No, they have reach instead.
Please, please, let's not force me to turn this thread into pedantic "this is how you move to minimize melee damage and get spells off" battlemat story hour.
I'll do it! I can't help myself when Someone Is Wrong On The Internet. But I would really rather not.
|
You're not going to win any converts claiming that something is too hard when the players clearly had no idea what they were doing.This statement is very telling. Players, not characters.
I don't remember who said it, but they were right. You do not play Pathfinder, you play a sort of "chainmail" Pathfinder. Like chess. A kind of "Warhammer: Quest" with Pathfinder or 3.5 combat rules.
It all makes sense now.
He takes whatever favors his side best from each game, ignoring anything that doesn't suit him.
Kind of like how he posts.
No, they have reach instead.Please, please, let's not force me to turn this thread into pedantic "this is how you move to minimize melee damage and get spells off" battlemat story hour.
I'll do it! I can't help myself when Someone Is Wrong On The Internet. But I would really rather not.
I love that xkcd
but really, I agree with you. I would like to see more non-standard feats used on monsters. Less alertness and more things like step up. Many of them do not need it though with natural reach, since it already prevents withdrawing or 5ft stepping away.
Remember, while you are moving to minimize your melee risk, the enemy is moving to maximise it.
|
|
If you have that spell memorized/available when you need it.You can't have every spell at the same time.
How often has this really been an issue for your group? In my play experience both as a player and a DM, wizards tend to memorize their most essential spells and have a scroll handy for literally EVERY OTHER SPELL THEY HAVE. Usually multiple copies. Its not that expensive or particularly difficult. Travel for a weak on a ship? Bamm! 5-7 new scrolls, or more if the scrolls your making only require an hour.
Quite often. Our combat day generally goes at least 4 or 5 encounters deep, and the move action to pull a scroll doesn't generally work well in combat situations where you want to use that move action to, you know, move.
This is particularly useful for Rogues. We have a rogue in one of our campaign that has been collecting wands and scrolls like a fiend, and is pretty damn effective with them.
Wizards can do this even easier and for less cash investment and no skill check.
Yes. Rogues also get more hit points, higher BaB, sneak attack...neither is working in a vacuum.
Sorcerers aren't going to learn as many utility spells since they have to stick with the same spells...
Sorcerers and other spontaneous casters may indeed encounter more situations where they aren't prepared. They, however, like the wizard, are better than the rogue at using magical items.
Absolutely. See above.
I'm not saying the Wizard is bad. I'm not even arguing that if he isn't the most flexible class, as well as having the most powerful potential in a given encounter.
What I am arguing is that he is only as good as the spells he picked in the morning, and that unless your DM is handing you the game in advance, mileage will vary.
|
|
No, they have reach instead.Please, please, let's not force me to turn this thread into pedantic "this is how you move to minimize melee damage and get spells off" battlemat story hour.
I'll do it! I can't help myself when Someone Is Wrong On The Internet. But I would really rather not.
Isn't that functionally what others are doing by pointing out the melee counter feats for casters.
The whole game is situational, and best played by complementary groups.
Maybe a group of 4 Druids, Bards, or Inquisitors could make it. The rest need each other.
|
|
Combining move actions. A wizard of 2nd level or higher can withdraw a scroll while moving, so long as it's somewhere accessible enough for a move-action drawing and not buried in a mundane backpack.
If you have that spell memorized/available when you need it.You can't have every spell at the same time.
How often has this really been an issue for your group? In my play experience both as a player and a DM, wizards tend to memorize their most essential spells and have a scroll handy for literally EVERY OTHER SPELL THEY HAVE. Usually multiple copies. Its not that expensive or particularly difficult. Travel for a weak on a ship? Bamm! 5-7 new scrolls, or more if the scrolls your making only require an hour.Quite often. Our combat day generally goes at least 4 or 5 encounters deep, and the move action to pull a scroll doesn't generally work well in combat situations where you want to use that move action to, you know, move.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Movement-Position-And-Dist ance
Retrieving a stored item as a move action provokes an attack of opportunity, but you are right about the handy haversack negating the AoO.
Edit:
You can draw a weapon as part of a move action, but not an item in Pathfinder, just looked it up because I thought you were right as well.
Yep. But in practice, most of the enemies you're trying to get spells off around won't have it.
I'd actually like to see more monsters in the next Bestiary that are built with things like Step Up and Disruptive to give casters a harder time -- but right now those enemies basically don't exist unless your GM hand-builds them.
