Ultra-low level Wizards are just not that bad

[Flux Vector]

However, wizards - and specifically wizards - have an alternate source of (quite large) initiative bonus in the Divination specialization. So I think the point isn't that initiative's not important, it's that if you're a wizard, at minimum, you get to have it both ways via the diviner specialty.

Your improved init cancels out the enemy's, your specialization init bonus more than cancels out your enemy's dex bonus, and nothing is saying you aren't putting your 3rd-highest stat into dex (with the 2nd in con) and aren't wearing a +dex item too, at least when treasure permits. You end up with a modest to good advantage in initiative rolls against non-diviners, but without having to focus your stats on it as heavily.

That "frees you up" to have a higher con, and lets you have your cake and eat it too - you have a high initiative bonus, and you've got a higher fort save and more hitpoints for when you're getting attacked.

Which will eventually happen, if only because you're liable to be outnumbered.

[Misc. Old Crone Soothsayer V1.0]

....and then..

..YOU DIE!

*cackles typically*

[MTCityHunter]

Flux Vector wrote:

However, wizards - and specifically wizards - have an alternate source of (quite large) initiative bonus in the Divination specialization.

While this is true, and the divination specialty is a good one, not all wizards will be Diviners, nor is it necessarily the clearly optimal choice of specialty.

As Treantmonk illustrates in his guide, the bonus spells you get from Div spec are pretty lackluster and very redundant, while your bonus spells from Conj spec for example are quite nice overall which helps offset the loss of all that initiative in the grand scheme of things.

Plus, there are some nice granted abilities from other specializations. For example, to stay with Conj spec, the teleportation granted by the APG variant (Shift) is not necessarily superior to the initiative from Div spec, but it is quite nice and will definitely keep you alive both before and after you get proper teleports on your spell list.

Now then, as a Divination specialist? From an optimization standpoint, yes, they should very much prioritize Con over Dex, probably pretty heavily.

[Blueluck]

I'm playing a elven wizard right now in RotRL (no spoilers please!) with the teleportation subschool. Using shift to teleport away from damage as a swift action has been quite effective. (Also, having just hit level 4, I shifted 10' back from a BBEG and charged back in with my sword. I don't intend to use that trick often, but I was in a position to provide flanking for our TWF rogue, and between the flanking and charge bonuses, I managed to hit!)

For this character, I went with 18 dex & 12 con after racial modifiers. I could have had 16 dex & 14 con instead, but between d8 hit dice, +1 HP per level from favored class, shift and dimensional steps school powers, and occasional defensive spells, I didn't really feel that the additional con was adding much. Also, with initiative bonus from dex stacking with the Reactionary trait (+2 initiative), I hope to avoid many dangerous situations.

A half-orc wizard with high con, and a less "dodgy" school specialization would be a great character too, and would play differently.

The thing NOT to do is make a wizard (sorcerer, witch) with no plan of defense other than buff spells. If you spend half of your spell slots, and the first 1-2 rounds of every fight, casting defensive spells on yourself, you're losing. You lose the initiative, you lose the action economy, and you lose a lot of the fun!

[OilHorse]

MTCityHunter wrote:

Not to get on you in particular, OilHorse, I mean this as a general statement, but this is precisely the kind of thing that derailed the thread to begin with. Isn't it easier to just roll your eyes, let it go, and move on than to antagonize? You don't have to agree with or even like certain posters, but calling them out personally just results in what happened for the last 2 pages.

Meh. Never claimed to be perfect. we all know what is right and wrong but sometimes we just feel compelled to NOT do the right thing.

[Bob_Loblaw]

OilHorse wrote:

MTCityHunter wrote:

Not to get on you in particular, OilHorse, I mean this as a general statement, but this is precisely the kind of thing that derailed the thread to begin with. Isn't it easier to just roll your eyes, let it go, and move on than to antagonize? You don't have to agree with or even like certain posters, but calling them out personally just results in what happened for the last 2 pages.

Meh. Never claimed to be perfect. we all know what is right and wrong but sometimes we just feel compelled to NOT do the right thing.

I'm trying to practice being happy instead of being right. So far, it's working. I have a bad batch sometimes but I'm getting better.

[OilHorse]

Bob_Loblaw wrote:

I'm trying to practice being happy instead of being right. So far, it's working. I have a bad batch sometimes but I'm getting better.

