|
Which is exactly the point of the exercise I proposed. I refute your "smart wizard" argument as simply a Schrödinger variant unless it can be shown as it is being built through the course of an adventure, while contributing/surviving along the way.Part of the problem I see with your claim here ciretose is that you've already admitted you actively avoid people that 'play that way' -- which means evidence can't be provided because you actively seek to avoid it.
Please note that people have been saying on the theoretical level wizards are mechanically more powerful -- (I try to make sure every time I personally stated that a prepared was mechanically more powerful that I also pointed out this is on a theoretical level).
At that level I don't see how you could possibly make a case that it isn't. You can't provide rules or something that proves that a wizard can not do what has been claimed -- the best you can do is give specific situations where it might not be possible.
That's hardly a good argument to be trying to make. The rules and evidence is there that (again on the theoretical level) a prepared caster (specifically wizards) are more powerful than spontaneous casters (specifically sorcerers).
At a practical level there are many, many, many more factors that have to be considered. Enough so that an actual analysis of practical results is almost impossible (everything from setting, to player skill, to GM skill, to specific campaign, to books available on).
When the system is considered as a whole outside of actual play experience a prepared caster has many advantages over a spontaneous caster -- how that plays out in an actual game however can be anyone's guess.
I don’t feel you are representing my position fairly.
When I say I don’t play with people who play “that way” I am referring to rules lawyers and loophole seekers who demand spaced encounters, 15 minute workdays,...
This is true but if we use the same token here then the Sorcerer is actually worse off. The Wizard can always change his "whole entire selection of spells" to be ready for the next fight, which he may choose wrong again if he doesn't have any info but the Sorcerer can't change is selection. Having more spells per day is irrelevant when your spell selection isn't going to effect the current encounter.
There is another disadvantage to a Sorcerer that I have taken advantage of during a long campaign and that is versus a reoccurring villain, especially a smart one. I have had a villain actually keep track of what spells the sorcerer threw at him by using a Spellcraft check. Eventually the villain knew pretty much what the sorcerer had spellwise so it gave the villain an edge over the sorcerer.
|
|
I will say this. If there is a crazy spell, feat combo like the whole Locate City rubbish where there is a 5 hour long discussion in which every word of every entry is broken down to see if it will work doesn't even make it to our games. This little trick has never actually been proven to work and it has never been proven not to work but if there is any question about a crazy and absurd combo then it isn't allowed.
|
|
All you'd really ever do with the class was blast, blast, and blast.That was the whole purpose of the Warmage was to "blast, blast, blast". It was a superb class for what it was designed to do. The Warmage was not designed to be a primary spellcasting class, it was designed to work along side the Wizard because the Wizard took care of utility while the Warmage blast the hell out of everything. One of my best characters ever was a Wizard/Warmage/Ultimate Magus who then continued on to Wizard/Warmage/Ultimate Magus/Cleric/Mystic Theurge. Now for that game we rolled our stats so I had a fantastic Int, Wis, Cha, and Dex.
You can't fault the class for being a blaster when that was it's design purpose.
Thing is we've got blaster casters. The Warmage is too much of everything already packed in? Do I need to purchase scrolls to learn? Do I need to worry about what spells to choose? No, because I've got everything. The Warmage is the ultimate idiot caster's dream in that there is absolutely no choices in that class and if there is a cookie cutter class, this one is it.
You want a Warmage in Pathfinder? There's no reason to wait for a Paizo doover which can't be done. Up the hit dice one to D8 and you're done.
It'll still be a crappy class with practically nothing for defense save a bit of armor with none of the battlefield control spells available.
The Warmage is hyper-specialist compared to the sorcerer, and is extremely limited compared to the Magus who is the true Mage of War we've been waiting for.
What the Warmage does it eliminates the frustration that the Sorcerer can have on a player when it comes to choosing which spells they think will be the most useful. The entire spell list is all there so you know upfront what you are getting into. Now Warmage Edge and Advanced Learning are great abilities, sure you can only choose from the Evocation school but there are some handy Evocation spells to choose from.
I once ran a D&D game where I had a Red Dragon who was a Warmage instead of a Sorcerer and he rocked. All he did was destroy everything in his path.
|
|
I don't know how much credit I can give to a bag with teeth.A bag with teeth.Warmages are only an inch before Swashbucklers, Truenamers and Samurai in the "why bother" department, and that's not saying much good about the class I'm afraid.Says who?
Dunno, but not much more than shallow-souled liches I am afraid.
Looks more like a devouring haversack, i'd avoid putting your hand near it.
|
|
What the Warmage does it eliminates the frustration that the Sorcerer can have on a player when it comes to choosing which spells they think will be the most useful. The entire spell list is all there so you know upfront what you are getting into. Now Warmage Edge and Advanced Learning are great abilities, sure you can only choose from the Evocation school but there are some handy Evocation spells to choose from.
What it eliminates is practically any thought on character design. Sure you don't need to worry about choices.... because there are practically none to make.
I once ran a D&D game where I had a Red Dragon who was a Warmage instead of a Sorcerer and he rocked. All he did was destroy everything in his path.He's a Dragon... A Red Dragon. You can load up a Red Dragon with nothing but divination spells, or not make him a caster at all, and if he's not destroying everything in his path, it's because you're doing something wrong.
I imagine things would be quite different if he was a puny Human now... without all those built in racial advantages and defensive buffs that come with being a Dragon.
Whoa there fella! There is plenty of design with regards to the class, it was designed to be a simple blaster type character, what part of that do you not seem to understand? You are discrediting the class for something it does 100% what it was designed to do.
Your Red Dragon comment has absolutely nothing to do with mine I'm afraid. I never stated that a Red Dragon needs to be a Warmage in order to reek havoc. What does the puny human phrase have to do with the discussion?
|
By the same score a theoretical situation in which a wizard can never use his advantage is absolute rubbish.
