Are rays in pathfinder any good at all?

[Rumo]

Hi!

Changing from 3.5 to PF, I built myself a Diviner with Prescience. I was somewhat looking forward to being able to influence vital rolls like the ranged touch attack from rays and the one required to break spell resistance. Now regarding the rays, my enthusiasm got dampened a bit when the DM told me there is a save in PF, halving the effect of my Ray of Enfeeblement. I wasn't under the impression that rays were overpowered in 3.5. Sure, Enervation was good, as were a few others. But good spells are supposed to exist in the game, and now I wonder, if rays have become rather underpowered by that new rule.

[Platymus Pus]

Is a level 1 spell that con reduce str by possibly 11 at a distance of 25'+ (5' every two levels )if they fail and still is reduced by 5 at least if they save anyway not good enough?
sure screws over anything that uses str in the first few levels in an ordinary game least encumber them even if it doesn't.

[Geddy2112]

Ray spells are still really good, as a fair amount of enemies have absolute garbage touch AC. Ray of enfeeblement was nerfed, but it is still not terrible. Most of the other rays are still good, even if they do allow saves.

[Nibbens]

Hi!

Changing from 3.5 to PF, I built myself a Diviner with Prescience. I was somewhat looking forward to being able to influence vital rolls like the ranged touch attack from rays and the one required to break spell resistance. Now regarding the rays, my enthusiasm got dampened a bit when the DM told me there is a save in PF, halving the effect of my Ray of Enfeeblement. I wasn't under the impression that rays were overpowered in 3.5. Sure, Enervation was good, as were a few others. But good spells are supposed to exist in the game, and now I wonder, if rays have become rather underpowered by that new rule.

I think they are - Ranged touch attacks are basically auto-hits for squish classes, and that's what rays are. To balance this out, most rays get a save vs. X effect - however most of the time even when the enemy succeeds, they still get a piece of the spell, just not the whole thing.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

I like Ray of Exhaustion myself. Save they get a considerable debuff. Fail they get a horribl debuff on them. And then, if they are already fatigued for some reason, the save is redundant!

[elonin]

With a 1 auto missing that is a nerf. They still have SR and now a save for reduced effect.

[Grod_The_Giant]

With a 1 auto missing that is a nerf. They still have SR and now a save for reduced effect.
Pretty sure that was always the rule.

[elonin]

Sorry, said the wrong thing earlier. Compared to the 3.5 version the pathfinder version of ray of enfeeblement is nerfed with the save (for the same damage) and the duration has been cut from 1 minute per level to 1 round per level.

[Rumo]

Yes, but my point is: In comparison to 3.5, all rays have been nerfed to a considerable degree. If my understanding is correct, no save whatsoever was replaced by save for halved effect rounded down. That is not a minor change.

When I played 3.5, rays were well respected, but I never heard anyone say or read anyone write that they were overpowered. It just seems strange to me that a group of spells that wasn't really considered OP can be changed from "no save" to "save -> halve" without seriously suffering.

[Captain Morgan]

Not every ray in the game has a save, is the thing.

[Hazrond]

Yes, but my point is: In comparison to 3.5, all rays have been nerfed to a considerable degree. If my understanding is correct, no save whatsoever was replaced by save for halved effect rounded down. That is not a minor change.

When I played 3.5, rays were well respected, but I never heard anyone say or read anyone write that they were overpowered. It just seems strange to me that a group of spells that wasn't really considered OP can be changed from "no save" to "save -> halve" without seriously suffering.
im pretty sure you misunderstood your DM, that SPECIFIC ray has a save but not all do

[Snowbluff]

The save is a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE nerf to ray of enfeeblement. It goes from being one of the best first level (in terms of the fact that it stays viable in 3.5 against a large number of creatures) spells to run of the mill (like most first level spells, it just gets worse and worse as you level).

Okay, so the spell's effect scales with level. It's meant to hit peak effectiveness at level ten, potentially inflicting a penalty of 11, or -5 to damage and attack with certain attacks (if you roll a 5 or 6, so 1/3 of the time).

Now, that's not the case in PF. In d20 (3.5 and PF included), saves scale in a very particular way. You have 10 or the average of 11 as the base for saves and DCs. You have stat modifiers that cancel out. You have a set of good saves (maxing at 12), which represent saves you should be passing more than 50% of the time, and (bad saves maxing at 6) where you fail more than 50% of the time, which is balanced against a scaling DC bonus of 1/2 HD (maxing at 10) for HD related effects, or 9 levels for spells.

Ray of Enfeeblement fails under this. At level 10, you're using a first level spell against saves that expect a fifth level spell, which reduces your chance of landing by 20% if you don't mess up the attack roll. This only gets worse as you level, even when you don't consider the large number of immunities from critters like undead (which have always plagued the spell, which is fair for the fluff and its former reliability), how common good fort saves are on str based creatures (and in general), and that monster HD can be higher than your level, further inflating their save.

In short, Paizo weren't thinking when they did this. Really, they don't get enough crap for undermining this very basic idea in the system's game design.

