I keep reading thread after thread about "The Problems" and "Gaps" but I find that whenever I have though something overpowered, I read the rule and realized I missed a limitation, or I watch it in game and realize it doesn't actually work as well on the board as it does on the page.
And on the other side, when I thought a class to weak, I saw someone else play it using a build that made it work really well, using combination that had not occurred to me to be really powerful and effective in game.
And in the games I run, each class seems to be able to do well enough most of the time, with moments where they absolutely shine and moments where they are vulnerable.
Does anyone else fear power creep more than any perceived weaknesses in given classes?
Does anyone else just think people who complain about classes being weak haven't put in the book time to see how the class works. And does anyone else think the people who claim god builds generally have really flawed characters with huge exposed weaknesses?
Is anyone with me in the "If you read the rules and play by them the game works great" camp?
It is really in how you apply the rules, and a lot of it comes from the parts of the rules that are not clear, and people can have widely varying thoughts on how it is "supposed" to be.
Example: I give my monsters magic item, but nothing big. Others think it is ok to push their AC and attack bonus up by 15 or more, and the CR stays the same.
Then both sides come here claiming each is doing it right, sometimes with bad or no explanations on my their way is right. I fall into the bad explanation department myself.
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.
I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion. You are essentially claiming that people don't know what they are doing. That seems unfounded to me. Unless you are playing with everyone here how can you make the claim that they don't consistently make the correct rules adjudications?
I think it would serve your agenda much better to assume that people actually do play by the rules.
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.
I am sure people do misapply rules, but it is normally a small amount of rules per group which normally wont do a lot of damage.
I don't think many groups unless they are all new players have a lot of rules issues.
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.
I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion. You are essentially claiming that people don't know what they are doing. That seems unfounded to me. Unless you are playing with everyone here how can you make the claim that they don't consistently make the correct rules adjudications?
I think it would serve your agenda much better to assume that people actually do play by the rules.
Some rules are often ignored or hand-waved, and some situations appear with very different frequency based on campaign, which can change how effective a caster is compared to a fighter.
An example of the first is encumbrance; a strength 7 character will more or less always have a medium load, and if he (as a cleric) wears armor and uses a shield, he'll quickly get into a heavy load.
An example of the latter is poisons and diseases; yes, divine casters have anti-poison spells, but if poisons show up often that means good fortitude saves are important, not having dump stats are important, and the divine caster has to spend slots on anti-poison and anti-disease spells. I've been in a campaign where we had to roll daily saves against a disease (loosely based on the neverwinter nights CRPG storyline), and in campaigns where we never encountered any poison or disease at all, for five months of gaming.
Some rules are often ignored or hand-waved, and some situations appear with very different frequency based on campaign, which can change how effective a caster is compared to a fighter.
An example of the first is encumbrance; a strength 7 character will more or less always have a medium load, and if he (as a cleric) wears armor and uses a shield, he'll quickly get into a heavy load.
An example of the latter is poisons and diseases; yes, divine casters have anti-poison spells, but if poisons show up often that means good fortitude saves are important, not having dump stats are important, and the divine caster has to spend slots on anti-poison and anti-disease spells. I've been in a campaign where we had to roll daily saves against a disease (loosely based on the neverwinter nights CRPG storyline), and in campaigns where we never encountered any poison or disease at all, for five months of gaming.
Its obvious I failed to communicate my point clearly, for this I'm sorry. My point wasn't that people don't change rules to their liking or simply forget a rule at the table (its clear people have and do and will continue to). My point was that you have no way of knowing if that's specifically true about any of the people you are debating. Its a meaningless claim since it can never be confirmed and can always be refuted. Until someone you are talking to clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding in the rules in one of their posts, this is a baseless accusation against the opponent in the debate. Making this claim suggests that you do not trust the person you are debating to understand the rules on their own. It would be better as an arguer to stand on solid ground by using demonstrable points to support their views rather than to say "I think you're doing it wrong."
Its obvious I failed to communicate my point clearly, for this I'm sorry. My point wasn't that people don't change rules to their liking or simply forget a rule at the table (its clear people have and do and will continue to). My point was that you have no way of knowing if that's specifically true about any of the people you are debating.
Ah, I see. Well, of course you have to back it up with examples of rules they might have missed, and it's very important when using such an argument that one does it in a humble fashion; not an insulting "ur doin it teh wrong way u know nothing of rules!!" but rather simply asking "have you taken rule X into account? it's easy to miss, but might be relevant in this case".
