Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

Caster / non-caster problem. OK, but why?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

201 to 250 of 740 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Also if you can't won't or don't like the thought of changing the rules to fit your idea of what you want to achieve, and your players In a game that is built with rules that can be easily reworked with a little effort and has been some what designed for you to do so, than By all means I would kindly direct you to seek a different RPG that suited your idea.

I mean the logic is simple for me, change what you don't like, or adapt it. If you can't figure it out seek aid in doing so, and in the worstof causes count your losses, and start seeking a different system that better supports you idea style of play ( which thankfully do to the Open Game liscene theres one out there)

I don't mean to be mean, or cruel but I've done this, and had such things done to me on this subject I personally don't have a problem with the casters being able to do what they do. I' palyed many differnet games, and with many different people, I found a good core group of gamers, and each of us tweeks our games a bit for our style of play. We houserule what we want and are ok with it. Just talk with your players see what they want from your campaign if its not the same as your idea, tell them what you are wanting, and go from there. Aside from theses few things what else is there but argueing, which very rarely accomplishes anything

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Liam Warner wrote:

Um still arguing about the ring because I still disagree with you. Let's say I prepare my spells at 12 am, get in a huge fight a 9, go to bed at 10 and I'm up at 12. It's an entirely new day and 24 hour period. I've had what is specified as eight hours rest and yet you saying because I cast those spells at nine I still need to wait ANOTHER three hours because I cast in the last eight because that's what the general rules section states.

I notice no one responded to my other questions.

You have made up your mind to interpreter the rule one way, even if the text say differently. There is no reason to argue further.

You mean this?

Liam Warner wrote:

2) DO you also apply the rule that a wizard can't rememorize any spells if they are even ONE hit point off full? or if the fighter wont shut up? that dawn chorus? a cold morning? By the raw any or all of these would prevent the wizard memorizing.

TO me this is a mattter of player interpretation and we don't agree on how its interpreted. So as I said earlier unless a PAIZO rep comes in here and say's this is how we want it run I doubt we're going to change each others mind.

Big strawman argument. You invent something no other guy has said.

Or this?

Liam Warner wrote:


Oh and if we hand wave a century and I create our new home at vast personal cost while the fighter gets immortality, an army and a whole bunch of magic items it seems to me he's getting more out of the hand wavium than my caster.

If the wizard get to play with 435,960,000 gp for his permanency spells, the non caster get to play with the same sum.

I don't see anything strange in that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Critzible wrote:
DM always controls spell selection, if he doesn't like what you pick than he says no. This is what I don't get why doesn't the DMs out there inforce this Idea.

I'm only going to say this once.

What you are talking about is a house rule.

According to the rules:

Pathfinder SRD wrote:
Each time a character attains a new wizard level, he gains two spells of his choice to add to his spellbook.

I have made bold the relevant clause. The DM, as written, doesn't play a part in the decision process. It is the PC's choice.

If you want to restrict spell selection, that's fine in your game. But don't pretend that's how the game normally works. It isn't.

The same goes for clerics and all other spellcasters.

Quote:
Plus a fighter, rogue, barbarian, gunslinger, cavalier, samurai, monk, and ninja Are not Spellcasters, and thus have to rely on their own abilites.

This has long been used as an excuse to justify the "Fighters can't have nice things" school of thought. That school has been pretty thoroughly discredited. Game designers no longer adhere to it, and it's time we moved past it, too.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Scott, there is no rule that say: "you should use all books".
So a GM cam use only the Core rulebook and add other material only if it fit his world.


Liam Warner wrote:

Sorry yes that was night as I'm posting on my phone at TAFE. My point is the ring converts 8 hours of sleep/rest to two. If I've slept eight hours I'm not casting in my sleep since I get those eight sleep/rest hours in two I can then reprepare my spells provided at least 24 hours have past since my previous memorizing. Which it had midnight to midnight. Anything else is arguing the eight hours of sleep you get in two wearing the ring DOESN'T count as rest which is ridiculous in my opinion and not RAW.

Still seeing no ones been willing to address the other part of my earlier post.

What other points?


Diego Rossi wrote:

Scott, there is no rule that say: "you should use all books".

So a GM cam use only the Core rulebook and add other material only if it fit his world.

As has already been pointed out, the core rulebook (or PHB, in 3.5) contains some of the strongest spell options in the game. We haven't even brought other books into this.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Create Demiplane?


Bob_Loblaw wrote:
If you are creating a low magic world, you are already house ruling. If you don't continue to make it work, then the problem isn't the classes. The problem is the GM didn't finish their job. From much of the talk on the boards on what people mean by low magic and the problems they have had, it is obvious that many people do not know how to create a low magic world. It can be done. It can be done without changing the classes. The GM needs to know exactly what they want to achieve. They also need to know how the system works so they can make appropriate changes to the system. It would be a topic for another thread, but I have several ideas that I'm sure would work.

Exactly. If your idea of a low magic world doesn't involve banning or rebuilding stuff, you're likely to create a disparity that didn't exist or drastically widen one that did. We discussed Fighters vs Rangers and Paladins at length in that other thread. Now drop a ranger or paladin into a world that is "low magic" based on the common complaints of "magic" in the world (being the ability to spend your gold to get magic stuff) and suddenly they are way better than usual! They have access to stuff the Fighter could only dream of.

Meanwhile, the wizard? Har, har, those simple peasants. Without magic items and the like, mundane classes have literally no hope against a core wizard or sorcerer of similar level past the earliest stages. Suddenly stuff like invisibility is godly, since there's no way for Fighters and Rogues to find you. You can summon outsiders who are effectively immune to normal weapons and have magical abilities to which there is no defense. You can pop fox's cunning or eagle's splendor to snag a +4 enhancement bonus to your DCs, and you could get a +5 inherent bonus as early as 13th level, while everyone else is pining for that +2 belt of strength and a +2 sword.

So unless you go through and essentially trash a huuuuge amount of the system. Easily 80% of the core rulebook (8/11 classes in core have supernatural/magic powers, spells, item creation, etc) is working against you in this case. By the time your "low magic" world is complete, it's not really even D&D or Pathfinder anymore; but some sort of subsystem based closely on the mechanics thereof; sort of like D20 Modern in Space.

That being said, the rulebook sort of accounts for "low magic" with its "low fantasy" considerations, which usually means slowing down the progression of wealth, and should probably also come with an XP limitation.

That being said...
You might consider taking a que from 1E-2E and having magic using classes use a different XP progression. Pathfinder has Fast, Medium, and Slow progressions already worked out. You could do something like...