In the bestiary aren't there because the priority is not make things able to challenge few optimizers. A well built monster, like the ones I use against my players now, would have been wiped the floor with them some time ago. They were not battlemap-savy that time :)
If your group "grows up" those options are there, for you. If you don't use them, do not come here and complain ;) (said jokingly, no offense).
Said this, yeah, some magic sucking monster like the nishruu in FR could be cool i think.
Isn't that functionally what others are doing by pointing out the melee counter feats for casters.
I'd say no, because excepting handmade NPCs, advanced monsters, etc. -- which I loved to do as a 3.X DM when I had enough free time, but never expect to have enough free time for again in my life -- players currently won't encounter them much if at all.
(The relative ease of building encounters manually is one of very, very few things I love about 4E over PF/3.X.)
That is to say: stuff in the Bestiary doesn't have those feats. Lots of people are still playing adventures and APs written longer ago than the last year; that stuff generally doesn't have those feats.
So, yes, you can point out: Hey, look, here's this build for an Arcane Duellist bard and he's got these feats and these features and he can make it a lot harder for a wizard to cast around him.
But it's also the case that a sorcerer I'm playing in a game right now will almost certainly never encounter something with them. He probably doesn't even need to plan for Step Up.
There aren't even many things in the way of decent anti-caster monsters. There are things that are perhaps supposed to be or at one time were, like golems, but the evolution of the game has neutered them in that respect.
So on one hand I think you can argue what's possible, but on the other hand you have to bow to some degree what's likely?
|
|
Isn't that functionally what others are doing by pointing out the melee counter feats for casters.
I'd say no, because excepting handmade NPCs, advanced monsters, etc. -- which I loved to do as a 3.X DM when I had enough free time, but never expect to have enough free time for again in my life -- players currently won't encounter them much if at all.
(The relative ease of building encounters manually is one of very, very few things I love about 4E over PF/3.X.)
That is to say: stuff in the Bestiary doesn't have those feats. Lots of people are still playing adventures and APs written longer ago than the last year; that stuff generally doesn't have those feats.
So, yes, you can point out: Hey, look, here's this build for an Arcane Duellist bard and he's got these feats and these features and he can make it a lot harder for a wizard to cast around him.
But it's also the case that a sorcerer I'm playing in a game right now will almost certainly never encounter something with them. He probably doesn't even need to plan for Step Up.
There aren't even many things in the way of decent anti-caster monsters. There are things that are perhaps supposed to be or at one time were, like golems, but the evolution of the game has neutered them in that respect.
So on one hand I think you can argue what's possible, but on the other hand you have to bow to some degree what's likely?
See I feel this way about Wizards. They can be built for anything, but can also get caught with there pants down if they planned for one thing and something else showed up they did not plan for.
|
|
Yep. But in practice, most of the enemies you're trying to get spells off around won't have it.
I'd actually like to see more monsters in the next Bestiary that are built with things like Step Up and Disruptive to give casters a harder time -- but right now those enemies basically don't exist unless your GM hand-builds them.
In the bestiary aren't there because the priority is not make things able to challenge few optimizers. A well built monster, like the ones I use against my players now, would have been wiped the floor with them some time ago. They were not battlemap-savy that time :)
If your group "grows up" those options are there, for you. If you don't use them, do not come here and complain ;) (said jokingly, no offense).
Said this, yeah, some magic sucking monster like the nishruu in FR could be cool i think.
The CR is based on 4 Characters going by WBL on a 15 point buy fighting something that will use about 1/4th of their resources for the day.
If you aren't what I described above, then your group should be fighting higher CR monsters.
It isn't the design that is the problem if you aren't adapting when you aren't playing as designed.
It isn't the design that is the problem if you aren't adapting when you aren't playing as designed.
Pretty much. Moreover, is part of the fun of "growing" together with my players, and continue to surprise them :)
Is anyone with me in the "If you read the rules and play by them the game works great" camp?
Yes
:P
See I feel this way about Wizards. They can be built for anything, but can also get caught with there pants down if they planned for one thing and something else showed up they did not plan for.
Absolutely. That's why playing a wizard is fun/interesting and not just taking candy from a baby.*
However, the better someone gets at playing a wizard (or any prepared caster), the rarer the pants down moments become. For the best I've seen with wizard/cleric/druid, those moments are maybe once in a full adventure path or the equivalent.
I don't have a problem with the idea that these classes only become fully dominant or only fully stand apart from the others in the hands of someone who's very, very good with them, even compared with someone who's very, very good with the ranger or what have you.
* Personally, I'd like to know who gave a baby candy in the first place. Choking hazard!