For example, in CoD's str 7 cleric build, if the effect of encumbrance is accounted for, and what he thinks a whole party more or less incapable of wearing more than light armor will do to counter ambushes where they may be attacked before they have a chance to react.And sometimes it's hard to make demonstrable points if you have nothing to argue against; while you and the mongoose has posted builds where you can take certain things into account, CoD has time and again refused to state what spells he would have at a given time just saying "I have the right one for whatever occacion".
|
Its obvious I failed to communicate my point clearly, for this I'm sorry. My point wasn't that people don't change rules to their liking or simply forget a rule at the table (its clear people have and do and will continue to). My point was that you have no way of knowing if that's specifically true about any of the people you are debating. Its a meaningless claim since it can never be confirmed and can always be refuted. Until someone you are talking to clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding in the rules in one of their posts, this is a baseless accusation against the opponent in the debate. Making this claim suggests that you do not trust the person you are debating to understand the rules on their own. It would be better as an arguer to stand on solid ground by using demonstrable points to support their views rather than to say "I think you're doing it wrong."Some rules are often ignored or hand-waved, and some situations appear with very different frequency based on campaign, which can change how effective a caster is compared to a fighter.
An example of the first is encumbrance; a strength 7 character will more or less always have a medium load, and if he (as a cleric) wears armor and uses a shield, he'll quickly get into a heavy load.
An example of the latter is poisons and diseases; yes, divine casters have anti-poison spells, but if poisons show up often that means good fortitude saves are important, not having dump stats are important, and the divine caster has to spend slots on anti-poison and anti-disease spells. I've been in a campaign where we had to roll daily saves against a disease (loosely based on the neverwinter nights CRPG storyline), and in campaigns where we never encountered any poison or disease at all, for five months of gaming.
In my experience on these messageboards 9 times out of 10 when someone makes an outrageous claim if you can get them to post the information you realize they missed a rule or two.
I suspect this is why a lot of people won't post builds.
My perspective is I would rather be shown where I am wrong so I can correct it going forward. These are made up characters, so being able to make an "uber" whatever outside of the rules is meaningless.
Now if you are creating a separate house ruled structure, that is a whole other admirable thing. But some people come on here and rant and rave about what is or isn't broken and won't get into the details of how they were able to produce these results, because if we show them to be outside of the rules, then they don't get to play that way anymore.
It's like playing chess with all your pawns being able to move like queens. Yes you are going to win, but so what?
|
And sometimes it's hard to make demonstrable points if you have nothing to argue against; while you and the mongoose has posted builds where you can take certain things into account, CoD has time and again refused to state what spells he would have at a given time just saying "I have the right one for whatever occacion".
What amuses me is when he displays utter contempt for a spell (Enervation is the example I'm thinking of, although if he's done this on several occasions it would not suprise me at all), going so far as to say his wizard would NEVER memorize (and implying rather heavily that his wizard wouldn't even bother to scribe it into his spellbook). But then later on, when it turns out to be convenient, this uber-wizard has the same spell memorized. Funny how that works our, ain't it?
Fishlizard no longer amuses me, he's just become a rather sad mockery.
|
|
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.
Druids and Clerics are great at all levels in my experience. Wizards are all win or all fail a lot of the time at all levels, but more so at lower levels and more often win than fail.
At low levels if anything Clerics are overpowered, not underpowered. The may not always win the DPR Olympics, but the are going to be voted MVP of a game or encounter regularly.
That is what it comes down to for me. If every character gets to be MVP every few gaming sessions, that is balance to me.
|
|
And sometimes it's hard to make demonstrable points if you have nothing to argue against; while you and the mongoose has posted builds where you can take certain things into account, CoD has time and again refused to state what spells he would have at a given time just saying "I have the right one for whatever occacion".What amuses me is when he displays utter contempt for a spell (Enervation is the example I'm thinking of, although if he's done this on several occasions it would not suprise me at all), going so far as to say his wizard would NEVER memorize (and implying rather heavily that his wizard wouldn't even bother to scribe it into his spellbook). But then later on, when it turns out to be convenient, this uber-wizard has the same spell memorized. Funny how that works our, ain't it?
Fishlizard no longer amuses me, he's just become a rather sad mockery.
+1
I get defensive about the "uber" Wizards in part because a lot of the wizards I have played with try to take liberties at the table about what they memorized and what the spell does. More than a few times games have ground to a halt because the wizard misrepresented the spell to the DM and once the rule was read the spell wasn't as useful as they believed.
I don't mind if people say that well played it can be the most powerful in the game, because if you pick the right spells for the right time it absolutely is.
But if you pick the wrong spells, or your DM targets your bonded item or your spellbook, etc...
All the classes have strengths and weaknesses. Some have lesser strengths that balance against lesser weaknesses (monk comes to mind) and others have outrageous strengths vs outrageous vulnerabilities (wizard comes to mind)
If you only play the strengths and fudge rules that would limit you, of course it's going to be overpowered relative to other classes.
I think the people on here who are trying to up melee classes are also not going to be people who steal spellbooks. And that is great, as I can see how you could view that kind of stuff as cheesy, kind of like the encumbrance, or on the other side armor check penalities. I've seen all of these house rules for the speed of the game vs RAW.
