoner Haste" so that he doesn't have to learn "Wizard Haste."

I understand what you are saying, it is just that I think what you are saying is not the most obvious reading of the feat. It says 'you can add spells from another spellcasting class to the spell list of your current spellcasting class.' So all you need to do is see if a spell belongs to another spellcasting class. If so, then (provided the other stated conditions are met) you add it to your spell list. The other limitations stated by the feat being the arcane/divine limitations. There is nothing there about it being a new spell, or not already being on your spell list, or anything remotely like that.

The question arises as to what level the spell is when it is added to your list. If you have 'haste' on your spell list at level 3, does that mean that 'summoner haste' is added to your list at level 3 as well? If so, then it would be useless to choose it.

This has the same effect as the rule you are defending; rather than forbidding the choice of a duplicate spell, it makes the choice useless. But having the rule "the level of the added spell is the same as its level on your own spell list" is, imho, unreasonable. If the level is unspecified it should default to the level determined by the class from which it is taken.

Strictly speaking, the gap in the rules could be filled in however the DM desires. He could make the new spell a 9th level spell, even if it is available for first level characters. Or he could make it a cantrip, even if it is a 9th level spell for the target class. Or he could decide on a case by case basis. But given the fluff, it ought to be the same level as it is for the class from which it is taken.

I agree that the feat is less broken if you add the words "not on your spell list" somewhere. But I don't think that it is reasonable to interpret the feat as if those words were implied.

[Psyren]

I understand what you are saying, it is just that I think what you are saying is not the most obvious reading of the feat.

Thing is, I don't have to definitively prove that it works the way I say it does. I just have to prove it's ambiguous, which I have. Ambiguous RAW is up to the DM to decide, and therefore they can choose whichever definition fits with the power level of their campaign without homebrewing, or arbitrarily deciding on an unsupported spell level for every choice.

You keep mentioning that the DM can choose to make it a cantrip or a 9th etc., but that has nothing to do with what I'm saying and is pure homebrew.



The question arises as to what level the spell is when it is added to your list. If you have 'haste' on your spell list at level 3, does that mean that 'summoner haste' is added to your list at level 3 as well? If so, then it would be useless to choose it.

That's the point - adding a spell that's already on your list should be useless. There are many, many other spells to choose from that aren't.




I agree that the feat is less broken if you add the words "not on your spell list" somewhere. But I don't think that it is reasonable to interpret the feat as if those words were implied.

It's perfectly reasonable to me. "Another" implies "not yours."

[Grod_The_Giant]

And why are you making that assumption? Absolutely nothing in Mystic Past Life indicates you can't select spells on your own list already to get them lower. Sure, if something's broken and you ban all the broken parts, it's no longer broken. Doesn't change the fact that as written, it is broken.
RAI, and the fact that before the ability it says "consult your GM." I think that's the only time I've seen that instruction in 3.X.


Cute, you seem to think quantity matters more than quality. The whole point is getting things you just plain COULD NOT GET before. Whether that be entirely new spells or spells drastically earlier than normal. Also, it's six spells. 1 + casting modifier, on a race that adds +2 int and wis.
The point of a prepared caster is that you know all the spells. That's why the Cleric is Tier 1 and the Favored Soul is Tier 2. Unless there are some phenomenally powerful-- and I'm talking 3.5 polymorph or gate here-- spells that are otherwise unique to one class' list, being able to prepare entangle isn't going to boost the Cleric that much. Being able to prepare divine power isn't going to make the Druid more powerful than it was before. Are they good spells? Sure. But when you already have access to more good spells than you'll ever be able to prepare...

[Absynthyne]

I run a Samsaran magus with this trait (ofc).

The way my GM initiated it, after much forum browsing, is this:

If the spell exists on your main casting class list already, you cannot use this ability to gain access to it earlier.

If a spell exists on both 3/4 caster list and full caster list, you gain access to the spell depending on your spell progression.

I.E. as a magus, I can gain access to Great Planar Binding as a 6th level spell via the Summoner list. If I were a Witch, however, I would have to gain access to it as a level 8 spell, as found on the Wizard/Sorcerer list.

This has worked well for us, and I have no complaints. I get the spells I want with some cool flavor, and the game remains unbroken.

Edit:

If you'd like an official stance on the matter... here is a post by Creative Director, James Jacobs:


I made a post in the rules forum about the about the Samsaran Mystic Past Life ability which sparked quite a debate. I’m hoping I can get some clarification from you about what the truth is:

Mystic Past Life: You can add spells from another spellcasting class to the spell list of your current spellcasting class. You add a number of spells equal to 1 + your spellcasting class's key ability score bonus (Wisdom for clerics, and so on). The spells must be the same type (arcane or divine) as the spellcasting class you're adding them to. For example, you could add divine power to your druid class spell list, but not to your wizard class spell list because divine power is a divine spell. These spells do not have to be spells you can cast as a 1st-level character. The number of spells granted by this ability is set at 1st level. Changes to your ability score do not change the number of spells gained.

There are basically three questions…four actually:
1. Can a multi-classed Samsaran use this ability more than once? Is the ability tied to *character* level one, or *class* level one? If a Samsaran Wizard takes a level of Cleric, can they select their bonus spells at that time, since they are still level one as a Cleric. It would seem as written this is the case, although the # of spells they get would be defined by their base INT/WIS/CHR.

2. If the answer is it only applies at *character* level one, and not *class* level one, what about multi-class Samsarans? If I am building an Arcane Trickster or Eldritch Knight, and I take the melee class first and the caster class later, does that mean I am just out of luck? This does not seem fair, since it would require Samsaran characters to take an inoptimal, squishy approach to their builds. Traits like Magical Knack only kick in after multi-classing, or things like the Fertile Soil Oread trait don’t have any connection to character level, and that seems to work just fine.

3. Does the ability only allow you to take spells from ONE other class? AKA if you are a Cleric, and you take a Paladin spell, you can *only* take Paladin spells. RAW this does not seem to be the case to me, I would say the only restriction is the Arcane/Divine limitation, and total # of bonus spells; which list it comes from seems superfluous.

4. And finally, does this allow you take early entry into spells by taking something like Haste as a 2nd level spell, since Summoners get it at that point. I do not believe so, since it does say ‘another spellcasting class list’ which would seem to me you can’t take something that is on your own list; but it comes up frequently, so I may as well ask.

I would say I don’t think it is going to be game-breaking either way, since even someone who built their character around taking a level of Wiz/Cleric/Bard to get bonus spells based on their INT/WIS/CHR would still only be looking at about a total of 6-12 extra spells with no extra spells slots, no improved action economy, and still be extremely MAD. Not to mention they couldn’t get to level 9 casting in all 3, or even 2 of those classes, so the overall balance would be maintained.

At any rate, I hope you can help clarify these questions. Thank you.

1) Nope. It's tied to character level 1. The flavor is that you've had this ability in your past lives, and if you don't have it at 1st level, you just don't have it.

2) If you're planning on multiclassing and want to use this ability, make sure you take your spellcasting class at 1st level unless you have a generous GM.

3) Just one other class. Again... unless you have a generous GM.

