| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've read a number of threads where people state that blasters are underpowered because their damage can't keep up with hit dice progressions.
This has been proven false a number of times when a blaster is built properly.
Having lost that round, many "blaster-haters" decry such builds as being FAR too focused and requiring FAR too many resources, a point they believe to be in their favor since other spellcasting styles (summoning God-wizarding, battlefield control, buffing/debuffing, save or die, etc.) require far less investment--in fact, almost none at all.
Well, I'm here to show that, such people have lost that argument as well for the very reason they think it won them their argument:
If I can build an effective blaster with with an intense amount of investment...and can build a summoning, save or die, buffing/debuffing, battlefield controlling, god-wizard with little to no investment...than it stands to reason that I should be able to do both at once with the same character, shouldn't it?
After all, save or dies work well, so long as I have decent save DCs (which I will as I have only one primary ability score), summoning is amazing all by itself, battlefield control only requires knowledge on how best to use it, buffing/debuffing are usually automatically successful, etc.
However, a wizard who doesn't build for blasting CAN'T blast worth a damn.
Which do you think is better? A god-wizard? Or a god-wizard that can also blast really, really well? Logic (and the tier system) dictates that the versatile spellcaster capable of doing more is the more powerful character.
Still, I'll let you decide for yourselves.
The god wizard may not have a heavy feat investment, but he gets more from different schools than blasters benefit from. Oh, and the high damage blaster builds always seem to be cross-blooded sorcerors. Wizards certainly can't do that.
Not to the same extent, no, but good blaster wizards do exist.
your arguments are valid (altough using pure logical connection on the rambling done on this board is overdoing it), a blaster can very well be done.
However I refuse to accept the title and prefer to play a "god-wizard" with a few tricks up his sleeve and let damage to rogue and fighters. In my opinion all wizards should have a few combat-control spells, but not every wizard needs straight blasting power. Summoning is just as good (more or less, I don't want to start a discussion about this).
Blasting can be effective, and it can be fun. It is inherently less effective than save or suck unless you completely kill whatever you're blasting and don't harm your allies.
But even if it were amazing...leave the damage to the melee. It's all they've got, man, throw them a bone!
Also, I've seen a couple really effective blasters played. With psionics.
[off-topic]
It's important to remember that the shortcomings in every class were intended as catalysts to foster teamwork; something that I believe to be a poor choice in game-design. However, the system has sprung from war-gaming so it's to be expected.
[/off-topic]
I don't think full casters were really intended to dish out that much damage, but to control and support. If blaster mages could be built to dominate every battle, the players running mundane melee classes (that still want to do superhuman things without magic...I'll stop here before I burn a hole in the thread) would never get through a session without whining that their character isn't effective...despite being the only one capable of (traditionally) standing toe-to-toe with the highest CR threat.
[off-topic]
It's probably better just to restrict wizards/full-casters as a monster type and only allow players to use melee, ranged, and skill-based classes.
[/off-topic]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IF the Wizard has to be built for blasting to blast well, than not EVERY wizard can be a blaster. Your task in order to prove your point is then the following.
1. Describe the target neccessary to define "blasting well"
2. Numerate the minimum build options neccessary to acheive the goal above.
Optional: compare results to a blasting sorcerer and then it's open evaluation time.
I accept your challenge. Please note, however, that "good" does not mean "best." We are going for a viable "able to contribute to the party effectively build," not a "eek out every point of damage possible" build.
1) Able to take on-par CR foe(s) out of the fight in 3 rounds or less with nothing but blasting (though you may not outright stop a foe in round one, if you knock off at least a 1/3 of their hit points all at once, they are likely going to be hesitant to continue the fight, likewise, no one in the party will say you aren't contributing).
2) Most of it will stem from feats, specifically Spell Perfection and metamagic. Metamagic rods can help as well, as can a method of spontaneously casting your perfected spell. I'd say, at a minimum, it is a four feat investment.
Just to be clear: My argument is not that blasters are better than other types of wizards, not by a long shot. My campaign for blasters has always been to convince everyone that blasters are AS GOOD AS other types of wizards (in terms of how they can contribute to the party) and are EVEN BETTER when you play them smart and use tactics appropriate to the situation (i.e. - using battlefield control to route your enemies into blasting zones, debuffing the BBEG before using save or die, etc.). That is the reason why I made this thread, to continue that line of thought and pass it on to others.