Fast Progression: Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian, Monk
Medium Progression: Bard, Paladin, Ranger
Slow Progression: Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Sorcerer

The trickiest part would be determining how you wanted to handle multiclassing and such. If you were going to go with this somewhat backwards idea (I admit it's a bit odd), you might again take a que from 1E and 2E and offer the option to gestalt between 2-3 classes, and split incoming XP between them, or allow you to "dual-class" by letting you earn levels in a different class, gestalting it up as you go.


Critzible wrote:
I think its odd that if you take into the effect of what a high level fighter can do, opposed to a wizard. The disparity is out the window think about it. The Wizard gets one maybe two spells. The fighter can hit multiple times. Also if done right the wizard is after not the minions or peons but the BBEG. Yes as A wizard i can hurl lighting create demiplanes use wish ( which I believe should be granted as worded, thus any loop holes not shored up should be exploited . But a well trained fighter can snp four creatures necks in 3.6 seconds!!! or slay a horde of goblins via whirlwind!!! I mean come on.

Too bad that's not true. By 20th level, unless you are facing hordes of enemies who are so low of CR as to not warrant XP, the odds of you killing 1 enemy per hit are exceedingly low. Most fighters might get up to about +48 damage with their favorite weapon, optimized, per swing, and that's pretty hardcore damage. They might even get it as high has +55. However, that's enough to 1-shot CR 4 enemies, but not 1 shot CR 5 enemies.

Ironically, this has never been true. Even in pre-3E, it was generally more prudent for your mage to crowd control the weenies while your fighter jumped on your BBEG with their multiple attacks per round and turned them into hamburger. :\

Quote:
Also look at what they are. Spellcasters are weak in the begining but fighters are not. Wizards that make it past these tentitive frist adventures are lauded powerful, fighters and other martial classes are a dime a dozen at lower levels. Any body whose played 1e and 2e know this little cavet.

So says the guy who also advocates the GM not allowing spellcasters to select spells because the GM doesn't feel like it. You're not playing the game, you're talking about a game that doesn't exist. :P

Quote:
And finally Wizards, Sorcerors, summoners, ect. have there spells regulated by the DM. So for any one who says full spellcasters are powerful, n esscene the DM is responsible for the spells granted via prayers, and spells in spellbooks, and even spells of blood. And if your player wants to research a spell or make one, play it out make them go on quests... Heck while pondexter is weazing and piening for his prescious spell, or lost text, the good ol fighter and rogue are hualing in dough. Some thing if hes studying the good ol non casters are having a fine time partying slaying things. I mean come on thats the bum wrap of spellcasters they have to seek out there power while or rogue and fighter friends have the ability to stroll into town and bam a dagger, club ect. and can easily take down a foe. no harm no fowl

Orboni Fallacy.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Create Demiplane?

Beside the tongue in cheek reply, it is a discussion about spellcasters/non spellcasters in general, not limited to a single book.
One of the points made up-thread (unless I am mixing it with other similar threads) was that as the number of books increase the options for wizards, clerics and druids and similar classes that can potentially know an unlimited number of spells, increase, while the effect is much more limited for classes that can know only a limited number of spells or get a limited number of feats.

Using a "inclusive" system where the GM use the Core Rulebook and add what he feel is appropriate for his game and not anything that is published in every book published is a perfectly legitimate way to control the balance of the game.

Some poster seem to argue the opposite vision: "everything that as been published should be used and the GM is bad/wrong/evil if he don't permit everything".

(I was adding to the post above , but then I had a long interruption)


Diego Rossi wrote:

Create Demiplane?

Beside the tongue in cheek reply, it is a discussion about spellcasters/non spellcasters in general, not limited to a single book.
One of the points made up-thread (unless I am mixing it with other similar threads) was that as the number of books increase the options for wizards, clerics and druids and similar classes that can potentially know an unlimited number of spells, increase, while the effect is much more limited for classes that can know only a limited number of spells or get a limited number of feats.

Using a "inclusive" system where the GM use the Core Rulebook and add what he feel is appropriate for his game and not anything that is published in every book published is a perfectly legitimate way to control the balance of the game.

Some poster seem to argue the opposite vision: "everything that as been published should be used and the GM is bad/wrong/evil if he don't permit everything".

(I was adding to the post above , but then I had a long interruption)

Personally I'm more in the first camp. Core + Other stuff by request. The biggest thing is, I'm also willing to admit core is broke as hell too. It's just the sort of broke I'm intimately familiar with and used to. It's actually pretty rare that I look at something outside of core and go "Oh heck no". I think the only thing that has been banned from Paizo published material so far is the Gunslinger ('cause we use different firearms rules and a different gunslinger) and the Antagonize feat (I doubt I need to elaborate why).


Diego Rossi wrote:


You mean this?

Liam Warner wrote:

2) DO you also apply the rule that a wizard can't rememorize any spells if they are even ONE hit point off full? or if the fighter wont shut up? that dawn chorus? a cold morning? By the raw any or all of these would prevent the wizard memorizing.

TO me this is a mattter of player interpretation and we don't agree on how its interpreted. So as I said earlier unless a PAIZO rep comes in here and say's this is how we want it run I doubt we're going to change each others mind.

Big strawman argument. You invent something no other guy has said.

So its okay for those opposed to my view to introduce whatever they want but not me? From the core rulebook page 218 in the same section as those opposed to using the ring of sustanence . . .

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.

So lets see now . . .

1a) Must be free from distractions.
1b)I don't know about you personally but most people I know find others talking when they're trying to concentrate very distracting and a little earlier on the same page it say's "The wizard does not have to slumber for every minute of the time, but he must refrain from movement, combat, spellcasting, skill use, conversation, or any other fairly demanding physical or mental task
during the rest period". So conversation involving you is obviously enough to prevent your preapration and if the fighter wont shut up constantly blathering away about inconsequential stuff in a loud voice I'd say it counts as a distraction. How about if after half an hour of studying your books the dawn/eavening chorus suddenly starts up? I kwow one person who absolutely hates that time of day because it distracts him from whatever he's trying to do.

2a) Exposure to inclement weather prevents the necessary conversation.
2b) I know plenty of people who really hate the cold bundling up and complaining so I'd say that could easily count for inclement weather especially to someone from a hot land or vice versa a hot land for someone in fur would be pretty distracting. I know I have trouble concentrating on hot day's especially since my uniform for work is designed for protection and not comfort so its really uncomfortable and if I were outside in the sun I'd find it pretty hard to concetrate on memorizing arcane writings that change reality.

