Why don't fighters / rogues / etc get "epic" at high levels?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

401 to 450 of 574 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

JoeJ wrote:

I don't really want to see fighters performing incredible feats of strength like cleaving mountains or ripping giant trees out of the ground. I'd rather see fighters showing epic acrobatics/tactics/marksmanship. Skill based badassness, IOW, with the flexibility to stay relevant at any level, even if they do fall way behind other classes in straight DPR. Put another way, I don't want high level fighters to be like the Hulk, I want them to be like Batman or Captain America.

I can understand this this. I just would not like to see fighters moving their sword so fast that they teleport, or rogues jumping so high that they planar travel. It is not the style I associate with D&D.

THe problem is, I suppose, that mid to high level spellcaster are basically walking gods.

If magic were not so absurd at high levels then the problem would go away.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
EvilPaladin wrote:
TheSideKick wrote:
When you don't focus on DPR you can do great things with a fighter

...and are incredibly taxed when trying to do so.

Seriously, want to do something thematically cool like manage to swing your sword in a circle and swipe at all the enemies around you Zelda style? Well, you need 5 feats[dodge, mobility, combat expertise, spring attack, whirlwind attack] for that, have 2 ability score prerequisites, have to spend your full turn doing that, and after all that, you still aren't doing something as good as a full attack[unless you can't full attack].

Heck even something as straightforward as hitting someone so hard that they're knocked over is an Ultra-Sekrit Special Technique that'll cost you a wad of feats.

Apparently, all those kids on schoolyards are secretly combat veterans.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
TheSideKick wrote:
The balor is taken out of the air with hamatula strike + bow.

Seriously? You really think Hamatula strike works with a bow?

You shoot someone with an arrow and suddenly you're both grappling?

I'll grant that the literal text of the feat might not deny it, but if you tried it in my game I'd laugh at you. Even RAW, I'd argue that an arrow is not a weapon, but ammunition, so it doesn't apply.

don't you have to move to the target of a grapple and if it's greater than your movement speed it fails?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nope.

"If you successfully grapple a creature that is not adjacent to you, move that creature to an adjacent open space (if no space is available, your grapple fails)."


Gaberlunzie wrote:

Nope.

"If you successfully grapple a creature that is not adjacent to you, move that creature to an adjacent open space (if no space is available, your grapple fails)."

Oooh. With Hamatula Strike and a bow, you can accomplish some pretty miraculous battlefield movement. Just shoot an ally 100s of feet away and teleport him right to you.


thejeff wrote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:

Nope.

"If you successfully grapple a creature that is not adjacent to you, move that creature to an adjacent open space (if no space is available, your grapple fails)."

Oooh. With Hamatula Strike and a bow, you can accomplish some pretty miraculous battlefield movement. Just shoot an ally 100s of feet away and teleport him right to you.

*SCORPION VOICE*

GET OVER HERE!!!!

*NOOBSAIBOT VOICE*
WHOOPSIES!!!


Where is Hamatula Strike? Is it a generic feat or is it specific to Golarion?

Shadow Lodge

JoeJ wrote:

Where is Hamatula Strike? Is it a generic feat or is it specific to Golarion?

Its here, and yes, it does seem to be Golarion-specific.


EvilPaladin wrote:
JoeJ wrote:

Where is Hamatula Strike? Is it a generic feat or is it specific to Golarion?

Its here, and yes, it does seem to be Golarion-specific.

Thanks. :)

I only get Golarion material if it looks like it contains a lot of material that I can mine for my own campaign. Any new rules in that material is assumed not to apply unless I specifically decide otherwise, so it doesn't look like I even need to home rule on this.


MrSin wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
If the balor full attacks you, he's dead because you then can full attack.

A fight between two martials is truly an epic one that has to be seen to be believed. Many epic techniques, crafted, requiring deep thought, passed down through family for generations are used back and forth in a many round fight, leading to a climax and epic finale!

MrSin wrote:
"I full attack!" "Well I full attack!" "Well I full attack!" "you can't full attack!" "Why not?" "Cuz you dead!".

To be fair, sometimes fights between high level casters aren't any better.