The fact is that if a wizard makes bad choices for daily spells like you suggest then they are boned for that DAY, if a sorcerer suffers from the same issue then they are boned for FOUR levels.
The wizard CAN leave open slots to use utility spells, the sorcerer CANNOT do this.
This presumes you will have a quiet place to meditate for 15 minutes in the dungeon, and that when you have a series of encounters in a row you will have that useful spell memorized more than once when you need it more than once, at that moment.
This is what I think will be shown in the other thread. You can't generally just stop in the middle of a dungeon and tell all the baddies to wait while you fill that empty slot. You often want to cast spells multiple times a day, but you rarely want to have to use slots multiple times to do so.
By the same score a theoretical situation in which a wizard can never use his advantage is absolute rubbish.
The fact is that if a wizard makes bad choices for daily spells like you suggest then they are boned for that DAY, if a sorcerer suffers from the same issue then they are boned for FOUR levels.
The wizard CAN leave open slots to use utility spells, the sorcerer CANNOT do this.
This presumes you will have a quiet place to meditate for 15 minutes in the dungeon, and that when you have a series of encounters in a row you will have that useful spell memorized more than once when you need it more than once, at that moment.
This is what I think will be shown in the other thread. You can't generally just stop in the middle of a dungeon and tell all the baddies to wait while you fill that empty slot. You often want to cast spells multiple times a day, but you rarely want to have to use slots multiple times to do so.
I'm having trouble being polite when you do not even read my posts, the ABILITY the leave slots open to use on utility spells is not prevaricated on being able to use them in the context of an adventure.
The fact that you cling to this thought that not having an option because you may not be able to use it being better than having an option incase you can use it is utter rubbish.
Saying that the situations which you describe in which the wizard is unable to use this ability are almost certainly going to come up in a game of a certain length is the exact same as saying situations in which the wizard is able to use this ability are almost certainly going to come up in a game of the same length.
This is true but if we use the same token here then the Sorcerer is actually worse off. The Wizard can always change his "whole entire selection of spells" to be ready for the next fight, which he may choose wrong again if he doesn't have any info but the Sorcerer can't change is selection. Having more spells per day is irrelevant when your spell selection isn't going to effect the current encounter.
There is another disadvantage to a Sorcerer that I have taken advantage of during a long campaign and that is versus a reoccurring villain, especially a smart one. I have had a villain actually keep track of what spells the sorcerer threw at him by using a Spellcraft check. Eventually the villain knew pretty much what the sorcerer had spellwise so it gave the villain an edge over the sorcerer.
Especially problematic when stuff like Spell Immunity is used, and is keyed against your only spells. O.o
EDIT:
Back -- sorry for the delay.
Ciretose I am not trying to misrepresent your position and I am sorry you feel that way. Theoretical exercise however is exactly what you are asking for. I can provide you anecdotal evidence from my wizard "Rauph Le'Mao" if you like but honestly you can easily provide counter arguments -- which brings us to the exact problem with your position that theoretical knowledge and comparisons are useless: they are the only way to prove anything universally about any system.
You don't prove a square is a rectangle by using specific example -- you prove it in abstract -- in theory. To claim that theory isn't of any value is the exact same thing as saying you are quite capable of ignoring gravity since "it's only a theory" or any other such hogwash.
this thread is useless bla bla bla. "Untested theory is fairly useless. Debate without context is equally useless. So pure theory crafted abstract wizards"
So why do you post in this thread?
You sound a lot like: "the computer says no.|
|
Both classes fill the same role, and can radically change an encounter with just a spell or two. I don't have enough experience with some of the newer classes (like oracle) to really say.
If you try to play him as a cleric an oracle is weaker. If you play him as a oracle he is on par or even stronger.
The key to the oracle aren't his spells but his mystery and his curse.
Both classes fill the same role, and can radically change an encounter with just a spell or two. I don't have enough experience with some of the newer classes (like oracle) to really say.If you try to play him as a cleric an oracle is weaker. If you play him as a oracle he is on par or even stronger.
The key to the oracle aren't his spells but his mystery and his curse.
The thing I hate the most about the oracle is how you are force-fed fluff on your character. There is virtually no way to craft a character with a different concept or fluff than what is laid out before you, because you are being handed a character trait (such as blind, deaf, mute, lame, talks gibberish, etc) whether your concept warrants it or not, for abilities which are often ho-hum or purely for flavor, and they have still not provided options for non-cursed oracles.
I wanted to play a Juju Oracle for the mystery options to have non-evil undead and stuff, but since none of the curses fit with my character concept at all, and I was getting an inferior spellcaster to being a cleric anyway. So I decided "Screw it, I'll just be a cleric like usual and if the GM decides animating undead has to be evil, well so be it, I'll end up being Neutral since my character is otherwise played as entirely Neutral Good".
But without those mysterious, you're just a crippled spellcaster. A watered down sad excuse for a divine caster. Your base statistics aren't even decent, as your saving throws are inferior to a standard cleric, which makes you easier to take out whether you're trying to be a CoDzilla tank or party support. With those mysterious, you're still below average.
Back -- sorry for the delay.
Ciretose I am not trying to misrepresent your position and I am sorry you feel that way. Theoretical exercise however is exactly what you are asking for. I can provide you anecdotal evidence from my wizard "Rauph Le'Mao" if you like but honestly you can easily provide counter arguments -- which brings us to the exact problem with your position that theoretical knowledge and comparisons are useless: they are the only way to prove anything universally about any system.
You don't prove a square is a rectangle by using specific example -- you prove it in abstract -- in theory. To claim that theory isn't of any value is the exact same thing as saying you are quite capable of ignoring gravity since "it's only a theory" or any other such hogwash.