[Pex]

Just can't win. Before Pathfinder. Before 4E. People were screaming about the power of some spells, Ray of Enfeeblement among them. They were incensed there was no saving throw. Some boasted they house ruled giving it a save. People also complained about save or die, spells giving immunities, and all sorts of hysteria of how dare players be given such power. Paizo listened. Paizo nerfed lots of spells. No more save or die, Phantasmal Killer excepted, instead being a flat 10 damage per level. Very few immunities, instead giving a plus number to saving throws. Spells that had no saving throw got a saving throw, like Ray of Enfeeblement and Irresistible Dance. Magic Missile was traditionally left as an auto-hit, no save. Polymorphing became defined specific buffs. Mirror Image was curtailed. Glitterdust got a save each round to end the blindness. Now Pathfinder must be faulted for doing what people have been asking?

Some spells in Pathfinder being weaker than their 3E counterpart is an on purpose design feature, not a bug. It can take getting used to, but the game has not become ruined because of it.

[Platymus Pus]

The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a wizard's spell is 10 + the spell level + the wizard's Intelligence modifier.

An empowered, maximized spell gains the separate benefits of each feat: the maximum result plus half the normally rolled result.

Level Increase: +2 (an empowered spell uses up a spell slot two levels higher than the spell's actual level.)
Benefit: All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by half including bonuses to those dice rolls.

Level Increase: +3 (a maximized spell uses up a spell slot three levels higher than the spell's actual level.)

The subject takes a penalty to Strength equal to 1d6+1 per two caster levels (maximum 1d6+5). The subject's Strength score cannot drop below 1. A successful Fortitude save reduces this penalty by half. lose 16 str, lose 8 partial
level 11 wizard.
10 + 6 + (at least +6) DC 22 for 22 int, loses a level 3 spell slot, loses a level 4 slot
vs
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/stone-to-flesh has set DC
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/d/disintegrate another ray, relies on caster level goes up to an amazing 40d6, you're going to save this for more important things, partial save, does 5d6 dmg no matter what
CR7 considered challenging
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/unique-monsters/cr-7/deadwatcher-orc
fort +8 has 20 str, only makes save at roll of 14. fails save has 4 str. Saves has 12 str. Basically helpless.
CR 8 very difficult
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/unique-monsters/cr-8/kreeg-ogre-fighter
Fort +15, 24 str makes save at roll of 7, fails save has 8 str, saves has 16 str, mildly annoying.
CR 9 very difficult
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/unique-monsters/cr-9/cyclops-smasher
Fort +19, 29 str, makes save at roll of 3, fails save has 13 str, makes save has 21 str, still not all that threatening. You're a wizard whose level 11, you have spells and protection items the mundane ways these things approach with don't do much even when they make that save. They basically lose a +4 to hit and dmg because you cast a level 1 spell, a +8 to hit and str and even possibly the ability to move at all if they fail for some.

wizard probably at least has 18(+4) to ac from dex. wizard probably has mage armor on at least (+4 ac) your ac is 18 with very basic things ignoring the many other things any normal mage would have at this point. (like flying)
You basically raised everyone's ac by +4 by using it even if it saves.(+4 to ac)
+21/+16/+11 becomes +17/+12/+7 failure to +13/ +9 / +3 has to roll a 1 to hit in melee range on save (it has 19 fort), with ranged has to basically give up if used on it at all
(2d8+14) becomes 2d8 + 9 failure to 2d8 + 5
These are things that you'd commonly use on to lower it's str and usually have stupidly high fort saves(many things have fort saves just as bad as a CR4 creatures even at cr 11, ones listed are better even the CR7), they still fall short most times against a wizard. Even with the spell nerfed it'd still be handy to carry around at that level with metamagic just due to its utility.
Tbh this spell needs to be nerfed more if it's still useful at all at that point :smallwink:

[Susano-wo]

Just can't win. Before Pathfinder. Before 4E. People were screaming about the power of some spells, Ray of Enfeeblement among them. They were incensed there was no saving throw. Some boasted they house ruled giving it a save. People also complained about save or die, spells giving immunities, and all sorts of hysteria of how dare players be given such power. Paizo listened. Paizo nerfed lots of spells. No more save or die, Phantasmal Killer excepted, instead being a flat 10 damage per level. Very few immunities, instead giving a plus number to saving throws. Spells that had no saving throw got a saving throw, like Ray of Enfeeblement and Irresistible Dance. Magic Missile was traditionally left as an auto-hit, no save. Polymorphing became defined specific buffs. Mirror Image was curtailed. Glitterdust got a save each round to end the blindness. Now Pathfinder must be faulted for doing what people have been asking?

Some spells in Pathfinder being weaker than their 3E counterpart is an on purpose design feature, not a bug. It can take getting used to, but the game has not become ruined because of it.

Yeah, pretty much this. a 1st level spell no longer being competitive in a 5th level spell environment doesn't sound like a failure to me. :smallconfused:

[BWR]

What Pex said. Lots of these spells which were ridiculously good in 3.5 being nerfed to the point where they are decent sounds like an improvement to me.

[Barstro]

In short, Paizo weren't thinking when they did this. Really, they don't get enough crap for undermining this very basic idea in the system's game design.