Being happy is good, if you could get happy and right at once...LOOK OUT WORLD!!! Boo Yah!

[CoDzilla]

MTCityHunter wrote:

Personally, I don't think that's what he meant. He's likely referencing the statistical concept that even considering a smallish chance (5% crit) of something bad happening, over a large enough sample size (the # of attacks you'll see in a campaign, or even dungeon), the chances of that bad event (getting full attacked + crit) happening AT SOME POINT actually approaches 100%.

In other words, eventually, someone WILL get a full attack off on you and WILL manage to crit...eventually. At which point, you likely die, especially if you have lower Con. Spike damage is how characters die; anyone can recover from multiple smaller hits spread over a few rounds. A full attack + crit will kill you before you can heal back up or retreat.

We have a winner!

Quote:

Of course raise dead is an option, but everyone would prefer to minimize the number of times you're forced to utilize that, no? There are certainly better ways to spend your wealth.

That, and even low chances add up fast enough so that you lose levels faster than you gain them with such a method. And you are also down wealth, which means it's even more likely you die again.

Quote:

The best defense of course, is to do everything in your power to deny enemies the opportunity to full attack you as often as possible. Don't end your turn adjacent to an enemy. Don't leave yourself out in the open where they've got a clear charge lane to you. Get behind cover. Levitate, fly, invisibility, etc.

Cover doesn't help but yeah. Just not having to get full attacked to do your job goes a very, very long way.

Quote:

But when they DO close on you, and you do get hit, your going to want LAYERED defenses. Initiative, positioning, and attack avoidance are the first line of defense. AC (and by association, Dex) is the second line, but it won't help you very often as a Wizard (never later on). Spells and conditions that give you concealment or otherwise provide miss chance to the enemy are the third line (i.e. glitterdust, obscuring mist, mirror image, etc). Hitpoints (and by association, Con), are the last line, and the higher your HP, the better your "safety net" is at preventing spike damage deaths. Of course, when dealing with spells, you often go straight from saves (1st line) to HP (2nd line, in the case of blasts) or just out of action (in the case of SoD/SoS).

You got AC and the actually effective defenses listed in reverse order. But yes, you absolutely are required to do everything in your power to shield yourself from spike damage deaths, as they are the primary source of death. Failed a save or lose? You're going down, even if the save or lose isn't directly fatal.

Quote:

For the record, I think its wise to have as many defensive layers up as possible at any given time. Skimping on one is just asking for trouble IMO. In the context of this discussion, that means both Dex (certainly for the initiative rather than AC) AND Con (for HP/Fort) are important.

Except that that means MAD on items, so you can't get enough Dex to bother with, but you can still get plenty of Init from non Dex sources.

[CoDzilla]

As a reminder of how opposed rolls work:

If your init = enemy init chance to go first = 50%.

If your init is higher, the chance is increased by 2.5% + (20 - N) * 0.25% per point. So +4.75% for +1, +4.5% for +1 to +2, and so forth, on top of the base +2.5% for being faster at all.

As you can see, these numbers suffer diminishing returns quite quickly, especially when you remember that there are multiple casters. Being at +5 over the enemy means 73.75% to go first. Getting another +5 only increases that by 15%. Getting another +5 only increases it by 8.75%.

[MTCityHunter]

CoDzilla wrote:

As a reminder of how opposed rolls work:

If your init = enemy init chance to go first = 50%.

If your init is higher, the chance is increased by 2.5% + (20 - N) * 0.25% per point. So +4.75% for +1, +4.5% for +1 to +2, and so forth, on top of the base +2.5% for being faster at all.

As you can see, these numbers suffer diminishing returns quite quickly, especially when you remember that there are multiple casters. Being at +5 over the enemy means 73.75% to go first. Getting another +5 only increases that by 15%. Getting another +5 only increases it by 8.75%.

While you're absolutely correct that Initiative bonuses suffer significant diminishing returns, I wouldn't necessarily use that as rationale for dumping or ignoring the Dex stat entirely. Getting the proper items to boost both Dex and Con can indeed get prohibitively expensive so its not always going to be a practical option (depending on campaign), but I'd argue that starting Dex mod is still relevant.