But some people like to pretend inconvenient rules don't exist, and then proclaim they have gamed the system.
But if you pick the wrong spells, or your DM targets your bonded item or your spellbook, etc...
This is a factor similar to the one of poison, in that while it may seem casters have an easier time being stripped of their possessions and being less gear-dependent, in many cases that's simply not true. A cleric or druid will be hindered by lack of a holy symbol, not incredibly much but to some degree, and a wizard without access to a spellbook can get really hosed even with spell mastery.
In our games item destruction/removal is very common. It's far more common than character death, which is a rare occurance. The players are aware of this and would have it no other way, just so no-one thinks I'm just a jerk DM. Now we play fairly non-standard in many respects, but this risk of losing items often has lead to some automatic balancing;
- Cleric, druid and wizard are more at a risk than other classes because they (especially the wizard) have a hard time replacing their lost items in the middle of an adventure. They're nerfed a fair bit compared to a game with no or nearly no item destruction.
- Monk has gotten a big step up; while it's true that the monk is as dependent on magical trinkets as anyone else, if not more, a complete strip hurts him less than for example the fighter or wizard.
- What is said about monk to some degree also affects barbarian since they're usually decent overall with all weapons, including fists, while fighters usually specialize far more. I guess the same might go for paladins, but we haven't had many and our alignment system is very different so smites don't work the usual way so I don't know there.
- Feats that decrease dependancy on items get taken. In many games, spell mastery is seen as a pretty lame feat choice, improved unarmed strike as well. Our wizard has spell mastery once for a few key spells, and two of our three combat characters in the current game have unarmed strike (plus the monk).
This might also have to do with playing low-level, since fighter types aren't very gear dependant at low levels while a wizard still needs his spellbook.
What amuses me is when he displays utter contempt for a spell (Enervation is the example I'm thinking of, although if he's done this on several occasions it would not suprise me at all), going so far as to say his wizard would NEVER memorize (and implying rather heavily that his wizard wouldn't even bother to scribe it into his spellbook). But then later on, when it turns out to be convenient, this uber-wizard has the same spell memorized. Funny how that works our, ain't it?
I'm pretty sure if you review that thread you'll see that the person claiming Enervation is trash, and the person claiming they'd use it in a situation are not the same person.
For example, in CoD's str 7 cleric build, if the effect of encumbrance is accounted for,
Not that CoD is likely to make an APG-based argument, but for the sake of discussion: Ant Haul.
Not that it's really going to be your answer at 1st level.
For example, in CoD's str 7 cleric build, if the effect of encumbrance is accounted for,Not that CoD is likely to make an APG-based argument, but for the sake of discussion: Ant Haul.
Not that it's really going to be your answer at 1st level.
By the way, just realized something simple that might limit the issue with casters. The issue is usually simply that they can do anything; that's why sorcerers are less powerful than wizards, and it's why skills lose value so much (or some of them, like climbing, at least).
Maybe a good fix might be to simply limit what spells casters can get access to? For example, reinstating the old rules for banned opposition schools rather than just "takes double slots" and maybe even add so that all wizards may only choose like 4 schools they can use at all. And clerics might be limited for example by not being able to cast spells with an alignment descriptor unless they have it (so a neutral caster can't cast a [good] spell for example)
Not saying that exactly that should be done, but would it be a bad way to balance it?
Normally I prefer increasing the abilities of underpowered characters rather than decreasing the power of overpowered, but when the issue is versatility the only other option is to allow everyone to do everything (hyperboling, but you get what I mean) which would take away some of the "unique"ness of the classes.
EDIT: That said I've never HAD these issues with low-level casters, apart from around level 6-7 certain skills such as climb start losing their value.
Maybe a good fix might be to simply limit what spells casters can get access to? For example, reinstating the old rules for banned opposition schools rather than just "takes double slots" and maybe even add so that all wizards may only choose like 4 schools they can use at all. And clerics might be limited for example by not being able to cast spells with an alignment descriptor unless they have it (so a neutral caster can't cast a [good] spell for example)
I don't think that's necessarily a bad idea, but it requires the schools to balance against each other a lot better than they currently do to be interesting. I think there's probably still too many eggs in conjuration and transmutation's basket.
But, like many things, this is gradually looking better. Have a look back at the 3.0 school list and Transmutation has near as many spells as the rest of the schools put together.
Maybe a good fix might be to simply limit what spells casters can get access to? For example, reinstating the old rules for banned opposition schools rather than just "takes double slots" and maybe even add so that all wizards may only choose like 4 schools they can use at all. And clerics might be limited for example by not being able to cast spells with an alignment descriptor unless they have it (so a neutral caster can't cast a [good] spell for example)
Well, one could go further and limit the access to spells related to the school. Say, every wizard can cast Scry, only diviners can cast Foresight.
Well, one could go further and limit the access to spells related to the school. Say, every wizard can cast Scry, only diviners can cast Foresight.