Not to mention that what Ciretose suggests in his other thread is nothing but his own brand of theory crafting. He doesn't actually want to play through a real game, but just present builds to a panel of judges who may or may not consider them for their worth, and then decree a winner. Having considered it, I realize this is just as flawed as actually citing the rules or giving examples of stuff you might come across.
I think most actually wanted to try playing in said game. I know a few people asked if it would be a PbP and I suggested OpenRPG. However, those possibilities were ruled out.
I'm still flabbergasted that people are still suggesting that not being able to do something at all is somehow equal or better to not being able to do something right now. Even the 3.x DMG discussed the ability for players to acquire ways of getting around obstacles, and suggests taking off the kid gloves as they grow higher. It suggests that at higher levels you don't need to worry about what they have, but what is within their means. It gives an example of a wall of force blocking their way, and explains that even if they don't have the ability to bypass it now (wall of force was impervious to damage) they could go and get a way to bypass it. It would be within their means to just prepare a different spell, come back later, etc.
On a side note, the actual text that determines if you can prepare a spell is:
To prepare any spell, a wizard must have enough peace, quiet, and comfort to allow for proper concentration. The wizard's surroundings need not be luxurious, but they must be free from distractions. Exposure to inclement weather prevents the necessary concentration, as does any injury or failed saving throw the character might experience while studying.
The only things that are noted as ruining it is the wizard being under attack or trying to prepare it in weather that is hindering him. Enough "peace, calm, and comfort to allow for proper concentration" is a pretty funny thing generally speaking, since wizards can maintain their concentration pretty well. In fact, the things listed as being able to break a wizard's concentration are as follows.
Concentration
Table: Concentration Check DCs Situation Concentration Check DC
Cast defensively 15 + double spell level
Injured while casting 10 + damage dealt + spell level
Continuous damage while casting 10 + 1/2 damage dealt + spell level
Affected by a non-damaging spell while casting DC of the spell + spell level
Grappled or pinned while casting 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level
Vigorous motion while casting 10 + spell level
Violent motion while casting 15 + spell level
Extremely violent motion while casting 20 + spell level
Wind with rain or sleet while casting 5 + spell level
Wind with hail and debris while casting 10 + spell level
Weather caused by spell see spell
Entangled while casting 15 + spell levelTo cast a spell, you must concentrate. If something interrupts your concentration while you're casting, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell. When you make a concentration check, you roll d20 and add your caster level and the ability score modifier used to determine bonus spells of the same type. Clerics, druids, and rangers add their Wisdom modifier. Bards, paladins, and sorcerers add their Charisma modifier. Finally, wizards add their Intelligence modifier. The more distracting the interruption and the higher the level of the spell you are trying to cast, the higher the DC (see Table: Concentration Check DCs). If you fail the check, you lose the spell just as if you had cast it to no effect.
Injury: If you take damage while trying to cast a spell, you must make a concentration check with a DC equal to 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you're casting. If you fail the check, you lose the spell without effect. The interrupting event strikes during spellcasting if it comes between the time you started and the time you complete a spell (for a spell with a casting time of 1 full round or more) or if it comes in response to your casting the spell (such as an attack of opportunity provoked by the spell or a contingent attack, such as a readied action).
If you are taking continuous damage, such as from an acid arrow or by standing in a lake of lava, half the damage is considered to take place while you are casting a spell. You must make a concentration check with a DC equal to 10 + 1/2 the damage that the continuous source last dealt + the level of the spell you're casting. If the last damage dealt was the last damage that the effect could deal, then the damage is over and does not distract you.
Spell: If you are affected by a spell while attempting to cast a spell of your own, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell you are casting. If the spell affecting you deals damage, the DC is 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you're casting.
If the spell interferes with you or distracts you in some other way, the DC is the spell's saving throw DC + the level of the spell you're casting. For a spell with no saving throw, it's the DC that the spell's saving throw would have if a save were allowed (10 + spell level + caster's ability score).
Grappling or Pinned: The only spells you can cast while grappling or pinned are those without somatic components and whose material components (if any) you have in hand. Even so, you must make a concentration check (DC 10 + the grappler's CMB + the level of the spell you're casting) or lose the spell.
Vigorous Motion: If you are riding on a moving mount, taking a bouncy ride in a wagon, on a small boat in rough water, belowdecks in a storm-tossed ship, or simply being jostled in a similar fashion, you must make a concentration check (DC 10 + the level of the spell you're casting) or lose the spell.
Violent Motion: If you are on a galloping horse, taking a very rough ride in a wagon, on a small boat in rapids or in a storm, on deck in a storm-tossed ship, or being pitched roughly about in a similar fashion, you must make a concentration check (DC 15 + the level of the spell you're casting) or lose the spell. If the motion is extremely violent, such as that caused by an earthquake, the DC is equal to 20 + the level of the spell you're casting.
Violent Weather: You must make a concentration check if you try to cast a spell in violent weather. If you are in a high wind carrying blinding rain or sleet, the DC is 5 + the level of the spell you're casting. If you are in wind-driven hail, dust, or debris, the DC is 10 + the level of the spell you're casting. In either case, you lose the spell if you fail the concentration check. If the weather is caused by a spell, use the rules as described in the spell's description.
Casting Defensively: If you want to cast a spell without provoking any attacks of opportunity, you must make a concentration check (DC 15 + double the level of the spell you're casting) to succeed. You lose the spell if you fail.
Entangled: If you want to cast a spell while entangled in a net or by a tanglefoot bag or while you're affected by a spell with similar effects, you must make a concentration check to cast the spell (DC 15 + the level of the spell you're casting). You lose the spell if you fail.
So barring being under attack by something, the wizard can generally concentrate on what he is doing.
