|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Third Mind wrote:
I use different minis even if they are the same creature.
As a player I have always had someone post guard because you never know when Team Evil might show up.
As a GM I don't "make" the players do anything, but depending on the situation they may be disturbed. So far nobody has ever tried to spend the night sleeping without at least one person on guard unless they were in a demiplane.
I believe the current rules/opinion of the forum is that you can't have a character who fights with more than 2 arms. There are certain monsters that can do it, but you run into all sorts of rules and balance issues if you attempt to let a PC use Multi-Weapon Fighting.
That is not true at all. In these debates before evidence has been provided that it is possible to fight with multiple weapons. The opinion is more that this should not be available to PC, but that is an issue of balance, not rules.
To answer the OP shield bonuses do not stack so you can have 80 shields and your shield bonus to AC will not stack because shield bonuses don't stack.
If one wants to be pedantic the item casting the spell means you still get to do stuff, but we know that is not going to fly if the PDT steps in. The items is the one supplying the spell, and you are still going to get stuck with the penalties associated with it. You do not qualify for.
Staves have a similar affect. They allow the user to activate a spell, while not being the actual caster, and he is still stuck with any penalties such as losing his movement after using DD. He can not however use the staff to qualify for any feats since he is only activating an item.
Otherwise someone(fighter, rogue, etc) could get a staff with arcane and divine spells and qualify for Mystic Theurge(Spells: Able to cast 2nd-level divine spells and 2nd-level arcane spells.)
False. Many GM's either have houserules or they run the game in such a way as to reduce/negate the imbalance. That does not mean the problem does not exist. If you want to subscribe to the logic that "the GM can fix it" then nothing is broken, and everything should be allowed because the GM can account for in his own games. However for people prefer not to or don't have the time to fix things, these problems show up quiet often.
People also buy the books because they don't have time to houserule everything and they assume Paizo has mostly pre-balanced it for them.
In addition you see some people avoid the rogue because of it's problem so by that logic alone, which I also think is not a good reason*, you can argue it is not balanced.
*I am referring to idea that some people avoid it is not sufficient to say it is broken and likewise some people playing the class is not sufficient to say the class is ok.
Thanks for the answers. The PC in question is a Shaman, so would that be WIS vs. the opposing spell-casters applicable attribute? Or using CHA anyway?
It's still cha vs cha. It doesn't default to your main casting stat so if the other caster is cha-based then he has an advantage in most cases.
Kurald Galain wrote:
The witch having something else they could do, does not make EE poor.That is like saying the barbarian could have hit for 900 points of damage so this 450 points of damage is garbage.
RD is not fond of houserules.
Zelda Marie Lupescu wrote:
I don't link them at all and I don't restrict anything as long as a player's background story is not made to get a mechanical advantage.
Levels are an OOC mechanic so I have no problem with an level 5 NPC who has fought in a war campaign being part of a PC(level 1) backstory, when they both had the exact same experiences in combat.
Rolling does nothing to stop min-mixing. That myth needs to be taken out back and shot. It stops a player deliberately choosing how much he can sacrifce in one stat to be good at another, but nothing stops him from putting the best stats where he needs them, while putting the less useful stats in an area that does not hurt as much. Nothing also stops him from putting the best combination of choices(class, magic items, feats, etc) together
Das Bier wrote:
Intensify raises the damage cap and only the damage dice/level cap. Things like fireball have a damage dice per caster level cap. Scorching ray has nothing resembling damage dice per caster level.
Scorching ray just like the other spell has a "projectile/attack" per level cap, just like magic missile does.
1d6 points of fire damage per caster level
scorching ray wrote:
one additional ray for every four levels beyond 3rd
<---more rays based on CL
magic missile wrote:
or every two caster levels beyond 1st, you gain an additional missile
<----more missiles based on CL
intensified spell wrote:
Benefit: An intensified spell increases the maximum number of damage dice by 5 levels
<--this really needs to be written better. Is that an FAQ on it, but it does call out damage dice, and not projectiles, rays, and so on.
Yeah I disagree with parts of it, but I think we agree for about 75% of what you wrote.
Like someone said it is really a magic/non-magic disparity, but for the purpose of this comment I will use caster/martial because I am so use to typing it.
I don't think casters outshine martials at most tables, but I do think they have the ability to do so. It just doesn't happen for several reasons, one of which is that it is inefficent to spend spells on something if a someone else can do it with a skill. This of course assumes the problem can be solved with a skill.
Another part of the disparity is that martials can be replaced by casters. Before anyone gets too bent out of shape, I am not saying a wizard, druid, or a cleric is going to match a fighter or a barbarian in DPR vs a single target, but between their ability to fight and their spells they tend to take care of combat with less trouble. The fact that they don't focus on hit point damage as much doesn't change the fact that they make life easier.