The aforementioned sorcerer blasters ARE better blasters, like, by a lot. However, they aren't normally as versatile as what I'm talking about here.
|
with the new books the blast mage is now a viable option when before it was not. However a support wizard (summoning, disables, buffs and debuffs as well as self survival spells) is still a better option. Not because of the damage dice but because of its versatility. Although blaster mages can do these things as well, the resources put into blasting to make it viable reduces ALL the other areas to much to be worthwhile for many people.
That being said both routes are viable. Play what each person finds most fun.
The Dork is the one who brought this up, I suggest that we allow him the opportunity to create the build to meet the challenge I set.
Let's say we keep it to the bounds of PFS...a 12th level cap then?
I mention certain feats that help make it all come together and you conveniently pick a level that makes it impossible to have such feats.
Yeah...I'm not agreeing to those terms.
In any case, I'm not at all familiar with Pathfinder Society Rules and couldn't build for them even if I wanted to.
Does tihs mean I should make my wizard a blaster for a play by post that will take years to get to high enough levels to where blasting is effective if the game lasts that long?
Does tihs mean I should make my wizard a blaster for a play by post that will take years to get to high enough levels to where blasting is effective if the game lasts that long?
No. It just means you should have a versatile spell repertoire that includes, rather than excludes, blasting.
I can get behind the idea. A wizard who can do X and Y is better than one who can only do X.
Some thoughts. What is actually being sacrificed? Just particular spells known? Item creation feats? What is the minimum feat investment for being a non-blaster?
When you encounter spell resistance, do you switch roles or do you recommend feats to continue blasting?
What specific blast spells do you recommend?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I totally understand where your coming from LazarX. My claim works best at 15th (I never build anything towards 20th--that's totally unrealistic). Doing it before is much, much harder, but not impossible (I might be able to put a decent 10th-level build together with some help, but I imagine you'd just shoot holes through it anyways).
Also, I don't believe for a moment that "most people" play PFS. I imagine there are a great many more who are quite happy with their home games.
I'm willing to compromise let's see your 15th level build. Top Gear Scoring Rules still apply :)
What's Top Gear Scoring?
|
|
I totally understand where your coming from LazarX. My claim works best at 15th (I never build anything towards 20th--that's totally unrealistic). Doing it before is much, much harder, but not impossible (I might be able to put a decent 10th-level build together with some help, but I imagine you'd just shoot holes through it anyways).
Also, I don't believe for a moment that "most people" play PFS. I imagine there are a great many more who are quite happy with their home games.
Most APs more or less end around 15th level too. Outside of that many campaigns end or fall apart before reaching levels 15+.
To me for a build to be viable it needs to be decent by around level 5 or so. Otherwise the majority of your playtime will be spent being mediocre or just plain sucking. Not that there's anything wrong with that as long as you are still having fun, but I personally wouldn't enjoy playing a sub-mediocre build that only becomes good for a few sessions at the end of a campaign.
To me for a build to be viable it needs to be decent by around level 5 or so. Otherwise the majority of your playtime will be spent being mediocre or just plain sucking. Not that there's anything wrong with that as long as you are still having fun, but I personally wouldn't enjoy playing a sub-mediocre build that only becomes good for a few sessions at the end of a campaign.
I've seen people discuss effective blaster builds as early as level one, though I'm not as familiar with those builds as I am the much higher level ones (they just aren't as entertaining to me).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I can build an effective blaster with with an intense amount of investment...and can build a summoning, save or die, buffing/debuffing, battlefield controlling, god-wizard with little to no investment...than it stands to reason that I should be able to do both at once with the same character, shouldn't it?
Your argument has a gap in the logic. Let's see if I can make that gap clear with an analogy.
||
|
|
V
Bob decides to make a fighter. He talks to his GM and says that he wants to fight with a sword that is clenched between the cheeks of his posterior, then he will turn around and swing his rear end around cutting up everything with his "butt-blade".
The GM points out that if we stick to the rules, swinging around your bottom as an attack would be "secondary" giving a number of penalties, and the GM says that if Bob swings his butt-blade, he won't be doing any other attacks that round. Bob's not worried, if he takes enough of the right feats (weapon specializations, focuses, etc) he can make the butt blade a poor, but ultimately viable weapon.
Bob goes on the message boards with the topic, "Why all fighters should attack with a sword clenched in their butt cheeks."
Posters on the message boards point out (rightly) that weapons that fighters use in their hands are mechanically better than swinging a sword that is clenched between your fighter's rear cheeks.
