Any of the people in my group stay out, thats you people who are participating in both the gestalt campaign and a fate zero campaign( for those of you who dont know my screen name), dont continue if you're one of them wont end well if you do.
So i ask you is there a way to explain how they arent overpowered, because i tone down my stuff, I make my stuff good but not necessarily optimized, i take cosmopolitan a lot. H plays martials their dps is high and mostly he is annoyed with the battle field control, such as create pit, black tentacles, wall of force, summoning, and other things that make it so martial can hurt them like fly, over land flight during a battle, various other things.
So if you can tell me how to prevent him from despising casters, in the gestalt mentioned at the top for a while he was actually a sorcerer barbarian who mostly used self buffs in the gish style of play. He has also played a bard before helped with designing summoners, druids, and clerics so the biggest beef is with arcane casters with 9th level spells. One of things he brings up all the time is 3.5's chain gating solars and what not (but you know gm what not can screw you on this). most of the time its actually impossible to cast the highest level spell because most campaigns end at like 10.
Any help with showing/ explaining how fighters, barbarians, cavaliers, samurais, and various other mostly martial classes aren't completely destroyed by tenth level would be nice, please no snarky or insulting comments, thanks in advance.
Pathfinder increased the power of martial characters without really increasing the primary spellcasting classes. They also rebalanced a number of problematic spells (the biggest being polymorph type spells). Spellcasters are still powerful, but without melee classes to do the damage they have a hard time in life.
Also: Pathfinder almost universally dropped the CRs of monsters by 1. The effect of this is that monsters have slightly higher saves and more hitpoints. This benefits the martial classes.
3.5: you had all sorts of nasty spellcasting builds where martial characters were nothing more than meat shields.
PF: spellcasters are now more of battlefield control rather than OMG damage machines. They are there to control the battlefield, buff, and debuff. Martial characters can do rediculous amounts of damage now. By level 20 some martial builds do in excess of 400points DPR!!
- Gauss
Game balance also depends a great deal on the players,and how they play the game. If a player really understands the ins and outs of the rules system, and is just as knowledgeable about any given class, that player can pretty much have run of the table compared to a player who is playing a class they just think is neat.
Also:
Battlefield control problems:
Create Pit:
The problem with Create Pit is overstated badly. If the GM does not understand how to deal with it then it will ruin his day. Large monsters get a whopping -15 DC reduction to climb out. Other monsters have a -5DC reduction to climb out. (Note: this is -5for corners and -10 for walls, they stack.) Anything with a climb speed can get out of most pits just by taking 10.
Make sure Create Pit is created in a large enough space.
Black Tentacles:
Yup, nasty spell. But: the tentacles only have a CMB of CL+5. Honestly, that sucks by later levels. At Cr9 some creatures will have CMDs that mean the spellcaster will have no better than a 50/50chance to grapple them. However, many CR9 creatures have CMDs so high that the spellcaster will need a very high roll to succeed.
Mostly this is difficult terrain. Not a big deal. Again, the lowering of CR hurt this spell.
Wall of Force:
Go around it. It cannot be shaped. While it exists nobody can hurt anyone else from across the wall. IE: it stops combat and that is about it.
Summoning:
This spell has been nerfed a bit. Most of the 'crazy creatures with powers' were taken out. Again, the reduction in Monster CRs have hurt this spell. Still a decent spell though.
Honestly, it sounds like alot of what is breaking you guys is not the spellcaster but the Gestalt and other 3.5 stuff that broke things left and right. 3.5 is at fault. Not PF spellcasting.
- Gauss
Now how do I explain crowd control to not be op. one of the largest complaints is walk of stone and save or loses.
What is wrong with Wall of Stone? Save or suck is generally considered to be an inferior option too.
Honestly, this is the game. It has always been the game. PF has done alot to nerf wizards and other spellcasters.
- Gauss
The main thing is if someone is of the firm belief in something... well facts and usage do not really change that most of the time.
That being said, any class in PF can be very powerful or very weak. It depends on the player and the group. The issue is not really with any specific class but the player choosing to abuse the system at the expense of every one elses fun.