Anyway, getting back to the Jumping Thing. Let's try to remember that Overland Flight exists. With ONE 5th-level spell, a caster gets to:

Ignore all Climb checks
Ignore all Jump checks
Ignore most Swim checks
Ignore most floor-based traps
Ignore difficult terrain
Ignore most non-flying enemies' melee attacks (unless in a room with a low ceiling)
Move faster than most characters

How many feats is that worth? Keep in mind that a 9th level caster probably has more than the one 5th-level spell slot, too.


Forget the fighter, I want to play a thief who can steal the magic ring right off the wizard's finger.

Batman: What's this do?
Green Lantern: My ring?
Batman: I don't see any buttons so I'm guessing it works off concentration.
Green Lantern: How the Hell'd you get it off?
Batman: You weren't concentrating.

In addition to my own magic items, I also get to use yours whenever I want to. <eg>


Well, to be fair, overland flight doesn't do exactly that; I mean granted it's an extremely powerful spell, but there's plenty of examples where it won't replace various skill checks - the most obvious one being in windstorms or worse winds (as a 10th level wizard is unlikely to have more than +20 to Fly even with the spell bonus, which would be +12 in a windstorm). Granted for ignoring climb checks when overland flight doesn't work there's spider climb...

But it doesn't always evade difficult terrain, only when there's no difficult terrain where it flies (so for example, if the party is in a dense forest OF won't help with the terrain).

And the speed benefit I think is a bit overrated. In combat, there's often class abilities and/or haste going around reducing the difference between the flyer and non-flyer (there's a huge difference between 30ft and 60ft, not so much between 60ft and 90ft) and out of combat, 60ft isn't really that much at 9th level, considering all the characters that get fast free mounts as class features, or shapeshifting, or can simply train a 500gp young hippogriff if they have a bit of time.

In our last game, the party chipped in together at 7th level to get a trained Roc (about 7k i think) and made a special "wagon" to sit in while it carried them. They did it mostly for the awesomeness, but for overland travel 80ft speed isn't that bad for the whole party for 7k. And it carried basically all their most important equipment too, using the wagon as a mobile base.
Granted the party was a bit overwealthed (I'm a bit too generous with them sometimes) but by 9th level 7k is really small for a party resource.

Huh, this became quite a long tangent.

The tl;dr version is basically: Yes, overland flight is good, but it's not as infallible as you present it nor are there no other easier options for a lot of what it does.


Nicos wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

You can't Hamatula Strike with a bow. Applying even a smidgen of common sense will reveal that much (how is he Grappled by it? How are YOU Grappled by it? "Grappling" him with a bow doesn't magically transport him across the intervening space to you.).

This is why you use an Harpoon. Ahab for the win!

** spoiler omitted **...

Heh. I still think this is pushing the intent of the ability to the limit, but it at least makes a bit MORE sense.


The best part about Overland Flight though is that it lasts all day.


Getting back to the topic of epicness, in my campaign world there was a legendary gnome long ago named Talonpoika the Rogue who was so skilled he could hide in his own shadow. He's the reason wizards exist - he stole the goddess of magic's spellbook and made copies. Unfortunately, I have no idea how I could create a character like that except by pure GM fiat.


You drop a Nuclear bomb on a city and A high level rogue stands at ground zero and does not even get his cloak dirty. That kind of epic.

Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

To the OP:

Interesting question. I posted some thoughts about this in my blog a while ago, and there was a discussion about it here on the boards (that eventually went off-topic, devolved into insulting arguments, and got locked, but there's some worthwhile discussion before that).


Degoon Squad wrote:
You drop a Nuclear bomb on a city and A high level rogue stands at ground zero and does not even get his cloak dirty. That kind of epic.

I think that's only possible if there's a refrigerator he can hide in.


Nah, Indy's obviously a Ranger with Favored Enemy (Nazi).


Nocte ex Mortis wrote:
Nah, Indy's obviously a Ranger with Favored Enemy (Nazi).

Archaeologist Bard with max ranks in Performance (Act)


Touche.


What's the DC on an Animal Handling check for lashing sea turtles together to make a raft?


JoeJ wrote:

What's the DC on an Animal Handling check for lashing sea turtles together to make a raft?

Higher if you try to use your back hair to do it. I don't care what species you are, that's off-putting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder inherited a lot of the problems 3.0 had form the changeover from AD&D. Casters were always dominant at higher levels but several things held them in check to some extent. The big ones.