See I feel this way about Wizards. They can be built for anything, but can also get caught with there pants down if they planned for one thing and something else showed up they did not plan for.Absolutely. That's why playing a wizard is fun/interesting and not just taking candy from a baby.*
However, the better someone gets at playing a wizard (or any prepared caster), the rarer the pants down moments become. For the best I've seen with wizard/cleric/druid, those moments are maybe once in a full adventure path or the equivalent.
I don't have a problem with the idea that these classes only become fully dominant or only fully stand apart from the others in the hands of someone who's very, very good with them, even compared with someone who's very, very good with the ranger or what have you.
* Personally, I'd like to know who gave a baby candy in the first place. Choking hazard!
Once an entire campaign? Man I wish...
I've had countless experiences where the chracters were plannign to fight X and on the way a random encounter screwed that all up...even more so if the creatures jumping us were no where like the one(s) we were headed to fight.In other words...
Lucky! :)
Is anyone with me in the "If you read the rules and play by them the game works great" camp?
Yes
:P
Holy crap! Is that the thread topic?
Holy crap! Is that the thread topic?
Is anyone with me in the "If you read the rules and play by them the game works great" camp?
Yes
:P
Yes.
I removed a couple posts.
If you have something meaningful to say, please don't ruin it by tacking a personal insult on the end.
Holy crap! Is that the thread topic?Yes.
You mean this isn't the section of the forum dedicated to roasting a handful of controversial posters? Have the last four days all been some kind of terrible dream?
In addressing the long-lost post topic: I think playing adventure paths is a good way to make sure all the default assumptions made by the system are accounted for. This makes sense, because in many ways Pathfinder was created to support adventure path play, NOT the other way around.
I think people might run into the most trouble when they create their own campaigns, because each GM is different, and the rules-as-written do actually leave out a lot of intangibles that frequently come up in adventure path play. The lack of clarity there is perhaps a weakness of the Core Rulebook, but again, the CRB exists to support the APs, NOT the other way around.
Treasure distribution, time management, timers, proactive NPCs. These are the things I use as a GM to keep my wizard from running amok. Conversely, I could reward the meleers by giving them everything they need in abundance and starving out the casters. But I don't.
The number one RAW rule that keeps everyone under control is the 75% availability per week rule. Meleers can almost always find something to cover their bases, but it is a lot harder to find the specific spell you need on short notice. I think a lot of people overlook this rule, but it makes a HUGE difference.
BWAHOO? WOOHAHA?
[The number one RAW rule that keeps everyone under control is the 75% availability per week rule. Meleers can almost always find something to cover their bases, but it is a lot harder to find the specific spell you need on short notice. I think a lot of people overlook this rule, but it makes a HUGE difference.What is the 75% per week rule?
CRB p.460 "Purchasing Magic Items"
GMG p.204 "Base Value and Purchase limit"
Basically any item beneath the settlement's Base Value can be found, but there is a 75% chance it is available that week. I use 1d4, and "1" means "out of stock".
This rule is really arbitrary, but it works quite well for my purposes. Sometimes, the guy is just out of cure potions, but he has a barkskin. "Whoop, no +3 mithril breastplate today... shipment is 3 days late. But I've got +3 mithril chain, you buying or what? Otherwise, come back next week, it might show up."
If you combine this with even rudimentary time management, your party will work with what they find. This keeps PCs from assuming that they can get a custom solution on short notice, but with a little planning they can track down what they want.
It's the RAW, anyway. Takes a pretty big dent out of the Wizard preparedness argument, IMO. My party routinely finds themselves in regions where they just can't get high level spells because it's above the base GP limit. This is not Gm intervention, it is the RAW.
Time and Money, that is what people routinely leave out of Wizard analysis. For who among us would not be like unto a god with infinite time and infinite money?
As for items above the GP limit, there are a handful that you can track down, as rolled on the table. This rolling process is extremely annoying, especially for minor items, and I think that needs to be reworked in future editions. BUT! These items should also be distinctive, so you're better off just picking some awesome things your PCs would like and advertising them at every opportunity.
All in all, I think this infrequently noticed rule does a LOT to fix the certainty with which some players treat the magic item economy. That certainty is a big part of the wizard superiority complex: the idea that you can have whatever you want, whenever.
My wizard PC is too busy solving problems and capturing enemy spellbooks to be bothered with 'porting back to the magic shop to check on availabilities. He works with what he finds. The day he starts wasting slots on teleports that don't play into magebattles, well, that's the day his nemesis scries-and-dies him.