True. Were they paying attention, they would have taken away more abilities from Fighters and Rogues. :smallwink:

In no way am I upset that low level spells become worse later on. That is a perfect attempt to negate some of the quadratic leveling of casters.

Taken in a vacuum, though, this would be nerfing just one type of caster subset. It would be a shame if only rays received this sort of treatment, but other types of spell retained their overpoweredness.

[Heliomance]

lose 16 str, lose 8 partial
level 11 wizard.
10 + 6 + (at least +6) DC 22 for 22 int, loses a level 3 spell slot, loses a level 4 slot
vs
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/stone-to-flesh has set DC
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/d/disintegrate another ray, relies on caster level goes up to an amazing 40d6, you're going to save this for more important things, partial save, does 5d6 dmg no matter what
CR7 considered challenging
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/unique-monsters/cr-7/deadwatcher-orc
fort +8 has 20 str, only makes save at roll of 14. fails save has 4 str. Saves has 12 str. Basically helpless.
CR 8 very difficult
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/unique-monsters/cr-8/kreeg-ogre-fighter
Fort +15, 24 str makes save at roll of 7, fails save has 8 str, saves has 16 str, mildly annoying.
CR 9 very difficult
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/unique-monsters/cr-9/cyclops-smasher
Fort +19, 29 str, makes save at roll of 3, fails save has 13 str, makes save has 21 str, still not all that threatening. You're a wizard whose level 11, you have spells and protection items the mundane ways these things approach with don't do much even when they make that save. They basically lose a +4 to hit and dmg because you cast a level 1 spell, a +8 to hit and str and even possibly the ability to move at all if they fail for some.

wizard probably at least has 18(+4) to ac from dex. wizard probably has mage armor on at least (+4 ac) your ac is 18 with very basic things ignoring the many other things any normal mage would have at this point. (like flying)
You basically raised everyone's ac by +4 by using it even if it saves.(+4 to ac)
+21/+16/+11 becomes +17/+12/+7 failure to +13/ +9 / +3 has to roll a 1 to hit in melee range on save (it has 19 fort), with ranged has to basically give up if used on it at all
(2d8+14) becomes 2d8 + 9 failure to 2d8 + 5
These are things that you'd commonly use on to lower it's str and usually have stupidly high fort saves(many things have fort saves just as bad as a CR4 creatures even at cr 11, ones listed are better even the CR7), they still fall short most times against a wizard. Even with the spell nerfed it'd still be handy to carry around at that level with metamagic just due to its utility.
Tbh this spell needs to be nerfed more if it's still useful at all at that point :smallwink:

Uh, what? If I understand you right (which I'm not at all certain about) you think that an Empowered Maximised 1st level spell counts as a 6th level spell for the purposes of save DC, and costs you a 3rd and a 4th level spell slot?

That's not the case. For the purposes of save DC, it remains a 1st level spell. Only Heighten Spell actually changes the spell's level, and thus the save DC - other metamagic feats only increase the level of the spell slot you have to cast it out of, they have no effect on the DC. Also, multiple metamagics being applied to a spell don't make it use multiple spell slots - they stack together, so an Empowered Maximised 1st level spell costs you one 6th level spell slot.

[Platymus Pus]

Uh, what? If I understand you right (which I'm not at all certain about) you think that an Empowered Maximised 1st level spell counts as a 6th level spell for the purposes of save DC, and costs you a 3rd and a 4th level spell slot?

That's not the case. For the purposes of save DC, it remains a 1st level spell. Only Heighten Spell actually changes the spell's level, and thus the save DC - other metamagic feats only increase the level of the spell slot you have to cast it out of, they have no effect on the DC. Also, multiple metamagics being applied to a spell don't make it use multiple spell slots - they stack together, so an Empowered Maximised 1st level spell costs you one 6th level spell slot.

Well it does say actual spell level in the spells, it's actual spell level is always 1 and the spell DC just says 'spell level", not actual spell level or original spell level or the like, it'd make sense if the DC went up. Since it raises the spell's level to 6.
Sounds like any metamagic is pretty much worthless in DC without Heighten, didn't really need that rule just to force a feat if it makes sense on it's own...
Though didn't know they stacked, I assumed that since the spell effects of empower and maximize were counted as separate that they'd just eat two separate slots for a larger spell effect as if level 6.

Well no one said the rules in dnd made sense most times.
Tbh I've almost never use magic, I assumed metamagic was a way for spells to stay viable later on. Guess not, better off making your own spells.

If rays are your concern you can always find rays that are still only in 3.5 and use those or just stick to the 3.5 rules for rays anyway since pathfinder supports 3.5 sources.
Antimagic Ray is an odd one I can't find in pathfinder for instance.

[Snowbluff]

Tbh I've almost never use magic, I assumed metamagic was a way for spells to stay viable later on. Guess not, better off making your own spells. That being said I do appreciate your approach at breaking it down, even if you mixed up a rule. :3



If rays are your concern you can always find rays that are still only in 3.5 and use those or just stick to the 3.5 rules for rays anyway since pathfinder supports 3.5 sources.
Antimagic Ray is an odd one I can't find in pathfinder for instance.
AMR isn't really that great. I mean, it's got a save versus a caster's strong save. However, it does have range and doesn't mess with your stuff if it works.