Melee classes can get VERY high AC's, HPs, and DPR. Spellcasters can have a good selection of battle field control and save or suck type spells. When the two play together they each get a chance to shine and neither would ever work as well without the other.
The biggest problem I see in a group is when there are equal numbers of power gamers that tweak as much as they can gaming with new players or fairly hard core RPers. This can create an imbalance and cause more of an issue. Having an adult conversation and some coaching can usually fix this with one half of the group or the other.
15minute adventuring days SUCK. Prevent them, prevent them I say!
/humor
- Gauss
His issue with wall of stone is that it can lock out an entire battle then the wizard can make a box to summon flying stuff from, the save or sucks he has an issue with the obtainable dc of 24 at level 10 with only the investment of a +6 headband of int. he also dislikes how easily wizards can grow in power though I never got a response to the explanation that it's like math, as a kid starting off it takes forever to learn basic addition, multiplication, subtraction, and division but after the basics are covered you can do more complicated things, in the world of wizards it take like 16 years to get level 1 wizard then they have first level spells but a wizard past the basics can then advance rapidly because he has the knowledge now he learns new ways to apply and shape it.
The highest damaging wizard spell is what? Disintergrate? Clashing rocks? Some other spell I can't think of if I'm correct disintegrate does ... 140 average and 240 max. That's a standard action that requires you to hit touch AC which can be an issue if they are humanoid/ npc enemies and then their fort save to reduce damage.
Another recent complaint is that wizards have minimal feat/ item investments compared to fighters, am I the only ones who sees at least craft wondrous item as essential on one person per party?
The difference between full spellcasters and martial classes isn't about spellcasters being more "powerful". It's about spellcasters being more capable and more versatile. At least until their spells run out.
Spellcasters don't necessarily do things better than martial classes, they just do so many more things. And some of those things are game-changing things.
A player who truly understands how to synergize spells and magic items to their full effect is going to be able to control battles in ways that a raging barbarian can't even begin to approach. 400 DPR sounds great until you are fighting something with massive DR, regeneration and minions who heal it.
The only way to really deal with well-played wizards is to make it difficult for them to utilize their full arsenal of magical abilities. That can be done by harassing them, by bleeding their spells dry or by negating their spellcasting (e.g. counterspelling, boosting saves or anti-magic)
Since the game is all about magic, it's not surprising that spellcasting classes have those abilities. It's when people want their martial classes to be able to do essentially the same things as spell casters that the game gets all messed up and you end up with something like 4e.
Your friend has some valid points about the relative abilities of spellcasters and martial classes. But that's only a problem if he can't accept that martial classes have a more limited role, but a role that is just as important and valuable.
It is still a bit unbalanced, but the gap has narrowed a lot. The proof is in the gameplay.
If he doesn't agree, then perhaps a different system would be better for his games.
Disintegrate at level 11: 22d6 = 77points of damage. Save DC is approximately 24. 5d6 = 17.5damage on a successful save.
For a CR11 creature Bestiary Table 1-1 indicates that a good save is 14 and a poor save is 10. Let us use the poor save. That means a 60% chance of failing the save and a 40% chance of saving.
(77*0.65)+(17.5*0.35) = 50.05+6.125 = 56.175 average damage.
What does a THF archetype Fighter do on a SINGLE attack? 61.18
Note: The fighter's single attack uses a calculation that factors in accuracy, enemy armor class (bestiary table 1-1), feats, criticals, and expected stats and equipment. All of that is quantifiable. Check out the DPR olympics sometime. LOL :)
Disintegrate is a wasted spell. It does decent damage but damage that can easily be replicated in a single attack by a fighter with a big sword.
--------
Now lets tackle Wall of Stone: Great spell right? Not really. It will stop bad guys for all of about 2 rounds as they break through. Bestiary Table 1-1 states that the average high* damage for a CR9 creature should be about 40points per round.
*average damage is divided into high and low depending on if the monster is either primary melee or not.
Wall of stone has a hardness of 8 and at level 9 2inches of thickness = 30hps. Assuming for a moment that the CR9 creature has 3 attacks that means that 24hps out of 40 is taken off those attacks. That results in the CR9 creature doing 16hps per round. 2 rounds and it has broken free.