Oh, Ashiel i never thought of it before but i wonder if my wizard can memorise spells while riding a phantom steed at a leisurely pace. its not distracting, i am taking no actions other than sitting, i can read while on horse back, as long as my horse isn't running flat out it doesn't even require a concentration check to cast.
I just think its a pretty picture, a wizard sitting on the back of his summoned mount looking at his blessed book with a furrow of concentration on his brow while the rogue up ahead is on point keeping an eye out, the figher and the cleric arguing in the background "Maces!", "No! Swords!", "No! Maces!"...
|
|
Both classes fill the same role, and can radically change an encounter with just a spell or two. I don't have enough experience with some of the newer classes (like oracle) to really say.If you try to play him as a cleric an oracle is weaker. If you play him as a oracle he is on par or even stronger.
The key to the oracle aren't his spells but his mystery and his curse.The thing I hate the most about the oracle is how you are force-fed fluff on your character. There is virtually no way to craft a character with a different concept or fluff than what is laid out before you, because you are being handed a character trait (such as blind, deaf, mute, lame, talks gibberish, etc) whether your concept warrants it or not, for abilities which are often ho-hum or purely for flavor, and they have still not provided options for non-cursed oracles.
I wanted to play a Juju Oracle for the mystery options to have non-evil undead and stuff, but since none of the curses fit with my character concept at all, and I was getting an inferior spellcaster to being a cleric anyway. So I decided "Screw it, I'll just be a cleric like usual and if the GM decides animating undead has to be evil, well so be it, I'll end up being Neutral since my character is otherwise played as entirely Neutral Good".
But without those mysterious, you're just a crippled spellcaster. A watered down sad excuse for a divine caster. Your base statistics aren't even decent, as your saving throws are inferior to a standard cleric, which makes you easier to take out whether you're trying to be a CoDzilla tank or party support. With those mysterious, you're still below average.
I think you have made my point. If you try to play him as a cleric it is a weaker cleric.
Sure, both the available mysteries and curses could fail to meet the requirements of your idea, but the whole oracle concept is of someone defined by those things.
Oh, Ashiel i never thought of it before but i wonder if my wizard can memorise spells while riding a phantom steed at a leisurely pace. its not distracting, i am taking no actions other than sitting, i can read while on horse back, as long as my horse isn't running flat out it doesn't even require a concentration check to cast.
I just think its a pretty picture, a wizard sitting on the back of his summoned mount looking at his blessed book with a furrow of concentration on his brow while the rogue up ahead is on point keeping an eye out, the figher and the cleric arguing in the background "Maces!", "No! Swords!", "No! Maces!"...
Whit the horse walking at a leisure pace on level terrain (or with a phantom horse plodding 10 inches above the actual ground)? Feasible.
But be ready to fail every perception check and riding check you will have to do.
Both classes fill the same role, and can radically change an encounter with just a spell or two. I don't have enough experience with some of the newer classes (like oracle) to really say.If you try to play him as a cleric an oracle is weaker. If you play him as a oracle he is on par or even stronger.
The key to the oracle aren't his spells but his mystery and his curse.The thing I hate the most about the oracle is how you are force-fed fluff on your character. There is virtually no way to craft a character with a different concept or fluff than what is laid out before you, because you are being handed a character trait (such as blind, deaf, mute, lame, talks gibberish, etc) whether your concept warrants it or not, for abilities which are often ho-hum or purely for flavor, and they have still not provided options for non-cursed oracles.
I wanted to play a Juju Oracle for the mystery options to have non-evil undead and stuff, but since none of the curses fit with my character concept at all, and I was getting an inferior spellcaster to being a cleric anyway. So I decided "Screw it, I'll just be a cleric like usual and if the GM decides animating undead has to be evil, well so be it, I'll end up being Neutral since my character is otherwise played as entirely Neutral Good".
But without those mysterious, you're just a crippled spellcaster. A watered down sad excuse for a divine caster. Your base statistics aren't even decent, as your saving throws are inferior to a standard cleric, which makes you easier to take out whether you're trying to be a CoDzilla tank or party support. With those mysterious, you're still below average.
I think you have made my point. If you try to play him as a cleric it is a weaker cleric.
Sure, both the available mysteries and curses could fail to meet the requirements of your idea, but the whole oracle concept is of someone defined by those things.
So educate me on what makes an oracle good. I'll admit I've honestly not found much use for them, but yet I may have easily missed something. I've just seen no oracle made that didn't disappoint. What would you suggest doing differently?
Oh, Ashiel i never thought of it before but i wonder if my wizard can memorise spells while riding a phantom steed at a leisurely pace. its not distracting, i am taking no actions other than sitting, i can read while on horse back, as long as my horse isn't running flat out it doesn't even require a concentration check to cast.
I just think its a pretty picture, a wizard sitting on the back of his summoned mount looking at his blessed book with a furrow of concentration on his brow while the rogue up ahead is on point keeping an eye out, the figher and the cleric arguing in the background "Maces!", "No! Swords!", "No! Maces!"...
By the rules, yes, yes you can.
On the oracle/cleric debate i actually prefer playing an oracle due to the revelations. spell casting wise they are less powerful than clerics due to the sponaneous vs prepared casting but they have the potential to be powerhouses if you focus them on one thing.