I prefer Arcane Archer using an AMF arrow. :smalltongue:

[Heliomance]

Well it does say actual spell level in the spells, it's actual spell level is always 1 and the spell DC just says 'spell level", not actual spell level or original spell level or the like, it'd make sense if the DC went up. Since it raises the spell's level to 6.
No, it doesn't raise the spell's level at all. It raises the level of the spell slot you have to use to cast it.

Sounds like any metamagic is pretty much worthless in DC without Heighten, didn't really need that rule just to force a feat if it makes sense on it's own...
Metamagic, aside from Heighten, doesn't increase DC, no. And it's not just forcing a feat - merely having Heighten Spell wouldn't increase the DC of a Maximised, Empowered 1st level spell. You could, if you wanted, cast a Maximised, Empowered 1st level spell Heightened to 4th level - it would have the save DC of a 4th level spell, but because it's Maximised and Empowered as well, it would come out of a 9th level slot. They all stack together.


Tbh I've almost never use magic, I assumed metamagic was a way for spells to stay viable later on. Guess not, better off making your own spells.
Metamagic is a way to make your spells do different things. You can increase the damage, or increase the duration, or the area, or the DC, or change the damage type, or all sorts of other things - but everything you do, you have to pay for. Often, just using higher level spells is better, yes. Not always, though.

[Psyren]

Just can't win. Before Pathfinder. Before 4E. People were screaming about the power of some spells, Ray of Enfeeblement among them. They were incensed there was no saving throw. Some boasted they house ruled giving it a save. People also complained about save or die, spells giving immunities, and all sorts of hysteria of how dare players be given such power. Paizo listened. Paizo nerfed lots of spells. No more save or die, Phantasmal Killer excepted, instead being a flat 10 damage per level. Very few immunities, instead giving a plus number to saving throws. Spells that had no saving throw got a saving throw, like Ray of Enfeeblement and Irresistible Dance. Magic Missile was traditionally left as an auto-hit, no save. Polymorphing became defined specific buffs. Mirror Image was curtailed. Glitterdust got a save each round to end the blindness. Now Pathfinder must be faulted for doing what people have been asking?

Some spells in Pathfinder being weaker than their 3E counterpart is an on purpose design feature, not a bug. It can take getting used to, but the game has not become ruined because of it.

This. And what really makes me laugh is these are some of the same folks yelling about how wizards are god and melee never gets anything nice. Then Paizo nerfs wizards and they lose their minds. Seriously? :smallconfused::smalltongue:

[Platymus Pus]

Metamagic, aside from Heighten, doesn't increase DC, no. And it's not just forcing a feat - merely having Heighten Spell wouldn't increase the DC of a Maximised, Empowered 1st level spell. You could, if you wanted, cast a Maximised, Empowered 1st level spell Heightened to 4th level - it would have the save DC of a 4th level spell, but because it's Maximised and Empowered as well, it would come out of a 9th level slot. They all stack together.
That's a bit much for a level 1 spell :smallfrown: Better off using wish in that case.



I prefer Arcane Archer using an AMF arrow. :smalltongue:

Hmm, nice. Cheaper than crafting AMF or antimagic ray arrows/bolts that's for sure. I had been looking for ways to disable mages from a distance of 4000'

[nedz]

Just can't win. Before Pathfinder. Before 4E. People were screaming about the power of some spells, Ray of Enfeeblement among them. They were incensed there was no saving throw. Some boasted they house ruled giving it a save. People also complained about save or die, spells giving immunities, and all sorts of hysteria of how dare players be given such power. Paizo listened. Paizo nerfed lots of spells. No more save or die, Phantasmal Killer excepted, instead being a flat 10 damage per level. Very few immunities, instead giving a plus number to saving throws. Spells that had no saving throw got a saving throw, like Ray of Enfeeblement and Irresistible Dance. Magic Missile was traditionally left as an auto-hit, no save. Polymorphing became defined specific buffs. Mirror Image was curtailed. Glitterdust got a save each round to end the blindness. Now Pathfinder must be faulted for doing what people have been asking?

Some spells in Pathfinder being weaker than their 3E counterpart is an on purpose design feature, not a bug. It can take getting used to, but the game has not become ruined because of it.

this.

The only trouble is that there are a lot of spells to nerf.

[Psyren]

this.

The only trouble is that there are a lot of spells to nerf.

Which is why I paid Paizo to do it for me :smalltongue:

[Captain Morgan]

This. And what really makes me laugh is these are some of the same folks yelling about how wizards are god and melee never gets anything nice. Then Paizo nerfs wizards and they lose their minds. Seriously? :smallconfused::smalltongue:

Here, here.