Maybe a good fix might be to simply limit what spells casters can get access to? For example, reinstating the old rules for banned opposition schools rather than just "takes double slots" and maybe even add so that all wizards may only choose like 4 schools they can use at all. And clerics might be limited for example by not being able to cast spells with an alignment descriptor unless they have it (so a neutral caster can't cast a [good] spell for example)
You mean like Psions in 3.5, where only certain types of manifesters had x ability, but all of them could pick from a general list?
This would work.
I don't think that's necessarily a bad idea, but it requires the schools to balance against each other a lot better than they currently do to be interesting. I think there's probably still too many eggs in conjuration and transmutation's basket.But, like many things, this is gradually looking better. Have a look back at the 3.0 school list and Transmutation has near as many spells as the rest of the schools put together.
Agreed. However, number of spells isn't the key factor as their versatility is important. Now, the problem is that they not only have a lot of spells but also get the most versatile ones; conjuration via summoning, transmutation via telekinetic spells, polymorphs and everything like that.
But it's been much better. If we disregard the summon monster and planar binding series, it would be a hard choice to me. Abjuration has a lot of nice defenses and dispel magic, evocation has both blasts (which ARE useful on occacion; they get far too much bad rep here), the very useful hand series, and a few random goodies, divination has great spells if you can't get them via summons and so on.
If one were to remake the schools though, I'd dump necromancy completely and work into the other schools. It seems most of it's spells should be divinitations (speak with dead), evocations (ray of enfeeblement) or transmutations (animate dead).
Well, one could go further and limit the access to spells related to the school. Say, every wizard can cast Scry, only diviners can cast Foresight.
That's another option, kind of like 2e spheres.
This could actually be a quite quick and easy thing to do; take one spell (probably the BEST spell) from each school at each spell level, and remove them from the common wizard list, then at the level where you gain access to that spell level, instead of gaining 1 school spell, 1 any spell you get limited spell, 1 any spell.
You mean like Psions in 3.5, where only certain types of manifesters had x ability, but all of them could pick from a general list?
This would work.
Yeah. Kinda like that.
I want to point out that I'm quite fine with the system as-is.. but I see room for improvements, and this one, as well more scaling feats/talent for meleers, could be a way ;)
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.
I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion. You are essentially claiming that people don't know what they are doing. That seems unfounded to me. Unless you are playing with everyone here how can you make the claim that they don't consistently make the correct rules adjudications?
I think it would serve your agenda much better to assume that people actually do play by the rules.
That's not what I said. I didn't say anything about correct adjudications. I said that they need to apply the rules consistently. Take a look at the various "class X" sucks threads. You can easily see how the rules are applied to one class and not to another. I'm not saying that there aren't still going to be issues. I'm saying that the issues are lessened.
That's not what I said. I didn't say anything about correct adjudications. I said that they need to apply the rules consistently. Take a look at the various "class X" sucks threads. You can easily see how the rules are applied to one class and not to another. I'm not saying that there aren't still going to be issues. I'm saying that the issues are lessened.
There is no difference between claiming there isn't consistence with their application of the rules and claiming they aren't making correct correct adjudications (since by not being consistent you are making incorrect adjudications). Using another thread or another discussion is only relevant if the specific person you are debating on this thread is on record on the other thread making an incorrect or inconsistent call. Other wise all your doing is saying "but other people make mistakes all the time and so therefor so do you."
The reason I pointed this out wasn't to be an ass. Hopefully it didn't come off that way. The reason I pointing this out is because I genuinely believe you would strengthen your argument by not relying on anecdotal evidence.
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 at all, Derek. In fact, I have had to inject downtime into Rise of the Runelords so that my craftsmen can meet their most reasonable goals. In those cases, I will give them as much time as they need to make what they want, since they don't have a plot hook to respond to with specific magic doohickies. During this downtime, though, Gold is a limited resource.
Once the plot hook is rolling, there are implicit and explicit timers that keep people from preparing the perfect spell formula. No NPC villain of mine is going to sit around twiddling his thumbs while the NPCs gain the upper hand.
I see a ton of assumptions about gold and time any time people compare the wizard as a class to anything else. In my experience, the wizard is a very good class that becomes completely out of control if the GM is loose on time and money. That doesn't nullify all of the complaints, but is definitely something people overlook when dicklancing about classes.
I repeat — this is not a cure-all, but it definitely helps a lot. Some people make valid complaints about balance issues, and I hear that. I just don't take wizard flexibility as this incredible thing, because there are basic resources in the GM sections of the book that help Gms control it fairly.
DM targets your bonded item or your spellbook, etc...
If the DM targets spellbooks specifically, and leaves weapons and armor alone, he's "balancing" by choosing to use the same rules against one class but not against another. Destroying a weapon is ridiculously easy -- but most DMs don't do it because it screws the fighter. Destroying a stashed spellbook is harder, but a lot of DMs do it to knock the wizard down a peg.