I agree with the rest of your write up, until you get to your ideas on how to fit it. I don't think there is an across the board solution(s) that will work. It will vary by table, except for number 10, which is basically "talk to your group".
The Sword wrote:
What is clear is that the expectation of a lot of the posters here is far, far away from the typical adventure path. Based on how some people are describing encounters it is almost as if they are playing another game. It is ever likely there is disagreement about CMD.
Not really.I actually described a scenario where a caster-light party got their butts kicked, and how things would have been different if I had a caster instead.
I don't know if you missed, forgot it, don't believe the account, or if you think it was a corner case so it doesn't count.
Personally, as a GM if I run a monster it plays "keep away" to avoid the party ganging up on. I know people can pull out ranged weapons, but unless they are focused on ranged attacks or have spells the fight will be a lot more difficult.
MC/D doesn't mean martials can't do anything at all. It means there are things they can't do, and often when they can do them they may have a more difficult time getting them done. <--People also take comments like these to mean "martials are helpless and can not do anything", even though that is not what was said.
Another issue with topics like this some is that people will use words like "useless" and those get all the attention instead of more objective post which give martials some credit but also outline their limitations.
Perhaps I am missaplying the term Fiat. I mean "changing/ignoring the rules of the game for a narritive point." Its something that I support, and if the term seemed condescending then I apologize.
GM Fiat much like rules lawyering is not neccessarily a negative thing, but it can be a bad thing depending upon how it is used.It is basically used in the forums(normally) for when the GM makes up things on the spot.<---Not always a bad thing.
GM Fiat Positive: The players are stumped on how to bypass a certain obstacle. Maybe you thought player X could do it, but his character does not have the ability so you call for an intelligence or wisdom check, and then make up some new way to pass the obstacle that nobody had thought of, and that by the rules is probably not supposed to work.
GM Fiat Negative: The party is in a boss fight, and things are dicey. Player suddenly remembers he has ability X, which won't insta-win the fight, but it will significantly improve the party's chances. However you don't want that player to save the day because ___ so you decide the monster is immune to that ability. Then the player has another, which while not as good as the first idea is still a solid idea. However, it still involves that player's character largely contributing to the party's success, and you shut that idea down also, even though it would work by the rules.
Another one I see here from time to time is then GM's suddenly decide rogues can only sneak attack once per round or that it can not affect certain creatures, and this was never mentioned in advance.
GM 1990 wrote:
Some people just can't stand adversity I guess. Losing the ability to get the most out of your class features is just part of the game. As an example rogues can't sneak attack everything. Paladins can't smite everything. Magic won't always work whether it be by SR or some other reason.
Okay, now I'm having a beef with this proposed scenario. Who the hell teleports onto solid ground? You teleport into the air and open the bag of holding with your small army inside of it. I mean you can land before opening the bags but the teleporting thing should be a midair thing at least 150 feet above the place you're invading to avoid getting spotted by things with true seeing.
You have to end a teleporation affect on something that can support you.
A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it.
Nobody should have a problem with a wizard(npc) using the spell to stop the pc wizard, but most of the time in these post the poster will, as I said before, "try to stop every idea the player/caster thinks of", which is not realistic for reasons I already described.
Teleport failing is not a problem, as long as the GM is not just actively aiming to shut the one player/class down. <----I hope that makes things clear.
As a GM I have had caster's whose primary purpose in combat was to counterspell the party casters, but it's not something I do for every fight.
Also if a player favors spell ___, and some bad guys escape they will let the higher ups know, so when the players get to a boss he might be very resilient or immune to that spell.
I'm not seeing a downside and I am sure vampires and liches have entertained guest which involved eating and drinking.
As for the appearance, the lich would have craft wondrous item, and the ability to research new spells. Between the two he could hide or remove the normal lich appearance pretty well.
The worst part is seeing family and friends die over and over again, but people are resilient.
Das Bier wrote:
Not having spells makes the party weaker, and it you are a druid,or other fighty caster then you might still be able to give the melees a run for their money.For the 2nd time in this discussion➡➡full arcane casters are not the only ones stepping on people's toes.
I don't think certain people anticipate having adventurers meddle in their affairs so they don't think to take certain measures, and if adventurers are so common that they are always in everyone's business* then the common measures to stop them would be known so the players would likely not use the common methods and it would be almost impossible to stop every idea a player can think of without it coming across as railroading.
You can enter a castle via teleport. You can charm you way in. You call planar monsters to assault the place for you. With the right spells you can just destroy the place if you can't find a way in. I could keep going, but my point is for the NPC to have a perfect counter to whatever the player came up with as a commonly occurring theme is going to look very suspicious.