------
Again, neither spell is really that great. Again, the lowering of CRs by one has been unkind to spellcasters.
- Gauss
Doomed Hero, you are right...it is a bit unbalanced. In the favor of Martial types. Spellcasters can change the battlefield etc but they cannot reliably defeat equal CR creatures. They need the martial characters to do that.
Note: spellcasters still have great toolbox spells.
- Gauss
|
Quarotas is exactly right.
WoF or Stone : Create wall from ground to 12" from ceiling, fly up and cast away.
Mirror Image is a fantastic spell, couple with displacement to allow combat casting without issue. Much better than any armor.
Tiny hut: often overlooked, gives the caster complete concealment from attackers and prevents counterspelling (not that any wizard would waste an action on a counterspell, but it is a benefit).
Wizards don't cast damaging spells, they cast battlefield control spells that deny enemy their actions: web + stinking cloud in the same area is a favorite of mine. The don't cast damage spells, they cast save or suck spells like Slow, confusion, charm or the like. They cast fogs, walls, webs, illusions, fear and summons to deny actions, slow actions or waste actions of enemies.
Casters summon lantern archons, the more the merrier.
Casters use reduce person and have their small air elemental carry them at 100ft per round.
Casters know their enemies and have one good spell of each type that targets the enemy's worst save. They are not MAD, so they focus all attributes points in their primary stat, stacking DCs very high. A 5th level wizard can cast a 3rd level spell with a DC of 18 (10 base + 3 level + 5 attribute). Poor saves even at level 10 are +3 (ref fighter will save of +3 at 10th level). Depending on feat mix between brute and caster, the number could get much better in favor of the caster. If Will is a high save for the target (another caster, or an aberration for example) the caster switches to a reflex attack that presents the same DC against that opponent's weak save.
Casters have power that grows every round of battle. Their actions last from round to round and every round, they stack another effect atop the previous round's actions. Melee types' actions exist only in the moment: a swing, a hit or maybe a miss and that is it. No status effects (by and large), no denying actions or ending the fight in a single action. Since hit point loss does not impact combat effectiveness, melee types have to act and act and act without real effect and at great risk until they finally kill the creature, while casters can begin immediately debilitating their target and make it progressively harder for their target to act in response.
Paizo's nerf to dispel magic made maintaining spells trivially easy.
Despite the hatred of the 15 minute adventuring day, it is virtually unstoppable. Once the caster gets teleport, it is impossible to keep him rooted and operating at low spells "just because". Once a caster gets mid level - let's say about 9 - 11 somewhere, he can't cast all of his spells in a day anyway and rests only so he can change his spell mix to be optimized against the foes he knows he will next encounter. Pearls of power, wands scrolls and potions radically increase the caster's abilities. A fighter may be able to swing a sword all day, but he needs healing and when the casters rest, so will he. Every time. I ran Age of Worms for my weekly group and over a two year period, once they got teleport, the adventuring day (which I tracked very carefully because of all the magic items creation they were doing) was about 11 minutes long. All 6 players were casters of one kind or another.
|
|
For a CR11 creature Bestiary Table 1-1 indicates that a good save is 14 and a poor save is 10. Let us use the poor save. That means a 60% chance of failing the save and a 40% chance of saving.
I agree disintegrate is a bad spell (it does HP damage after all). You do realize, I suppose, that a caster hitting a poor save can cripple a foe 60% of the time by attacking his poor save. 60%! That is tremendously better odds than any melee type will get going toe to toe with a foe. Why do hit point damage when an 11th level caster could choose:
Confusion (if Will is low save)
Stinking cloud (followed by solid fog or vice versa) if Fort is low save
Acid Pit (followed by solid fog) if Reflex is low save
Note all these are 3rd or 4th level spells to ensure the caster has them on tap. No need to use 5th or 6th level magic on a single foe unless it is really nasty or one of these higher spells would hit its low save even harder and outperform one of the above for some reason.
Lich-Loved. I was responding to the dislike towards Disintegrate rather than the whole 'good save/weak save' thing. I do agree, if a wizard can properly identify a creature and has a variety of saves to choose from then they can hit that creature where it hurts.