Say we're talking about the difference between a 10 and 14 starting Dex (+2 mod). Well, the exact percentage bonus that +2 nets you gets smaller the higher your initiative bonus climbs (starting at +9.25 if I'm correct and falling as your bonus climbs), but its still there. Let's call it ~5% at the mid/higher levels, but the exact value isn't all that important. That's still increasing your relative frequency for tactical advantage by about 5%, meaning in 1/20 fights you'll be able to avoid getting caught with your pants down when the guy who boosted his Con from 14 to 16 instead (and left Dex at 10) fails to act first.

I'd say that's pretty relevant. Is it more relevant than +1HP/lvl and +1 Fort? I'm not sure. At that point I'd say we're coming back to priorities and playstyle. There are too many variables to say one option is "better" 100% of the time.

In my games, I'd probably tend to favor the build with 2 14's over the 10/16 build. That's especially true if I'm not fully optimizing initiative (i.e. - maybe I don't want a scorpion familiar, maybe the reactionary trait doesn't fit my character, not playing a diviner, etc.) because the relative value of that +2 would stay higher if I didn't have every available initiative booster. Now then, if I AM playing a Diviner or using 3.x materials to add additional options for even more increases to initiative (which further devalues the +2 mod advantage), I'd likely favor the full Con build.

Also, for the record, when I was listing the layered defenses, I was just trying to list them in the order in which they are encountered by an attacker; I wasn't trying to imply that "primary" (attack avoidance) was more or less important than "quaternary" (HP). I didn't intend for that to be a "prioritization list". Sorry if that was confusing.

[Squidmasher]

CoDzilla wrote:

That, and even low chances add up fast enough so that you lose levels faster than you gain them with such a method. And you are also down wealth, which means it's even more likely you die again.

You don't lose levels from Raise Dead anymore. You gain two permanent negative levels that you can easily dispose of by way of restoration.

[OilHorse]

CoDzilla wrote:

MTCityHunter wrote:

Personally, I don't think that's what he meant. He's likely referencing the statistical concept that even considering a smallish chance (5% crit) of something bad happening, over a large enough sample size (the # of attacks you'll see in a campaign, or even dungeon), the chances of that bad event (getting full attacked + crit) happening AT SOME POINT actually approaches 100%.

In other words, eventually, someone WILL get a full attack off on you and WILL manage to crit...eventually. At which point, you likely die, especially if you have lower Con. Spike damage is how characters die; anyone can recover from multiple smaller hits spread over a few rounds. A full attack + crit will kill you before you can heal back up or retreat.

We have a winner!

Now add the % chances that the crit you take is even at a point in time where it will be a fatal blow and again it is not 100%...oh, unless it is in your game where you need to do a monster's full hp value in damage in a single attack to be effective.

In other words NOT in the average game.

[Bob_Loblaw]

OilHorse wrote:

CoDzilla wrote:

MTCityHunter wrote:

Personally, I don't think that's what he meant. He's likely referencing the statistical concept that even considering a smallish chance (5% crit) of something bad happening, over a large enough sample size (the # of attacks you'll see in a campaign, or even dungeon), the chances of that bad event (getting full attacked + crit) happening AT SOME POINT actually approaches 100%.

In other words, eventually, someone WILL get a full attack off on you and WILL manage to crit...eventually. At which point, you likely die, especially if you have lower Con. Spike damage is how characters die; anyone can recover from multiple smaller hits spread over a few rounds. A full attack + crit will kill you before you can heal back up or retreat.

We have a winner!

Now add the % chances that the crit you take is even at a point in time where it will be a fatal blow and again it is not 100%...oh, unless it is in your game where you need to do a monster's full hp value in damage in a single attack to be effective.

In other words NOT in the average game.

No matter how he tries to defend his position, he is wrong. A 5% chance of a threat is not a 100% chance of always being critically hit on all attacks at all times. It is highly unlikely that a full attack will net all threats, let alone critical hits.

[Flux Vector]

I think some of us might be picking on some poor wordage there and missing the meaning for the message-mangling :)

It is statistically true that over a long enough timeframe, what's improbable - even highly improbable - as an individual event (such being crit when you're wounded, or being crit twice in one round) actually becomes likely to happen.

It doesn't happen every round, or every time you're attacked, or even once per encounter. But over enough attacks, in enough rounds, in enough encounters, it becomes likely to happen. In this way, as a dice-based game, Pathfinder (and indeed most pen and paper games) operate like gambling, and the math of probability and statistics applies in much the same ways. In fact this points to a lot of balance issues in the game, in my opinion, because it points to the fact that the players are likely to eventually lose it, and that loss will be based on bad luck.