EDIT: I LOL at all those folks who claim to play by RAW and yet conveniently overlooked all the rules that keep them from buying nice things during ever second of downtime. How do you like that? Does that feel good?
Player Character: "How could you possibly be out of cure light wounds? It's the most popular potion in the campaign setting?!"
Merchant: "Exactly."
|
As for items above the GP limit, there are a handful that you can track down, as rolled on the table. This rolling process is extremely annoying, especially for minor items, and I think that needs to be reworked in future editions. BUT! These items should also be distinctive, so you're better off just picking some awesome things your PCs would like and advertising them at every opportunity.
All in all, I think this infrequently noticed rule does a LOT to fix the certainty with which some players treat the magic item economy. That certainty is a big part of the wizard superiority complex: the idea that you can have whatever you want, whenever.
My wizard PC is too busy solving problems and capturing enemy spellbooks to be bothered with 'porting back to the magic shop to check on availabilities. He works with what he finds. The day he starts wasting slots on teleports that don't play into magebattles, well, that's the day his nemesis scries-and-dies him.
EDIT: I LOL at all those folks who claim to play by RAW and yet conveniently overlooked all the rules that keep them from buying nice things during ever second of downtime. How do you like that? Does that feel good?
When people say RAW, I never expect them to actually play RAW. I'm not sure if ANYBODY in the world plays RAW without mistakes. It's encouraged to come up with some house rules for pen and paper RPG. I don't disagree, but it's harder to discover imbalances when everybody is playing a different game.
That's why I really like the idea of Society play, and I suppose RPGA as well, though my experience for those are almost nil.
|
|
See I feel this way about Wizards. They can be built for anything, but can also get caught with there pants down if they planned for one thing and something else showed up they did not plan for.Absolutely. That's why playing a wizard is fun/interesting and not just taking candy from a baby.*
However, the better someone gets at playing a wizard (or any prepared caster), the rarer the pants down moments become. For the best I've seen with wizard/cleric/druid, those moments are maybe once in a full adventure path or the equivalent.
I don't have a problem with the idea that these classes only become fully dominant or only fully stand apart from the others in the hands of someone who's very, very good with them, even compared with someone who's very, very good with the ranger or what have you.
* Personally, I'd like to know who gave a baby candy in the first place. Choking hazard!
I don't think we disagree that much then. You just think they have the perfect moment happen more often than I have seen in my experience.
I generally see them as an all win or all fail class in the games I play. When the Wizard is right, he's amazing. When he memorized the wrong spells...not so much.
When people say RAW, I never expect them to actually play RAW. I'm not sure if ANYBODY in the world plays RAW without mistakes. It's encouraged to come up with some house rules for pen and paper RPG. I don't disagree, but it's harder to discover imbalances when everybody is playing a different game.
That's why I really like the idea of Society play, and I suppose RPGA as well, though my experience for those are almost nil.
That is one of the really cool things about it. You think you know a rule (but don't) and there's an excellent chance someone will (politely) call you on it in your first weekend of play.
I heartily recommend it if you get the chance.
As for items above the GP limit, there are a handful that you can track down, as rolled on the table. This rolling process is extremely annoying, especially for minor items, and I think that needs to be reworked in future editions. BUT! These items should also be distinctive, so you're better off just picking some awesome things your PCs would like and advertising them at every opportunity.
All in all, I think this infrequently noticed rule does a LOT to fix the certainty with which some players treat the magic item economy. That certainty is a big part of the wizard superiority complex: the idea that you can have whatever you want, whenever.
My wizard PC is too busy solving problems and capturing enemy spellbooks to be bothered with 'porting back to the magic shop to check on availabilities. He works with what he finds. The day he starts wasting slots on teleports that don't play into magebattles, well, that's the day his nemesis scries-and-dies him.
EDIT: I LOL at all those folks who claim to play by RAW and yet conveniently overlooked all the rules that keep them from buying nice things during ever second of downtime. How do you like that? Does that feel good?
When people say RAW, I never expect them to actually play RAW. I'm not sure if ANYBODY in the world plays RAW without mistakes. It's encouraged to come up with some house rules for pen and paper RPG. I don't disagree, but it's harder to discover imbalances when everybody is playing a different game.
That's why I really like the idea of Society play, and I suppose RPGA as well, though my experience for those are almost nil.
Of course this rule is not covered in society play, since the wealth and purchasing rules for it are changed to make sure everyone is equal.
You know, I checked that rule. And I realized something.
9th level spell scrolls are 3,825 gold.