4) It would indeed let you do that, but the spell still functions as a lower level spell, which can have some bad side effects. (As another side note... summoner spell lists are kinda messed up and I've been kinda silently hoping they'd get errataed for a long time now, but that ship's mostly sailed, it seems...)

[TheWanderer]

Ok I am beginning a Pathfinder game and the summoner has chosen the Samsaran as her race.

She is going to take this trait. I read it to mean she gains the spells when she starts the class. But I just noticed that in theory as a summoner she could pick up a spell from any list at any level as it does not indicate what level the spell is allowed to be up too.

What is a summoner arcane? Or does she have no fit point?

[StreamOfTheSky]

While JJ is not technically a rules authority normally, I do like his answers to those questions for the most part. I do think the early entry is overpowered, though. Some spells can come up to 3 spell levels earlier with this. And it's a shame his hopes for summoner spell list nerfing never happened. Their list is stupidly overpowered with level discounts.

Wanderer:
She picks the spells at 1st level and they cannot be changed. She does not have to limit herself to spells she can cast at 1st level, though, they can be of any level (up to 6th, since she's a summoner). I don't think it's been officially clarified, but the strict reading and internet consensus seems to be that all the spells must be from the same class's spell list, not from multiple different ones.

A summoner is arcane.

[Kudaku]

If you take it as RAW and make no alterations to it, it is an overpowered racial trait.

With some reasonable limitations akin to the ones Absynthyne's GM put in place and JJ's post (excepting the 4th answer, which is potentially quite abusive), it's significantly better balanced.

[StreamOfTheSky]

No, it's still overpowered. It's a big boost in power, and for classes that need it the least. But people don't seem to be looking at it like that, it seems the prevailing view is some warped opposite of that... The fact that the top classes are so overpowered, that something has to really REALLY be earth-shatteringly game breaking in order to get a noticeable, "eh."

Cherry picking 5-6 spells from another list is better than any other racial feature for any other class under any circumstances. Full Stop.
("Paragon Surge" is not a racial feature/trait :smalltongue:)

Let's use some arbitrary numbers to explain this.

Let's say that a fighter's power, if it could be measured, might register at... 160. What units? Hell if I know.

And that a wizard registered at 10,500 for power (ie, over 9000).

If we value the Mystic Past Life ability at 200, you might look and say, "Wow, giving something equivalent to that to the fighter is crazy overpowered! It's more than doubling his power!" While as for the wizard, "Meh. That's like...less than a 2% power increase. Who cares?"

But that's missing the forest for the trees! It's that line of thinking that helped MAKE casters so broken in the first freaking place! Just because casters are already overpowered doesn't green light you to make it EVEN WORSE. Seriously, what the hell, GITP? What the hell?

[Psyren]

But that's missing the forest for the trees! It's that line of thinking that helped MAKE casters so broken in the first freaking place! Just because casters are already overpowered doesn't green light you to make it EVEN WORSE. Seriously, what the hell, GITP? What the hell?

The race specifically requires DM approval, and this isn't even a base feature of that race, it's a variant. That's two degrees of reasonable separation. If you don't like it, say no, problem solved.

There's really no point in debating this, as you simply have a different mindset than those of us who don't see the earth-shattering problem. Casters are supposed to be more powerful than mundanes, and those who disagree have plenty of other non-PF and non-3.5 games they can play. So yes, a 2% increase is not something worth losing our minds over.

As I stated before, where it becomes more than a 2% increase - the summoner list - is where I see the true problem coming from this. But even that is a problem with the summoner list itself rather than the racial being discussed. Beyond that, a druid getting Holy Word or a Sorcerer getting Glibness is not making any drastic changes to the system.

[gr8artist]

The way I see it:
The most abusable caster (wizard) already gets 90% of the arcane spells. So, letting him pick a few more arcane spells to add to his list won't affect his power level too bad. If he picks some stuff earlier than normal, then you get a few issues, but all in all his spell list goes from 500 to 505. Same spells per day, same casting time, same everything else...? Doesn't bother me at all.
Allowing cleric and druid to pull from each-other's lists is more troubling, although not too bad. They each have their own spells for doing similar things (buff/support), and with all the current OP mechanics in casting, this isn't a big deal. More than the wizard, sure, but not as bad as....
Secondary casters! Magus, Inquisitor, Paladin, Ranger, etc... These guys get a massive buff to their spell lists. But hell, most of them (rng/pal) get 1st level spells when the wizard's gettin' 3rds. So, the classes that benefit the most also get the biggest setback. Sure, they have the best options of spells to add, but they get those spells later.
All in all, I'd say it's great for a magus or summoner, good if you have some specific spells in mind, but kinda' meh on average.

[krai]

I read in one of the pathfinder books that if an ability grants you a spell that is already on your spell list than you have to use it at the level that it appears on your list.

[TuggyNE]

Casters are supposed to be more powerful than mundanes, and those who disagree have plenty of other non-PF and non-3.5 games they can play.

…

This explains so much.

[Kudaku]

Seriously, what the hell, GITP? What the hell?

Dude.

Chill.

[StreamOfTheSky]

…

This explains so much.

Indeed.
And btw, I'm fine w/ casters being more powerful, I don't need perfect balance, I just would like it...closer

People have been complaining since at least 3.0 (probably longer) about casters being way too powerful. And yet, through 3.5, through PF, through nearly a decade and a half of 3E D&D, not only has it not gotten better, it's actually gotten even MORE unbalanced as the editions roll on and age.

How do you think that happens? Step back a sec and actually think about it. Do you suppose that it could be a mindset problem? That, "casters are already overpowered, so it's not like things would change at all if we added..." and then fill in the blank with whatever (Planar Shepherd; Power Word Pain; Abrupt Jaunt and its sorcerous sister Wings of Cover; the Dazing Spell feat; PF Wizards casting their prohibited spells...). You ever consider that maybe the widening imbalance has actually been an incremental sort of thing, and not something that's always existed to exactly the same extent?

Posts like the ones in this thread defending Mystic Past Life are the root of the problem. People just accept that casters are broken and don't raise hell when some new thing ratchets them up just a little higher still.

[Spuddles]

If you go dumpster diving for stupid spells squirreled away, you can find little gems like this (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/l/litany-of-righteousness). That's pretty good on a cleric, and even better in a party with more than one character that has a Good aura.

To answer OP, yes, of course this ability is OP. That it requires "DM approval" makes it no less OP. That's such a weaksauce argument against something being OP.


"As written" is debatable.

You can debate anything.

In the case here, "another", without qualification, doesn't imply what you think it does.

[Psyren]

…

This explains so much.

I know, right?



People have been complaining since at least 3.0 (probably longer) about casters being way too powerful. And yet, through 3.5, through PF, through nearly a decade and a half of 3E D&D, not only has it not gotten better, it's actually gotten even MORE unbalanced as the editions roll on and age.

Blanket statements like this are intellectually dishonest. "Balance" is not a single sliding scale of more and less. For instance, saying PF is "more unbalanced" requires ignoring all the beneficial changes made to the Polymorph line of spells, Wild Shape, Divine Power et al. that allowed casters to tank their physical stats and still outperform the melee at their jobs.