3a) As does any injury or failed saving throw the wizard might experience while studying.
3b) Obviously it means if you get hurt you can't succeed but what if you've still injured from the last fight. Hit points represent injury at least its the only thing I can think of so if you have 50 hp at max and are at say 12 your pretty badly injured I'd call that fairly distracting. Similarly a first level character may have only 6 hit points and if they're 1 off max its 1/6 of what's needed to render them unconcios. A broken arm, a massive gash down the side of their face? How distracting is it? If the player has consistently roleplayed a bad ankle that aches in cool weather and if they put too much strain on it which was why they became a wizard instead of a fighter. Does that count? It is aching in this cold morning air that's an injury? What if one of the other party members thinks its funny to deliberately cause you to make a saving throw a 57 minutes into your 1 hour memorizing? Do you loose it all?

@wraithstrike this is what I was talking about, now of course we have a response to my question do people apply these to prevent their caster memorzing spells and lets see. . . Ah yes its an invented comment because someone ELSE didn't bring it up and a strawman argument. Doesn't really answer my question now does it just dismisses me.

So Speaking slowly lets review here, I'll start with the claim that you need 8 hours of rest before preparing spells even if 2 of those hours is sleeping with the ring of sustanence.

Under the general section on preparing wizard spells we have . . .

1a) He can prepare the same spell more than once but each spell counts towards his daily limit.
1b) A reference here to the fact you can only memorizing "New" spells once every day or 24 hour period as different areas have different day's.

2a) An explanation of rest. "To prepare his daily spells a wizard must first sleep for 8 hours . . . if his rest is interrupted each interruption adds 1 hour to the total amount of time he has to rest in order to clear his mind and he must have at least 1 hour of uninterrupted rest prior to preparing his spells. . . if the character does not need to sleep for some reason. He still must have 8 hours of restful calm before preparing any spells.
2b) Hmmmm from the reference to interrupted rest it seems apparent that you DON'T need 8 hours of rest prior to preparing spells it might be 8 or 10 or 15 depending on how often your interrupted. What you DO NEED is [b]1 hour[b], please not that if over the course of the day you've had 7 hours of rest then a concentrated 3 hours of something else you apparently need 1 hour of uninterrupted rest before preparing spells. But wait that contradicts the very next sentence that he must have 8 hours of restful calm before preparing any spells. Hmmm how odd no wait it say's [b] if he doesn't need to sleep
but with the ring of sustanence you do need to sleep. It specifically say's you gain the equivilent of 8 hours of rest in 2 hour and can therefore prepare spells. Therefore this last sentence doesn't seem to apply. You are getting those 8 hours of uninterrupted rest when your asleep and the ring specifically allows spellcasters to gain those same eight hours in two.

"This allows a spellcaster that requires rest to prepare spells to do so after only 2 hours, but this does not allow a spellcaster to prepare spells more than once per day."

Please note the term here its REST not SLEEP, the ring allows a spellcaster who requires rest to prepare spells such as our wizard to do so after only 2 hours. Therefore it seems to me that RAW is saying that the wizard only needs 2 hours of sleep/rest to prepare new spells not 2 hours of sleep plus another six of rest. Of course you can still only do it once per day but that's a seperate issue and I'm well aware you can only prepare new spells every day/24 hour period. But if that 24 hours has passed then there's no reason you can't sleep for 2 hours and prepare you spells again, you don't NEED an additional 6.

Now on to point 2 the statement that you can't rememorize spells you've cast in the past 8 hours shall we. Now this one is a pain that I really don't want to debate because its a little vague when taken in account with the ring of sustanence.

Recent Casting Limit/Rest Interruptions:
If a wizard has cast spells recently, the drain on his resources reduces his capacity to prepare new spells. When he prepares spells for the coming day, all the spells he has cast within the last 8 hours count against his daily limit.

Now initially this seems perfectly clear if I cast a spell at the end of the day and then memorize new ones for the next day as its past midnight. I can't memorize that spell slot because its within an 8 hour period. There are however two things here that make me read it diferently. First is the heading its under "Recent Casting Limit/Rest Interruptions" to me this looks like its an additional note on what happens if your "8 hours" of rest is interrupted. You cast a spell then you can't use it again in that next day's lot. HOWEVER if you were to cast it and then sleep before memorizing spells you could memorize that slot. Observe . . .

10pm: Cast Spell.
12:15Pm: Memorize Spells - Spell Cast at 10PM.

10PM: Cast Spell.
11:30PM: Go to bed.
7:30AM: Wake Up
8:00AM: Memorize Spells + Spell cast at 10pm.

The 8 hours of sleep means that you can then memorize that spell you cast at 10pm. Since the ring makes 8 hours count as 2 then it would seem that the "drain on the caster resources" is negated. You have had your 8 hours equivilent for recover. Of course if you memorized your spells at 1:30AM you couldn't rememorize for a 24 hour period i.e. not until 12PM that night or possibly 1:30AM the next morning depending on how you ruled it.

Secondly what if you haven't cast spells in that 8 hour period? There's nothing to count against your memorizing of new spells at all.

Third how does this interact with this in the section on "Spell selection and preparation" . . .

When preparing spells for the day, a wizard can leave some of these spell slots open. Later during that day, he can repeat the preparation process as often as he likes, time and circumstances permitting. During these extra sessions of preparation, the wizard can fill these unused
spell slots.

It seems that it apply's the penalty if you cast the spell at 10PM the previous day you can't remorize as it counts against your daily prepartion. But this section is saying if you had the slots open you could rememorize just that slot at a later date, provided you had 15 minutes to do so. So lets see now . . .

10PM: Cast Spell
11:30PM: Go to bed.
4:30AM: Wake Up.
5:30AM: Memorize Spells but wait it hasn't been 8 hours so you can't memorize that spell you cast at 10PM due to the drain on resources.

however if instead we have . . .

7:30AM: Wake Up
8:30AM: You can memorize that spell you cast at 10pm because its been more than 8 hours and its a new day. How strange, how very very strange. It seems to me this means we could also do this . . .

10PM: Cast Spell.
11:30PM: Go to bed.
1:30AM: Wake up, with 8 hours rest you can rememorize that spell cast at 10PM due to the drain on resources having been negated.

or if you don't like that

10PM: Cast Spell
11:30PM: Go to bed
1:30AM: Wake up
6:15PM: Decide to memorize that spell slot you cast at 10PM for a challege you ran into during the day.

On the other hand the counter argument seems to be that the ring counts as "Sleep" but not "Rest" which is not only against the RAW as specified in the rings description but a hard pill to swallow based on simple common sense.

However as I've also repeatedly said I doubt very much either of us is going to convince the other to change their views so in the absence of an official ruling by Pazio on the subject of how they intended it to work I'm going to treat it the way I interpret it in my games.