Which means if the gold cap is so low you cannot get such a thing, you also cannot get +2 anything. +1 stuff might even be out of the question, depending on just what spell level we're talking about. Not to mention some mundane gear - mithril, adamantine, and all that.
As it happens, the RAW for PF is "Fighters do not get nice things". As they are both the ones most in need of "custom solutions" and the ones whose solutions...
Actually, there are plenty of places in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting where you can obtain a 9th level spell. Most large cities have a Base GP value sufficient — but I employ the caster level limit from the city statblock as well. Even then, you get caster-rich cities like Kaer Maga (which has a limit of 8th, but hey, that's pretty good! but it's no Katapesh.)
Even then, there's always the chance that you get a scroll or some more powerful thing in the "Random Items Above the Base Amount" that each city has.
What I find is, having to go to a specific magic mart and not being 100% certain that they have your item in stock all the time has a balancing effect on wizards more than any other class. It does virtually nothing to correct Clerics or Druids. It just helps me make sure that the Wiz spellbook is at least semi-random, not completely optimal at every step. Martial classes can often make due with similar items, but spells are pretty durned specific.
I dunno, I think it is a good rule. Maybe it isn't for you. Maybe you would quickly find a way to game it so as to remain optimal. But it works for me.
[You know, I checked that rule. And I realized something.
Finally you checked up on a rule. Color me impressed.
9th level spell scrolls are 3,825 gold.
Which means if the gold cap is so low you cannot get such a thing, you also cannot get +2 anything. +1 stuff might even be out of the question, depending on just what spell level we're talking about. Not to mention some mundane gear - mithril, adamantine, and all that.
As it happens, the RAW for PF is "Fighters do not get nice things". As they are both the ones most in need of "custom solutions" and the ones whose solutions...
So are you saying that the single use item should cost as much as the continuous use items? The fighters get plenty of nice things in games that you aren't playing in.
I don't think you really understand the term RAW. It means "Rules as Written." There is no rule written saying that "Fighters do not get nice things." You won't find it because it's a silly premise with no support.
Spells are broad. The free ones are enough. I'm trying to think of a time where I really wanted spell x and had to have it to keep up but didn't. I can't think of any. Nor have I seen anyone else get stuck in such a situation. Sure it might happen if you picked terrible spells for your free ones, but that's where player ability comes in.
I'd be interested to see your list of the free picks, level by level, just to see if there are any things you think are must-haves that I missed. (And why they are must-haves.)
|
|
Spells are broad. The free ones are enough. I'm trying to think of a time where I really wanted spell x and had to have it to keep up but didn't. I can't think of any. Nor have I seen anyone else get stuck in such a situation. Sure it might happen if you picked terrible spells for your free ones, but that's where player ability comes in.I'd be interested to see your list of the free picks, level by level, just to see if there are any things you think are must-haves that I missed. (And why they are must-haves.)Honestly, it's just the standard save or loses, + mandatory utility effects (DDoor, Teleport, (Limited) Wish) + the few buffs that are useful + other stuff to fill it out, seasoned to taste.
Without any free spells at all you get 8 1st level spells at level 1, and then you get 2 more at level 2, and then get 2 2nd or lowers at 3 and 4 and so on, all the way up to 17-20 where you get 2 free spells of any level per level.
He's not going to post them, because then you could check them and possibly correct him.
It's just like posting a build. He feels like anything he posts that can be checked is a trap.
I would love to know what the spells are that he is talking about. One of the most productive things to come out of this thread was someone showing me how messed up Simulacrum is. Now I know I will have to be careful what I allow with that spell because of how badly it is designed (3.5's fault, not Paizo)
This kind of stuff would be helpful. He's not interested in helpful. He's interested in winning.
And if he posts something that can be checked, he may not win.
|
|
Time and Money, that is what people routinely leave out of Wizard analysis. For who among us would not be like unto a god with infinite time and infinite money?
So, your characters go from 1sdt level to retirement without getting downtime?
Wizards get scribe scroll free. Inks and parchment aren't terribly expensive. I have yet to play a wizard who didn't regularly scribe scrolls every chance he got. I have yet to stay in a game that arbitrarily didn't allow for any party downtime.
Isn't my fault down time does exactly zero to make other classes more effective.
|
|
Time and Money, that is what people routinely leave out of Wizard analysis. For who among us would not be like unto a god with infinite time and infinite money?So, your characters go from 1sdt level to retirement without getting downtime?
Wizards get scribe scroll free. Inks and parchment aren't terribly expensive. I have yet to play a wizard who didn't regularly scribe scrolls every chance he got. I have yet to stay in a game that arbitrarily didn't allow for any party downtime.