PF made physical stats matter even for casters; 3.5 did not. I'm not going to ignore that.



How do you think that happens? Step back a sec and actually think about it. Do you suppose that it could be a mindset problem? That, "casters are already overpowered, so it's not like things would change at all if we added..." and then fill in the blank with whatever (Planar Shepherd; Power Word Pain; Abrupt Jaunt and its sorcerous sister Wings of Cover; the Dazing Spell feat; PF Wizards casting their prohibited spells...). You ever consider that maybe the widening imbalance has actually been an incremental sort of thing, and not something that's always existed to exactly the same extent?

Of the list of things you mention here, only one is from Pathfinder, and that one is a +3 metamagic. You're projecting the failures of one system onto the other.

The PF Wizards prohibited spells point is a joke. How many ultra-powerful wizard builds in 3.5 require dumping 3-4 schools? Focused Specialist, Master Specialist, Incantatrix... And yet, such wizards are even more powerful than the ones that keep them. Diviner only loses one school, yet it is commonly seen as the weakest choice, second only to Generalist. The prohibited spell school was not balancing anything - it was merely punishing Diviners, Enchanters and Evokers unnecessarily.



Posts like the ones in this thread defending Mystic Past Life are the root of the problem. People just accept that casters are broken and don't raise hell when some new thing ratchets them up just a little higher still.

To reiterate: MPL is powerful, not broken.
To reiterate: It explicitly requires multiple levels of DM approval. Thus, it is clearly intended for high-powered games.

PF is designed for playgroups across a variety of spectra. Not every option that is suitable for one campaign is suitable for all of them. That doesn't mean they shouldn't exist at all.

[Scow2]

To reiterate: MPL is powerful, not broken.
To reiterate: It explicitly requires multiple levels of DM approval. Thus, it is clearly intended for high-powered games.
It also works in Sub-op games. A lot of pathfinder's stuff isn't broken when you use it "As intended". Just because you CAN do something horribly, horribly broken doesn't mean you should.

Power Word: Pain was most likely a misprint, supposed to be a level 3 spell (Or higher?) instead of level 1, with the "Power Word: Minor Inconvenience" as the level 1 spell.

[Psyren]

If you go dumpster diving for stupid spells squirreled away, you can find little gems like this (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/l/litany-of-righteousness). That's pretty good on a cleric, and even better in a party with more than one character that has a Good aura.

More damage for 1 round per cast isn't breaking a thing, and the dazzled condition is a joke.



In the case here, "another", without qualification, doesn't imply what you think it does.

The lack of qualification is precisely what necessitates interpretation.


It also works in Sub-op games. A lot of pathfinder's stuff isn't broken when you use it "As intended". Just because you CAN do something horribly, horribly broken doesn't mean you should.

Indeed. And if you have the kind of players that are going to scour books for ways to abuse this - not that anyone has managed to show me an actual "abuse" yet - just don't allow it.

[137beth]

To answer OP, yes, of course this ability is OP. That it requires "DM approval" makes it no less OP. That's such a weaksauce argument against something being OP.
"overpowered" is entirely relative compared to the rest of the party and the challenges faced, something which is overpowered in an all-tier-4 came is not necessarily overpowered in an all-tier-3 game. That is why PF removed level adjustment: you can play a race with 40+ race-points with DM approval, and it isn't overpowered because the other players get to do it to. Do you think that the monstrous races in PF are overpowered, due to being more powerful than the core races? The only thing limiting them is requiring DM approval.

So no, Mystic Past Life is in no way overpowered if the other players and monsters get similarly powerful abilities. And that is exactly the purpose of requiring DM approval.

[Spuddles]

Where's the option for rogues to double their damage on a target for a full round?

[gr8artist]

We call it "Sneak Attack" and it's a little more than double.

[icefractal]

The caster / non-caster imbalance is completely real, but Mystic Past Life is not really a part of it. Nitpicking on the small stuff is only going to go so far, when large systematic issues are the core of the problem, and what you really need to get anywhere close to balance is a major overhaul.

It's true that filling in the gaps makes casters more powerful, but only in that it makes their power a bit more uniform instead of the same crazy peaks but with inexplicable gaps.

And from an aesthetic standpoint, I prefer that. I'd rather say "the Wizard is at this level of power" than "the Wizard is at this level of power ... except when dealing with lizards on a Tuesday, then they suck". And then if that level of power is too high, reduce it uniformly instead of trying to balance it by percentages of useless and godlike.

[Spuddles]

We call it "Sneak Attack" and it's a little more than double.

No, I mean is there anything that doubles the rogue's sneak attack damage. 3.5 has Shadow Blade, Assassin's Stance and Craven, which came pretty close to doubling the rogue's damage.

A cleric that can double his damage vs. most targets is kinda OP.

[Keneth]

I'm pretty sure that you can't get spells at a lower level, even by RAW. Summoner haste and wizard haste are the same spell. Classes without the spell in question (such as a witch) could though. Be that as it may, this is a clear example of the line which, when crossed, gives a GM the right to exercise rule 0 to deal with such a blatant abuse of rules.

I don't see it as overpowered though. I've researched plenty of spells from other spell lists onto my own, and plenty of cool spells which were completely custom. You can't go crying about balance when you're allowing T1 classes in your game in the first place.

[Psyren]

Where's the option for rogues to double their damage on a target for a full round?

It's called Sneak Attack. Which functions on non-evil targets, isn't dispellable, doesn't require a swift action...



A cleric that can double his damage vs. most targets is kinda OP.

If your clerics want to waste their actions running around in melee, more power to them. There are far better things they could be doing, just like any other full caster.

[Spuddles]

It's called Sneak Attack. Which functions on non-evil targets, isn't dispellable, doesn't require a swift action...

Yeah, is there any way for a rogue to double their damage?


If your clerics want to waste their actions running around in melee, more power to them. There are far better things they could be doing, just like any other full caster.

We already know your opinion on the matter.

[Psyren]

Yeah, is there any way for a rogue to double their damage?

It's called sneak attack, etc.




We already know your opinion on the matter.

It bears repeating (clearly.)

[Spuddles]

It's called sneak attack, etc.

Right, does a rogue have any way of doubling that?


It bears repeating (clearly.)

Your assume that casters should always be better than anything else, and so anything that makes casters even more powerful can't actually make them overpowered because that would imply that they shouldn't be more powerful than mundanes in the first place.

Some of us disagree with your assumption that casters should be >>> all.

[Psyren]

Right, does a rogue have any way of doubling that?

You said doubling damage, which sneak attack does. Doubling sneak attack is unnecessary.



Some of us disagree with your assumption that casters should be >>> all.

You're entitled to your opinion, and there are plenty of other games that support it.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Because I like being techincally correct; Sneak attack doesn't always double damage, it simply increases damage. Someone using sneak attack with a greatsword would only be increasing damage by an average of 50%, and at higher levels 10d6 probably more than double the damage you would be doing without it.