1. 3.0 had all the classes advance at the same rate. In AD&D martial types were often 1-4 levels ahead of the spell casters. In effect spell casters had a level adjustment (LA)

2. The way saving throws worked made things like save or dies/suck unreliable at higher levels. There was a 1-3 point difference between good and bad saves for the most part, not 6+ levels of gaps.

3. The way magic resistance worked was changed. High level AD&D fighters were useful to have around if you came across things like mind flayers that were a flat 90% resistant to magic.

4. Changes to the way where magic items were acquired. It is cheap and easy to get them in 3.x games compared to AD&D and spell casters can make them at half price.

5. Changes to the way multiple attacks worked. A fighter with 4 or 5 attacks a round suffered no penalty on his attacks. None of this +11/+6/+1 malarky.

6. Changes to the way skills worked in comparison to NWP. The difference between classes now is 2 vs 8 skill points per level. In AD&D it was 3 NWP vs 4 NWP.

7. Making it harder to interrupt spell casters. In AD&D your spell failed if you took a single point of damage with no concentration roll allowed.

8. Clerics and Druids and Druids again were massively buffed over AD&D.

9. Scaling buff spells were introduced which obsolete things like weapon focus feats.

There are probably other reasons and spell casters will usually be more powerful at higher levels it just depends on how big you like that gap. In 1st ed spellcasters did not have so many options but they added UA spells to the 2nd ed PHB and added more spells from 2nd ed to 3.0.

TLDR: They buffed spell casters and nerfed fighters in the 2nd to 3rd ed change over.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1) This isn't actually true. Casters, particularly magic-users, started off slow (when they were very weak), but caught up and passed fighters until very high levels. By 7th wizards were actually ahead and didn't fall behind again until something like 16th.

2) Saves were a big part of the difference, but it wasn't so much the difference between good and bad saves, but that saves went up and DCs didn't. It was actually easier to resist spells at high level, even level appropriate spells.


Level caps were also a thing back then.


Blindmage wrote:
Level caps were also a thing back then.

But not a very meaningful one most of the time. Humans didn't have them and we generally chose demi-human classes that we didn't expect to be seriously limited in the campaign we were playing.


The biggest limiting factor for casters in 1st and 2nd edition was that it took 15 MINUTES PER SPELL LEVEL to memorize spells. Which meant that casters could not blow all of their spells each day, they had to save them. This meant that they could be worn down by martials and eventually beaten. Plus you randomly rolled for spells in 1st edition, which meant your offensive spell could have been PUSH. Wizards were very easy to kill at low levels, much easier to kill than they are now.


At 20th level a Fighter can slay a dragon all by himself. At 20th level a fighter can take on multiple giants all by himself. That sounds pretty epic to me.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Arnwolf wrote:
At 20th level a Fighter can slay a dragon all by himself. At 20th level a fighter can take on multiple giants all by himself. That sounds pretty epic to me.

yeah, but essentially it's just going to be you trying to full attack over and over again.


At 20th level, a Wizard can take said dragon, hollow it out, and turn it into a puppet for him to inhabit, forever. That is, if the same wizard doesn't simply need a gigantic monster as a permanent will-less slave. Or trophy, or prisoner on a demiplane where time and matter forever stand still, or...

As for the giants, the Wizard can kill all of them, potentially with a single spell.


Arnwolf wrote:
At 20th level a Fighter can slay a dragon all by himself. At 20th level a fighter can take on multiple giants all by himself. That sounds pretty epic to me.

The main disconnect is that the END RESULT sounds epic ("I slayed a dragon", "I captured the unbreakable Keep", etc.), but the methods used to accomplish it are boring and barely removed from what you could do at 1st level.

A 1st level Wizard will hit his enemies with Color Spray, Sleep, or even Magic Missile.

A 1st level Fighter hits it with his weapon.

A 20th level Wizard will hit his enemies with magic that Suffocates whole crowds, or calls down Meteors from the sky, or scares them to death with Phantasms.

A 20th level Fighter hits it with his weapon...multiple times a round.


I'm not convinced a Level 20 Fighter *can* slay a dragon. At least not one that has at least 7th level spell slots. Now a level 20 Fighter could wipe out an army of ho-hum Giants (though it would take as many turns as there were Giants unless he has a Bow and even then it'll take awhile), but give one enough caster levels to hit CR 20 and I think the Fighter will soon regret their life choices.