Isn't my fault down time does exactly zero to make other classes more effective.
Not saying it negates, but a handy haversack only means it is not an AoO to get the scroll, not that you can draw the scroll as part of a move action like you would a weapon. So if something is on top of you, you can't move and cast.
And you still have to pay for half the price of the scrolls, meaning it is only a half price discount.
I agree with you about the time factor. Most games allow downtime periodically. But it isn't like the scrolls are free or that they don't have downsides and limitations.
It's kind of like when people forget to mention wizards still have to take each of those craft feats in order to craft to get all the stuff half price.
Spells are broad. The free ones are enough. I'm trying to think of a time where I really wanted spell x and had to have it to keep up but didn't. I can't think of any. Nor have I seen anyone else get stuck in such a situation. Sure it might happen if you picked terrible spells for your free ones, but that's where player ability comes in.I'd be interested to see your list of the free picks, level by level, just to see if there are any things you think are must-haves that I missed. (And why they are must-haves.)Honestly, it's just the standard save or loses, + mandatory utility effects (DDoor, Teleport, (Limited) Wish) + the few buffs that are useful + other stuff to fill it out, seasoned to taste.
Without any free spells at all you get 8 1st level spells at level 1, and then you get 2 more at level 2, and then get 2 2nd or lowers at 3 and 4 and so on, all the way up to 17-20 where you get 2 free spells of any level per level.
Can you be more specific? Exactly which ones are the "standard" ones? Please help the rest of us with a level by level explanation of which spells we should consider standard. Most of the games I've been in or ran don't get to see spells like Limited Wish or higher
|
|
Spells are broad. The free ones are enough. I'm trying to think of a time where I really wanted spell x and had to have it to keep up but didn't. I can't think of any. Nor have I seen anyone else get stuck in such a situation. Sure it might happen if you picked terrible spells for your free ones, but that's where player ability comes in.I'd be interested to see your list of the free picks, level by level, just to see if there are any things you think are must-haves that I missed. (And why they are must-haves.)Honestly, it's just the standard save or loses, + mandatory utility effects (DDoor, Teleport, (Limited) Wish) + the few buffs that are useful + other stuff to fill it out, seasoned to taste.
Without any free spells at all you get 8 1st level spells at level 1, and then you get 2 more at level 2, and then get 2 2nd or lowers at 3 and 4 and so on, all the way up to 17-20 where you get 2 free spells of any level per level.
He's not going to post them, because then you could check them and possibly correct him.
It's just like posting a build. He feels like anything he posts that can be checked is a trap.
I would love to know what the spells are that he is talking about. One of the most productive things to come out of this thread was someone showing me how messed up Simulacrum is. Now I know I will have to be careful what I allow with that spell because of how badly it is designed (3.5's fault, not Paizo)
This kind of stuff would be helpful. He's not interested in helpful. He's interested in winning.
And if he posts something that can be checked, he may not win.
Or you can stop bothering. It's not like you haven't been proven wrong with Abundant Step or the Displacement thing. Or claiming 25% success rate on SoDs at best. What a ridiculous claim.
|
|
Time and Money, that is what people routinely leave out of Wizard analysis. For who among us would not be like unto a god with infinite time and infinite money?So, your characters go from 1sdt level to retirement without getting downtime?
Wizards get scribe scroll free. Inks and parchment aren't terribly expensive. I have yet to play a wizard who didn't regularly scribe scrolls every chance he got. I have yet to stay in a game that arbitrarily didn't allow for any party downtime.
Isn't my fault down time does exactly zero to make other classes more effective.
Not saying it negates, but a handy haversack only means it is not an AoO to get the scroll, not that you can draw the scroll as part of a move action like you would a weapon. So if something is on top of you, you can't move and cast.
And you still have to pay for half the price of the scrolls, meaning it is only a half price discount.
I agree with you about the time factor. Most games allow downtime periodically. But it isn't like the scrolls are free or that they don't have downsides and limitations.
It's kind of like when people forget to mention wizards still have to take each of those craft feats in order to craft to get all the stuff half price.
Yeah, but wizards don't need nearly as much permanent magic and, for the price of two feats, can get about everything they need for half price. Leaves a ton of money for consumables like scrolls.
|
|
Or you can stop bothering. It's not like you haven't been proven wrong with Abundant Step or the Displacement thing. Or claiming 25% success rate on SoDs at best. What a ridiculous claim.Spells are broad. The free ones are enough. I'm trying to think of a time where I really wanted spell x and had to have it to keep up but didn't. I can't think of any. Nor have I seen anyone else get stuck in such a situation. Sure it might happen if you picked terrible spells for your free ones, but that's where player ability comes in.I'd be interested to see your list of the free picks, level by level, just to see if there are any things you think are must-haves that I missed. (And why they are must-haves.)Honestly, it's just the standard save or loses, + mandatory utility effects (DDoor, Teleport, (Limited) Wish) + the few buffs that are useful + other stuff to fill it out, seasoned to taste.