[Tuvarkz]

Just can't win. Before Pathfinder. Before 4E. People were screaming about the power of some spells, Ray of Enfeeblement among them. They were incensed there was no saving throw. Some boasted they house ruled giving it a save. People also complained about save or die, spells giving immunities, and all sorts of hysteria of how dare players be given such power. Paizo listened. Paizo nerfed lots of spells. No more save or die, Phantasmal Killer excepted, instead being a flat 10 damage per level. Very few immunities, instead giving a plus number to saving throws. Spells that had no saving throw got a saving throw, like Ray of Enfeeblement and Irresistible Dance. Magic Missile was traditionally left as an auto-hit, no save. Polymorphing became defined specific buffs. Mirror Image was curtailed. Glitterdust got a save each round to end the blindness. Now Pathfinder must be faulted for doing what people have been asking?

Some spells in Pathfinder being weaker than their 3E counterpart is an on purpose design feature, not a bug. It can take getting used to, but the game has not become ruined because of it.

Paizo listened? Heck's sake, Fullcasters are still the tier 1s of PF in the same way they were in 3.5 with the God Wizard and every other build for fullcasters in PF. Paizo martials are still very underpowered outside of high-Op setups, even if Unchained put up Rogue and Monk to par with the Paladin, the Unchained Barbarian remains a stealth nerf to the original in the name of simplification, and Unchained Summoner doesn't mesh with Synthesist, which in all kinds of ironies is the most balanced Summoner Archetype due to the fact that it cancels out the summoner's action economy advantage.

[Psyren]

Paizo listened? Heck's sake, Fullcasters are still the tier 1s of PF in the same way they were in 3.5 with the God Wizard and every other build for fullcasters in PF. Paizo martials are still very underpowered outside of high-Op setups, even if Unchained put up Rogue and Monk to par with the Paladin, the Unchained Barbarian remains a stealth nerf to the original in the name of simplification, and Unchained Summoner doesn't mesh with Synthesist, which in all kinds of ironies is the most balanced Summoner Archetype due to the fact that it cancels out the summoner's action economy advantage.

The devil is in the details. Wizards are still great, but a lot of their key toys (Ray of Enfeeblement, Glitterdust, Polymorph etc.) got nerfed, while others have GM adjudication clauses (dominate, planar binding, simulacrum etc.) The idea was to give non-casters a chance, which they have done. Glitterdust won't outright take you out of a fight anymore, arcane lock won't make the rogue quit his job and become a farmer etc.

As for Unchained Barbarian, you're not required to use that one anywhere; if you don't like it, the original is still there.

[Snowbluff]

Ray of enfeeblement was good, but it was never an OP spell that dictated T1 capabilty, and it didn't need this nerf. It was a bad nerf, but Paizo gets credit for "Neft casturs plox" with it being nerfed, for Paizo not actually doing anything except making lower level spell slots even less useful.

Compare Ray of Enfeeblement to Shield and Mage Armor, and you'll see that it's kind of really dumb nerf. Instead of giving -4 to an enemies attack, you're more likely to give yourself +4 AC, which doesn't help your friends at all.

[Psyren]

Compare Ray of Enfeeblement to Shield and Mage Armor, and you'll see that it's kind of really dumb nerf. Instead of giving -4 to an enemies attack, you're more likely to give yourself +4 AC, which doesn't help your friends at all.

I would rather give my enemy -2 attack (i.e. +2 AC to everyone in the party) than +4 AC to only myself. Though this is a false dichotomy anyway, since mage armor lasts hours so you only need 1-2 of them prepared. And they're also getting less damage, CMB and CMD; Mage Armor affects none of these.

And that's if they make the save - if they fail, I've just given everyone +4 AC instead.

[Snowbluff]

I would rather give my enemy -2 attack (i.e. +2 AC to everyone in the party) than +4 AC to only myself. Though this is a false dichotomy anyway, since mage armor lasts hours so you only need 1-2 of them prepared. And they're also getting less damage, CMB and CMD; Mage Armor affects none of these.

Of course it would be more effective if it worked. There are four defenses against an offensive spell that has spell resistance, a save, an attack roll, and a type, but it is also affected by dice variance. Ray of Enfeeblement could not have a save, and it would still be in line.

And talking about Mage Armor's duration is another strike against "balance" here. Since it lasts longer, it further incentivizes a less friendly playstyle.

[charcoalninja]

In a more general sense Rays also benefit from static bonuses to attacks since they're considered weaponlike. For example Heroism gives a +2 damage to each ray, a smite evil adds +cha. So there are a few different ways you can nab some more ooph to the damage dealing Rays making them amazing.

Scorching Ray is my favourite because it's low enough level to metamagic well. Divine Favour plus heroism for example is a +5 bonus to damage which boosts Scorch Ray to 4d6+5 per ray or 12d6+15 from a 2nd level slot.

Add in crossblooded sorcerer and some metamagic and you're looking at 6d6+17 per ray or 18d6+51 on an empowered scorching ray.

[Sayt]

In a more general sense Rays also benefit from static bonuses to attacks since they're considered weaponlike. For example Heroism gives a +2 damage to each ray, a smite evil adds +cha. So there are a few different ways you can nab some more ooph to the damage dealing Rays making them amazing.

Scorching Ray is my favourite because it's low enough level to metamagic well. Divine Favour plus heroism for example is a +5 bonus to damage which boosts Scorch Ray to 4d6+5 per ray or 12d6+15 from a 2nd level slot.