I think the issue with bringing magic items into the equation is that, generally speaking, magic items provide equal benefit regardless of class (although arguably this isn't even true: most casters gain twice as much benefit due to crafting feats). WBL is a fantastic class feature (one of the most powerful!), but everyone has access to it.

In order to compare classes on an individual basis, you should elminate identical features (for example, there's no point drawing attention to the full BAB of a paladin if your intention is to compare it to a ranger, who also has the advantage of full BAB). Thus, we should really look at the classes as as a naked chassis.

When you boil it down to points of difference, I don't think anyone would argued that 20 levels of naked fighter gives you anything like the features, power and narrative effect of 20 naked wizard levels (as the stereotypical arcane caster example). 9th level casting is just that good. In fact, a naked 9th level caster is still able to contribute in fights at 20th level, although he'll have to seriously optimise to make up for his loss of WBL. The fighter cannot contribute at all. When you put WBL back on top (because of course noone plays 0 WBL 20th level games) you realise that the same WBL which is helping bring the fighter up to par, is letting the wizards extend beyond par.

Of course, more relevant is that that this disparity is evident at any level you care to pick, not just 20. The gap just isn't as wide at 1st.


thejeff wrote:

1) This isn't actually true. Casters, particularly magic-users, started off slow (when they were very weak), but caught up and passed fighters until very high levels. By 7th wizards were actually ahead and didn't fall behind again until something like 16th.

2) Saves were a big part of the difference, but it wasn't so much the difference between good and bad saves, but that saves went up and DCs didn't. It was actually easier to resist spells at high level, even level appropriate spells.

Probably could have clarified. In BECMi the ratio remains constant ie the wizard is always behind the fighter. AD&D the wizard did level up faster for a few levels. By level 18the fighter was 2 levels ahead IIRC and the thief 4 levels ahead of the wizard.


BECMI also went to lvl 36 (for humans at least, for demihumans, you still needed to track it, for weapon mastery and such)... I do miss the immortality quests, managing huge armies and congregations, etc, so much fun! You actually told stories, long ones, many decades long.


Zardnaar wrote:
Probably could have clarified. In BECMi the ratio remains constant ie the wizard is always behind the fighter. AD&D the wizard did level up faster for a few levels. By level 18the fighter was 2 levels ahead IIRC and the thief 4 levels ahead of the wizard.

The AD&D Magic User levelled faster than the fighter for the majority of the mid levels of the game. The Druid levelled faster than either of them, often hitting about 12th while they were still around 9th. Only the Thief was faster and that was offset by the Thief being a mechanically terrible class who would be lucky to make it past 3rd.


andreww wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Probably could have clarified. In BECMi the ratio remains constant ie the wizard is always behind the fighter. AD&D the wizard did level up faster for a few levels. By level 18the fighter was 2 levels ahead IIRC and the thief 4 levels ahead of the wizard.
The AD&D Magic User levelled faster than the fighter for the majority of the mid levels of the game. The Druid levelled faster than either of them, often hitting about 12th while they were still around 9th. Only the Thief was faster and that was offset by the Thief being a mechanically terrible class who would be lucky to make it past 3rd.

The AD&D Druid was not the CoDzilla monster of 3rd ed and the fast leveling thing hit a brick wall at level 12.

I have been playig retroclones and the ones I play have mostly fixed the issues around the AD&D xp tables. Wizards only level up faster from level 6-10 IIRC. The AD&D wizard was less broken still than the 3rd ed one due to the various drawbacks, difficulty of getting bonus hit point via con score (15 required), can't easily create magic items and the various things I listed earlier. They also lacked a lot of spells that entered the game later. Most AD&D spells were not broken either except maybe boom spells above level 11 or so in BECMI/1st ed (2nd ed capped them), it was more spell combos that broke wizards in AD&D ir fly+ improved invisibility (wizard could not do this in 1st ed btw).

A few spells that are really good in 3.5/PF could kill you in AD&D such as haste, casting limited wish or wish could also kill you.

By comparison healing was limited, magic items were limited, hit points above level 10 were limited. being raised from the dead cost you con points, creating a permanent magic item cost wizards con points etc.

Removing those limitations and letting wizards level up as fast as rogues and the saving throw changes were the big offenders IMHO or at least the main ones.