What if I wake up at 4:30 and don't memorize my spells until oh lets say 11:00AM the drain again is negated.

EDIT
Please excuse the wall of text but I wanted to make my points clear.

Silver Crusade

Liam Warner wrote:

Um still arguing about the ring because I still disagree with you. Let's say I prepare my spells at 12 am, get in a huge fight a 9, go to bed at 10 and I'm up at 12. It's an entirely new day and 24 hour period. I've had what is specified as eight hours rest and yet you saying because I cast those spells at nine I still need to wait ANOTHER three hours because I cast in the last eight because that's what the general rules section states.

I notice no one responded to my other questions.

Since 'Per Day' is considered 24 hours a wizard must wait 24 hours until he can memorize spells again.

You really need to stop with the whole Ring of Sustenance argument. You can never memorize spells you have already used more than once per day. Needing to rest for only 2 hours makes no difference. The description of the ring even says so, I don't understand why you can't comprehend that.

Silver Crusade

Liam Warner wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


You mean this?

Liam Warner wrote:

2) DO you also apply the rule that a wizard can't rememorize any spells if they are even ONE hit point off full? or if the fighter wont shut up? that dawn chorus? a cold morning? By the raw any or all of these would prevent the wizard memorizing.

TO me this is a mattter of player interpretation and we don't agree on how its interpreted. So as I said earlier unless a PAIZO rep comes in here and say's this is how we want it run I doubt we're going to change each others mind.

Big strawman argument. You invent something no other guy has said.

So its okay for those opposed to my view to introduce whatever they want but not me? From the core rulebook page 218 in the same section as those opposed to using the ring of sustanence . . .

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.

So lets see now . . .

1a) Must be free from distractions.
1b)I don't know about you personally but most people I know find others talking when they're trying to concentrate very distracting and a little earlier on the same page it say's "The wizard does not have to slumber for every minute of the time, but he must refrain from movement, combat, spellcasting, skill use, conversation, or any other fairly demanding physical or mental task
during the rest period". So conversation involving you is obviously enough to prevent your preapration and if the fighter wont shut up constantly blathering away about inconsequential stuff in a loud voice I'd say it counts as a distraction. How about if after half an hour of studying your books the...

Point is, a Wizard can never memorize spells that have already been used more than once per day, period! Anything else you bring up doesn't trump this rule. It's solid!


Liam Warner wrote:

[

So its okay for those opposed to my view to introduce whatever they want but not me? From the core rulebook page 218 in the same section as those opposed to using the ring of sustanence . . .

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.

So lets see now . . .

1a) Must be free from distractions.
1b)I don't know about you personally but most people I know find others talking when they're trying to concentrate very distracting and a little earlier on the same page it say's "The wizard does not have to slumber for every minute of the time, but he must refrain from movement, combat, spellcasting, skill use, conversation, or any other fairly demanding physical or mental task during the rest period". So conversation involving you is obviously enough to prevent your preapration and if the fighter wont shut up constantly blathering away about inconsequential stuff in a loud voice I'd say it counts as a distraction. How about if after half an hour of studying your books the dawn/eavening chorus suddenly starts up? I kwow one person who absolutely hates that time of day because it distracts him from whatever he's trying to do.

1b.Most people I know don't find talking to others to be a distraction. I normally post here and watch movies at the same time if I am not on yahoo chat. Talking is not a distraction by the rules.\

2b is referring to storms. Example are listed in the magic section which tells you the DC for concentration checks.

3b: Injured while studying and injured before studying or not the same things.

If you are saying you can only prepare spells once then I think everyone agrees with you. Before it sounded like you were saying a person could prepare spells twice within a 24 hours period.


Casters got many situations that can stop them from preparing spells (or regaining spell slots), but it's very secondary to GM intentions. It's more or less the same point for ragelancepounce: yes, a GM can easy control that, but why add something that is very powerful just to have to nullify it? Sometime this can be interesting, but having to check every situation and rules too often can be difficult, game slowing and frustrating for players (imagine to play a caster that is disturbed during sleep 1 times every session).
I think that the best way to fix the system according to low-middle-high magic campaign is to remove or add options according to settings. Besides magic-like options for martials, you don't think that in a high magic campaign every character should have some options to interact with magic?If the GM don't add this options a fighter would be more or less like a barbarian in a world where people use computers and phones.
Now i'm playing Eberron and i have just to control a money and time for characters. In a low magic setting i should ban some options. As someone noticed making difficult to obtain spells it's not a problem for a cleric and divine casters. In some campaign even the healing system can be changed!


There is a difference between nullifying something sometimes, and doing it all the time. Which one were you talking about?


I mean that all situations that prevent a casters to prepare spells or refreshing is daily allotment are not under the player's choice, but always on GM. So, every character can be in different situations, with more or less hp, and so on, but usually players manage characters so they can pass the day. Sometimes can be nice for player to play in different situations, like prisoners without equipment (and usually they recover it ^_^), or playing without spells or with few spells because someone disturbed your sleep, but if someone percevies casters as a problem and has to control preventing them to recover spells is like saying "you got half, or 1/3, or 3/4 of the usual allotmnet", because is a sort of slot's reduction decided by GM, that create situations.
Same thing for ragelancepounce. In its thread someone said that it could be handled preventing character from charging. This is true, but why allowing something that unbalance game (doesn't matter why, if it's GM fault, a broken rule) only to decide when it can be used or not? If this is the principle of game handling i think that there will be not a GM that let you use your "broken option" in a situation in which is really important, but he will put some situations to make characters show their power, then he will go for the real deal.
So, if players are smart, they will know that it's only on GM decision to make work their powers. When i play i know that my GM is doing the encounter based on our party (level, items, etc) but if something of my character doesn't work it's not only because he has to decide that before.
Said that, if an option can put an enemy ko in 1 round, or let party avoid totally an encounter (maybe a greater teleport) it is good for character maybe, but not for players :)
Speaking about teleport, in a high magic setting some area could be protected, etc. In a low magic campaign you could teleport directly into the emperor's bathroom.


Pathfinder Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Liam Warner wrote:

@joana

yes but the whole point of my argument is that restriction applies to when your memorizing without sleeping. The ring supersedes that because your getting that eight hours of rest in two.

Then why does it apply to the divine caster who doesn't need to sleep to prepare spells?


A divine caster has to prepare spell during a specific moment of day (for example dawn).


Pathfinder Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

...and they can't replace any spells cast within the last 8 hours, by RAW. Why would the divine magic section refer you back to the arcane magic section on the Recent Casting Limit if the arcane version only applies when the wizard's rest is interrupted?