Add in crossblooded sorcerer and some metamagic and you're looking at 6d6+17 per ray or 18d6+51 on an empowered scorching ray.

Greater Heroism gives a bonus to damage. Normal 3rd level Heroism just gives a bonus to attacks, skills and saves.

[Psyren]

Of course it would be more effective if it worked. There are four defenses against an offensive spell that has spell resistance, a save, an attack roll, and a type, but it is also affected by dice variance. Ray of Enfeeblement could not have a save, and it would still be in line.

But even if it doesn't work it's effective, because it's save half rather than save negates. It's basically a no-save lose 8 strength. For a 1st-level slot, that's pretty good.


And talking about Mage Armor's duration is another strike against "balance" here. Since it lasts longer, it further incentivizes a less friendly playstyle.

The fact that it lasts longer means you only need one or two copies. What are you doing with all your other 1st-level slots?

[Snowbluff]

But even if it doesn't work it's effective, because it's save half rather than save negates. It's basically a no-save lose 8 strength. For a 1st-level slot, that's pretty good. Well, first of all, it scales to a penalty of -11 if your roll max, 5 if they save. Second of all, no it doesn't, since it's subject to other forms of defenses, both active and passive, common and innate, which negate it already.



The fact that it lasts longer means you only need one or two copies. What are you doing with all your other 1st-level slots?

At level 10? Usually nothing. First level spells don't scale well and if they have a save they aren't worth an action. A lot og them are thigns I can do by hand. Sometimes I carry a truestrike, but others I don't even bother opening my spellbook to find out which ones I know. I guess if I'm feeling cheeky I use Mount as fuel for longer summons, or using blood money so I don't use the piles of cash I have lying around, or trying to make a convincing silent image. I can surely you that if I was playing a dedicated debuffer, nothing. :S

[Psyren]

Well, first of all, it scales to a penalty of -11 if your roll max, 5 if they save. Second of all, no it doesn't, since it's subject to other forms of defenses, both active and passive, common and innate, which negate it already.

My bad, forgot to halve the static bonus, but -5 Str no save is still useful.

And the other defenses are a wash. Touch AC might as well not even be there for most monsters, against the few enemies with SR you should be using something else anyway, and I don't even know what you meant by "type defense." It has no descriptors that I can see.


At level 10? Usually nothing. First level spells don't scale well and if they have a save they aren't worth an action. A lot og them are thigns I can do by hand. Sometimes I carry a truestrike, but others I don't even bother opening my spellbook to find out which ones I know. I guess if I'm feeling cheeky I use Mount as fuel for longer summons, or using blood money so I don't use the piles of cash I have lying around, or trying to make a convincing silent image. I can surely you that if I was playing a dedicated debuffer, nothing. :S

Then it doesn't matter and there's nothing to complain about?

[Pex]

Paizo listened? Heck's sake, Fullcasters are still the tier 1s of PF in the same way they were in 3.5 with the God Wizard and every other build for fullcasters in PF. Paizo martials are still very underpowered outside of high-Op setups, even if Unchained put up Rogue and Monk to par with the Paladin, the Unchained Barbarian remains a stealth nerf to the original in the name of simplification, and Unchained Summoner doesn't mesh with Synthesist, which in all kinds of ironies is the most balanced Summoner Archetype due to the fact that it cancels out the summoner's action economy advantage.

WOTC listened to you. They gutted the game and put together something new, 4E. Everyone is the same power level doing X(Weapon)(Type: Color) damage + (Condition, save ends/Someone moves). Enjoy.

For future reference, any argument that relies on the Tier System will never convince me of anything. I apply no value to it in support of the opinion.

[SangoProduction]

I like how people are saying that those who claim wizards are gods (they are), and those who say nerfing them is upsetting are the same people.

[SangoProduction]

WOTC listened to you. They gutted the game and put together something new, 4E. Everyone is the same power level doing X(Weapon)(Type: Color) damage + (Condition, save ends/Someone moves). Enjoy.

For future reference, any argument that relies on the Tier System will never convince me of anything. I apply no value to it in support of the opinion.

Actually, no, Everyone is NOT at the same power level. But everyone DOES get abilities to use that are more than "I swing my sword."

[Pex]

Actually, no, Everyone is NOT at the same power level. But everyone DOES get abilities to use that are more than "I swing my sword."

So does Pathfinder, but that's a different topic.

[Susano-wo]

Mage armor's duration means that you only need 1 or two, as previously stated (my mages typically just extend mage armor directly after spell prep, which pretty much means 1 a day is fine barring dispels from level 8, maybe even 7), but more importantly, it means that its typically already cast when you enter battle, making it not competing for the same space as any of your combat spells.

Now shield is a different matter, but its not so much better than an enemy debuff that it makes it a non-decision. I the wizard is only thinking of his chances to get hit, he is not going to be making the most effective decisions for the party, meaning the party of the wizard who debuffs the enemy rather than buffing himself will perform better. Oh yeah, and lets not forget that the ray of enfeeblement debuffs damage as well, making it pull ahead of shield in terms of usefulness, even if they might make the save (though shield performing against dex attacks means that there is still some reason to take shield.)