*If this were to happen laws would likely be in place to stop them from doing so, and to stop the profession as whole.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Thanks. I had forgotten about this.
I have a rules question for you.
Let's say someone cast a fog spell centered on themselves. Let's also say the caster can see through this fog. Now the rules say the opponent on the outside has no way to bypass the fog cloud's statement that vision is blocked beyond 5 feet. This means the caster can not be seen.
If the caster whose sight is uninhibited were to make a ranged attack against the person who can not see him, would the opponent who can not see the caster lose dex to AC or would you say that even if you can not see someone you still get dex to AC.
I am asking because someone believes that "not being able to see someone" is not enough, and they did say dev input would matter.
DC 10 is a "common(anyone can make it)" check. Commoners are not finding water in the dessert in most games. That would pretty much kill the idea of the dessert ever being dangerous, which is obviously the idea the GM was trying to represent. And none of these examples to anything to disprove his point. Of course a GM can just keep throwing more obstacles in the party's way but it becomes obviously pretty quickly.
The Sword wrote:
He still won't know every spell or ability that is on everyone's character sheet. He may also not be used to more experienced players who are used to these things and are able to get around them.
And as the party levels up it gets more difficult to account for every little thing they can do, and that is before they start to get creative.
How the game should be played is by whatever method fits that group the best.
Honestly I didn't read past this line, but the rules do state this in a round about manner though.
Basically, if you are hidden(aka they fail the perception check to notice you) your opponent is not able to react to your attacks. If the opponent can not react they lose Dex to AC.
It is more of an "If A is true then B is true" type of thing.
Check: Perception has a number of uses, the most common of which is an opposed check versus an opponent's Stealth check to notice the opponent and avoid being surprised. If you are successful, you notice the opponent and can react accordingly.
So if you do not notice the hiding opponent then you can not react.
If you can not react you lose dex to AC.
Once again in the combat chapter.
With all of that aside and for anyone read if you are in the mist, and someone can not see you then they lose dex to AC against you.
Is someone trying to make the argument that you retain dex to AC when you can use your eyes to see the enemy?
PS: Common sense says we are assuming things like blindsight, blind fight, or other special abilities are not in play. Don't be that guy.
GM 1990 wrote:
By normal I meant no GM modifications to make it more difficult.
edit: In a later chapter(s) there are some hard hitting bad guys so that might be an issue for the ninja.
GM 1990 wrote:
If is is the normal AP, and you guys optimized decently well you can be ok, assuming you stay with the wizard.
GM 1990 wrote:
I also think part of the problem is that people look at their style of play when answering the question, and they don't realize it may be helping the problem occur or not occur.
As an example I have heard well written stories of how a monk or rogue did an awesome thing, but when I started to ask questions that let me know how it played out mechanically it shows that certain rules were broken.
Now since fun is the goal at the table it is not really a big deal for that table, but for the purpose of a discussion, variants such as house rules do matter.
The best thing to really do is to ask someone what counts as ____.
If they list what you(not any specific person) counts as reasonable then try to meet the terms, and hope they don't move the goalpost.
If they say something you think is illogical stop the discussion with them if you are sure you understand exactly what they meant. Sometimes people are not going to change their minds no matter how much evidence they see.
The Sword wrote:
Again the martial / caster disparity argument is being straw-manned into a magic / non magic disparity.
Actually it was said earlier that the more castery people had more versatility/power/etc than less castery people.
If you are going to disagree with that then it doesn't matter if you we say martial or nonmagic.
If you agree then I guess the discussion can come to na end.
The Sword wrote:
Who said they could not contribute?
One set of classes is not needed at all, and the other is. Are you saying a set of nonoptimized non-caster can complete an AP?
I am willing to bet a group of nonoptimized caster can complete an AP.
That looks like disparity to me.
Novels and movies have nothing to do with how the game plays out so they are irrelevant since they don't have rules the writer is stuck having to adhere to. Indiana Jones surviving inside that refrigerator or Batman not being dead from the times or how bad guys will have a good outnumbered by vast numbers and attack in such as manner that he has a chance to live. If you see this in a movie and you watch carefully you can sometimes see the other actors just waiting for their turn to attack. It is called plot armor.
I am in an AP where the bad guy used difficult terrain to kite the party. It was particularly annoying.
In another AP when I was the same level I had a cleric with mass fly as a domain spell. I could have simply cast it. The party could have taken down the bad guy in 3 rounds or less, and taken a lot less damage instead of having two people die. Yes my cleric would have done less damage than my melee DPR machine, but since I couldn't get to him my potential DPR was not important.