:smalltongue:

[Psyren]

Because I like being techincally correct; Sneak attack doesn't always double damage, it simply increases damage. Someone using sneak attack with a greatsword would only be increasing damage by an average of 50%, and at higher levels 10d6 probably more than double the damage you would be doing without it.

:smalltongue:

Duly noted :smalltongue:

But you got the crux of my point - comparing the damage + SA to the damage without. (Barring power attack with a 2-hander etc.)

[3WhiteFox3]

You said doubling damage, which sneak attack does. Doubling sneak attack is unnecessary.



You're entitled to your opinion, and there are plenty of other games that support it.

So basically, it's not the product that's wrong, it's whoever dare like pathfinder but think it should be better. Sure there are other games, but I play pathfinder society, a game which uses the very flawed RAW of pathfinder.

Why is my desire for a game that's both fun and balanced incompatible with pathfinder? Why should it be the dissenters who have to leave? Do you tell (or want to tell) film critics that their opinions only matter for themselves and that if they they don't like a bad movie they shouldn't write there opinions and try to increase awareness about flaws in film?

I'm sorry but it really irks me when people imply that I (or people who feel similarly to me) should leave if I don't like it. It boils down to, it's not the game's fault that it's not up to par, it's you, we don't want anyone who disagrees with us to play here. If that's not what your'e saying, then I misconstrued that, however, that's how I read it.

[Psyren]

I have no problem with the desire for Pathfinder to be better. But changing the balance in the ways I have seen suggested here is, yes, fundamentally incompatible with the underlying aesthetic. Both 3.5 and PF are based on the assumption that magic (whether in the form of items, or class features) is necessary to compete with the high-level challenges of the game. This is the entire basis of the WBL system; the money that both the 3.5 and PF core books demand players have access to as they advance is intended to acquire magical abilities, whether through gear or hiring spellcasters to buff you up or both. Wanting "not-magic" to be on par with magic is not wrong, but it's also not what this system is about.

I'm not trying to be callous, but there seems to me to be a desire to cram the square peg into the round hole when other systems (such as, say, 4e) do "balance" so much better than PF or 3.5 ever will, and I consider it to be misguided. If I'm correct and that is the primary concern being voiced here, then I believe switching is much easier than taking a houserules machete to the existing material to fit an aesthetic that fans and designers alike of the current product neither want nor need. And if I'm not correct, I'm open to an explanation of what it is that is actually being said.

No, the product is not wrong. It's certainly not perfect, but it gets more things right than it does not, and the proof is in the pudding of its fanbase. Call it argumentum ad populum if you wish, but the simple fact is that if they can give all the rules away and still have it be so successful, clearly what they are selling is something that people want.

[ericgrau]

Spell lists already contain hundreds or thousands of spells. And every new book adds more without any feat required. I wouldn't care if you added 20 as long as they came at a fair level and were evenly distributed across levels.

Declare that you can't cast a spell at a lower character level than any other class could. And if you would cast a spell at a lower character level, the spell's level is raised until it is sufficiently out of reach that you must wait just as long as the other class. This should immediately solve any early spell access abuse. And even if another full caster or such gets a spell early, you're not doing anything more broken than that class could. The only thing that's added is versatility.

It's also easy to frontload as I touched upon, but this is a much smaller issue. Whether your spread out the spell levels of the gained spells or not it's not a big deal. Anyone who is semi-amazing is only semi-amazing for 2 levels, and for anything but a one off the player himself may try to spread them out more.

[TuggyNE]

I have no problem with the desire for Pathfinder to be better. But changing the balance in the ways I have seen suggested here is, yes, fundamentally incompatible with the underlying aesthetic.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only suggestions in this thread, balance-wise, seem to have been to the effect of "ban Mystic Past Life". I assume you're referring to the vast majority of ill-thought-out attempts elsewhere on the forum to balance magic without rewriting spells? Because I agree that those are generally pretty lame, and not infrequently lose much of the point. I do not, however, agree that all such attempts will inevitably fail.


Both 3.5 and PF are based on the assumption that magic (whether in the form of items, or class features) is necessary to compete with the high-level challenges of the game. This is the entire basis of the WBL system; the money that both the 3.5 and PF core books demand players have access to as they advance is intended to acquire magical abilities, whether through gear or hiring spellcasters to buff you up or both.

So, the reason spellcasters get as much WBL as non-spellcasters is … what, again? So they can have still more magic? There is a hole either in the fundamental basis of the game, or in your understanding of it, because that doesn't add up.


I'm not trying to be callous, but there seems to me to be a desire to cram the square peg into the round hole when other systems (such as, say, 4e) do "balance" so much better than PF or 3.5 ever will, and I consider it to be misguided.

4e's distinctiveness is not founded solely on being balanced; there is a great deal more that is not essential to that, but is merely a design choice (or is a result of one particular means of achieving balance). As such, I reject the suggestion that the only way to achieve balance in a D&D game is to follow 4e's lead.


No, the product is not wrong. It's certainly not perfect, but it gets more things right than it does not, and the proof is in the pudding of its fanbase. Call it argumentum ad populum if you wish, but the simple fact is that if they can give all the rules away and still have it be so successful, clearly what they are selling is something that people want.

Therefore, logically, there can be no further improvement? Not sure what you're arguing here at all. :smallconfused: Sure, PF is nice; otherwise, no one would care about it to try to improve it! "It gets most of its stuff right" is in no possible way an argument against trying to get the rest of the stuff right; indeed, it's an argument that strengthens the premise it tries to attack.

[Psyren]

So, the reason spellcasters get as much WBL as non-spellcasters is … what, again? So they can have still more magic?

D&D is a team game; the casters are intended to use their abilities (and, where necessary, wealth) on behalf of the noncasters in the group. This takes two forms:

1) Costly components - some of the most essential adventuring spells, like resurrection, identification, restorations, and various divinations, require them. These costs can add up if these spells are needed repeatedly (and for particularly expensive castings like True Resurrection, even when they are needed rarely.)

2) Utility spells - Certain spells are extremely handy when you need them, but are otherwise too niche to be worth tying up spell selections (slots or repertoires) on a day-to-day basis. These include spells like sendings, restorations, curse removal/break enchantment, weather control, atonements etc. One of the class features common to just about every caster is the ability to use spell trigger/completion items without the chance of failure or time investment that faking it via UMD requires. When you're trying to deal with a debilitating curse or restore a fallen ally to life, the stakes can be too high to consign their fate to a UMD roll. In a similar vein, there are also times when just the right spell is needed to thwart an enemy caster, but again, the specific defense needed is too niche to devote a daily slot towards - a False Vision to throw off a scrying attempt as your team infiltrates the enemy's lair for instance, or a Dismissal/Banishment to deal with a summoned trump card.

These two costs that casters bear are in addition to the normal costs of acquiring protective and attribute-boosting gear that all D&D characters must budget for as they gain levels. Hence, they get the same WBL as classes that do not need to budget for this functionality.




As such, I reject the suggestion that the only way to achieve balance in a D&D game is to follow 4e's lead.

I agree that there are other ways to do this, but I also don't think the "balance problem" is acute enough to waste much energy on finding them. And besides, I hear Legend has done a good job at this too, so 4e wasn't my only suggestion in this regard anyway.