Go and play Pathfinder, cap DCs at 20, give all classes +3 on saves, ban the item creation feats and use AD&D item creation rules and try out a game like that and see what happens to spell casters:)


Zardnaar wrote:
Go and play Pathfinder, cap DCs at 20, give all classes +3 on saves, ban the item creation feats and use AD&D item creation rules and try out a game like that and see what happens to spell casters:)

Buff summoning wizard with the occasional battlefield control spell?

Now you have wizards with a lot of extra gold. They are now encourage to at level 14 make simulacrums of themselves and have mini undead armies. Hordes of Immortal Bloody Skeletons overtaking all foes. When that isn't enough they can still just summon the angels.

Instead of a fighter the wizard can just buff up his favorite bloody skeleton and watch it be about as effective as a buffed up fighter.

You could cap DCs at 15, give all creatures golem magic immunity and casters would still wreck face at high levels.


Zardnaar wrote:
andreww wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Probably could have clarified. In BECMi the ratio remains constant ie the wizard is always behind the fighter. AD&D the wizard did level up faster for a few levels. By level 18the fighter was 2 levels ahead IIRC and the thief 4 levels ahead of the wizard.
The AD&D Magic User levelled faster than the fighter for the majority of the mid levels of the game. The Druid levelled faster than either of them, often hitting about 12th while they were still around 9th. Only the Thief was faster and that was offset by the Thief being a mechanically terrible class who would be lucky to make it past 3rd.

The AD&D Druid was not the CoDzilla monster of 3rd ed and the fast leveling thing hit a brick wall at level 12.

I have been playig retroclones and the ones I play have mostly fixed the issues around the AD&D xp tables. Wizards only level up faster from level 6-10 IIRC. The AD&D wizard was less broken still than the 3rd ed one due to the various drawbacks, difficulty of getting bonus hit point via con score (15 required), can't easily create magic items and the various things I listed earlier. They also lacked a lot of spells that entered the game later. Most AD&D spells were not broken either except maybe boom spells above level 11 or so in BECMI/1st ed (2nd ed capped them), it was more spell combos that broke wizards in AD&D ir fly+ improved invisibility (wizard could not do this in 1st ed btw).

A few spells that are really good in 3.5/PF could kill you in AD&D such as haste, casting limited wish or wish could also kill you.

By comparison healing was limited, magic items were limited, hit points above level 10 were limited. being raised from the dead cost you con points, creating a permanent magic item cost wizards con points etc.

Removing those limitations and letting wizards level up as fast as rogues and the saving throw changes were the big offenders IMHO or at least the main ones.

Go and play Pathfinder, cap DCs at 20, give all...

you forgot to very important buff to caster per 3.x

Concentration did not exist so if you got hit casting a spell you lost it.

The ability to move and cast spells. And the invention of the 5ft step. This could not be done before.

While on the other hand weapon attacking characters could move and full attack all the time, there was no need for pounce. but the full attack back then worked kind of like dual initiative in mythic rules. With you attack happening at start of round and all the extra at the end. This made monsters also more of a threat back then they are today. As they still got a chance to screw you up. They also had the ability of stand still feat for free nor could you over run past them. This allowed them to protect the caster that could not move. This made them pretty epic and enforced team work.

the creation of concentration was very much needed to balance the game. but with weapon attacking class took a huge debuff, they lost the ability to move and full attack, and the ability of innate standstill feat (which included whatever area you threaten meaning the greater your reach the more area you could protect) Stand still is a joke now only adjacent square. Things just walk around you. I think if they changed these things back you see a lot less people complaining about martials and it would be a bit more balance. They also be appreciated more by casters. Concentration was the only thing casters needed as a buff.

Edit: I forgot another huge buff, no longer being locked into action before you turn in initiative. this was a big gain for caster, was a buff for martial also but not as big. it was the cause for many lost spells, it is also the main reason Concentration was needed as a buff.


Marthkus wrote:

What I find odd is that a high level fighter can solo dragons but can't leap 3 feat off the ground.

Sure he can. That's a Acrobatics check of 12. A first level fighter can do that. A 20th level fighter should be able to get 8 feet. With one Mythic Tier it's 18 feet and with a mighty hit, too. That's without spending a feat or any special equipment, etc. Add a trait to make it a class skill, and it's even better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Marthkus wrote:

What I find odd is that a high level fighter can solo dragons but can't leap 3 feat off the ground.