Arguably this is a contributing reason a lot of campaigns that don't start at high levels never reach them - for player characters over a campaign's worth of encounters the mortality rate is actually quite high, especially considering how many saving throws with a 50% or better failure chance they're likely to face, leaving aside the lethality of being full attacked by a reasonably optimized enemy after level 8 or so.

I'd say this is why many players will tend to try to eliminate the role luck plays via their builds and tactics, and thus at least some players who have enough experiences getting 'burned' by bad luck, may be inclined to arrange their statistics in order to 'absorb' bad luck rather than hope they never have it. It's like crash-resistant crumple zones for your character.

Now, is it the best strategy... that actually depends on your GM. IMO a lot of GMs actually kinda go easy on their players in terms of save or lose abilities being thrown at them, since most mid to high end creatures have at will or multiple/day abilities they could spam at the characters until they fail their save, but often only use them once or twice in an encounter instead. This does make for a more fun gaming experience, and is probably the right thing to do in that regard, but from a pure mechanics/tactics POV, those enemies aren't bringing their A game by doing that.

[Evil Lincoln]

But by the same token, some pretty huge variables (like economy of actions) almost always favor the players.

Can we stop pretending the game is simple enough to make blanket statements about the outcomes? Chess is a simpler game by far, and it's impossible solve that game mathematically. This "I am categorically right and you are categorically wrong" smurf needs to stop.

Context is everything, and nobody — none of you, nor I — plays the game 100% RAW. It's not even possible.

[BenignFacist]

.
..
...
....
.....

Evil Lincoln wrote:

LIES!

Oh, right, fine..

..bring a slice of the real world into the thread why don't cha.

Sheesh..

..some folk, I mean, really.

*shakes fist*

[CoDzilla]

MTCityHunter wrote:

CoDzilla wrote:

As a reminder of how opposed rolls work:

If your init = enemy init chance to go first = 50%.

If your init is higher, the chance is increased by 2.5% + (20 - N) * 0.25% per point. So +4.75% for +1, +4.5% for +1 to +2, and so forth, on top of the base +2.5% for being faster at all.

As you can see, these numbers suffer diminishing returns quite quickly, especially when you remember that there are multiple casters. Being at +5 over the enemy means 73.75% to go first. Getting another +5 only increases that by 15%. Getting another +5 only increases it by 8.75%.

While you're absolutely correct that Initiative bonuses suffer significant diminishing returns, I wouldn't necessarily use that as rationale for dumping or ignoring the Dex stat entirely. Getting the proper items to boost both Dex and Con can indeed get prohibitively expensive so its not always going to be a practical option (depending on campaign), but I'd argue that starting Dex mod is still relevant.

Say we're talking about the difference between a 10 and 14 starting Dex (+2 mod). Well, the exact percentage bonus that +2 nets you gets smaller the higher your initiative bonus climbs (starting at +9.25 if I'm correct and falling as your bonus climbs), but its still there. Let's call it ~5% at the mid/higher levels, but the exact value isn't all that important. That's still increasing your relative frequency for tactical advantage by about 5%, meaning in 1/20 fights you'll be able to avoid getting caught with your pants down when the guy who boosted his Con from 14 to 16 instead (and left Dex at 10) fails to act first.

5% means your dex > theirs by +8. Decent enough mid level example, and a high level example if enemies are being designed with init in mind... very few stock enemies are though, so it falls short at high levels otherwise. That's +8, not counting the Dex by the way.

What is most important to remember though is that multiple PCs all get their own Init rolls. So you actually have multiple chances, not one. And that's where diminishing returns really hit hard. If you can do it at no cost sure, but losing Con is a very significant opportunity cost.

Also, the actually effective defenses are hit before AC, not after. And that is what I meant. First you have to be able to be attacked, then they have to get past the defenses that actually work, then they have to not roll a 1, and then finally HP.

[Ross Byers]

I removed a post. Personal attacks are unacceptable.

[see]

Evil Lincoln wrote:

Chess is a simpler game by far, and it's impossible solve that game mathematically.

Actually, chess is solvable. Oh, it might as a matter of actual computation require more time than the universe will exist, but that makes it unsolvable merely in practice, not mathematically.