- Gauss
Thank you, now next times get a chance to type my novel of a text I'll be using these explanations.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Magic is only imbalanced if you're a narcissist.
Let me explain. D&D is designed around the idea of a party of adventurers who work together as a team. Their skills and abilities compliment each other, resulting in a very powerful group.
When facing a caster who keeps shutting down the melee types, it's the job of the party's casters to get the melee types to the enemy. Sure... Mr. Fighter can't walk through the wall of force. Fine. His friend Mr. Sorcerer will use dimension door to deliver Mr. Fighter and friends.
My point in short is that if your melee players are complaining, it's because they're not accepting that there's a team involved. They want to swing and hit every round. Obstacles that they can't personally overcome are "overpowered". Well, it's a two-way street. If the melee types could reliable get to the casters and smoosh them, then melee types would clearly be overpowered, right? What good is being a caster if some dork with a stick can poke you in the face every time you leave home?
Time for your party's casters to step up. A simple magic circle against evil shuts down most summons. dispel magic works wonders against a lot of enemy spells. Heck, even your ranged weapons users could contribute a LOT if they'd just ready an action to shot the enemy caster in the mouth if he starts casting. But no.... they always want to take a full attack and fire fifteen arrows because it's sexy. Not smart.
And therein lies the issue. Casting smart, damage sexy. It sounds like your players have chosen one.
To the OP:
It sounds like part of your problem may be playing with both PF and 3.5 rules mixed. There were alot of out of control problems in 3.5. I would suggest playing just PF for awhile.
Also, most people I have talked to agree that the gestalt options will increase the issues you have mentioned. If a PC is both a wiz and a barbarian, he can blast away. there is little need to conserve his spells since he has martial abilities to fall back on. he is also not nearly as fragile because he has better hit points, AC, and fort saves. So the gestalt rules have taken away all the specifically placed weak points. Again, I would suggest just playing the regular PF rules for awhile before you start into the wierd stuff.
To address just a few of your other points.
Yes, you can get the DC high with things like a headband +6. however, that is expensive which means you have probably neglected you defenses. Prob your AC and saves are lower making you vulnerable. The phrase "eggshells armed with sledge hammers" applies. Additionally, the saves, resistances, and special defenses are improved on alot of creatures.
Yes, you can create a stone box to temporarily stop the fight. Why is that a great thing. You just trapped yourself. The opposition now knows exactly where you are and can set up to hammer you if you come out of the box. Some large creatures will bring the box down on your head. Some can go right through the wall to attack you anyway. Some will use the opportunity to grab their treasure and escape to do more evil.
Yes, the casters can do amazing things. They also often have pretty hideous weaknesses. Hp's are often less than 1/3 of the martial type so any hit hurts much more. AC is often lousy so they usually get hit if targeted. If a martial type gets close their CMD is low so they can't defend against maneuvers. Concentration checks are harder making it difficult to cast spells when under attack. Etc...
Actually, most people in my group won't play full casters because they are so fragile. Especially at low level. They can't contribute much to more than 1 or 2 serious fights and then everyone else has to protect them for the rest of the day.
Well we've been playing PF for a while but he played a bit of 3.5 and spends time on the boards still. I've thought about showing him the damage formula with accuracy that i first saw on the dpr olympics to show that casters can't really do enough damage to kill something.
Also the last two times I've used casters as enemies they've caused problems, the first time was a wizard/ fighter gestalt duo that literally couldve annihilated the party if I'd used all the tools, the second was a few cleric that enjoyed rime holy ice so shoul I perhaps back off and make an enemy party that is built around teamwork possibly to give an example of crowd control casting + martial dpr? I haven't been able to get the earlier suggestion sent because of odd phone and email behavior so I'll try again in the morning.
Gestalt is a funny thing. Depending on the combinations you pick, you potentially shore up the weak points in a build. Alternately you only marginally improve things. For instance a barbarian/fighter gestalt doesn't really gain as much as it might seem. Fighter/wizard is a combination that opens up a lot of power that a wizard normally just wouldn't have.