Therefore, logically, there can be no further improvement? Not sure what you're arguing here at all. :smallconfused:


That the perception of the "problem" is overblown. That at actual game tables, God Wizards are not running around stomping the mundanes into the primordial muck before laughing as they ascend their ivory towers to enlightenment. That adding 5 non-cleric divine spells to a cleric's list is not going to make him play significantly differently than he does now, and ditto for a druid, and ditto for the arcane side of things. So far, the most "horrible" consequence I've seen of this racial is that a good cleric can double his physical damage against an evil target for 1 round and maybe dazzle them if they're a fiend.

[IronFist]

I have no problem with the desire for Pathfinder to be better. But changing the balance in the ways I have seen suggested here is, yes, fundamentally incompatible with the underlying aesthetic. Both 3.5 and PF are based on the assumption that magic (whether in the form of items, or class features) is necessary to compete with the high-level challenges of the game. This is the entire basis of the WBL system; the money that both the 3.5 and PF core books demand players have access to as they advance is intended to acquire magical abilities, whether through gear or hiring spellcasters to buff you up or both. Wanting "not-magic" to be on par with magic is not wrong, but it's also not what this system is about.

I'm not trying to be callous, but there seems to me to be a desire to cram the square peg into the round hole when other systems (such as, say, 4e) do "balance" so much better than PF or 3.5 ever will, and I consider it to be misguided. If I'm correct and that is the primary concern being voiced here, then I believe switching is much easier than taking a houserules machete to the existing material to fit an aesthetic that fans and designers alike of the current product neither want nor need. And if I'm not correct, I'm open to an explanation of what it is that is actually being said.

No, the product is not wrong. It's certainly not perfect, but it gets more things right than it does not, and the proof is in the pudding of its fanbase. Call it argumentum ad populum if you wish, but the simple fact is that if they can give all the rules away and still have it be so successful, clearly what they are selling is something that people want.
*slow clap*
I shed manly tears. Perfect argument.

[TuggyNE]

These two costs that casters bear are in addition to the normal costs of acquiring protective and attribute-boosting gear that all D&D characters must budget for as they gain levels. Hence, they get the same WBL as classes that do not need to budget for this functionality.

Similarly, magic weapons and utility gear are costs most mundane characters must bear in addition to the normal costs. Arguably, they are a great deal higher, unless the caster is burning a remarkable amount on metamagic rods, scrolls to learn, or something.


I agree that there are other ways to do this, but I also don't think the "balance problem" is acute enough to waste much energy on finding them.
[…]
That the perception of the "problem" is overblown. That at actual game tables, God Wizards are not running around stomping the mundanes into the primordial muck before laughing as they ascend their ivory towers to enlightenment. That adding 5 non-cleric divine spells to a cleric's list is not going to make him play significantly differently than he does now, and ditto for a druid, and ditto for the arcane side of things.

I disagree on the importance to some extent, but I will admit that it's not the most pressing problem anyone in 3.x can deal with. However, any time a simple, easy, low-cost opportunity shows up to either reduce the imbalance, or prevent it from being worsened, it seems sensible to take that, and systematically failing to do so is a flaw indeed.

Banning MPL, or never writing it (as the case may be) is such an opportunity.

[Psyren]

Similarly, magic weapons and utility gear are costs most mundane characters must bear in addition to the normal costs. Arguably, they are a great deal higher, unless the caster is burning a remarkable amount on metamagic rods, scrolls to learn, or something.

The thing about magic weapons is that (except for things like arrows or throwing knives) they never drop in value. That +3 holy longsword you found or had made is worth just as much several in-game weeks/months later when you're ready to sell it for the next big thing, or upgrade it. The same cannot be said for a wand or staff, whose charges will have been depleted in that time.

Now, I don't necessarily believe that everyone's costs will be defrayed equally. Casters, at any given WBL point, may indeed end up with a little extra scratch than mundanes. After all, they can game the system so as to never use spells with expensive components and never rely on spells from items, or everyone can get lucky in their deductions/saving throws and not need them. But in general, I think the two are close enough that having the same WBL gets everyone reasonable close. Certainly it's a heck of a lot less headache for the DM, which is the same reason they got rid of that class-based XP tracks mess. It also makes multiclassing a lot easier.

Ultimately, this too is where having good players solves this "problem" before it even truly becomes one. At the games I've played, if the fighter is a couple thousand gold shy of a killer upgrade and the cleric/sorcerer has some gold left over, they tend to pitch in and help him out. It's common wisdom in any team RPG that the guy standing on the frontline needs to be wearing the most expensive protections money can buy - you see this all the time in MMOs for instance.



I disagree on the importance to some extent, but I will admit that it's not the most pressing problem anyone in 3.x can deal with. However, any time a simple, easy, low-cost opportunity shows up to either reduce the imbalance, or prevent it from being worsened, it seems sensible to take that, and systematically failing to do so is a flaw indeed.

Banning MPL, or never writing it (as the case may be) is such an opportunity.

The ultimate problem I have with this point of view is the fetters it places on the creative process. We can't have interesting, fluff-driven design (where one starts at a flavor concept and works backwards to the mechanics) because "The balance! The precious balance!" The reality is, again, that tables tend to sort balance out themselves. They upheld the minimum standard by making it a DM-approved variant on a DM-approved race - that it exists at all is not a bad thing and the game is richer for it. Now more character concepts, like a non-trickster cleric who knows invisibility, can exist without the DM totally fudging them.

[3WhiteFox3]

That the perception of the "problem" is overblown. That at actual game tables, God Wizards are not running around stomping the mundanes into the primordial muck before laughing as they ascend their ivory towers to enlightenment. That adding 5 non-cleric divine spells to a cleric's list is not going to make him play significantly differently than he does now, and ditto for a druid, and ditto for the arcane side of things. So far, the most "horrible" consequence I've seen of this racial is that a good cleric can double his physical damage against an evil target for 1 round and maybe dazzle them if they're a fiend.

My experience is the exact opposite of this, I play PFS and I have seen casters
who run around making the mundane characters cry. I have also played with Mystic Past Life, and while I wouldn't call it broken, I would call it overpowered.

The other problem is that it's not even the standard racial trait but one that switches out a pretty lame ability for an awesome one. It's also a trait that is extremely powerful for one type of character (casters) while others get little to no benefit out of it. So Samsaran melee characters will suck, but Samsaran casters will be awesome, which further widens the gap between the two.

Even if the caster/mundane dynamic is integral to 3.X, pathfinder could make more of an effort to allow the mundanes to at least perform a role instead of being overshadowed in most areas by casters. Why don't we see races that mitigate power attack penalties or allow you to Pounce? That's the core problem to me, melee has to sift through crap hoping to optimize what they've got but casters get better spells, awesome feats, great magic items, and awesome racial choices. I just want melee to get some love to.

The only further thing I'll say about the Mundane/Caster relationship is this, if magic is supposed to be better and more integral to winning encounters, then why have melee at all? Why not just make a game where you can only be a caster? Why have subpar choices?

[Psyren]

My experience is the exact opposite of this, I play PFS and I have seen casters
who run around making the mundane characters cry.