Sorry i don't get the point. Speaking about the ring, it just give you the benefit of 8 hours of sleep in two, of four hours, i don't remember. Btw no class can prepare spells more than 1 times every 24 hours. If i'm correct there's one cleric spell that can avoid this limitation but you can benefit only once a week from it.
Not all classes need 8 hours of sleep to recover spell slots.
Why are we talking about the ring? ^_^


Something not to forget is that prepared casters, clerics and otherwise, can still prepare unprepared slots over the course of the day. They just can't replace cast ones or ones already prepared.


Pathfinder Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
AlecStorm wrote:

Sorry i don't get the point. Speaking about the ring, it just give you the benefit of 8 hours of sleep in two, of four hours, i don't remember. Btw no class can prepare spells more than 1 times every 24 hours. If i'm correct there's one cleric spell that can avoid this limitation but you can benefit only once a week from it.

Not all classes need 8 hours of sleep to recover spell slots.
Why are we talking about the ring? ^_^

Liam (if I'm reading him correctly) believes the Recent Casting Limit only applies when the wizard's sleep is interrupted and thus can be bypassed or reduced from 8 to 2 hours by use of a ring of sustenance. Honestly, I'm not sure what the rest of the thread is about. I'm just talking about the Recent Casting Limit. :)


Yeah, it's true, but still this will not make the metamagic feats more used in combat... the best choice will always be craft rod :| i don't think i'll solve this easy :) i need time to think about it.


Joana wrote:
AlecStorm wrote:

Sorry i don't get the point. Speaking about the ring, it just give you the benefit of 8 hours of sleep in two, of four hours, i don't remember. Btw no class can prepare spells more than 1 times every 24 hours. If i'm correct there's one cleric spell that can avoid this limitation but you can benefit only once a week from it.

Not all classes need 8 hours of sleep to recover spell slots.
Why are we talking about the ring? ^_^
Liam (if I'm reading him correctly) believes the Recent Casting Limit only applies when the wizard's sleep is interrupted and thus can be bypassed or reduced from 8 to 2 hours by use of a ring of sustenance. Honestly, I'm not sure what the rest of the thread is about. I'm just talking about the Recent Casting Limit. :)

I was saying that the ring lets you rememorize after 2 hours not eight because that's what is say's it does. People opposed to me are arguing that the 2 doesn't count for rest and thus whie you get 2 hours "sleep" with the ring you still need to "rest" for 6 more hours after that before you can memorize spells. I've never argued you could memorize more than once per 24 hour period, I have however used the fact that the ring specifies this in its description as part of my arguments for the ring letting you rest 2 instead of eight.

I've also been saying that the recent casting limit runs into difficulty with the 2 for 8 value as if I were to sleep 8 hours the recent limit would be overcome and since the ring lets you get the benefit of 8 hours rest in 2 that recent casting limit should also be reduced to 2 hours from eight.

@Concerro
> 1b.Most people I know don't find talking to others to be a
> distraction. I normally post here and watch movies at the same time
> if I am not on yahoo chat. Talking is not a distraction by the rules.

Engaging in conversation is specified in the rules as a distraction that prevents the wizard from rememorizing spells. So would posting here, watching yahoo movies and going on yahoo chat.

> 2b is referring to storms. Example are listed in the magic section
> which tells you the DC for concentration checks.

Hadn't seen those still my example stands as I was trying to point out different people have different ideas of inclement weather. If its not a thunderstorm would an amphibious creature with spellbooks prepared to be fully submerged for part or all of a day care if it was raining, or it would it find it refreshing? How about the same creature in a hot, dry desert. I was trying to point out that different people have different ideas of inclement, I don't have time right now to hunt down the DC's you mentioned sorry.

> 3b: Injured while studying and injured before studying or not the
> same things.

So if I were to do 1hp of damage to your 36 it'd ruin your hour of memorization but if you started off on 1hp out of 36 you'd not be distracted by all those gashes, breaks, strains and sprains?

> If you are saying you can only prepare spells once then I think
> everyone agrees with you. Before it sounded like you were saying a
> person could prepare spells twice within a 24 hours period.

No, no they don't in fact they've repeatedly stated that while wearing the ring of sustanence you can sleep for 2 hours but you still need to rest an additional 6 on top of that before you can memorize spells. Incidently an action that gets round the recent casting limit because you can't cast spells while resting (in the rules) thus if you had to do that then why bother mentioning the recent casting limit at all?

Still right now I'm inclined to just give up as my opponents seem to pick and choose the parts of my argument they'll respond to and twist my words to suit their own meaning.

Oh and the 2 in 24 hours was in relation to alternate time on different demi-planes where you might experience 2, 4, 8, 1000 subjective day's for 1 on the prime material and how it affected your spells. Which incidently I wasn't the original person to bring up.


AlecStorm wrote:

I mean that all situations that prevent a casters to prepare spells or refreshing is daily allotment are not under the player's choice, but always on GM. So, every character can be in different situations, with more or less hp, and so on, but usually players manage characters so they can pass the day. Sometimes can be nice for player to play in different situations, like prisoners without equipment (and usually they recover it ^_^), or playing without spells or with few spells because someone disturbed your sleep, but if someone percevies casters as a problem and has to control preventing them to recover spells is like saying "you got half, or 1/3, or 3/4 of the usual allotmnet", because is a sort of slot's reduction decided by GM, that create situations.

Same thing for ragelancepounce. In its thread someone said that it could be handled preventing character from charging. This is true, but why allowing something that unbalance game (doesn't matter why, if it's GM fault, a broken rule) only to decide when it can be used or not? If this is the principle of game handling i think that there will be not a GM that let you use your "broken option" in a situation in which is really important, but he will put some situations to make characters show their power, then he will go for the real deal.
So, if players are smart, they will know that it's only on GM decision to make work their powers. When i play i know that my GM is doing the encounter based on our party (level, items, etc) but if something of my character doesn't work it's not only because he has to decide that before.
Said that, if an option can put an enemy ko in 1 round, or let party avoid totally an encounter (maybe a greater teleport) it is good for character maybe, but not for players :)
Speaking about teleport, in a high magic setting some area could be protected, etc. In a low magic campaign you could teleport directly into the emperor's bathroom.

Just because a GM makes using ragepounce difficult sometimes that does not mean it is broken. If he tries to stop it all the time, then he should have banned it.


Liam Warner wrote:


I was saying that the ring lets you rememorize after 2 hours not eight because that's what is say's it does. People opposed to me are arguing that the 2 doesn't count for rest and thus whie you get 2 hours "sleep" with the ring you still need to "rest" for 6 more hours after that before you can memorize spells.