Another group(different AP) of bad guys has their jaw melt away to avoid speak with dead. Unless team martial has a scroll of charm or dominate person they are out of luck. No, it doesn't bring the adventure to halt, but things are easier if you can get some info out of them.
Of course it is possible that team caster didn't have that spell ready that day, but at least it is an option that is more likely to be on the table.
There are the types of things that casters do.
PS: I think you are looking at this as if we don't like martials. The truth is we do like them and wish they were better at doing certain things than they are.
In an actual game at most tables the there are no problems, and if certain nonmagical classes had more of an ability to control the narrative of the story it would not matter as much.
PS: I forgot to include if the martials were less dependent on magical gear, and his abilities that made them more self sufficient.
The Sword wrote:
They contribute effectively enough to be valuable. They can just by replaced by a caster, and the party won't lose anything so if the martial is A and the caster is A+1 the caster is the better choice, even if their contribution is not exactly made in the same manner.
The Sword wrote:
I don't think they dominate at every table, but that is more because most people are not really trying. With that aside the issue is really about the vast difference in things that casters and non casters bring to the table.
Here is the problem many people have---> You can take out a martial class and replace it with a full caster, in a party, and the party for the purposes of problem solving and combat will be better off. It really doesn't matter too much which caster you replace it with most of the time. They want the noncasters to be able to be less replacable by "randomly inserted caster".
As an example, you can remove a brawler, rogue, monk and so on, and fill in with a sorcerer/cleric/druid/inquisitor/bard/etc and barring some corner case the party just got stronger.
The Sword wrote:
Easier is not necessarily better. Having a wand of fireballs and blasting enemies at 400'ft is not better. It may be easier, and safer. However it is not necessary more fun, satisfying, interesting or more exciting. It is just a different way of playing the game.
With regard to combat and being effective overall easier is better. We are talking about better as in better at doing the jobs at hand, just to be clear since the goal is to establish disparity.
Being fun, satisfying, interesting or more exciting is subjective.
One set of abilities being better at ____ is something that can shown.
Chess Pwn wrote:
I can verify this since I had a party of full casters running over an AP. They were optimized, but even if not they would not have had much trouble. Stock monster* mostly have at least one weak save, and they are normally inefficient when fighting flying creatures. They also don't have a way to adjust to player creativity most of the time. The casters, when they came upon something because I modified the game could just retreat, and come back with new spells or whatever else they needed. <---Not theorycraft. I saw it happen in an actual game.
The Sword wrote:
On their own means "a party of non magic having martials".So with that definition do you think they survive, and do well or just barely make it, if at all?
And in any written adventure casters can survive no matter if it is
4 spell level casters such as paladins and rangers
6 spell level casters such as inquisitors and bards
9 spell level casters such as clerics and wizards.
As an example, a druid, bard, cleric, and sorcerer would do well. You can replace the cleric or druid with a paladin or ranger and they would still be ok.
What do you mean by non-optimized?
Das Bier wrote:
There is a similar feat in Pathfinder. I think it has skill focus(stealth) as a prerequisite.
I never saw it like that. From my point of view I was putting the class in a position to rely on its own abilities.
If you want to look at it from another angle, things such as being turned to stone or going down in a fight happen. Casters just fix their buddies. Most martials will struggle to have the UMD for scrolls, and wands(past 2nd level spells) and staves are ridiculously expensive.
Gark the Goblin wrote:
There ar too many things to account for. Nothing you come up with will be accurate. Things such as I can teleport the party away so we dont have a TPK cant really be measured accurately with math.
Quintessentially Me wrote:
Thanks. I was going to do this earlier, but I got distracted.
Going back to one of my earlier post here are examples I want to see solved.
In a party with magic the cleric goes to sleep, wakes up, and cast the spells assuming he had the gold pieces or material component if one is needed. If he can't fully fix the party summon monster to eat some of the attacks and/or planar ally is an option.
Scenario 2: Enemies are tagging them with AoE's, and they are flying out of the reach of any melee weapons. The party is level 7.
2b: Replace the AoE magic with archers.
I came across this in a game more than once. I used fog spells to cover our retreat, and I've blinded the enemy.
How are the martials solving these problems?
PS: No GM handouts
The Sword wrote:
Except if casters aren't in the front lines then their squishiness or lack of is untested isn't it? I don't see many single class wizards wading into melee unless they have been specifically built for that purpose and have been spelled up.
Casters are not just wizard and sorcerers. <-----This always happens in MC/D threads so I am just giving a friendly reminder that druids and clerics were mentioned earlier, and they also have various options while being able to take the front lines.
Also even low BAB casters can have a lot of hit points, and they could end encounters before getting into real trouble.
PS: We know a D6 caster up front without any defensive spells up won't last long. That has never been a surprise.