Basically as much fun as I've had in gestalt games, I'd have to say that any evaluation of system-balance becomes wildly impractical in such a game.
As usual, if you've got people with claims that the game isn't balanced, it's time to crank back to 15-point build, single class, core only and see how it goes.
Agreed. I talked to someone that tried a wizard cleric gestalt thinking he would be totally over the top. But since at medium to high levels neither one rreally runs out of spells, he really didn't gain much. You still only have a swift, move, and standard action in a round.
But yes, the gestalt of caster and martial really gains a lot.
However, you can't really claim that a system is unbalanced if you chose to run it with a bunch of extreme options.
Personally, I think gestalt should only be used in very small groups play as a way to get all the 'needed' capabilities in the group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Treantmonk on Battlefield Control for Wizards:
"In order to be an effective battlefield controller - you should consider your primary goal to line up your enemies flanked by your Glass Cannon and Big Stupid Fighter one at a time and backwards, all while standing on their heads. This will make the BSF and the GC win the combat with little damage to themselves - and they will feel like "they" won. That's the point - you're God after all, let the mortals have their victory.
The point of Battlefield Control is that you are ensuring your allies gain tactical advantage over your enemies. If you secure tactical advantage, and hold it, you will win. A simple wall spell can separate enemies so that they can be taken on one at a time. Putting the BSF and the Sneak Attacker in flanking positions makes each of them more effective than they otherwise would be. Some characters have difficulty with flying enemies or difficult terrain. Sometimes hampering vision can force an enemy to close the distance with your effective melee characters. The best thing about battlefield controls, is quite often they offer no saving throw, no spell resistance, so luck ceases to be a factor, it's all about smart tactics and evaluating the situation correctly."
They will be less chappy if they're contributing and feeling like they're winning. You can make this happen.
Unbalanncing is a problem in pathfinder but at least half of the time it is the GM's fault.
Common error i have seen that makes my wizard or any caster a true power hous:
1: 1 or two combats a day, I can use the best of my class every time again ! Yee. A Martial class should have the benefit of using the best het has every combat!
2: Don't using magic as a GM makes the magic of the casters even more powerfull. Ray of enfeeblement on the caster with a strength of 8 can be very fun. Greater invisable enemeys, so he has to cast see invisibility to stand a chance. Doing damga to the caster when he tries to cast is a very nasty aciton.
3: MAke spells for roleplay useless. I have seen GM's who just don't want that Divination, Legend Lore, disguise self, ARcane sight, Veil etc, etc. If you have to prepare noncombat spells with a 3,4 or 5 real combats you have to think a lot about what you are using. A Sorcere is hard to create because his spell's know is very limited.
4: Don't know how spell really works so player can make 'errors'.
Unbalanncing is a problem in pathfinder but at least half of the time it is the GM's fault.
Common error i have seen that makes my wizard or any caster a true power hous:
1: 1 or two combats a day, I can use the best of my class every time again ! Yee. A Martial class should have the benefit of using the best het has every combat!
2: Don't using magic as a GM makes the magic of the casters even more powerfull. Ray of enfeeblement on the caster with a strength of 8 can be very fun. Greater invisable enemeys, so he has to cast see invisibility to stand a chance. Doing damga to the caster when he tries to cast is a very nasty aciton.
3: MAke spells for roleplay useless. I have seen GM's who just don't want that Divination, Legend Lore, disguise self, ARcane sight, Veil etc, etc. If you have to prepare noncombat spells with a 3,4 or 5 real combats you have to think a lot about what you are using. A Sorcere is hard to create because his spell's know is very limited.
4: Don't know how spell really works so player can make 'errors'.
1: the battle per day in out group vary between day to day and where they are traveling.
2: as stated earlier I've used spell casters twice just recently, once they all shouldve died, and the other time they surrendered.
3: now this is an issue because my group isn't role play savy, they are mostly self conscious introverts and the one who dislikes casters is the biggest role player and his next game he's going to play a low charisma introvert book maniac.