Which implies that, in the actual RAW, there exists a disparity that people recognize on some level and try and correct for. Which is good. But using that method of correction has nothing to do with balance in the rules as written, and everything to do with balance by selective rules application. And that shouldn't be necessary, if there weren't such a huge gap in the actual system to begin with.
4: Black Tentacles. Particularly when combined with Solid Fog. Once they're in it, you can more or less write them off as dead.
This is a lot less true in PF vs. 3.5, just because Solid Fog got hit hard. At this point, anything with a 30' move can get out of the Black Tentacles in a single move provided they aren't grappled or can break the grapple.
Otherwise I generally agree with your picks and would add APG's Create Pit as a second. (The later Pit spells get better, but as you gain levels you also see more flying enemies so it's kind of a wash.)
I keep reading thread after thread about "The Problems" and "Gaps" but I find that whenever I have though something overpowered, I read the rule and realized I missed a limitation, or I watch it in game and realize it doesn't actually work as well on the board as it does on the page.
And on the other side, when I thought a class to weak, I saw someone else play it using a build that made it work really well, using combination that had not occurred to me to be really powerful and effective in game.
And in the games I run, each class seems to be able to do well enough most of the time, with moments where they absolutely shine and moments where they are vulnerable.
Does anyone else fear power creep more than any perceived weaknesses in given classes?
Does anyone else just think people who complain about classes being weak haven't put in the book time to see how the class works. And does anyone else think the people who claim god builds generally have really flawed characters with huge exposed weaknesses?
Is anyone with me in the "If you read the rules and play by them the game works great" camp?
Neither myself nor the many players I've gamed with were ever irked by RAW games, and I agree with you that a lack of true study of the RAW might be behind some of the complaints.
I'm not saying the game is flawless, so those who might be inclined to get all sweaty and start bashing my opinion should understand that I'm only saying MY group has never had a problem with feeling RAW was unfair or ruined the fun.
Re: "god builds": I've had some good players who knew the RAW and used them imaginatively to build characters that regularly outshine other PCs in the group, but that is more a matter of intelligent PC planning than of the system.
I've also had players build "uber leet" PCs, and on questioning them regarding how they get their AC or hp or whatever so high, discover that they are not familiar with stacking rules, or failed to read the limitations and only read the benefits, or interpreted a spell or ability in a way that clearly (to an unbiased and reasonable person) contradicts the spirit of the RAW, etc.
You honestly believe that games in which you constantly lose items hurt spellcasters more than martial characters?If you do, do say so. I cleared my ignore list in the interest of second chances, but if you honestly believe that, then we have nothing to discuss.
Since I've actually DM'ed such campaigns for 8 years now, YES. I don't believe, I know, and your attitude is really, really bad. You seriously sound like someone who has played only in hack'n'slash campaigns for the last 10 years, and only with a small group that does everything the same way all the time.
It's far more common for the wizard to lack spellcasting abilities than for the fighter to lack anything that can be used as a weapon.
As said though, this mostly affects wizards, to some degree clerics and druids, and very minorly sorcerers. However, since we also have higher than usual use of skills, wizards still frequent the games more than sorcerers due to skill points.
Example from last session: After getting caught by a hobgoblin squadron the characters had been stripped of their possessions, shackled, and put away in a cell, where they gained no good opportunities to escape until half a tenday later. They are 6th level, and quite close to the classic four; wiz5/rog1, cleric 6, fighter4/bar2, ranger6. The ranger finally managed to knock out a guard and steal the key, gaining the opportunity to escape. The cleric had prepared some spells, the wizard has spell mastery and as such had haste, glitterdust and something else prepared; good spells but not that varied and nothing that worked well against the undead guards. The ranger picked up the guards weapon and the fighter/barb and cleric got their hands on one pretty quickly too. Sure, they wouldn't have made it without the wizards haste and as such the wizard did well; but it was the fighter/barb that managed to actually break down the final door and the fighter/barb and ranger that did best in the fight.
The very proof of it working, is well, IT WORKS. We don't have any issues with the casters dominating the other classes, damage is still what saves the day more often than not, and the success rate of offensively-minded casters happens to be quite low due to usually falling in the first or second combat of the day.
As said, three heavy crossbow bolts in an unarmored 10 hp character (if they were stupid enough to neglect their other stats so much; rather it's 8 or 9 hp and 11 or 12 AC) makes them unable to cast their save or dies. Smart opponents don't shoot at the guy in the full plate, because they're aware he won't get hurt, they shoot at the guy in the robe with strange symbols.
|
|
DM targets your bonded item or your spellbook, etc...If the DM targets spellbooks specifically, and leaves weapons and armor alone, he's "balancing" by choosing to use the same rules against one class but not against another. Destroying a weapon is ridiculously easy -- but most DMs don't do it because it screws the fighter. Destroying a stashed spellbook is harder, but a lot of DMs do it to knock the wizard down a peg.