My back up character if my current wizard passes on and cannot be ressed is going to be a dual cursed (haunted/tongues) life oracle with eldritch bloodline for some arcane bloodline powers (metamagic and extra spells nom nom nom). between having all the cure spells, most of the other situational healing spells (have to pick up remove fear and paralysis really), 2 re rolls a day for everyone near me, the divine interference feat to help negate crits and a reach weapon with a few combat feats i reckon it will be a good supporter. just pick up buffs spells and a few control/removal spells, might pick up destructive dispel and dispel synergy as well.
edit for ashiel: basicly this character gives everyone in the party two rerolls every day, has every cure spell, gives everyone in the party fast healing 5, can turn into a life elemental to avoid crits and heal people in its square, gets access to mass heal at 8th level, doesn't provoke when casting, all cure spells add full caster level, any over cures add temporary hit points for an hour, loads of channels due to cha so can in one round use 2 channels to heal as a move action(via a feat) AND cast a mass cure as a standard action AND use two spell slots to cast another mass cure as a swift action(via a revelation).
feats give it a familiar, standard action metamagic, selected spells from the sorc/wiz list, ability to force npc's to reroll sucessful attack rolls by dropping a spell slot(crit negation basicly), and then if it goes for destructive dispel it stuns when buff stripping, uses a longspear or polearm with power attack if nothing needs healing.
However i will be extremely aware that before level 6 i cannot remove nasty conditions easily and even after level 6 i have to make a choice weather to take a condition removal spell or another buff. if someone gets turned to stone and i don't have break enchantment...
|
|
So educate me on what makes an oracle good. I'll admit I've honestly not found much use for them, but yet I may have easily missed something. I've just seen no oracle made that didn't disappoint. What would you suggest doing differently?
To suit your taste? I doubt any build that can satisfy you exist, as, from your posts, you want a cleric with some different ability.
It is like asking the build that can make a wizard of a bard.
If you want a wizard a bard will always disappoint you.
I don't mean to offend you, it is simply that you seem to want something that the class isn't meant to give.
I've noticed not many have pointed out all the great stuff about playing a Spontaneous Caster.
Like being able to cast quicken spell without having to prepare it in advance. You take your pick.
And a silenced dispel magic cast with a lessen rod of quicken spell is still a 3rd level spell. Thing like that is really awesome.
Or a 3rd level spell cast with the reach meta magic spell and a rod of quicken spell.
As for 'if you can't prove it in a real with a real game example (or whatever)'
Anyone remembers this?
"Deadly Performance (Su): A bard of 20th level or higher
with 20 or more ranks in a Perform skill can use his
performance to cause one enemy to die from joy or sorrow.
To be affected, the target must be able to see and hear the
bard perform and be within 30 feet. To use the ability, a
bard makes a Perform check. His check result is the DC
for each affected creature’s Will save against the effect. If a
creature’s saving throw succeeds, the target is stunned for
1d4 rounds and the bard cannot use deadly performance on
that creature again for 24 hours. If its saving throw fails,
the target dies.“
Some stuff just don't need 10 pages of game play testing and calculations. They don't fly.
The Alpha version of Deadly Performance was just broken. No need to game test it.
|
|
this thread is useless bla bla bla. "Untested theory is fairly useless. Debate without context is equally useless. So pure theory crafted abstract wizards"So why do you post in this thread?
You sound a lot like: "the computer says no.
My position is that if you remove the class from context, it can be any class at any time.
It is the limits of the game that make the game. It is the fact that although you have more options, you still have to select options prior to the time you will use them. The "empty" slot argument makes the assumption you will be given time between encounters to memorize spells you will need, and that you will not run out of spells going into combat less than fully loaded.
When you look at the written adventures, this luxury isn't always provided. In fact, in any kind of dungeon crawl, it simply isn't available.
To discuss what could happen if we removed the wizard from game context is to discuss how awesome it would be if I myself had the ability to cast spells in the real world.
A discussion completely removed from context, and therefore not practically applicable.
My understanding was this was a discussion of the two classes as a comparison for the value they have in the game.
Discussing them outside of the game...well...what is the point, they don't exist outside of the game.
|
|
Not to mention that what Ciretose suggests in his other thread is nothing but his own brand of theory crafting. He doesn't actually want to play through a real game, but just present builds to a panel of judges who may or may not consider them for their worth, and then decree a winner. Having considered it, I realize this is just as flawed as actually citing the rules or giving examples of stuff you might come across.
This is an example of what I was saying earlier about the convenience of quotes and context. You can click over to the other thread and you will see that wasn't what I said.
If you would like to organize a PbP to test all this out, I'd be game. But it would take between months and years to get through a single AP, and I doubt we would be able to agree on a GM.
But I'm game if you are.
On the other hand, what I proposed was a much quicker way to do a fairly reasonable contextual evaluation.
I believe you described my proposal as "sounds fair"
I could link to you saying that if you would like me to. I know it doesn't fit your new narrative of events, but history is like that sometimes.
So educate me on what makes an oracle good. I'll admit I've honestly not found much use for them, but yet I may have easily missed something. I've just seen no oracle made that didn't disappoint. What would you suggest doing differently?To suit your taste? I doubt any build that can satisfy you exist, as, from your posts, you want a cleric with some different ability.
It is like asking the build that can make a wizard of a bard.
If you want a wizard a bard will always disappoint you.I don't mean to offend you, it is simply that you seem to want something that the class isn't meant to give.
Nah seriously. Tell me what they're good for. Show me a good Oracle. You can look at a bard and tell it's not a wizard. Show me how you think an Oracle is built to succeed in the game. EDIT: In other words, show me what the oracle is "meant to give".
I've noticed not many have pointed out all the great stuff about playing a Spontaneous Caster.Like being able to cast quicken spell without having to prepare it in advance. You take your pick.
And a silenced dispel magic cast with a lessen rod of quicken spell is still a 3rd level spell. Thing like that is really awesome.