Without any free spells at all you get 8 1st level spells at level 1, and then you get 2 more at level 2, and then get 2 2nd or lowers at 3 and 4 and so on, all the way up to 17-20 where you get 2 free spells of any level per level.
He's not going to post them, because then you could check them and possibly correct him.
It's just like posting a build. He feels like anything he posts that can be checked is a trap.
I would love to know what the spells are that he is talking about. One of the most productive things to come out of this thread was someone showing me how messed up Simulacrum is. Now I know I will have to be careful what I allow with that spell because of how badly it is designed (3.5's fault, not Paizo)
This kind of stuff would be helpful. He's not interested in helpful. He's interested in winning.
And if he posts something that can be checked, he may not win.
I said it was miswording on my part on the 25% thing (should have been 75%).
Abundant step is apparently what it is, per the developer. Move actions are what they are, but that is an exception because it's following the spell rule on that point despite deviating in other respects.
And the displacement thing was a rules citation from the Illusion school to realize it is an illusion and that you aren't actually 2 feet to the side. Doesn't mean it has any effect on the utility of the spell, just that you realize it's an illusion.
Occasionally I am wrong. But I admit when I am, and cite rules I think back up my positions rather than yelling everyone is dumb without producing evidence. It's easy to exclaim, it's hard to produce.
If you want to join the pro CoDzilla camp, feel free. It's a lonely train, but no one is trying to stop you from riding it.
|
|
Yeah, but wizards don't need nearly as much permanent magic and, for the price of two feats, can get about everything they need for half price. Leaves a ton of money for consumables like scrolls.
See here I differ with you. I consistently see the wizards in my group just as strapped for cash trying to buy enhancements, scrolls, rods, staffs, etc...
But this is one of those arguments hard to discuss in abstract. Do you generally start from 1st or midway? I think that makes a big difference in how it plays out.
|
|
Or you can stop bothering. It's not like you haven't been proven wrong with Abundant Step or the Displacement thing. Or claiming 25% success rate on SoDs at best. What a ridiculous claim.Spells are broad. The free ones are enough. I'm trying to think of a time where I really wanted spell x and had to have it to keep up but didn't. I can't think of any. Nor have I seen anyone else get stuck in such a situation. Sure it might happen if you picked terrible spells for your free ones, but that's where player ability comes in.I'd be interested to see your list of the free picks, level by level, just to see if there are any things you think are must-haves that I missed. (And why they are must-haves.)Honestly, it's just the standard save or loses, + mandatory utility effects (DDoor, Teleport, (Limited) Wish) + the few buffs that are useful + other stuff to fill it out, seasoned to taste.
Without any free spells at all you get 8 1st level spells at level 1, and then you get 2 more at level 2, and then get 2 2nd or lowers at 3 and 4 and so on, all the way up to 17-20 where you get 2 free spells of any level per level.
He's not going to post them, because then you could check them and possibly correct him.
It's just like posting a build. He feels like anything he posts that can be checked is a trap.
I would love to know what the spells are that he is talking about. One of the most productive things to come out of this thread was someone showing me how messed up Simulacrum is. Now I know I will have to be careful what I allow with that spell because of how badly it is designed (3.5's fault, not Paizo)
This kind of stuff would be helpful. He's not interested in helpful. He's interested in winning.
And if he posts something that can be checked, he may not win.
I said it was miswording on my part on the 25% thing (should have been 75%).
Abundant step is apparently what it is, per the developer. Move actions are what they are, but that is an exception because it's following the spell rule on that point despite deviating in other respects.
And the displacement thing was a rules citation from the Illusion school to realize it is an illusion and that you aren't actually 2 feet to the side. Doesn't mean it has any effect on the utility of the spell, just that you realize it's an illusion.
Occasionally I am wrong. But I admit when I am, and cite rules I think back up my positions rather than yelling everyone is dumb without producing evidence. It's easy to exclaim, it's hard to produce.
If you want to join the pro CoDzilla camp, feel free. It's a lonely train, but no one is trying to stop you from riding it.
|
|
Not saying it negates, but a handy haversack only means it is not an AoO to get the scroll, not that you can draw the scroll as part of a move action like you would a weapon. So if something is on top of you, you can't move and cast.