Which implies that, in the actual RAW, there exists a disparity that people recognize on some level and try and correct for. Which is good. But using that method of correction has nothing to do with balance in the rules as written, and everything to do with balance by selective rules application. And that shouldn't be necessary, if there weren't such a huge gap in the actual system to begin with.
It actually is hard to sunder in pathfinder. First it is a combat manuver against CMD. Second, at least with weapons it can only be done by a weapon with a higher enhancement than your weapon.
I made a whole side thread about this after hearing how easy it was. Jacobs confirmed they brought back the old rule about enhancements for just this reason.
I made a whole side thread about this after hearing how easy it was. Jacobs confirmed they brought back the old rule about enhancements for just this reason.
I'd be glad they did, but that just means a 2nd level spell is better than a 20th level fighter's trained maneuever. If the rule were "or requires spell of minimum level equal to twice the enhancement bonus needed," that would be cool.
|
|
Newsflash: I am not K.
K has displayed utter contempt for Enervation, and refused to use it at all. I am the one who said it wasn't worth using at the level you can first get it, but at high levels, where you don't care about 4th level slots anymore, and also have no problem hitting with touch attacks even with a 10 Dex it's a lot better.
I will admit I was wrong. I mistook one poster who constantly uses a condescending, insulting, and arrogant posting style for another who uses a very similar condescending, insulting, and arrogant posting style.
I will admit I was wrong. I mistook one condescending, insulting jerkass for another condescending, insulting jerkass. Not a hard mistake to make.
Can we please stop this line of posting?
|
|
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 at all, Derek. In fact, I have had to inject downtime into Rise of the Runelords so that my craftsmen can meet their most reasonable goals. In those cases, I will give them as much time as they need to make what they want, since they don't have a plot hook to respond to with specific magic doohickies. During this downtime, though, Gold is a limited resource.
Once the plot hook is rolling, there are implicit and explicit timers that keep people from preparing the perfect spell formula. No NPC villain of mine is going to sit around twiddling his thumbs while the NPCs gain the upper hand.
I see a ton of assumptions about gold and time any time people compare the wizard as a class to anything else. In my experience, the wizard is a very good class that becomes completely out of control if the GM is loose on time and money. That doesn't nullify all of the complaints, but is definitely something people overlook when dicklancing about classes.
I repeat — this is not a cure-all, but it definitely helps a lot. Some people make valid complaints about balance issues, and I hear that. I just don't take wizard flexibility as this incredible thing, because there are basic resources in the GM sections of the book that help Gms control it fairly.
Here's my problem with the premise you present. Pressing the pedal to the metal is fine for a short period of time, but there is no way an adventurer (or hero or whatever) is going 24/7/365. And if the player characters are the only people in the world capable of dealing with every earth shattering world changing event, I'd lose interest in such a game quickly, as I prefer to believe the world I live in.
And, seriously, there is a TON of downtime between episodes of RotRL. And if the characters are making any kind of money, the wizard can, at the very least, write a bunch of utility scrolls (third level and below, cheap and useful, save slots for the deadlier stuff).
No offense (seriously), but it sounds like characters go from 1 to 15 quickly in your game. Must be some really powerful 24 year old wizards running around, and grizzled veteran warriors may not even need to shave yet. That's what I envision when I hear the "limit down time as a way to limit spell casters" camp.
Verisimilitude, exit, stage left.
Here's my problem with the premise you present. Pressing the pedal to the metal...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 at all, Derek. In fact, I have had to inject downtime into Rise of the Runelords so that my craftsmen can meet their most reasonable goals. In those cases, I will give them as much time as they need to make what they want, since they don't have a plot hook to respond to with specific magic doohickies. During this downtime, though, Gold is a limited resource.
Once the plot hook is rolling, there are implicit and explicit timers that keep people from preparing the perfect spell formula. No NPC villain of mine is going to sit around twiddling his thumbs while the NPCs gain the upper hand.
I see a ton of assumptions about gold and time any time people compare the wizard as a class to anything else. In my experience, the wizard is a very good class that becomes completely out of control if the GM is loose on time and money. That doesn't nullify all of the complaints, but is definitely something people overlook when dicklancing about classes.
I repeat — this is not a cure-all, but it definitely helps a lot. Some people make valid complaints about balance issues, and I hear that. I just don't take wizard flexibility as this incredible thing, because there are basic resources in the GM sections of the book that help Gms control it fairly.
I can't speak about Evil Lincon's games, but my campaigns typically have PCs going from 1to20 in about 2 years of game time. Some campaigns take more, like the Kingmaker campaign I just started, other less, but about 2 years. About 1/4 of that time will be spent before the PCs are of a level that they can craft anything significant, and 1/2 the remaining time will be spent without being able ot craft because of lack of cash. Significant remaining portions of time are spent doing things that are not related to crafting, like building a castle, becoming mayor, waging war, researching the next place to adventure, researching a villian's weakness, hobnobing with nobles, or the host of other things players do that prevent full crafting. Even then, major items take precidence over minor items like scrolls.