[ciretose]

Squidmasher wrote:

CoDzilla wrote:

That, and even low chances add up fast enough so that you lose levels faster than you gain them with such a method. And you are also down wealth, which means it's even more likely you die again.

You don't lose levels from Raise Dead anymore. You gain two permanent negative levels that you can easily dispose of by way of restoration.

It is because he doesn't play Pathfinder. He plays 3.5. This is the problem in all of the discussions that involve him and why you will notice he never posts a build or a detailed description of events. It is always a statement requesting we use magic decoder rings to delve into some off topic puzzle.

Like the thread is now chasing 5% = 100%. It is a distraction, that has lead to more evidence that either A) He doesn't play Pathfinder B) He doesn't know the rules or C) Both.

MTCityHunter wrote:

Not to bring strategy/playstyle back into it...but to me, that's what its all about. Its the difference between driving a high performance sports car (Dex) and a Honda Accord (Con). What do you prefer? When you pick Dex and initiative, you're prioritizing optimal performance. When you pick Con and HP/fort, you're trying to lessen the consequences of random (unlucky) swings in momentum.

I agree 100%.

My point is the game isn't rocket tag. In Pathfinder, spells that "eliminate" an enemy from combat (unless you count damage spells in this category) are single target, and area effect spells that "disable" an enemy don't eliminate the enemy from combat.

So unless you are always fighting a single target with relatively low saves for a single target encounter of your appropriate level (considering adjustments if you aren't using the point buy and WBL system), the game isn't rocket tag. It a role playing game with a four + player combat strategy section as it's main component.

Not surprisingly, if you aren't actually playing Pathfinder, YMMV.

[Evil Lincoln]

ciretose wrote:

stuff

Rock on, Sysiphus.

[ciretose]

Evil Lincoln wrote:

ciretose wrote:

stuff

Rock on, Sysiphus.

:)

[CoDzilla]

Because blinded enemies (a mere 2nd level spell) aren't shut down? You've never actually cast Glitterdust, have you? -90% combat effectiveness = shut down. Same deal for other, low level effects. You fail the save, you might as well just sit this one out.

No, don't waste my time and yours by bringing up the entirely meaningless "nerf" of that spell. It's still a spell that wins a large subset of fights on the spot, and a shrinking, but still non zero subset of fights at higher levels.

So yes, it is very much still RLT. And since you get massive DCs, and everyone has the same or lower saves your rockets are stronger, not weaker.

Here are the things that reduce RLT:

(Mass) Conviction and Greater/Superior Resistance. Save boosts = less RLT. 3.5 rules though.
Ignoring the PF caster rules. Less DC boosts = less RLT. Again, 3.5 rules.
(Mass) Resurgence. Oh look, 3.5 rules again.

Noticing a pattern here?

That pattern is that no matter what, D&D is and will be RLT. However you can reduce it by ignoring PF material and introducing 3.5 material.

[Fergie]

CoDzilla wrote:

Noticing a pattern here?

Yes. You are mixing in all sorts of 3.5 splat books that increase the power of casters, and house rules that make casters more powerful. Then complaining that Pathfinder is unbalanced.

I know you don't see giving casters more spells makes them more powerful, so I don't know what to say. If you wanted to play a game that was not RLT, you could. Probably two sentences of house rules, and sticking to Pathfinder Core, would fix most of your complaints, but instead you choose RLT, then complain up a storm.

"While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. " - Getting Started.

Good Luck with your game.

[LazarX]

see wrote:

Evil Lincoln wrote:

Chess is a simpler game by far, and it's impossible solve that game mathematically.

Actually, chess is solvable. Oh, it might as a matter of actual computation require more time than the universe will exist, but that makes it unsolvable merely in practice, not mathematically.

It's not nearly that big a problem. Computers like Big Blue win chess games over humans not because they are geniuses, but because they can essentially brute-force it by playing out extended consequences for a variety of moves very rapidly.

[ciretose]

CoDzilla wrote:

Because blinded enemies (a mere 2nd level spell) aren't shut down? You've never actually cast Glitterdust, have you? -90% combat effectiveness = shut down. Same deal for other, low level effects. You fail the save, you might as well just sit this one out.

No, don't waste my time and yours by bringing up the entirely meaningless "nerf" of that spell. It's still a spell that wins a large subset of fights on the spot, and a shrinking, but still non zero subset of fights at higher levels.

So yes, it is very much still RLT. And since you get massive DCs, and everyone has the same or lower saves your rockets are stronger, not weaker.