That is not what we were saying. It seems that we were talking past each other. The others said the caster can only get two hours of sleep.

If you are stating that nobody can prepare spells more than once in a 24 hour period then we agree on that also
Quote:


I've also been saying that the recent casting limit runs into difficulty with the 2 for 8 value as if I were to sleep 8 hours the recent limit would be overcome and since the ring lets you get the benefit of 8 hours rest in 2 that recent casting limit should also be reduced to 2 hours from eight.

This is where we disagree if you are saying this is a rule. The ring never mentions being able to do that.

Quote:


Engaging in conversation is specified in the rules as a distraction that prevents the wizard from rememorizing spells. So would posting here, watching yahoo movies and going on yahoo chat.

Do you have a rules quote for that?

As for 2B I think we can agree on that.

Quote:


So if I were to do 1hp of damage to your 36 it'd ruin your hour of memorization but if you started off on 1hp out of 36 you'd not be distracted by all those gashes, breaks, strains and sprains?

That is correct. The rules say

prd wrote:
Exposure to inclement weather prevents the necessary concentration, as does any injury or failed saving throw the character might experience while studying.

While studying and is not the same thing as before studying.

An example is hitting a wizard while casting a spell forces him to make a concentration check, but that injury does not affect future spells because it has already happened.


concerro wrote:


1b.Most people I know don't find talking to others to be a distraction. I normally post here and watch movies at the same time if I am not on yahoo chat. Talking is not a distraction by the rules.\

2b is referring to storms. Example are listed in the magic section which tells you the DC for concentration checks.

3b: Injured while studying and injured before studying or not the same things.

If you are saying you can only...

You don't consider bleeding and mathematically half way dead to be distracting? I can easily see those rules being as read that if a caster is injured then they cannot memorize spells. Its very hard to focus when one has a knife stuck through one's chest.

I'm not saying I would rule it that way necessarily for any injury. I'm saying that it makes sense logically and if I had a wizard in my campaign who tried to memorize spells on less that 10% health I feel I'd have to tell him no according to the rules.


Taking bleed damage would be distracting since you are taking damage while studying. If the rules intended for a wizard to be at full health in order to get spells back they would have said it. I think "while" is very important. The party gets ambushed, sorry Mr.Wizard, no spells for you. The party gets ambushed before he starts to study, and he is ok. I don't think people walk around with a knife in their chest, even in fantasy land, so I don't think that is a fair comparison. Combat being an abstraction, most hp lost can be defined as scrapes and bruises.


I see your point. But I'm not arguing that he must be at full health to memorize spells. I'm speaking that pain is quite distracting depending upon the amount of pain. Taking bleed damage according to the rules automatically prevents memorization not because it is distracting, but because he is subject to injury and is therefore not contingent to my point.

One would assume that the wizard would take the knife out first before studying, but then its a rare day when most people remember that they took 4 points off of a throwing dagger my statement was an extrapolation of that fact. Hp is an abstraction, which is why I stated halfway mathematically to dead. I can be physically beaten to a pulp and still be mostly functional; however, having a person who has been pounded to a pulp and is on the slight side of being conscious and then claiming that they are not distracted is highly unreasonable in my book hence the statement about the 10% ruling.

I think the section about distraction is primarily written so as to delineate a in rules mechanic for a dm saying no because an act is considered to be distracting in a real world basis. I.E. The wizard can't memorize because the rogue keeps tugging on his ears. The wizard can't memorize because he's been badly beaten and is having problems focusing. Having been badly beaten before in my life and having had my girl tug on my ears I can safely say that the beating is far more distracting. I might house rule a concentration check to allow for memorization.


I should point out that the biggest argument against the caster/martial disparity is that casters can use their magic to make martials better. Therefor, if martial characters are lagging, it is the fault of the casters playing selfishly.

"Low Magic" isn't written into the system, but "Low Fantasy" is. As far as I can tell, Low Fantasy is a 10pt buy, and half WBL. Before everyone howls that this benefits the caster since they just drop everything but their casting stat to 7, I should say once again the game is NOT designed around optimized or PVP play. The default assumption is that the players act together to overcome challenges. Also, there are no victory conditions written into the game.

Finally, I don't think the game is balanced beyond about level 15, and the lack of high level APs and level limits in PFS seem to indicate the designers know this. That PFS doesn't allow crafting and the recent FAQ about crafting rules also show that crafting throws a monkey wrench in game balance.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
I should point out that the biggest argument against the caster/martial disparity is that casters can use their magic to make martials better. Therefor, if martial characters are lagging, it is the fault of the casters playing selfishly.

So when you watch the casters play according to the published rules and realize, "Wow, they do things just as efficiently without the grunts slowing them down," your reaction is to blame the players for "playing wrong"?

If someone countered, "The problem isn't the rules -- it's those stupid people who insist on playing fighters and rogues past 6th level, when we all know you're supposed to be a caster" -- I'd think a lot of people would have a problem with that logic, and rightfully so.


I don't think that means it is unbalanced. It just need more GM adjudication, and many GM's don't want to deal with it. The ones that do like are normally the same ones that have time to modify AP/modules or write their own adventures.

As an example I have a GM who is really good with the rules, but due to having a kid, job, and so on he does not have time to deal with a lot of the things high level play brings to the table. I was a lot more open to 20+ level games when I was younger, but with the lack of free time I try to stay between 11 and 15.

Now if I ever won the lottery..... :)


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Fergie wrote:
I should point out that the biggest argument against the caster/martial disparity is that casters can use their magic to make martials better. Therefor, if martial characters are lagging, it is the fault of the casters playing selfishly.

So when you watch the casters play according to the published rules and realize, "Wow, they do things just as efficiently without the grunts slowing them down," your reaction is to blame the players for "playing wrong"?

If someone countered, "The problem isn't the rules -- it's those stupid people who insist on playing fighters and rogues past 6th level, when we all know you're supposed to be a caster" -- I'd think a lot of people would have a problem with that logic, and rightfully so.

Except that they DON'T play as efficiently without martials. Perhaps if you optimize the hell out of the casters, without changing the GMing at all. Sure it gets unbalanced in the later parts of the game, but at 6th level? No way. 10th level, not much. 20th level - hell yeah.

Again, there are serious balance issues, but in my opinion they appear late in the game, and/or are a result of powergaming the system was not intended to deal with. (Don't even get me started on the crafting FAQ)

PS I have found that you can add a level of monk to most monsters without a CR increase. Between the ability increases and save bonuses, you are adding +3-4 to every save, plus you have lots more GP to spend. Is this silly? Of course, it is, but no more silly then casters running around with maxed out stats, and just the right feats, etc.