Time limits are in place thanks to things happening in the game world. Its not static. Political changes occur, important people die, armies move, and more people die the longer a siege is.
The end result is that most of the time crafters cannot craft whatever they want whenever they want to. They get to use their feat plenty over the course of the game, but they do not have free reign.
I can't speak about Evil Lincon's games, but my campaigns typically have PCs going from 1 to 20 in about 2 years of game time.
Wow. Ours might go from 1st to 8th in 2 years' game time. And from 8th - 10th in 2 more. And 10th - 11th in 2 more. Etc. At that rate, our 20th level human characters have been adventuring in-game for a much longer time than yours have been alive.
Perception is a funny thing. And frankly, human beings make bad witnesses, both for and against the defense.
In my experience, RAW from 3.x to Pathfinder have never been significantly unbalanced. We never experienced the supposed spellcaster power creep others complain about, except where I foolishly tinkered with, or allowed a player to tinker with the rules before I really understood them well, and where the spellcaster was played by somebody who had a bent to exploit each situation to his utmost advantage and didn't care if it ruined the fun or resulted in an argument.
I think two things are going on at large to cause people to believe in these sorts of power creeps. The first is basic human nature. If you think in a particular situation, that the wizard stole your fighter's kill in a battle with a melee opponent, suddenly you're going to think wizards have all the advantages and you have none. Once convinced of that, you are going to "find" "evidence" of it everywhere you look. One of my favorite movie lines ever comes from The Usual Suspects: "To a cop the explanation is never that complicated. It's always simple. There's no mystery to the street, no arch criminal behind it all. If you got a dead body and you think his brother did it, you're gonna find out you're right."
Gamers are the same way. If you feel slighted, the easiest explanation is going to be that somebody jerked you around. If it wasn't the GM, then it was that the rules are unbalanced. It can never be that we just didn't apply all our smarts to the situation, or that we just haven't thought of everything we could add to our character, or worse, the possibility that there are endless possible conspiracies of action, thought, premise and chance and that we simply cannot prepare for them all, and cannot therefore make a judgment on which-what is overpowered or not until we have experienced them all. Or at least a giant chunk of them.
Which brings me to the second point which is that the rules assume active and thoughtful participation, and are simply not meant to run the game for you while you sit idly by. This is as true for the cooperative part of the game as it is for the game mechanics. I think the game was designed with the thought in mind that the player of the wizard will want to solve the riddle, for instance, instead of gimping the adventure by teleporting around it. Or that he will have a mind to keep spells in reserve for later, rather than unleashing them all at a single target. Alas, players do these things, and it understandably creates an impression that the characters they are playing are naturally overpowered. But to gimp them otherwise would be to allow the rules to creep into other aspects of the game. Role-playing, fluff, and puzzle-solving are there to counter this behavior by creating a sense in the player's mind that his wizard - if a real person - would be more cautious and conservative. But this part of world building is often ignored.
When the wizard's player does these things, it is up to the GM to find a means to challenge him appropriately, probably best by creating further encounters where the wasted resources would have been useful. Think Dorkness Rising, and Gary constantly casting his most powerful spell on peasants. When he most needed that spell, he didn't have it. In short (too late), it's very tempting to overuse power when you have it, and very easy for a GM to forget to challenge the player, and adequately prepare the other players for those challenges (caches of cure potions, heroism, etc.). But he could be doing that.
stuff
I really don't think you meant it as such, but don't you think it's a little (ok, a lot) condescending to assume that if the rules are working for your game but show flaws in other people's games, it's either because the players are petty and need to rationalize their underperforming, or because the casters are novaing everything and the GM is foolish enough to let them get away with it?
When the wizard's player does these things, it is up to the GM to find a means to challenge him appropriately, probably best by creating further encounters where the wasted resources would have been useful. Think Dorkness Rising, and Gary constantly casting his most powerful spell on peasants. When he most needed that spell, he didn't have it.
In other words, you've (1) claimed there's no real unbalance, only a perceived one; and then (2) given examples of how the wizard, unlike the fighter, can solve everything all by himself and still be home for dinner, without breaking a sweat; and then (c) told us how it's the GM's job to make things extra-hard on the wizard so as to correct this disparity which supposedly doesn't exist in the first place.
Two replies:
1. If everyone playing the game -- including you -- is making allowances for a caster/warrier disparity, then that disparity exists. Some people might find that the corrections are easy and hence that it's not as big a problem for them, but "corrected" doesn't mean "doesn't exist in the first place." So let's all be honest and accept that it's not a trick of our imagination, or of player laziness, or a perverted form of confirmation bias (all of which you implied), but rather an actual artifact of the written rules.