Here are the things that reduce RLT:

(Mass) Conviction and Greater/Superior Resistance. Save boosts = less RLT. 3.5 rules though.
Ignoring the PF caster rules. Less DC boosts = less RLT. Again, 3.5 rules.
(Mass) Resurgence. Oh look, 3.5 rules again.

Noticing a pattern here?

Glitterdust allows a save every round, if you don't make the inital save, on their turn. It is also only a round per level, even if it didn't.

Not to mention the difference between blinded (Pg. 565 of core) and dead.

Have a nice day.

[Kaiyanwang]

Being blind even for 2 rounds IS a mess. Our wizard use persistent Glitterdust and it's level 14.

Said this, monsters and classes varies so much that it's very difficult glitterdust becomes automatically an "I win". Monsters could have blindsight, or have enough space to fly upward safely, or just the ability to produce darkness and make EVERYONE blind.

In the top of those, you know, that pass the save.

Sometimes it's a mess to cast it because combat is very various and can various thing happen. You would not catch in the effect companions, summons, fighters. Being smart help most times but depends if you are acting or reacting.

Most times is a good to reveal invisible enemies but I find it a "delayer" of combat mostly, like fogs. Very good spell indeed.

[Evil Lincoln]

We must find and destroy this thread's phylactery.

[TriOmegaZero]

We must form a fellowship to undertake this quest.

[Lich Thread]

Fools!

[daemonprince]

Fergie wrote:

If you wanted to play a game that was not RLT, you could.

Apparently I missed the day they went over this in optimization talk school, but what is RLT supposed to mean?

[BenignFacist]

.
..
...
....
.....

I have a flimsy premise and hairy crevice full of innane NPCs we can use..

Scene 1: The PUB

Misc. Noble(with beard): ADVENTURES, I NEED ADVENTURES!

*shakes DM screen*

[Dire Mongoose]

daemonprince wrote:

Fergie wrote:

If you wanted to play a game that was not RLT, you could.

Apparently I missed the day they went over this in optimization talk school, but what is RLT supposed to mean?

Rocket launcher tag, that is, the idea that whoever goes first wins.

[CoDzilla]

Fergie wrote:

CoDzilla wrote:

Noticing a pattern here?

Yes. You are mixing in all sorts of 3.5 splat books that increase the power of casters, and house rules that make casters more powerful. Then complaining that Pathfinder is unbalanced.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

Perhaps in Bizarro land, making enemies have better defenses vs casters makes casters stronger. In the real world, the one we are all actually living and playing in it makes them weaker. Not to mention all of that is quite irrelevant to doing HP damage. Which is what my "Noticing a pattern here?" actually referred to.

Quote:

I know you don't see giving casters more spells makes them more powerful, so I don't know what to say. If you wanted to play a game that was not RLT, you could. Probably two sentences of house rules, and sticking to Pathfinder Core, would fix most of your complaints, but instead you choose RLT, then complain up a storm.

No, I choose to reduce RLT, by incorporating the things that reduce it, rather than PF core where the only types of characters that function are save or lose spammers, and you have +absurd DC, while everything has weak saves. Which aside from being more RLT than any previous edition of D&D, is also quite unenjoyable due to the complete lack of variety in functional characters both as PCs and as opposition for said PCs. Though, it is worth mentioning that even the non caster enemies are still capable of doing enough damage to play Rocket Tag.

ciretose wrote:

CoDzilla wrote:

Because blinded enemies (a mere 2nd level spell) aren't shut down? You've never actually cast Glitterdust, have you? -90% combat effectiveness = shut down. Same deal for other, low level effects. You fail the save, you might as well just sit this one out.

No, don't waste my time and yours by bringing up the entirely meaningless "nerf" of that spell. It's still a spell that wins a large subset of fights on the spot, and a shrinking, but still non zero subset of fights at higher levels.

So yes, it is very much still RLT. And since you get massive DCs, and everyone has the same or lower saves your rockets are stronger, not weaker.

Here are the things that reduce RLT:

(Mass) Conviction and Greater/Superior Resistance. Save boosts = less RLT. 3.5 rules though.
Ignoring the PF caster rules. Less DC boosts = less RLT. Again, 3.5 rules.
(Mass) Resurgence. Oh look, 3.5 rules again.

Noticing a pattern here?