Shadow Lodge

Fergie wrote:
PS I have found that you can add a level of monk to most monsters without a CR increase. Between the ability increases and save bonuses, you are adding +3-4 to every save, plus you have lots more GP to spend. Is this silly? Of course, it is, but no more silly then casters running around with maxed out stats, and just the right feats, etc.

This makes me think of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, where every vampire, no matter how newly risen, seems to have randomly developed at least a basic level of knowledge of kung-fu.


wraithstrike wrote:
AlecStorm wrote:

I mean that all situations that prevent a casters to prepare spells or refreshing is daily allotment are not under the player's choice, but always on GM. So, every character can be in different situations, with more or less hp, and so on, but usually players manage characters so they can pass the day. Sometimes can be nice for player to play in different situations, like prisoners without equipment (and usually they recover it ^_^), or playing without spells or with few spells because someone disturbed your sleep, but if someone percevies casters as a problem and has to control preventing them to recover spells is like saying "you got half, or 1/3, or 3/4 of the usual allotmnet", because is a sort of slot's reduction decided by GM, that create situations.

Same thing for ragelancepounce. In its thread someone said that it could be handled preventing character from charging. This is true, but why allowing something that unbalance game (doesn't matter why, if it's GM fault, a broken rule) only to decide when it can be used or not? If this is the principle of game handling i think that there will be not a GM that let you use your "broken option" in a situation in which is really important, but he will put some situations to make characters show their power, then he will go for the real deal.
So, if players are smart, they will know that it's only on GM decision to make work their powers. When i play i know that my GM is doing the encounter based on our party (level, items, etc) but if something of my character doesn't work it's not only because he has to decide that before.
Said that, if an option can put an enemy ko in 1 round, or let party avoid totally an encounter (maybe a greater teleport) it is good for character maybe, but not for players :)
Speaking about teleport, in a high magic setting some area could be protected, etc. In a low magic campaign you could teleport directly into the emperor's bathroom.
Just because a GM makes using ragepounce difficult sometimes that does not...

No, in fact. It's broken (you make 3 rounds in one) so GM makes it difficult to use.It's broken because everything that works against that build works against all other type of melee characters. If you put difficult terrain it will work even against the mundane 2h weapon fighter... but when ragelancepounce pass he makes damage as full attack x3 while others make 1 attack. Since you can also dual wield a lance by RAW (argh) this is even more evident.


If I put in difficult terrain it will be to stop the other fighters also. I can handle it without making exceptions which is why I don't see it as broken. If I only put in difficult terrain to stop the charger then you would have a point.

Charging also requires movement in a straight line. The two-handed fighter can move around things, and is not limited by a small map size which restricts charging, not does he have to worry about an animal companion being so big it is in the way in small areas. Yeah people can get medium animal companions if they choose a small race, but that is not the norm.

You can dual wield a lance, but the penalties are really high, and you will miss more if you power attack. TWF'ing does less damage than using a weapons two-handed. TWF'ing with two lances is just a self-defeating idea.


Jak the Looney Alchemist wrote:

I see your point. But I'm not arguing that he must be at full health to memorize spells. I'm speaking that pain is quite distracting depending upon the amount of pain. Taking bleed damage according to the rules automatically prevents memorization not because it is distracting, but because he is subject to injury and is therefore not contingent to my point.

One would assume that the wizard would take the knife out first before studying, but then its a rare day when most people remember that they took 4 points off of a throwing dagger my statement was an extrapolation of that fact. Hp is an abstraction, which is why I stated halfway mathematically to dead. I can be physically beaten to a pulp and still be mostly functional; however, having a person who has been pounded to a pulp and is on the slight side of being conscious and then claiming that they are not distracted is highly unreasonable in my book hence the statement about the 10% ruling.

I think the section about distraction is primarily written so as to delineate a in rules mechanic for a dm saying no because an act is considered to be distracting in a real world basis. I.E. The wizard can't memorize because the rogue keeps tugging on his ears. The wizard can't memorize because he's been badly beaten and is having problems focusing. Having been badly beaten before in my life and having had my girl tug on my ears I can safely say that the beating is far more distracting. I might house rule a concentration check to allow for memorization.

Honestly, this is a problem with your perception of the hp abstraction. In D&D, 1hp is completely functional. No concentration checks, no attack penalties, no damage penalties, no movement penalties, no penalties to skill checks, etc. Are you saying that you can remain at full capacity while beaten to a pulp except when trying to study your book?

Hp damage doesn't translate like that.


I am sure that if I am writing a thesis paper someone tugging on my ears is more distracting than a beating. I might feel the after effects of the beating but I can still think clearly. If someone is pulling on me then it is hard to ignore them.


Fergie wrote:


Except that they DON'T play as efficiently without martials. Perhaps if you optimize the hell out of the casters, without changing the GMing at all. Sure it gets unbalanced in the later parts of the game, but at 6th level? No way. 10th level, not much. 20th level - hell yeah.

This depends entirely upon the casters in question. If we're talking straight up wizards and sorcerers? Sure. I'll buy that.

Things get complex once you start throwing Summoners, Druids, Clerics, and Oracles into the mix. It gets even trickier when you're talking about the 3/4 classes like inquisitors, bards, maguses and all that.

These are all classes that easily slip into the martial's role and have the side benefit of being able to take a caster role as well. I would say that a party of all casters can operate more efficiently than a party of all martials. After all those same casters that would be holding up a fighter can also support another caster as well


wraithstrike wrote:
I am sure that if I am writing a thesis paper someone tugging on my ears is more distracting than a beating. I might feel the after effects of the beating but I can still think clearly. If someone is pulling on me then it is hard to ignore them.

Alright. I have here this bat with nails in it. I will now kneecap you. Once I am done (I will tell you when im done) you are allowed to bandage yourself to stop bleeding. Afterwards you will to write a 2,000 word report on the mating habits of the brazilian spotted aphid, in latin, by tommorrow.

We will put this theory to the test.


@concerro
First off no a lot of the others WERE saying you need 2 hours sleep and 6 hours rest before you could memorize spells while wearing the ring.

I've also been saying that the recent casting limit runs into difficulty with the 2 for 8 value as if I were to sleep 8 hours the recent limit would be overcome and since the ring lets you get the benefit of 8 hours rest in 2 that recent casting limit should also be reduced to 2 hours from eight.

This is where we disagree if you are saying this is a rule. The ring never mentions being able to do that.

Are you sure the ring specifically says it makes 2 hours of rest not sleep rest the equivilent of 8 for casters who need rest to prepare spells. Seems fairly straightforward to me even without the whole I memorize 2 spells now and the majority in six hours issue .