Bob points out that his fighter could still carry a weapon in his hands, and use it instead of using his butt-blade whenever he wanted! He points out that as a fighter who specializes in blades, his fighter will be just as effective using the sword in his hands as other fighters who use weapons in their hands all the time.
Bob proudly proclaims "CHECKMATE MESSAGEBOARDS!"
yeah...Bob's fighter may be able to use the sword in his hands, but he continually chooses to use the one clenched in his posterior instead. THAT is the real problem.
|
|
|
|
|
V
The problem with Blaster wizards isn't that they can't use better spells. As you point out, they can.
The problem with Blaster wizards is that they don't use better spells. 80-90% of the time they blast, there is something better they could have done, but they didn't, because they blasted instead.
If you are going to specialize in something, it better be something you do most of the time. If you specialize in blasting, then you are probably blasting a lot. That's why the blasting wizard falls behind the wizard who doesn't blast. The feats are an additional problem, not the original big problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
V
The OTHER problem with your logic (which I have no analogy for), is your assumption that because the feat requirements for a versatile wizard are few, that a Wizard who takes a bunch of blasting feats is just as good as any other wizard when not blasting.
This is an error. Just because "god" wizards aren't feat starved, doesn't mean they aren't getting anything out of those feats. Improved Initiative, Toughness, Improved Fortitude, Improved Familiar...etc. These feats are providing value and power for the non blast-centered wizard. There is a lot of flexibility true, but a wizard who throws all his feats into blasting will be worse than other wizards when blasting isn't occurring, no matter what choices they made.
If you get a good blaster build, like some of the aforementioned sorcerer blaster builds, then blasting all the time often IS the best thing you can do in a fight. It will kill all the on-par CR enemies ~75% of the time in a single round. If not, it often puts their HP within one round of your other party members turning them into giblets.
If you get a good blaster build, like some of the aforementioned sorcerer blaster builds, then blasting all the time often IS the best thing you can do in a fight.I can't help being somewhat skeptical in the abilities of someone who would say,
Most spellcasters at levels 5 and 6 suck
to evaluate spell use. I find Wizards to be as valuable as any party member at level 1. (except the party Druid if there is one). Sorcerers may be a different story, I admit that they aren't my forte.
That said, maybe you just have talents for evaluating spells at high levels only, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Here is your chance to convince me if you like, I will keep an open mind.
It will kill all the on-par CR enemies ~75% of the time in a single round.
...and you claim to have "proven" this? That's a pretty big claim. Where can I see this "proof"?
If not, it often puts their HP within one round of your other party members turning them into giblets.
...as long as the party doesn't need someone to facilitate their ability to do damage to the enemy. Usually the Wizard is that facilitator.
I fairly certain this particular topic glazed over time and time again, but the weakness of a blaster wizard is the applicability of its spells. A wizard, unlike a sorcerer, must carefully choose his or her spells before a battle including metamagic feats such as admixture, therefore that wizard must know what enemies it is going to fight ahead of time. If all the enemies are immune to any of the spells that the wizard prepared that day, or none of the enemies are near enough to each other to make an AoE valuable it means spellslots went to waste. Haste is useful in many more situations than a fireball. Summon is ridiculously awesome because the wizard can cherry pick what it summons at the time of casting. I'm not saying that blasting can't be powerful or useful, just that other methods are much more reliable. If you are going to a blaster wizard, you should at the very least make plenty of scrolls. The reason sorcerers make better blasters even though they have a lower DPR is because they don't have to prepare ahead of time and they have more slots to burn. Sometimes it's about much more than the damage one can do in a single round...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's also calla out one incredible weakness of save or die/suck spells as you get into the higher levels. Most monsters/NPCs are going to end u p making their saves, which means that a caster who focuses on those spells becomes far LESS viable than one who focused on blasting. I mean, even with resistance and a successful save, most creatures take SOME damage from any spell they aren't explicitly immune to. The save or suck caster might as well be armed with a water pistol against most level-appropriate enemies.
]I mention certain feats that help make it all come together and you conveniently pick a level that makes it impossible to have such feats.
He's also picked a level that most campaigns end before.
Something that I'm most likely never going to be able to use is pointless; I don't care if I can cast fireball for a million damage if I need to be higher level than I'm ever going to be to do it.
The save or suck caster might as well be armed with a water pistol against most level-appropriate enemies.
That doesn't really turn out to be true, unless the DM is fudging die rolls.