Or a 3rd level spell cast with the reach meta magic spell and a rod of quicken spell.
able to cast a quickened spell without preparing it in advance is pretty nice, but then a well prepared wizard is putting his "always cast" spells on quicken anyway, i plan on having quickened haste and some quickened control spells in memory. quickening blasting spells is good for spontaneous casters but if i were playing a blaster i posted an optimised one in the advice forum that i think is about as good as it can get. on the flip side of being able to quicken on the fly applying other metamagic feats make you take a full round action to cast which is a big drawback.
why is a silenced dispel magic with a lesser quicken rod still a 3rd level spell? silence still increases the spell level by 1 for sorcerers or oracles..?
or a what? that sentance made no sense to me i am sorry, reach meta magic spell a 3rd level spell, such as say cure serious wounds? so its cast as a 4th level spell from a 4th level slot and you need to use a rod of quicken (not a lesser) to do it as a swift action? exactly the same as a prepared caster but spontaneously?
|
|
"To prepare any spell, a wizard must have enough peace, quiet, and comfort to allow for proper concentration. The wizard's surroundings need not be luxurious, but they must be free from distractions."
I know we are in the middle of a dangerous dungeon, having just loudly killed a dangerous beast, likely drawing the attention of the other enemies nearby and therefore risk of being ambushed at any moment, but I've found my happy place loophole. As long as it doesn't rain...
For the record, the only issue I have with phantom steed is you need to steer the phantom steed.
Not to mention that what Ciretose suggests in his other thread is nothing but his own brand of theory crafting. He doesn't actually want to play through a real game, but just present builds to a panel of judges who may or may not consider them for their worth, and then decree a winner. Having considered it, I realize this is just as flawed as actually citing the rules or giving examples of stuff you might come across.
If you would like to organize a PbP to test all this out, I'd be game. But it would take between months and years to get through a single AP, and I doubt we would be able to agree on a GM.
But I'm game if you are.
On the other hand, what I proposed was a much quicker way to do a fairly reasonable contextual evaluation.
For example looking at the opening sequence of Rise of the Runelords, if I were a judge looking the beginner box party I would rate them as follows:
1. Fighter – Can one hit kill most of the time and unlikely to be hit.
2. Cleric – Healer will be helpful during the pauses, but having Father Zantus means it isn’t mission critical. May be first if not for Father Zantus being present considering healing likely needed over three consecutive conflicts.
3. Rogue- Skills not that useful and will be dependent on fighter for flanking.
4. Wizard- Will likely be great for one of the three encounters, but will likely run out of non-cantrips very quickly and low hit points and ac will leave vulnerable. A sorcerer would be much higher, possibly number one with multiple color sprays or the like. But a 1st level wizard isn't going to have the spells for such a drawn out encounter.Something short and sweet like that from each judge for each encounter. Over time it will be clear if one person is lagging or not.
The AP is what it is. We aren't adding or subtracting, because we aren't actually running the AP. Your character will be judged on the contribution the judges feel they will make to the encounters as written.
Period.
I believe you described my proposal as "sounds fair"
I could link to you saying that if you would like me to. I know it doesn't fit your new narrative of events, but history is like that sometimes.
Not to mention that what Ciretose suggests in his other thread is nothing but his own brand of theory crafting. He doesn't actually want to play through a real game, but just present builds to a panel of judges who may or may not consider them for their worth, and then decree a winner. Having considered it, I realize this is just as flawed as actually citing the rules or giving examples of stuff you might come across.
"To prepare any spell, a wizard must have enough peace, quiet, and comfort to allow for proper concentration. The wizard's surroundings need not be luxurious, but they must be free from distractions."
Exactly. Enough peace, quiet, and comfort to allow for proper concentration. Concentrating is a standard action that can be interrupted by Bad Things (TM). It doesn't require absolute silence, a cushy fluffy pillow, or a spring day over a meadow. It's just enough to allow for proper concentration. Concentration is defined.
You call it a loophole, the rules call it the game.
|
|
Having considered it, I realize this is just as flawed as actually citing the rules or giving examples of stuff you might come across.
Which means you agreed to it and then changed your mind when I wouldn't let you re-write the AP.
Which I think was completely reasonable since one of the main purposes of the experiment was to take something neither of us could mess with and plug players into it. Allowing you to re-write the AP defeats the whole purpose.
You also forget I let you pick any AP. I just won't let you change the AP as written. Which seems completely reasonable to me.
And as I said, if you can find a GM we both agree to, I'll do your PbP. It will take either months or years, but sure.
And I won't back out later.
|
|
"To prepare any spell, a wizard must have enough peace, quiet, and comfort to allow for proper concentration. The wizard's surroundings need not be luxurious, but they must be free from distractions."Exactly. Enough peace, quiet, and comfort to allow for proper concentration. Concentrating is a standard action that can be interrupted by Bad Things (TM). It doesn't require absolute silence, a cushy fluffy pillow, or a spring day over a meadow. It's just enough to allow for proper concentration. Concentration is defined.
You call it a loophole, the rules call it the game.
Sure, when you gloss over the "must be free from distractions" part.
I'm going to have to throw a flag so to speak at the idea of just being in the dungeon being enough to distract you on a couple of points:
1. What constitutes a dungeon? I mean there are plenty of 'dungeon' encounters that happen in houses, castles, warehouses, crypts, glassworks, et al to make this a very valid question.
2. Clear and present danger is one thing -- and I agree that such would make it difficult to concentrate, but to say that just because something could jump you at any moment is enough to keep you from concentrating would be to say you can never concentrate since at any moment something could jump you. I would argue that if its a situation someone could take 20 in then things are plenty calm enough to concentrate for preparing spells.
3. If I'm not allow to metagame awareness of the 'distraction' in order to be prepared before the creature strikes then you can't hold the possibility of a distraction becoming evident against me either. Either I know something is about to jump me or I don't -- if I don't then I'm fine to concentrate to prepare spells, if I do then I'm going to roll initiative and ready my action to act before it does.
|
|
In all fairness it really depends on the situation. If you leave spell slots open you are not always going to have the time to fill them and you shouldn't expect it. If you are fighting a bunch of goblins and a few flee the room then don't be surprised when you sit down to fill those slots that hoards of reinforcements show up 10 minutes later.