The trouble with PFS is that it's typically a group of random people thrown into a game together at a con somewhere. So of course you're going to see folks who don't care about each other's fun more often than you will among an established group of friends.

But, given that Samsarans are not legal in PFS anyway, PFS is moot to this topic.



I have also played with Mystic Past Life, and while I wouldn't call it broken, I would call it overpowered.

The trouble with terms like "overpowered" is that you have to compare it to something. A Cleric/Druid/Wizard/Sorcerer with MPL is not significantly more powerful than one without it. A Witch gets a bigger boost, but still not enough to elevate them above the other T1s. Lesser classes get a bigger boost from it, but still don't come close to the 5 mentioned above without.



The other problem is that it's not even the standard racial trait but one that switches out a pretty lame ability for an awesome one. It's also a trait that is extremely powerful for one type of character (casters) while others get little to no benefit out of it. So Samsaran melee characters will suck, but Samsaran casters will be awesome, which further widens the gap between the two.

Well, you're forgetting the third category of character (gish) which is a way for a Samsaran melee to get mileage out of the racial. But MPL is hardly the only racial to favor one type of character over another. Other racials like Elven Magic and Gnome Magic also push towards casters, while racials like natural weapons or bonuses to CMB favor melee. The fluff of Samsarans, which is backed up by their ability adjustments, is that they favor magic.



Even if the caster/mundane dynamic is integral to 3.X, pathfinder could make more of an effort to allow the mundanes to at least perform a role instead of being overshadowed in most areas by casters. Why don't we see races that mitigate power attack penalties or allow you to Pounce? That's the core problem to me, melee has to sift through crap hoping to optimize what they've got but casters get better spells, awesome feats, great magic items, and awesome racial choices. I just want melee to get some love to.

The only further thing I'll say about the Mundane/Caster relationship is this, if magic is supposed to be better and more integral to winning encounters, then why have melee at all? Why not just make a game where you can only be a caster? Why have subpar choices?

Some want to play something simple - they want to sit at the table with their friends and contribute, but not have to agonize over pages and pages of spells, or daily prep, or arguing with the DM over what Charm Person/Silent Image actually lets them do. They're okay with playing a class that has a lower op ceiling in exchange for the freedom to "pick up and play."

Some want a challenge - optimizing a pure caster is easy, optimizing a gish is slightly harder, and optimizing a mundane is harder still. Mundanes have low floors and low ceilings - easy to pick up, but tough to make shine without help from the party. Maybe you are a supremely skilled D&D player joining a brand new group - you know that if you play a caster you will quickly steal the spotlight, so you instead build the biggest, baddest melee you can and leave the exercise of getting you in the middle of the foes up to your caster friends.

And finally, some just feel like it. Maybe they've been a caster the last 5 campaigns, or maybe they have a concept in mind that requires minimal magic.

[georgie_leech]

Some want to play something simple - they want to sit at the table with their friends and contribute, but not have to agonize over pages and pages of spells, or daily prep, or arguing with the DM over what Charm Person/Silent Image actually lets them do. They're okay with playing a class that has a lower op ceiling in exchange for the freedom to "pick up and play."

The Black Mage of Final Fantasy fame is simple enough for a 4 year old to figure out how to make work, yet is still unquestionably magic-oriented. I reject the implication that you needed to have weaker mundane classes to have a simpler experience.


Some want a challenge - optimizing a pure caster is easy, optimizing a gish is slightly harder, and optimizing a mundane is harder still. Mundanes have low floors and low ceilings - easy to pick up, but tough to make shine without help from the party. Maybe you are a supremely skilled D&D player joining a brand new group - you know that if you play a caster you will quickly steal the spotlight, so you instead build the biggest, baddest melee you can and leave the exercise of getting you in the middle of the foes up to your caster friends.

If they wanted a challenge, they could make a Wizard with a starting INT of 12, or a druid that refuses to cast spells. How does the desire for a challenge necessitate weaker melee classes?

[Psyren]

The Black Mage of Final Fantasy fame is simple enough for a 4 year old to figure out how to make work, yet is still unquestionably magic-oriented.

That depends on your definition of "magic" - Black Mages in any installment of FF have very little to do with magic in a D&D sense. A FF Black Mage is a glorified archer - focused primarily on various flavors of blasting, no battlefield control, no divinations or illusions, very little buffing, and even the summons are just blasting spells with longer animations and bugger numbers. The few debuff spells that exist (Sleep, Poison, Charm, Stone etc.) routinely fail against all but the most trivial of encounters, where they are usually not needed anyway as you can simply nuke or melee the targets down with blasting spells without them being needed rather than waste time on them.



I reject the implication that you needed to have weaker mundane classes to have a simpler experience.

I'm not saying all mundane classes have to be simple. I actually support the existence of ToB wholeheartedly. (Well, with a few minor tweaks - all the healing and teleportation maneuvers should be supernatural.) What I am disagreeing with, however, is that the presence of the Warblade means the Fighter no longer has a purpose in the game, and ditto the Rogue vs. the Factotum.



If they wanted a challenge, they could make a Wizard with a starting INT of 12, or a druid that refuses to cast spells. How does the desire for a challenge necessitate weaker melee classes?

I guess it comes down to suspension of disbelief - a class that intentionally hamstrings itself, and a class that is capable of less but maximizes that potential, will play differently from each other in practice. You could, if you wanted, play a melee class who closes his eyes all the time or gouges them out at 1st level - that too would be a form of challenge, but it's not one that feels credible. Similarly, an Int 12 could take up Wizardry, but he'd be much more likely to find another adventurous calling, unelss you're randomly generating characters or something.

[grarrrg]

The other problem is that it's not even the standard racial trait but one that switches out a pretty lame ability for an awesome one. It's also a trait that is extremely powerful for one type of character (casters) while others get little to no benefit out of it. So Samsaran melee characters will suck, but Samsaran casters will be awesome, which further widens the gap between the two.

This is not a problem.
Look at the Samsaran stats/abilities, what about them says "make me a melee character?"
There are races that are good for casters, races that are good for non-casters, and races that are in between.

Mystic Past Life or not, Samsarans are VERY much in the "caster" category.

[georgie_leech]

That depends on your definition of "magic" - Black Mages in any installment of FF have very little to do with magic in a D&D sense. A FF Black Mage is a glorified archer - focused primarily on various flavors of blasting, no battlefield control, no divinations or illusions, very little buffing, and even the summons are just blasting spells with longer animations and bugger numbers. The few debuff spells that exist (Sleep, Poison, Charm, Stone etc.) routinely fail against all but the most trivial of encounters, where they are usually not needed anyway as you can simply nuke or melee the targets down with blasting spells without them being needed rather than waste time on them.

I know he's not as effective as Wizards well-played. My point was that you can have simple classes that are unquestionably magic-oriented. It would be a strange definition of magic indeed where mastery of the elements and the ability to turn enemies to stone and the ability to conjure mighty creature to do your bidding isn't magical.