I say this as a DM that rolls in front of my players and in my current campaign has had a staggering number of CR=APL+2 or APL+3 monsters go down to saves they'd make on a very low number such as 3 or 4 on the die. God forbid my players ever read Persistent Spell -- put that sucker in play and it gets crazy fast.
It's a lot more doable in 3.5, by the way.
Force Missile Mages make blasting ridiculously powerful, and often the single best thing the wizard can do. Scorching Ray builds can do similar harm.
The lack in PF of good blasting dmg feats only shows the devs understand that multiple stacking of direct damage becomes a one button fits all solution to combat.
After all, if you can do 800 hp dmg to the red dragon, have it cold dmg if you wish, is there really any better spell you can employ?
Adding PF feats to some of the 3.5 feats would be just evil. Spell Perfection, Arcane Thesis, Energize Spell, Twin Spell, Admix Spell and Born of the Three THunders could just get really evil, really fast.
===Aelryinth
It's a lot more doable in 3.5, by the way.
There is the "Nova" and "Supernova" thought experiments (that lead to 4 and 5 digit damages if I remember correctly),
but I don't remember seeing anything sustainable for doing near 1K damage reliably to dragons.
The ultimate dragon killer in 3.5 was Shivering touch (3rd level spell) + Reach spell metamagic. 3d6 dex damage no save. Roll a touch attack on a dragon (easy), then roll average dex damage and the Dragon is unconscious.
That is a debuff spell, not a blast. (It was also cheesy enough I could never plug my nose enough to write it on my character sheet)
I've seen some of Ravingdork's builds- he does back his numbers up at high level.
Scrollmaster wizards could maybe get around the preparation problem (putting control spells on scrolls and using slots for metamagic blasts)
but IS the feat investment worth it?
I prefer to break the golden rule of 'don't play a sorc like a wizard'
by going with Human Arcane bloodline and human extra spells known favored class.
Guess what my list includes? Mostly control/utilities but I have found Dazing Spell can make blasts good (reflex saves are usually a weak save so the metamagic cost is offset) that feat, however is really turning a blast spell into a control spell that does damage as well. It's the daze effect I'm after. The damage is a nice side effect.
I have found Dazing Spell can make blasts good (reflex saves are usually a weak save so the metamagic cost is offset) that feat, however is really turning a blast spell into a control spell that does damage as well. It's the daze effect I'm after. The damage is a nice side effect.
I like you.
Double threat spells that include a blast effect make me smile.
Remember "explosive spell" in 3.5? You could make a fireball blast everyone away from the center of the effect and knock them prone.
Now THAT'S a blast! When I visualize that, it's how fireball should be.
Dazing spell + Blast combines the fun of debuffing with the rush of doing damage. Well done sir.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Posters on the message boards point out (rightly) that weapons that fighters use in their hands are mechanically better than swinging a sword that is clenched between your fighter's rear cheeks.
Bob points out that his fighter could still carry a weapon in his hands, and use it instead of using his butt-blade whenever he wanted! He points out that as a fighter who specializes in blades, his fighter will be just as effective using the sword in his hands as other fighters who use weapons in their hands all the time.
Bob proudly proclaims "CHECKMATE MESSAGEBOARDS!"
yeah...Bob's fighter may be able to use the sword in his hands, but he continually chooses to use the one clenched in his posterior instead. THAT is the real problem.
This is a strawman argument. A butt-blade is a simply inferior option to wielding a sword with hands, but otherwise does the same exact thing. Blasting spells, on other other hand, serve an entirely different purpose and function than battlefield control and buffing spells. In your argument you're comparing a rotten apple to another apple, while blasting and battlefield control are more like apples to oranges. There's just no equivalency between the two.
The problem with Blaster wizards isn't that they can't use better spells. As you point out, they can.
The problem with Blaster wizards is that they don't use better spells. 80-90% of the time they blast, there is something better they could have done, but they didn't, because they blasted instead.
Who is to say that using a battlefield control spell is the better option 80-90% of the time? For example, looking at your guide to Wizards, I noticed that most of the spells you highlight as the best spells are things like black tentacles, cloud spells, and other area "screw over the enemy" spells. The problem is, most of these spells are just as detrimental to your own party as they are to the enemy. Put up a black tentacles in the midst of the battle, and now you've just prevented your melee characters from charging in and attacking the enemy. Sure, there are times when things like black tentacles are great, but 80-90% of the time? Hardly.