2. Correcting problems by DM fiat is, in essence, admitting that the written rules are largely irrelevant, hence story hour sets in. That's fine and well for people who want to play storytime, but that sort of game doesn't require any rules at all. For people who prefer the rules to function as written so as to provide a chassis for the game, rather than an impediment to it, that sort of solution fails. Why pay $40 for a rulebook that I actively have to work against in order to use?
When the wizard's player does these things, it is up to the GM to find a means to challenge him appropriately, probably best by creating further encounters where the wasted resources would have been useful. Think Dorkness Rising, and Gary constantly casting his most powerful spell on peasants. When he most needed that spell, he didn't have it.
In other words, you've (1) claimed there's no real unbalance, only a perceived one; and then (2) given examples of how the wizard, unlike the fighter, can solve everything all by himself and still be home for dinner, without breaking a sweat; and then (c) told us how it's the GM's job to make things extra-hard on the wizard so as to correct this disparity which supposedly doesn't exist in the first place.
Two replies:
1. If everyone playing the game -- including you -- is making allowances for a caster/warrier disparity, then that disparity exists. Some people might find that the corrections are easy and hence that it's not as big a problem for them, but "corrected" doesn't mean "doesn't exist in the first place." So let's all be honest and accept that it's not a trick of our imagination, or a perverted form of confirmation bias, but rather an actual artifact of the written rules.
2. Correcting problems by DM fiat is, in essence, admitting that the written rules are largely irrelevant, hence story hour sets in. That's fine and well for people who want to play storytime, but that sort of game doesn't require any rules at all. For people who prefer the rules to function as written so as to provide a chassis for the game, rather than an impediment to it.
Or you look at the "imballance" that he mentions and realize that that is the system working as intended. Many people have no problems with the wizard being able to bypas certain types of challenges, just like the rogue is able to bypass others, and the fighter can trivialize others. Its just easier to design combats that the fighter cannot trivialize than ones that caster can't bypass because they have different types of abilities. This does not mean that the caster is contributing more or unballanced with the other characters.
Or you look at the "imballance" that he mentions and realize that that is the system working as intended. Many people have no problems with the wizard being able to bypas certain types of challenges, just like the rogue is able to bypass others, and the fighter can trivialize others. Its just easier to design combats that the fighter cannot trivialize...
But it is a problem if you're playing Rock, Paper, Scissors and I get to pick some extra options that you don't, such as, let's say, Diamond which beats both Rock and Scissors.
Even if Paper still exists to beat it.
I don't get this mentality that just because you might one day want to talk to fish, Aquaman and Superman are perfectly equal.
I don't get this mentality that just because you might one day want to talk to fish, Aquaman and Superman are perfectly equal.
+1. Or, for a more humorous take, check out the oft-referenced "Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit."
Example: I give my monsters magic item, but nothing big. Others think it is ok to push their AC and attack bonus up by 15 or more, and the CR stays the same.Then both sides come here claiming each is doing it right, sometimes with bad or no explanations on my their way is right. I fall into the bad explanation department myself.
A small quibble here, as I think it's referring to what I wrote. You didn't like my ancient gold dragon having ONE magical item.
And you are correct in the way you explained it the first time, saying that he was not allowed to use it (like how in 4e magical items only work for the PCs it seems).
The EL of an encounter are broad strokes guidelines at best. They are to give you ballparks for your encounters and are not to be blindly followed at ALL. You look at the resulting creature and figure out what the challenge to the party really is and that is also going to be dependent upon the party.
The goldie that I had laid out was able to buff a bit (and you could even buff further say even by little things like bull's strength, etc to push the hitroll even higher) presumably because he either could dictate when the encounter started or because the party say triggered some traps in his lair so he knew to expect them.
You are CERTAINLY correct that the difficulty of an encounter at those levels is light years apart when one side knows its coming within minutes/level. But if the party allows this, or acts poorly tactically should you be lowering the monster's hps or some such in response? Of course not.
But you take it into account in the layout of the adventure.
If the PCs decide to barge in the front door and take all comers, lose over half their party along the way is it your fault when they could have scouted and easily found a back way in and handled encounters with ease?
Perhaps partially, but that's the game. It's not mechanical rather it's organic.
-James
It was actually the disagreement as a whole, not really you in particular. I don't remember the post exactly so I can't comment on it.
My issue with the CR argument was not about what happens in a home game, but for the purpose of on board discussions.I think a monster can have a CR for a home game, and a different CR when being used in a world wide discussion due to changes. CoD's Pit fiend is not a CR 20 for the boards, but it is for his games as an example.
My previous post was just saying that there are things the rules don't account for, and that is where a lot of debates start. Sometimes there is precedence for a ruling to work a certain way, but no exact wording so the two sides continue to debate it until the thread dies or a developer steps in to say how it was intended to work.