I'm not saying all mundane classes have to be simple. I actually support the existence of ToB wholeheartedly. (Well, with a few minor tweaks - all the healing and teleportation maneuvers should be supernatural.) What I am disagreeing with, however, is that the presence of the Warblade means the Fighter no longer has a purpose in the game, and ditto the Rogue vs. the Factotum.

Where did I claim you didn't like ToB? For that matter, I never claimed any classes were obsolete. I was commenting on whether you needed specifically mundane classes to be simple in order to have a simple experience. There's a reason it was lumped in with the previous point in the same paragraph.

Incidentally, if we're discussing Pathfinder, I don't know how applicable ToB is.


I guess it comes down to suspension of disbelief - a class that intentionally hamstrings itself, and a class that is capable of less but maximizes that potential, will play differently from each other in practice. You could, if you wanted, play a melee class who closes his eyes all the time or gouges them out at 1st level - that too would be a form of challenge, but it's not one that feels credible. Similarly, an Int 12 could take up Wizardry, but he'd be much more likely to find another adventurous calling, unelss you're randomly generating characters or something.

Let me put it this way. I'm fine with desiring a "Hard Mode" for the purposes of optimisation. What I disagree with is having the Hard Mode be baked into the class, especially when a theoretical Human Fighter 20 and a Human Wizard 20 have the same CR, implying they have roughly comparable power levels. If you want a Hard Mode, it should be self-imposed challenges, not something that someone can stumble upon without realising it is in fact Hard Mode.

[3WhiteFox3]

This is not a problem.
Look at the Samsaran stats/abilities, what about them says "make me a melee character?"
There are races that are good for casters, races that are good for non-casters, and races that are in between.

Mystic Past Life or not, Samsarans are VERY much in the "caster" category.

That was my (admittedly poorly phrased) point. Races tend towards being very strong for casters, while melee has very few counterparts that help them as much (I don't think there's a race with 2 physical stats).

[TuggyNE]

That +3 holy longsword you found or had made is worth just as much several in-game weeks/months later when you're ready to sell it for the next big thing, or upgrade it.

Well, half as much, but yes. Most casters can get by fairly well with the same or lower consumable budget than non-casters though, I believe; a metamagic rod keeps its value just as well as a magic greataxe.


Now, I don't necessarily believe that everyone's costs will be defrayed equally. Casters, at any given WBL point, may indeed end up with a little extra scratch than mundanes. After all, they can game the system so as to never use spells with expensive components and never rely on spells from items, or everyone can get lucky in their deductions/saving throws and not need them. But in general, I think the two are close enough that having the same WBL gets everyone reasonable close. Certainly it's a heck of a lot less headache for the DM, which is the same reason they got rid of that class-based XP tracks mess. It also makes multiclassing a lot easier.

I do agree that having separate WBL tables would go in the wrong direction (see my response (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15713241) to a recent thread about resurrecting separate XP tables for the general rationale). That's not to say that there's no problem, but that a crude hack is not the right way to solve it.


Ultimately, this too is where having good players solves this "problem" before it even truly becomes one. At the games I've played, if the fighter is a couple thousand gold shy of a killer upgrade and the cleric/sorcerer has some gold left over, they tend to pitch in and help him out. It's common wisdom in any team RPG that the guy standing on the frontline needs to be wearing the most expensive protections money can buy - you see this all the time in MMOs for instance.

For what it's worth, in the MMO I am most familiar with (DDO), everyone is responsible for their own gear, and tanks are not unique in their need for good protection. Instead, pitching in on gear for others comes in generally two forms: within a guild, anyone, of any class, who needs a hard-to-acquire item might ask others to help them get it, or might have it donated if it's a low-level item; within a group on a difficult quest or raid, healers and other casters will often expect to have their mana pot/heal scroll costs defrayed by those they spent most on.


The ultimate problem I have with this point of view is the fetters it places on the creative process. We can't have interesting, fluff-driven design (where one starts at a flavor concept and works backwards to the mechanics) because "The balance! The precious balance!"

Constraints on creativity, in any field, are almost invariably productive of more interesting results than you would otherwise ever see, so I don't see this as being a particular problem. This is especially true when you consider the basic idea of balance here, that equal investments give roughly equal results; all that's necessary is assign appropriate costs for whatever flavorful abilities you come up with, and then (this is the actual hard part) figure out some way to prevent abusive combinations of otherwise-appropriately priced abilities. 3.x tends to use ability bundling (on various levels; class, race, template, trait, and sometimes feats or spells) in order to accomplish this.

[Psyren]

Where did I claim you didn't like ToB? For that matter, I never claimed any classes were obsolete. I was commenting on whether you needed specifically mundane classes to be simple in order to have a simple experience.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I brought up ToB to make the point that complex mundanes do have a place in the game - but so do simple ones, and mundanes do "simple" much better than spellcasters do. That's a whole chapter of the PHB/CRB you can safely skip as a new player, which is huge.

Even the simplest casting classes, like the Warlock and DFA, have abilities that send you right back to the spells chapter of the PHB, which then has you go to Magic Overview to learn the metarules on things like glamers etc. Not everyone wants to deal with that their first time in.




Incidentally, if we're discussing Pathfinder, I don't know how applicable ToB is.

Plenty, since it's compatible, but the point is that paizo made the right choice of baselining the fighter at a low optimization level. Those groups that want a higher-powered fighter will also generally know the kinds of things they need to do to it to achieve that goal - maneuvers, spells, totems, that sort of thing. Meanwhile, those groups who think the class is fine won't have to deal with a Warblade or Incarnate right off the bat.



Let me put it this way. I'm fine with desiring a "Hard Mode" for the purposes of optimisation. What I disagree with is having the Hard Mode be baked into the class, especially when a theoretical Human Fighter 20 and a Human Wizard 20 have the same CR, implying they have roughly comparable power levels. If you want a Hard Mode, it should be self-imposed challenges, not something that someone can stumble upon without realising it is in fact Hard Mode.

Eh, the CR system was never really designed for class levels anyway. After all, HD often don't follow it, so expecting class levels to do so too isn't realistic. Rather than comparing a Wizard X to a Fighter X, compare them both to a CR X Monster, and make sure they both have X WBL. Barring corner cases, both have a chance at victory.

[georgie_leech]

For what it's worth, in the MMO I am most familiar with (DDO), everyone is responsible for their own gear, and tanks are not unique in their need for good protection. Instead, pitching in on gear for others comes in generally two forms: within a guild, anyone, of any class, who needs a hard-to-acquire item might ask others to help them get it, or might have it donated if it's a low-level item; within a group on a difficult quest or raid, healers and other casters will often expect to have their mana pot/heal scroll costs defrayed by those they spent most on.


Wait, my Rogue could have *charged* for his Raise Dead scrolls? Dang, I missed out.

[TuggyNE]

Wait, my Rogue could have *charged* for his Raise Dead scrolls? Dang, I missed out.

Yep. If there's only a few that you used, it would be a little crass, but if you're going through stacks of a hundred mass cure serious wounds….

[Psyren]

Constraints on creativity, in any field, are almost invariably productive of more interesting results than you would otherwise ever see, so I don't see this as being a particular problem.