Sure he can. That's a Acrobatics check of 12. A first level fighter can do that. A 20th level fighter should be able to get 8 feet. With one Mythic Tier it's 18 feet and with a mighty hit, too. That's without spending a feat or any special equipment, etc. Add a trait to make it a class skill, and it's even better.

That's assuming he has a running start. It's a 24 otherwise. Most 20th level fighters aren't going to have a sufficiently high Dex that they could pass that just by taking 10. And let's not bring mythic into this, that introduces all sorts of extreme factors that the base game should not be based around.

The fact that the skill for jumping not only doesn't benefit at all from Strength but is also not a class skill for fighters, cavaliers, samurai, maguses, and freaking rangers is also kind of dumb. That, however, is a slightly different discussion.


Because if the fighter got to be quadratic like a wizard, wizards would need to be exponential.


I'm curious how wizards 'remake reality.' Sure, you can make your own reality, but last I checked a wizard can't make a planet transmute to cheese or anything on a truly cosmic scale.


Buri wrote:
I'm curious how wizards 'remake reality.' Sure, you can make your own reality, but last I checked a wizard can't make a planet transmute to cheese or anything on a truly cosmic scale.

Technically, 'remake reality' is the literal description of what Wish does. It's just that it's expensive, has inherent limits on what can be safely done, and requires a genius and super-experienced wizard to pull it off. I think people tend to assume that a GM will let a properly worded Wish remake whole nations or even continents if the wording were correct. What they forget is that the wizard is still casting a spell, one that allows SR and, in the vast majority of circumstances, saving throws. Just because you want the army of demons banished back to the deepest, darkest reaches of the Abyss or their leader encapsulated in temporal stasis, doesn't mean the bad guys are helpless against your 9th level spell.


Claxon wrote:
Because if the fighter got to be quadratic like a wizard, wizards would need to be exponential.

Err...why?

The whole point of moving the Fighter's scale up was so the two would be balanced. Making Wizards even MORE OMGWTFBBQ powerful defeats the purpose.

Or do you really think casters NEED to be more powerful than everyone else by a mile?

Buri wrote:
I'm curious how wizards 'remake reality.' Sure, you can make your own reality, but last I checked a wizard can't make a planet transmute to cheese or anything on a truly cosmic scale.

They could with enough castings of Polymorph Any Object if they wanted. There's one spell for you.

All of the Shadow Evocation spells turn illusions into reality.

Passwall essentially makes castles a thing of the past.

Any of the Conjuration spells that conjure things blatantly impossible if you're following the laws of physics count. Like Chains of Light.

Rift of Ruin (and Gate, as I recall) specifically says it "tears a rift in reality".

Cursed Earth makes a supernaturally powered area where you can start your own zombie apocalypse.

And, of course, Wish can LITERALLY rewrite reality to make it so some event never happened.


Nothing in the rules allows even a 20th level caster to take after Odin and create an entire planet, or make all the plants in the world stop growing because they're pissed, like Demeter, if that's what you mean.


Rynjin wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Because if the fighter got to be quadratic like a wizard, wizards would need to be exponential.

Err...why?

The whole point of moving the Fighter's scale up was so the two would be balanced. Making Wizards even MORE OMGWTFBBQ powerful defeats the purpose.

Or do you really think casters NEED to be more powerful than everyone else by a mile?

I was making a joke. Though, I could see where it would be missed.

No, I hate the martial caster imbalance and wish I knew of a good way to resolve it.

JoeJ wrote:

Nothing in the rules allows even a 20th level caster to take after Odin and create an entire planet, or make all the plants in the world stop growing because they're pissed, like Demeter, if that's what you mean.

What do you call Create Greater Demiplane? He doesn't just create a planet, he creates a whole new plane of existence.


Claxon wrote:
What do you call Create Greater Demiplane? He doesn't just create a planet, he creates a whole new plane of existence.

Planets are far more impressive due to their size, complexity, and inherent possibilities that go along with creating a biosphere for life hanging in the middle of empty space. Hell, Rope Trick is just a very scaled down version of a Create Demiplane spell, albeit a lot faster to conjure up. For some reason, expanding or creating planar boundaries using magic just isn't that hard. Now, forming entire functional planets that don't crumble immediately after? Yeah, no spell does that. Then there's stars, which some gods have created on their own. That's definitely an order or two of magnitude up from a planet.

401 to 450 of 574 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why don't fighters / rogues / etc get "epic" at high levels? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.