Having considered it, I realize this is just as flawed as actually citing the rules or giving examples of stuff you might come across.Which means you agreed to it and then changed your mind when I wouldn't let you re-write the AP.
Which I think was completely reasonable since one of the main purposes of the experiment was to take something neither of us could mess with and plug players into it. Allowing you to re-write the AP defeats the whole purpose.
Like you said, we wouldn't actually be playing the AP. Having considered it, I realized your premise is just as flawed as the ones you are trying to break away from. I realized, no matter what AP I chose, it would still be just as flawed because it would just be a panel of judges making assertions based on what they thought would be useful in a given encounter which is the same damn thing we're doing now.
Sure, when you gloss over the "must be free from distractions" part.
Distractions are called out in the rules for concentrating on things, as well as for maintaining concentration (which is needed for several types of spells). You don't get to just assume Concentration means anything at all. Sorry, you just don't have that power. Concentration and distractions are called out in the very chapter that cites them as being prerequisites for preparing a spell.
You can try to say it's a loophole or try to worm your way around it all day long until you're black and blue in the face from arguing, but concentration and distractions to concentration are already spelled out in the rules.
|
|
I'm going to have to throw a flag so to speak at the idea of just being in the dungeon being enough to distract you on a couple of points:
1. What constitutes a dungeon? I mean there are plenty of 'dungeon' encounters that happen in houses, castles, warehouses, crypts, glassworks, et al to make this a very valid question.
2. Clear and present danger is one thing -- and I agree that such would make it difficult to concentrate, but to say that just because something could jump you at any moment is enough to keep you from concentrating would be to say you can never concentrate since at any moment something could jump you. I would argue that if its a situation someone could take 20 in then things are plenty calm enough to concentrate for preparing spells.
3. If I'm not allow to metagame awareness of the 'distraction' in order to be prepared before the creature strikes then you can't hold the possibility of a distraction becoming evident against me either. Either I know something is about to jump me or I don't -- if I don't then I'm fine to concentrate to prepare spells, if I do then I'm going to roll initiative and ready my action to act before it does.
Respectfully, if "Exposure to inclement weather prevents the necessary concentration" the threshold of distraction doesn't seem to be that high to me.
If I can't focus when it is raining, I will probably have difficulty focusing in an area I know to be actively dangeroud.
I am not saying you can't ever do it, but I am saying that mid-dungeon without a lot of precautions and defenses put up specifically to create "enough peace, quiet, and comfort to allow for proper concentration" it shouldn't be a given between encounters.
As an example, in the other thread, I would consider both encounters 4, 5 and 6 areas that would not be suitable unless the party came to full stop and set up an area specifically for that purpose, and even then given the layout it would be very likely they would be attacked there while they were "meditating" given the nature of the settings.
I think those areas are pretty much par for the course.
You are not presenting the 'a little rain' correctly on concentration checks:
Violent Weather
You must make a concentration check if you try to cast a spell in violent weather. If you are in a high wind carrying blinding rain or sleet, the DC is 5 + the level of the spell you're casting. If you are in wind-driven hail, dust, or debris, the DC is 10 + the level of the spell you're casting. In either case, you lose the spell if you fail the concentration check. If the weather is caused by a spell, use the rules as described in the spell's description.
This is a bit more than a bit of a drizzle.
|
|
Preparation Environment: To prepare any spell, a wizard
must have enough peace, quiet, and comfort to allow
for proper concentration. The wizard’s surroundings
need not be luxurious, but they must be free from distractions.
Exposure to inclement weather prevents the necessary concentration, as does any injury or failed saving throw the character might experience while studying. Wizards also must have access to their spellbooks to study from and sufficient light to read them. There is one major
exception: a wizard can prepare a read magic spell even without a spellbook.
Basically you need quiet time.
|
|
Having considered it, I realize this is just as flawed as actually citing the rules or giving examples of stuff you might come across.Which means you agreed to it and then changed your mind when I wouldn't let you re-write the AP.
Which I think was completely reasonable since one of the main purposes of the experiment was to take something neither of us could mess with and plug players into it. Allowing you to re-write the AP defeats the whole purpose.
Like you said, we wouldn't actually be playing the AP. Having considered it, I realized your premise is just as flawed as the ones you are trying to break away from. I realized, no matter what AP I chose, it would still be just as flawed because it would just be a panel of judges making assertions based on what they thought would be useful in a given encounter which is the same damn thing we're doing now.
Sure, when you gloss over the "must be free from distractions" part.Distractions are called out in the rules for concentrating on things, as well as for maintaining concentration (which is needed for several types of spells). You don't get to just assume Concentration means anything at all. Sorry, you just don't have that power. Concentration and distractions are called out in the very chapter that cites them as being prerequisites for preparing a spell.
You can try to say it's a loophole or try to worm your way around it all day long until you're black and blue in the face from arguing, but concentration and distractions to concentration are already spelled out in the rules.
On the first point: One is playing rules written by a neutral third party who write scenarios professionally.
One is each side making up straw men to fit whatever argument each side is making at the time.
Yup...same thing...
On the second point, I see that you can assume the meaning for distraction, but I am being presumptious about the meaning of concentration...uh huh...
As I said, the threshold for distraction is rain. Concentration checks are made for spells in combat, while I've never heard of a need for a concentration check for...rain.
But hey, YMMV. Whatever way you can make your game work for how you want to play your game, get down with your bad self.
In all fairness it really depends on the situation. If you leave spell slots open you are not always going to have the time to fill them and you shouldn't expect it. If you are fighting a bunch of goblins and a few flee the room then don't be surprised when you sit down to fill those slots that hoards of reinforcements show up 10 minutes later.