4: I know how a lot of spells work, the few I don't I check after the first week if something seems messed up. Not to mention I've designed multiple wizards, a couple of sorcerers, one or two clerics, one or two Druids, one bard, and a BBEG fighter/ summoner gestalt.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Short answer: Skip the arguing and let him see it in practice.
Long answer:
I'm wondering why he has to have it explained to him at all. It's his opinion, does it matter if it's different from yours?
I mean mind, I think he's wrong, and I think yes, it's often easy to be swayed by theorycraft nonsense at message boards. More to the point, I recall the "casters are too uber" crowd (or the adamant class haters of any stripe) being amazingly good at ignoring any reasonable arguments to the contrary of their beliefs ("Zappity's Purple Doo Dah is way overpowered because it makes the wizard into a Flying One Eyed Purple People Eater!" and you reply, "Yeah but you're talking about a 16th level campaign where that can be cast and at that point Gargleons are often fighting the party and they're immune to purple people eater rays" and the only response is "No but it's broken!" and that's all). But that actually gets to my point... it sounds like he's dead set on believing what he wants to believe. What is proving him wrong going to accomplish (keep with me here to the next paragraph now...)?
The real issue is--will he play with you as a GM according to your rules, or will he only play with you if you bend to his demands of the house rules he wants to see.
It is not reasonable for him to expect you to run according to his house rules--any more than it would be reasonable for you to expect him to run games according to YOUR house rules. This is what you should be saying to him. "Look, I'm sorry they piss you off, but this is my game. I wouldn't ask you to change your houserules if you were GM, I hope you can do me the same courtesy."
And the thing is, likely as you keep playing, he will see that what is he is arguing is simply not true. The gameplay in practice will be 100 times more convincing than any argument falling on what are likely deaf stubborn gamer ears. Don't change anything, just let the gameplay speak for itself (from reading your posts, this is happening already, so just give it time).
And if he can't do you the courtesy of shoving what rules he wants in your face when you are GM, then he's an ass. That's a whole other different problem, that'll you'll have to come to terms with and deal with on your own.
Short answer: Skip the arguing and let him see it in practice.
Long answer:
I'm wondering why he has to have it explained to him at all. It's his opinion, does it matter if it's different from yours?I mean mind, I think he's wrong, and I think yes, it's often easy to be swayed by theorycraft nonsense at message boards. More to the point, I recall the "casters are too uber" crowd (or the adamant class haters of any stripe) being amazingly good at ignoring any reasonable arguments to the contrary of their beliefs ("Zappity's Purple Doo Dah is way overpowered because it makes the wizard into a Flying One Eyed Purple People Eater!" and you reply, "Yeah but you're talking about a 16th level campaign where that can be cast and at that point Gargleons are often fighting the party and they're immune to purple people eater rays" and the only response is "No but it's broken!" and that's all). But that actually gets to my point... it sounds like he's dead set on believing what he wants to believe. What is proving him wrong going to accomplish (keep with me here to the next paragraph now...)?
The real issue is--will he play with you as a GM according to your rules, or will he only play with you if you bend to his demands of the house rules he wants to see.
It is not reasonable for him to expect you to run according to his house rules--any more than it would be reasonable for you to expect him to run games according to YOUR house rules. This is what you should be saying to him. "Look, I'm sorry they piss you off, but this is my game. I wouldn't ask you to change your houserules if you were GM, I hope you can do me the same courtesy."
And the thing is, likely as you keep playing, he will see that what is he is arguing is simply not true. The gameplay in practice will be 100 times more convincing than any argument falling on what are likely deaf stubborn gamer ears. Don't change anything, just let the gameplay speak for itself (from reading your posts, this is happening already, so just give...
thanks for the advice, the talking isn't really getting far so it looks like that's how it'll go down . Hes not really an ass, I'm just trying to stop the looks that cross when he here's black tentacles or other such spell.
Dammit now I want a Zappity's Purple Doo Dah spell...
1. Just because a class can potentially do something that does not mean the player will do it.
2. Just because one GM can't handle something that does not mean it will be an issue for another GM or group. What is OP is subjective. Let him know you have things under control, and if they get out of control then you will deal it at that time.
Dammit now I want a Zappity's Purple Doo Dah spell...