Engaging in conversation is specified in the rules as a distraction that prevents the wizard from rememorizing spells. So would posting here, watching yahoo movies and going on yahoo chat.

Do you have a rules quote for that?

Yes and I posted it earlier, the core book specifically states engaging in conversation prevents spell memorization. I'm posting via mobile so I don't have the options available to repost it now.

As for hitpoints I see at least one person understands what I was getting it, its easy to say someone who's on 4 out of 50 hitpoints and never did anything about the thrown dagger that did critical damage should be hurt, distracted and unable to memorize spells.

Oh and the kneecapping example isn't fair remember your memorizing not writing and there's no baseline to compare. What you need to do is give him an hour to study a 2000 page paper, test him on it, kneecap him, the give him a 2000 page paper on a different subject to study for an hour, test him again and see which one got the better score.

Dark Archive

I think the issue here is that:

A lvl 20 character, by definition, is so powerful that he is almost godlike.

For spell casters, this means that they can literally do miracles.

For players, this means that the fighter, who appears to be still swinging that sharp bit around, doesn't appear any more epic than before.

However, you should consider that you could, most likely, singlehandedly, wipe out a major city without breaking that much sweat. I think that's "epic" and kinda "godlike". Problem is, you don't have any cool visual effects while you do it - no fireballs, no flying, etc.


TarkXT wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I am sure that if I am writing a thesis paper someone tugging on my ears is more distracting than a beating. I might feel the after effects of the beating but I can still think clearly. If someone is pulling on me then it is hard to ignore them.

Alright. I have here this bat with nails in it. I will now kneecap you. Once I am done (I will tell you when im done) you are allowed to bandage yourself to stop bleeding. Afterwards you will to write a 2,000 word report on the mating habits of the brazilian spotted aphid, in latin, by tommorrow.

We will put this theory to the test.

The only thing stopping me from doing this is that I do not know latin.


Liam Warner wrote:


Yes and I posted it earlier, the core book specifically states engaging in conversation prevents spell memorization. I'm posting via mobile so I don't have the options available to repost it now.

As for hitpoints I see one person understands what I was getting it, its easy to say someone who's on 4 out of 50 hitpoints and never did anything about the thrown dagger that did critical damage should be hurt, distracted and unable to memorize spells.

Anything can be fluffed to support an opinion, but the rules don't indicate previous damage does that.

As for the rules quote on conversations I will check back here when I get back home tonight to see what you find. I did look for it, but I was unable to locate it.


its on page 218 with all the other rules.


wraithstrike wrote:

If I put in difficult terrain it will be to stop the other fighters also. I can handle it without making exceptions which is why I don't see it as broken. If I only put in difficult terrain to stop the charger then you would have a point.

Charging also requires movement in a straight line. The two-handed fighter can move around things, and is not limited by a small map size which restricts charging, not does he have to worry about an animal companion being so big it is in the way in small areas. Yeah people can get medium animal companions if they choose a small race, but that is not the norm.

You can dual wield a lance, but the penalties are really high, and you will miss more if you power attack. TWF'ing does less damage than using a weapons two-handed. TWF'ing with two lances is just a self-defeating idea.

In fact, the same thing i said. The things that stop this broken build also stop other melee characters. With reckless abandon power attack is not a problem, and since is a charge -4 become -2. Sure the barb can handle it. So, none is charging, thus everyone do 1 attack, or if everyone charge other melee still do 1 attack against the insanous damage output of the AM build. I think that you lost something on his thread about this build :) Nothing to say about, rules RAW is overpowered, none can stand against his massive damage, except for casters who got seeds of fire and got time to multiple cast (another rule broken).

It would take too much time to explain the AM build, you can find it with ease, AM BARBARIAN posted it with all feats, etc and with numeric value.


AlecStorm wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

If I put in difficult terrain it will be to stop the other fighters also. I can handle it without making exceptions which is why I don't see it as broken. If I only put in difficult terrain to stop the charger then you would have a point.

Charging also requires movement in a straight line. The two-handed fighter can move around things, and is not limited by a small map size which restricts charging, not does he have to worry about an animal companion being so big it is in the way in small areas. Yeah people can get medium animal companions if they choose a small race, but that is not the norm.

You can dual wield a lance, but the penalties are really high, and you will miss more if you power attack. TWF'ing does less damage than using a weapons two-handed. TWF'ing with two lances is just a self-defeating idea.

In fact, the same thing i said. The things that stop this broken build also stop other melee characters. With reckless abandon power attack is not a problem, and since is a charge -4 become -2. Sure the barb can handle it. So, none is charging, thus everyone do 1 attack, or if everyone charge other melee still do 1 attack against the insanous damage output of the AM build. I think that you lost something on his thread about this build :) Nothing to say about, rules RAW is overpowered, none can stand against his massive damage, except for casters who got seeds of fire and got time to multiple cast (another rule broken).

It would take too much time to explain the AM build, you can find it with ease, AM BARBARIAN posted it with all feats, etc and with numeric value.

I think wraithstrike has a pretty good grasp of the build. AM BARBARIAN isn't dual wielding lances. And really it would be extremely difficult for him to do it anyway.

And you know what? Technically with Mounted Skirmisher nearly every mounted character can LANCEPOUNCE and a mounted order of the sword cavalier can hit even harder than AM BARBARIAN. Am is not crazy because of his damage output because there are those who can hit harder. He's crazy for other reasons.


Tomppa wrote:

I think the issue here is that:

A lvl 20 character, by definition, is so powerful that he is almost godlike.

For spell casters, this means that they can literally do miracles.

For players, this means that the fighter, who appears to be still swinging that sharp bit around, doesn't appear any more epic than before.

However, you should consider that you could, most likely, singlehandedly, wipe out a major city without breaking that much sweat. I think that's "epic" and kinda "godlike". Problem is, you don't have any cool visual effects while you do it - no fireballs, no flying, etc.

I think it's not only the visual effect. The fighter can buy some nice mount, or a magic item that can use as a mount, and if GM describes well the combat situations the melee are very funny to play. The problem is that all classes can do something in combat, but some classes can be very strong in combat still having the widest range of options outside combat. Some classes got more skill points, but they put them in tumble, climb, etc. Nice for some level, since a caster can cast a spell that teleport party or make all fly, and most of the class skill and special abilities of some classes suddenly means nothing. Too much things are covered by spells. I have not problem with casters' power, but they can do too many thing in comparison to other.

This is why most of melee complain. Everything they do is covered by some spell in some book. Finding traps, climbing, jumping, stealth, even craft.

201 to 250 of 740 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Caster / non-caster problem. OK, but why? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.