This may be true, I haven't checked the rules on the haversack specifically (but if it wasn't a haver-sack specific rule then it would work, due to the combining move actions rule.) What I do know, is that you don't have to store scrolls in a pack. You can clip them to a belt, or a bandoleer, or put them in a robe pocket that's deep enough only about a quarter of the scroll sticks out.
Granted having the scrolls out makes them vulnerable to AoE damage, but I've usually found it a more than worthwhile risk.
Unless I'm reading it wrong (wouldn't be the first time) you can only draw a weapon as part of a move action. Handy Haversack negates the AoO this causes.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Move-Actions
I think this is a change from 3.5
I also just noticed it is now 1/4 movement to swim or climb, not 1/2 anymore. It's the little things that catch you.
Do you generally start from 1st or midway? I think that makes a big difference in how it plays out.
Always from 1st for me, for what it's worth.
It's why I start frothing when someone tries to say that wizard/druid/cleric are terrible at low levels. I've done it too many times in games that only got to 5th or 6th before football season or something permanently derailed them.
|
|
Or you can stop bothering. It's not like you haven't been proven wrong with Abundant Step or the Displacement thing. Or claiming 25% success rate on SoDs at best. What a ridiculous claim.Spells are broad. The free ones are enough. I'm trying to think of a time where I really wanted spell x and had to have it to keep up but didn't. I can't think of any. Nor have I seen anyone else get stuck in such a situation. Sure it might happen if you picked terrible spells for your free ones, but that's where player ability comes in.I'd be interested to see your list of the free picks, level by level, just to see if there are any things you think are must-haves that I missed. (And why they are must-haves.)Honestly, it's just the standard save or loses, + mandatory utility effects (DDoor, Teleport, (Limited) Wish) + the few buffs that are useful + other stuff to fill it out, seasoned to taste.
Without any free spells at all you get 8 1st level spells at level 1, and then you get 2 more at level 2, and then get 2 2nd or lowers at 3 and 4 and so on, all the way up to 17-20 where you get 2 free spells of any level per level.
He's not going to post them, because then you could check them and possibly correct him.
It's just like posting a build. He feels like anything he posts that can be checked is a trap.
I would love to know what the spells are that he is talking about. One of the most productive things to come out of this thread was someone showing me how messed up Simulacrum is. Now I know I will have to be careful what I allow with that spell because of how badly it is designed (3.5's fault, not Paizo)
This kind of stuff would be helpful. He's not interested in helpful. He's interested in winning.
And if he posts something that can be checked, he may not win.
I said it was miswording on my part on the 25% thing (should have been 75%).
Abundant step...
That's the whole problem. It's not about one poster. It's about how things are supposedly balanced enough, but Paizo will just add more and more and more things that will increase the power creep. PF2E will come out, and it will contain things that will mess it up. And people will still claim it's balanced.
It took a while before people realized 3 and 3.5 are not balanced. PF will prove itself unbalanced as well. Even if the wizard cannot do everything (and he cannot), he still affects the campaign more than a fighter. The power gap needs to be closed, and doing it will not ruin D&D. It'll improve it. The trick is figuring out how to balance it and make it interesting still. Nobody wants absolute balance anyways.
That's the whole problem. It's not about one poster. It's about how things are supposedly balanced enough, but Paizo will just add more and more and more things that will increase the power creep. PF2E will come out, and it will contain things that will mess it up. And people will still claim it's balanced.
It took a while before people realized 3 and 3.5 are not balanced. PF will prove itself unbalanced as well. Even if the wizard cannot do everything (and he cannot), he still affects the campaign more than a fighter. The power gap needs to be closed, and doing it will not ruin D&D. It'll improve it. The trick is figuring out how to balance it and make it interesting still. Nobody wants absolute balance anyways.
I think that many of us see and understand that there are some balance issues but the game is not unplayable. We can see that the casters are more powerful, even if playing by RAW but they don't invalidate the non-casters. Many of the issues with the overpoweredness of casters can be addressed by applying the rules. While this doesn't address all the problems, it does have an impact on how powerful casters really can be.
If people would apply the rules more consistently, they would see that many of their issues do not exist. Yes, there are still issues but nowhere near as many.
There are also some things that are not issues in some games and are huge issues in others. I have never seen, and probably never will see, some of the extremely high DCs that I have seen bandied about. I also will never see the problem of a character with starting stats of 7/7/7/10/16/18. It's not because of any changes to RAW but just how my players and I do things.