If you couldn't stop them from escaping, you are going to have to deal with those hordes either way. On a side note, wizards also have the option to pick up the ability to quick-prepare spells, making them require 1 minute. In the same scenario the wizard could potentially have 0-10 spells prepared by the time the goblins came along. Assuming, of course, you decided now was the time you needed to prepare your extra spell.
However, in either case, the sorcerer has no option to do so. If his spell selection doesn't suit the problems he faces, then he has no way to even try and adjust his options.
It's all a matter of "what if", which is the question we should always be asking. "What if" is the secret to success in an RPG. The problem however is the sorcerer always has the same answer, regardless of the question, be it wrong or right. A wizard has the option of trying to pass the multiple choice quiz.
Sure, the goblins got away and in 10 minutes the goblin hordes are going to be bearing down on you and your party. Hell, you might not even have 10 minutes. It might be a good time to head for the hills, or the valleys, or work on barring up the door. You might have some useful spells. You're going up against goblin hordes? Maybe it's a good thing you have web as one of your generically useful memorized spells. Maybe all you have left is magic missile and should make a tactical retreat because you and your party stirred up a hornet's nest of goblins.
That's 1 scenario with all sorts of considerations to be made. What about the other bajillion scenarios that are possible? Options are always better.
|
|
You are not presenting the 'a little rain' correctly on concentration checks:
This is a bit more than a bit of a drizzle.Violent Weather
You must make a concentration check if you try to cast a spell in violent weather. If you are in a high wind carrying blinding rain or sleet, the DC is 5 + the level of the spell you're casting. If you are in wind-driven hail, dust, or debris, the DC is 10 + the level of the spell you're casting. In either case, you lose the spell if you fail the concentration check. If the weather is caused by a spell, use the rules as described in the spell's description.
Why are you using weather conditions associated with the casting of spells?
|
|
In all fairness it really depends on the situation. If you leave spell slots open you are not always going to have the time to fill them and you shouldn't expect it. If you are fighting a bunch of goblins and a few flee the room then don't be surprised when you sit down to fill those slots that hoards of reinforcements show up 10 minutes later.If you couldn't stop them from escaping, you are going to have to deal with those hordes either way. On a side note, wizards also have the option to pick up the ability to quick-prepare spells, making them require 1 minute. In the same scenario the wizard could potentially have 0-10 spells prepared by the time the goblins came along. Assuming, of course, you decided now was the time you needed to prepare your extra spell.
However, in either case, the sorcerer has no option to do so. If his spell selection doesn't suit the problems he faces, then he has no way to even try and adjust his options.
It's all a matter of "what if", which is the question we should always be asking. "What if" is the secret to success in an RPG. The problem however is the sorcerer always has the same answer, regardless of the question, be it wrong or right. A wizard has the option of trying to pass the multiple choice quiz.
Sure, the goblins got away and in 10 minutes the goblin hordes are going to be bearing down on you and your party. Hell, you might not even have 10 minutes. It might be a good time to head for the hills, or the valleys, or work on barring up the door. You might have some useful spells. You're going up against goblin hordes? Maybe it's a good thing you have web as one of your generically useful memorized spells. Maybe all you have left is magic missile and should make a tactical retreat because you and your party stirred up a hornet's nest of goblins.
That's 1 scenario with all sorts of considerations to be made. What about the other bajillion scenarios that are possible? Options are always better.
Where is this quick spell ability?
|
|
You are not presenting the 'a little rain' correctly on concentration checks:
This is a bit more than a bit of a drizzle.Violent Weather
You must make a concentration check if you try to cast a spell in violent weather. If you are in a high wind carrying blinding rain or sleet, the DC is 5 + the level of the spell you're casting. If you are in wind-driven hail, dust, or debris, the DC is 10 + the level of the spell you're casting. In either case, you lose the spell if you fail the concentration check. If the weather is caused by a spell, use the rules as described in the spell's description.
Yes, that is the threshold for casting. The threshold for meditation isn't "Violent Weather" it's inclement weather.
You and I both know the RAI is that you need a nice, quiet comfortable place to study, safe from the elements and danger.
It's written exactly that way.
On the first point: One is playing rules written by a neutral third party who write scenarios professionally.One is each side making up straw men to fit whatever argument each side is making at the time.
Yup...same thing...
Darn right it's the same thing. In either case you're just presenting a series of scenarios that some guy decided to send his party through. There is factually no difference between an adventure path and any other game that is played by the rules except somebody else wrote it for you.
By your own statement you said it wasn't about actually playing through the AP, but to present builds to a panel of judges to determine whether or not they thought those characters were useful. Which is the same thing as us giving examples of different things that can be expected to occur throughout a given game based on the rules as they are presented.
On the second point, I see that you can assume the meaning for distraction, but I am being presumptious about the meaning of concentration...uh huh...
As I said, the threshold for distraction is rain. Concentration checks are made for spells in combat, while I've never heard of a need for a concentration check for...rain.
The term is Inclement Weather, and yeah you actually DO have to make Concentration checks for inclement weather. It's noted at the very start of the chapter what types of inclement weather apply, and inclement weather is not just a little rain.
in·clem·ent
[in-klem-uhnt] Show IPA
adjective
1. (of the weather, the elements, etc.) severe, rough, or harsh; stormy.
2. not kind or merciful.
Violent Weather: You must make a concentration check if you try to cast a spell in violent weather. If you are in a high wind carrying blinding rain or sleet, the DC is 5 + the level of the spell you're casting. If you are in wind-driven hail, dust, or debris, the DC is 10 + the level of the spell you're casting. In either case, you lose the spell if you fail the concentration check. If the weather is caused by a spell, use the rules as described in the spell's description.
I disagree fundamentally on just what all is needed for peace and quiet -- I'll grant the weather part (you are right).