[chaos_redefined]

Part of the problem is the variance of the dice. But, for arguments sake, let's compare this to shield.

Considering that shield only affects your AC, while ray of enfeeblement only affects one enemy's to-hit/damage, I'll call that equivalent in terms of targetting. (i.e. if ray of enfeeblement gave a -4 to hit with no damage penalty, then we're good).

So, at level 9, ray of enfeeblement does, on average, 8.5 str penalty. Compared to shield, it comes out ahead. Saving throw knocks it down to a lot less. Save for half makes this 4.25, which is worse than it was at first level if it hit.

But... at first level, ray of enfeeblement does, on average 4.5 str penalty. Even without the save, this is generally going to be -2 to hit and -2 or -3 to damage. Based on Power Attack, as well as Weapon Focus/Specialization, we can call this equivalent to -3 to hit. That's without the save. So, not good enough there.

There is probably a point in the middle where it's fine. And that point is what paizo should have balanced this on. But as it is now, Ray of Enfeeblement sucks at low levels, and at higher levels, it sucks because the save is going to happen. (They should have also gotten rid of the d6 on it, but that's a different point entirely).

Making it a flat -4 to hit, no damage penalty would have been fine. Making it -3 to hit and -3 to damage would have been fine. As stands, it's not balanced.

[chaos_redefined]

Just can't win. Before Pathfinder. Before 4E. People were screaming about the power of some spells, Ray of Enfeeblement among them. They were incensed there was no saving throw. Some boasted they house ruled giving it a save. People also complained about save or die, spells giving immunities, and all sorts of hysteria of how dare players be given such power. Paizo listened. Paizo nerfed lots of spells. No more save or die, Phantasmal Killer excepted, instead being a flat 10 damage per level. Very few immunities, instead giving a plus number to saving throws. Spells that had no saving throw got a saving throw, like Ray of Enfeeblement and Irresistible Dance. Magic Missile was traditionally left as an auto-hit, no save. Polymorphing became defined specific buffs. Mirror Image was curtailed. Glitterdust got a save each round to end the blindness. Now Pathfinder must be faulted for doing what people have been asking?

Some spells in Pathfinder being weaker than their 3E counterpart is an on purpose design feature, not a bug. It can take getting used to, but the game has not become ruined because of it.

Also, regarding this, let's go through your list.
Save or dies: Major problem. Paizo tackled the actual die ones. Left behind the save or flat-out-lose spells. Enjoy the first level spell that removes you from the fight. But, don't worry, there's a solution to that.

Immunities: This was how you got around the fact that, in the first round of combat, you could just flat out lose. You could be immune to the loss. This devalued the save-or-loses, but that's fine. We don't want them around anyway. By making them a large bonus, the potential to roll a 1 still exists, and paizo gave a lot of roll-twice-take-the-worse abilities, making it roughly equivalent to needing to roll a 1 or a 2. This might seem unlikely, but after 10 combats, someone's going to roll a 1 on the first round. After 5, someone's going to roll a 1 on the first or second round. That is BAD. Immunities were a band-aid for a bigger problem. It was an ugly band-aid that noone liked, and paizo removed it, but forgot to do something about the wound it was covering. (Excluding death effects. Death effects don't need an immunity anymore, because they don't kill you outright anymore)

No saving throw: Taking the spells you listed, Ray of Enfeeblement and Irresistable Dance... Ray has already been talked about. Dance has the problem mentioned above. We started with a save or lose at 1st level that essentially took out humanoids. By this level, we already have multiple save or loses that hit multiple enemies (Confusion, Mass Suggestion, etc...), and didn't care if they were specifically humanoids. How do you make that better?
The problem here is a problem with the spells that came before it. They were the problem. Enchantment as a school doesn't work. It's a whole school of save or lose, and save or lose doesn't work properly either balance-wise or fun-wise.

Polymorph: Loss of flavour is my personal beef. I prefer WotC's approach of specific polymorph spells (e.g. the [Polymorph] subschool from Complete Mage/Scoundrel, etc...) Basically, WotC figured out how to do it right, but it was near the end of the time they were doing stuff.

Glitterdust: The problem here is that paizo attacked the strongest spells of their levels and left behind the second strongest. Or something to that effect. Glitterdust got replaced by Pyrotechnics, and eventually create pit. Also, it's the nerf-into-oblivion problem. Glitterdust went from an awesome spell to a worthless spell. It should have gone from an awesome spell to a reasonable spell.

[Sayt]

Glitterdust still serves pretty damn well as anti-invisibility, and it's a god-send against high durability, high alpha-damage creatures like, for instance, Iron or Stone Golems, with their high damage, magic immunity, but low saves.

[Tuvarkz]

WOTC listened to you. They gutted the game and put together something new, 4E. Everyone is the same power level doing X(Weapon)(Type: Color) damage + (Condition, save ends/Someone moves). Enjoy.

For future reference, any argument that relies on the Tier System will never convince me of anything. I apply no value to it in support of the opinion.