Glitterdust allows a save every round, if you don't make the inital save, on their turn. It is also only a round per level, even if it didn't.

Not to mention the difference between blinded (Pg. 565 of core) and dead.

Have a nice day.

Actually reading the posts you are responding to is a useful and helpful practice. Also, Glitterdust has a minimum duration of 3 rounds. You are dead in 1-2, even without it. Not to mention that combats have a duration of 1-3 rounds. So you are blind the entire fight. Regardless of whether you die in it or not.

Dire Mongoose wrote:

daemonprince wrote:

Fergie wrote:

If you wanted to play a game that was not RLT, you could.

Apparently I missed the day they went over this in optimization talk school, but what is RLT supposed to mean?

Rocket launcher tag, that is, the idea that whoever goes first wins.

Not quite. That's the most likely result of it, but RLT simply refers to any sort of exceedingly lethal combat, that will likely kill participants very quickly. Just like playing tag with rocket launchers. In other words, it describes D&D of all editions other than 4th to varying degrees, and it describes PF more than 3.5 due to PF raising magical offense but ignoring or lowering magical defense.

[BenignFacist]

.
..
...
....
.....

some dude on tEh IntrAWebz wrote:

Reading comprehension is your friend.

NO, REALLY, IT IS NOT

Spoiler:

>>*Explosive Runes*<<

*Shakes Fist*

[Kryzbyn]

I love wall of text responses that equate to "So's yur face!".

<looks for the phylactery>

Hark! I see it there guarded by the most foul undead vermin!
Zombie Squirrels!

<DUN DUN DUUUUUN>

[BenignFacist]

Kryzbyn wrote:

I love wall of text responses that equate to "So's yur face!".

<looks for the phylactery>

Hark! I see it there guarded by the most foul undead vermin!
Zombie Squirrels!

<DUN DUN DUUUUUN>

*Casts Shield on nuts*

Defend the Cashews!

*Shakes Fist*

[Kryzbyn]

I now quote the immortal words of the Sham WOW! guy who said:

"You're gonna love my nuts!".

[TriOmegaZero]

Kryzbyn wrote:

I now quote the immortal words of the Sham WOW! guy who said:

"You're gonna love my nuts!".

I prefer Kung Pow: Enter the Fist:

THAT'S A LOT OF NUTS!

[ciretose]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

We must form a fellowship to undertake this quest.

You can have my sword!

I am Ronald, of the clan McDonald, but I cannot fry.

There can be only bun.

@CoDzilla - Saying not to talk about the fact a spell was nerfed doesn't change the fact that it was, in fact, nerfed.

Have a wonderful day.

[BenignFacist]

Kryzbyn wrote:

I now quote the immortal words of the Sham WOW! guy who said:

"You're gonna love my nuts!".

I DISPUTE SUCH ANY CLAIM THAT INFERS/IMPLIES/IMPLODES NUTS, THE LOVING OF NUTS, BOTH IN GENERAL AND SPECIFICALLY REGARDING PERSON OR PERSONS EITHER IMAGINARY, LIVING, DEAD OR MISC. IN CAPS.

Does anyone have knowledge: Threadomancy?

*shakes fist*

[Kryzbyn]

My fav is...
"At that moment the Chosen One learned an important lesson about iron claws...

THEY HURT LIKE CRAP, MAN!!"

[Lich Thread]

Telekinesis on Kryzbyn - trip

Quickened Dispel Magic on the NutShield

Villain Laughter observing the overwhelming advance of the Squirrel Swarm

[TriOmegaZero]

Kryzbyn wrote:

My fav is...

"At that moment the Chosen One learned an important lesson about iron claws...

THEY HURT LIKE CRAP, MAN!!"

I love that movie so much.

[BenignFacist]

LazarX wrote:

see wrote:

Evil Lincoln wrote:

Chess is a simpler game by far, and it's impossible solve that game mathematically.

Actually, chess is solvable. Oh, it might as a matter of actual computation require more time than the universe will exist, but that makes it unsolvable merely in practice, not mathematically.

It's not nearly that big a problem. Computers like Big Blue win chess games over humans not because they are geniuses, but because they can essentially brute-force it by playing out extended consequences for a variety of moves very rapidly.

Maybe a better analogy would be the game of Go - we've yet to build a machine that can emulate even a high proffesional level of play.

Tis an awesome game!

*shakes fist*