Another spell that gets lavished with alot of praise is haste. Haste is better than fireball, people say. The important thing is, you can only use haste once. Repeated castings do nothing. Fireballs, on the other hand, add up. Yeah, haste will probably contribute more damage overall by the end of the battle than fireball, but it's a one-shot deal.
One really only needs to use a couple of buffing and battlefield control spells in each battle. Such spells usually have long enough durations to last an entire fight. Once youve hasted everyone and put down your black tentacles (or whatever), then what? Is your wizard supposed to just sit there and pick his nose? Throwing even more clouds, tentacles, walls, etc at that point is just pointless overkill. This is when your wizard should start blasting. As you wisely pointed out in your guide, damage prevention is better than healing. This also applies to blasting. The quicker your enemies die, the less damage your party takes. Even if your fighter characters do more damage (though I seriously doubt they can match the total damage output per round of a wizard hitting several foes at once), the enemies are still going to die alot faster with the wizard helping to blast them than they would otherwise.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the best wizard is the one with the widest variety of options. Wizards who do nothing but buff, nothing but battlefield control, or nothing but blast are inferior to those who do all of the above. Of course there are times when battlefield control is better than using a blast (were it otherwise, people wouldn't bother with battlefield control spells, they'd just blast). But using battlefield control spells during a battle in no way precludes using blasting during that same battle. Don't use haste instead of fireball. Buff your party with haste and then start fireballing! :)
I have found Dazing Spell can make blasts good (reflex saves are usually a weak save so the metamagic cost is offset) that feat, however is really turning a blast spell into a control spell that does damage as well. It's the daze effect I'm after. The damage is a nice side effect.I like you.
Double threat spells that include a blast effect make me smile.
Remember "explosive spell" in 3.5? You could make a fireball blast everyone away from the center of the effect and knock them prone.
Now THAT'S a blast! When I visualize that, it's how fireball should be.
Dazing spell + Blast combines the fun of debuffing with the rush of doing damage. Well done sir.
I formed this opinion after reading Treantmonk's guide to evocation on the wizards boards :)
|
Some stuff
You aren't saying anything that Treantmonk didn't already say himself in the guide.
I'm not saying you should never do pure blast. In fact, my own wizards usually have a blast or two at hand. I'm just saying that blasting is something you do after you've ensured tactical advantage in the combat.
some stuff
Read what Lord oKOyA wrote.
Glad you agree with me.
On round 1, generally you can do something better than blasting.
Once you've helped your side gain tactical advantage, the time for blasting has come. Have fun!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
some stuffRead what Lord oKOyA wrote.
Glad you agree with me.
On round 1, generally you can do something better than blasting.
Once you've helped your side gain tactical advantage, the time for blasting has come. Have fun!
You're right. Sorry for the misundertanding. :)
If you are using things like Black Tentacles you shouldn't be screwing your melee at all. Think of it this way:
Best case scenario, all enemies are caught in the tentacles:
Enemies are stuck and taking damage, melee are perfectly safe. If melee want to pull out bows for a couple rounds, awesome. If they want to pick their noses and wait, well the enemies will still be weaker when the fight resumes.
Middle of the road scenario, some enemies get caught:
The melee have less foes to deal with at a time, definate tactical advantage. The type of player that makes the term BSF fit will often mistake this for the Best Case scenario.
Worst Case scenario, no enemies are caught: Everything is pretty much as it was before, but you might still be able to make use of it with other control spells. If you are exceptionally lucky and have a BIF instead of a BSF among your melee, they might even be ale to make use of it.
I don't see a downside here, though I suppose for completeness sake I really should include:
The Worse than Worst Case scenario, you catch the melee in the area without creating a massive, insurmountable advantage:
Sorry, I'm going to have to ask you to give me your pointy hat and book... Hey! The little one you keep in your boot too. Your wizarding license is hereby revoked.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
some stuffRead what Lord oKOyA wrote.
Glad you agree with me.
On round 1, generally you can do something better than blasting.
Once you've helped your side gain tactical advantage, the time for blasting has come. Have fun!
Tactical advantage is unnecessary if the enemies are all dead.
I still recall a pack of lvl 14 ranger works moving in to rip apart the fighter and my blaster annihilated them in a round even with their high reflex saves and evasion.
Scorched earth policy enacted by blaster caster.
I already know your claim is true.
I play a heavy blaster build that can do most everything else. But I'm a wizard scrollmaster. So that helps with the extra spells.
With new abilities for the wizard like True Name, I bring along my buddy astradaemon or planetar to give me a hand.