There is more than one way. Spheres of Power, for example, has perfectly balanced Tier 3 spherecasters all terribly flexible and customizable without falling out of balance. Same applies to ToB/PoW. Add the 6/9 casters to that and you got a well balanced, working game that isn't the disaster that 4e was.

[Susano-wo]

Glitterdust: The problem here is that paizo attacked the strongest spells of their levels and left behind the second strongest. Or something to that effect. Glitterdust got replaced by Pyrotechnics, and eventually create pit. Also, it's the nerf-into-oblivion problem. Glitterdust went from an awesome spell to a worthless spell. It should have gone from an awesome spell to a reasonable spell.
worthless?:smallconfused: It makes invisible creatures visible, and also has a possible blindness rider. All my mages have see invis and glitterdust prepped, and its worked quote well against invisible opponents. What other low level arcane spell would you suggest to allow your party to target said invisible creatures? (sorry, I know its off topic, but its hard for me to fathom that someone would consider glitterdust worthless:smallbiggrin:)

[Susano-wo]

double post due to browser crash. sorry:smallredface:

[Ixe]

...the duration [of Ray of Enfeeblement] has been cut from 1 minute per level to 1 round per level.

This.

I'm beginning a PF game, I am working my favorite necromancer-spec wizard starting build into the PF rules, and then I notice the Ray of Enfeeblement spell's description. Penalties do not stack, save for half: I get all of that, and it's fine. But.... the duration? Am I missing something, or does that make this spell more or less pointless? At first (or even second) level, why would I want this spell? (And, given that this is the only first-level ranged attack spell in the school of necromancy, that makes it kind-of a big deal...)

[elonin]

Pathfinder nerfed some of the worst offenders from 3.5. How long have players been complaining about how powerful polymorph and poly any object are? Maybe I'm mistaken but necromancy's primary focus isn't really about rays and still has one of the better ones in the game IMHO with ennervation

[Pex]

This.

I'm beginning a PF game, I am working my favorite necromancer-spec wizard starting build into the PF rules, and then I notice the Ray of Enfeeblement spell's description. Penalties do not stack, save for half: I get all of that, and it's fine. But.... the duration? Am I missing something, or does that make this spell more or less pointless? At first (or even second) level, why would I want this spell? (And, given that this is the only first-level ranged attack spell in the school of necromancy, that makes it kind-of a big deal...)

So don't take it as first level. At third level it lasts three rounds, good enough for a combat.

[ericgrau]

Is a level 1 spell that con reduce str by possibly 11 at a distance of 25'+ (5' every two levels )if they fail and still is reduced by 5 at least if they save anyway not good enough?
sure screws over anything that uses str in the first few levels in an ordinary game least encumber them even if it doesn't.

When it takes caster level 10 to do that? Yeah it's pretty bad. 8 on average and only if you hit. Touch AC is non-trivial until about level 15, and even at 15+ it's relevant for some foes. So really about 7 on average. Less with SR. But at level 10 I wouldn't expect more out of a 1st level spell. That's pretty irrelevant to the usefulness of the spell.

The sweet spot is level 4 when you're doing 1d6+2 strength. You have around a +4 to hit and about 1/3 of foes save... probably about half of melee foes though. 3 strength on average. Horrible. Ok, but where it really gets good is when you empower it at level 6. (1d6+3)*1.5 and about a +5 to hit. 5 strength on average. Still horrible. And that's if you invested into it with precise shot and empower. I'll just cast bull's strength on an ally thanks, and that's not even a great spell. RoE was one of the best spells when you built around it but the fort half nerfed it into the ground. If you optimize both your dex and cha/int somehow, and take 5 feats on rays & save DC you can upgrade it to just ok. It was fine where it was: spend 3 feats, race and ability scores for a really strong spell, that was fair. Yeah you recycle all those on other rays but it's not like rays were ever the strongest tactic around. A proper nerf would have been to make it 1d4+1 per 2 CL, or some such.

PF did nerf some spells that got complaints in higher optimization games, but they didn't really accomplish much there. And they accomplished a lot less for more casual play. There it's more like they gutted some fun spells that weren't terrible offenders and made you pick other spells instead... like some brand new spells that are just as strong in APG and other splats. Some simple minor nerfs would have been fine, and no nerf was essential.

But ray of enfeeblement is not the only good ray spell and, like 3.5, Pathfinder rays are still ok. There are some options to boost damage. You can make a nice arcane trickster like 3.5. For a regular wizard rays are a nice backup to your better multi-target spells. Because sometimes you want to hurt only one foe. You still want precise shot even if rays aren't your bread and butter (and usually they shouldn't be), but a couple feats and an ok dex for a major backup tactic isn't a bad idea.

[Florian]

This.

I'm beginning a PF game, I am working my favorite necromancer-spec wizard starting build into the PF rules, and then I notice the Ray of Enfeeblement spell's description. Penalties do not stack, save for half: I get all of that, and it's fine. But.... the duration? Am I missing something, or does that make this spell more or less pointless? At first (or even second) level, why would I want this spell? (And, given that this is the only first-level ranged attack spell in the school of necromancy, that makes it kind-of a big deal...)

Broaden your perspective a bit and consider how some spells are harsher when used against player characters than when they're used by them.