Not when they curtail design space. Having the freedom to come up with a fluff concept first - such as say, a caster-focused race that retains fragments of its past lives - and then work backwards to the mechanics of how that might be expressed in the rules (they keep some of their old spells!) without being fettered to the current status quo, is itself more interesting (to me anyway.) The approach that requires going over all the existing material with a fine-toothed comb and weighing it in the scales before releasing anything new is going to slow development to a crawl at best.

The better solution is to produce a spectrum of material, and leave it up to each table to decide where their op threshold is. Beyond the most arithmetic of considerations like progression, "balance" is an exercise best handled at the playgroup level. MPL has all the cautionary signposts it needs to ward off balance-leery DMs; the ones that are left most likely know, at least in a high-level sense, what they're in for from this racial.

[Spuddles]

You know Psyren, I find myself agreeing with a lot of what you're saying in principle, but not actually seeing that reflected in the design philosophy of Pathfinder. 3.5 eventually got ToB, which was a sea change in the way D&D viewed mundanes.

It's not that mundanes are purposefully hardmode- PF designers act as if there is actually rhyme, reason, or thought behind monks & twf, or monks and improved natural attack, or monks and vow lf poverty. Like somehow a level 15 fighter and a level 15 wizard are equivalent and can be played together in the same game. There's no discussion of tiers, BECAUSE THE DEISGNERS DONT THINK THEY EXIST.

This leads to a system with bull**** like vital strike or useless spiked chains, or SKR's monk hatred, while casters get esoteric training and blood money.

The system is still overwhelmingly caster biased, but no one actually comes out and says that. Paizo even marketed PF as a set of "fixes" for 3.5, but as far as I can tell, they just reverted to 3.0 design philosophy, ignored nearly a decade of stress testing, buried their heads in the sand over critical, underlying issues, then declared everything worked fine and was balanced and their poorly written rules aren't poorly written, everyone just needs to stop being munchkins.


The trouble with PFS is that it's typically a group of random people thrown into a game together at a con somewhere. So of course you're going to see folks who don't care about each other's fun more often than you will among an established group of friends.

But, givenA that Samsarans are not legal in PFS anyway, PFS is moot to this topic.



The trouble with terms like "overpowered" is that you have to compare it to something. A Cleric/Druid/Wizard/Sorcerer with MPL is not significantly more powerful than one without it. A Witch gets a bigger boost, but still not enough to elevate them above the other T1s. Lesser classes get a bigger boost from it, but still don't come close to the 5 mentioned above without.



Well, you're forgetting the third category of character (gish) which is a way for a Samsaran melee to get mileage out of the racial. But MPL is hardly the only racial to favor one type of character over another. Other racials like Elven Magic and Gnome Magic also push towards casters, while racials like natural weapons or bonuses to CMB favor melee. The fluff of Samsarans, which is backed up by their ability adjustments, is that they favor magic.



Some want to play something simple - they want to sit at the table with their friends and contribute, but not have to agonize over pages and pages of spells, or daily prep, or arguing with the DM over what Charm Person/Silent Image actually lets them do. They're okay with playing a class that has a lower op ceiling in exchange for the freedom to "pick up and play."

Some want a challenge - optimizing a pure caster is easy, optimizing a gish is slightly harder, and optimizing a mundane is harder still. Mundanes have low floors and low ceilings - easy to pick up, but tough to make shine without help from the party. Maybe you are a supremely skilled D&D player joining a brand new group - you know that if you play a caster you will quickly steal the spotlight, so you instead build the biggest, baddest melee you can and leave the exercise of getting you in the middle of the foes up to your caster friends.

And finally, some just feel like it. Maybe they've been a caster the last 5 campaigns, or maybe they have a concept in mind that requires minimal magic.

Playing the biggest baddest melee with a bunch of noobs is the fastest way to get called a munchkin. You should frequent forums and games outside the gianitp echochamber. Even then, a couple times a week we seem to get someone showing up and complaining that their DM nerfed CMB rolls because they're too good.

[Drachasor]

The better solution is to produce a spectrum of material, and leave it up to each table to decide where their op threshold is. Beyond the most arithmetic of considerations like progression, "balance" is an exercise best handled at the playgroup level. MPL has all the cautionary signposts it needs to ward off balance-leery DMs; the ones that are left most likely know, at least in a high-level sense, what they're in for from this racial.

What's a bad practice is making each and every table figure out what the heck the actual spectrum is and where everything fits into it.

The books are not made with much of a spectrum in mind, or at least they are not remotely written that way.

What PF is continue the high level of system mastery that 3.X required, and it never bothers to tell the players or DM just how insanely unbalanced even CRB things can be. Given the fact they then make spells like Blood Money, which doesn't belong in any game EVER, it does leave you scratching your head at their judgment quite a bit of the time.

You act like all balance-leery DMs have a similar sense of judgement, but the fact is that they can be all over the place from good to bad judgement. The game doesn't provide tools, guides, or advise on handling this sort of thing. Any that the Devs have they are keeping as "unwritten rules." (Their term, not mine).

I'm not saying this wasn't a problem in 3.5. But at least the Devs at the end seemed quite aware of the problem. The PF Devs though...it doesn't seem like they learned much. They thought fixing the Fighter just meant giving it bigger bonuses!

To the OP: Mystic Life is notably OP. As a side note, it goes against the PF Devs' own design principles of ignoring when you get an intelligence or other ability score bonus.

[Psyren]

Paizo even marketed PF as a set of "fixes" for 3.5

They did no such thing. PF was marketed as a continuation of 3.5, not a "fix."



, but as far as I can tell, they just reverted to 3.0 design philosophy

This is just ridiculous; PF is so far ahead of 3.0 that I can't even see where you could possibly be coming from on this. Where are the hour-long summons? Where's time-stop Haste? Where is Darkness granting Total Concealment?

I can't take a comparison like that seriously at all.


Playing the biggest baddest melee with a bunch of noobs is the fastest way to get called a munchkin. You should frequent forums and games outside the gianitp echochamber. Even then, a couple times a week we seem to get someone showing up and complaining that their DM nerfed CMB rolls because they're too good.

So... you agree with me then? In real actual games, the god-wizard is actually a rarity, and the charger is more likely to cause the DM headaches? What are you saying here?


What's a bad practice is making each and every table figure out what the heck the actual spectrum is and where everything fits into it.

That's not bad practice, it's the point. Every playgroup needs to draw their lines of demarcation themselves. The material is written for everyone, not your table or my table, and the goal is for many kinds of story, setting and campaign to be viable within the game's one framework. And even the same table may decide to experiment with different styles and power levels from campaign to campaign.



What PF is continue the high level of system mastery that 3.X required, and it never bothers to tell the players or DM just how insanely unbalanced even CRB things can be. Given the fact they then make spells like Blood Money, which doesn't belong in any game EVER, it does leave you scratching your head at their judgment quite a bit of the time.

Blood Money isn't in the CRB :smallconfused: It's an obscure spell from some rereleased adventure path or something.



To the OP: Mystic Life is notably OP. As a side note, it goes against the PF Devs' own design principles of ignoring when you get an intelligence or other ability score bonus.

What design principles are those?