Let's also calla out one incredible weakness of save or die/suck spells as you get into the higher levels. Most monsters/NPCs are going to end u p making their saves, which means that a caster who focuses on those spells becomes far LESS viable than one who focused on blasting.
Lolwut?
Level 15 wizard. 28 Int, Persistent, Heightened Glitterdust and Spell Focus: Conjuration. DC=26. Vs, let's say, CR 17 Copper Dragon with +19 Will. Roughly a 50/50 chance of taking out a CR+2 challenge with a single, standard action spell. Most CR 17 creatures don't have that good a Will save, it's a lower level spell gussied up, and this was meant to be a solid challenge for a group of 4-6 adventurers.
Let's say you instead cast a Delay Blast Fireball, empowered through a metamagic rod, with spell focus AND greater spell focus: evocation. Same wizard. DC=27. We won't even fight the same monster. Let's give him a fair shake, non-fire immune or resistant mobs APL-2. 4 of them. In fireball formation. 4 Storm Giants let's say. Awful reflex saves. On average you're rolling (15d6*1.5) ~79 damage. About 40% of each giant's health on a failed save which they are virtually guaranteed to do. You've now failed to eliminate any monsters from combat, it will take you 2 more rounds of the same to "solo" those monsters, and you're really only doing this on round one because after that your team is in the fray.
So, best case scenario, comparing a favorable situation for blasting vs an unfavorable situation for save or suck, I'd say still puts SoS as the more viable option. At high level. Which most campaigns don't get to.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pt. 1:
Every wizard should be a blaster.
And a controller.
And a summoner.
Etc...
If a pair of Cloud Giants get knocked down to single digits and the Wizard can't take them down...
Well, then he's a crappy Wizard.
If a pair of fresh Cloud Giants gets the jump on the party and the Wizard can't slow them down until the others can get into position...
Well, then he's a crappy Wizard.
The Wizard should have the simple tricks for cleaning up at range, and the essential tricks for buying the party time when things get rough. There's so much a Wizard needs to be able to do, investing into one thing at the exclusion of another facet will leave you vulnerable later, with holes few other classes can patch up.
Blaster in a Giants campaign. Feeble unless they're vulnerable.
Enchanter in an Undead campaign. Go home.
Controller in a Demon campaign. Teleport and poison immunity diminish a lot of his options.
You're a Wizard, with all the options. Take them. (Or be a Sorcerer.)
Pt 2:
Who do you face and for how long? What build is effective is dependent on your 'typical' adversary, PC tactics, and DMs preferred rate of attrition.
If you're often facing hordes, blaster cleans up nice. Debuffers often go wasted, and battlefield controllers set the pace for conflict.
If you're facing standard 'near your CR thugs', then battlefield control wins, as you want to keep them hard hits off of you, with debuffing joining in, and blasters only useful to clean up the damaged foes.
Against BBEGs, I don't want a blaster at all. I want a debuffer to strip that guy's offense down, and I want him now. Controlling the battlefield may not even be an option, (unless there's a design flaw in the BBEG.)
But let's say your Barbarian has Finishing Cleave (or 3.5 Cleave/Great Cleave), then it's pretty nice that the adversaries come to him wounded. You may have added 50% to his considerable damage output (Haste being assumed too).
Or maybe you have an Archer or other ranged killers. Then a lockdown of the battlefield plays to your party's strengths.
Or maybe you have a Save debuffer Witch buddy. Then get some Enchantments.
And if you're playing a day long expedition matters vs. if you're playing a 15-minute day.
The warriors can dish out damage all day long, they just need your support for contingencies. A lot of noncombat spells may even be the better way.
On a short day, live it up, screw noncombat, we're here to kill.
Pt. 3: Anyway, I'm saying that comparing PCs in a void without DM/PCs/monsters is silly. The game is too complex for any single build to be better or best over any other good build outside of its environment.
Have I seen blaster-casters contribute a lot? Yes, because I like large scale battles, so AoEs shine. But I doubt I'd play one in PFS.
But Ravingdork has admitted he doesn't play PFS, while others have suggested PFS as a baseline. You guys are coming from two different worlds, RD's DM's and Paizo's. Until a common environment for comparison can be established, what's the point?
Maybe there's an AP you both own that you can use for comparison?
Serpent's Skull anybody?
Very well, just remember that you lose 5 points for every magic item your build is dependent on. (I've decided to use Top Gear scoring here... UK style) I will be your Clarkson for this analysis.
Arg...A clarkson..Kill it!!!!!