bookrat |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's because the statistics they talk about only work in sterile environments where all factors are independent of each other. For any one roll, their stats work out. For any combination of rolls over the course of a game, or dare I say it, a campaign, and the stats fail.
I'm sorry, but this is blatantly false. You described statistics exactly backwards: for any one single roll, there is a large variation of how it will turn out compared to the statistics, but over a large number of rolls it will reach the average and the statistics will win out. That is literally how statistics are used in honest* analysis.
Cerberus Seven |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's because the statistics they talk about only work in sterile environments where all factors are independent of each other. For any one roll, their stats work out. For any combination of rolls over the course of a game, or dare I say it, a campaign, and the stats fail.
Um, there was a thread here just the other day about all the instances people could recount off the tops of their heads where their caster characters wiped the floor in effectiveness with the non-casters. I don't think your "This only happens in theorycrafting" comment is too accurate.
As for playing by RAW - you actually can't play a magic user by RAW without table variation. Even at first level you have to have a GM making decisions about what spells are actually doing.
Charm person makes them treat you like a friend - How do goblins treat their friends? What about Lawful good protectors of peace? How do they respond knowing that their best friend is actually separated from them by a group of bloodthirsty PC's? How do they respond to the caster asking them favours when surrounded by people they hate or don't know?
All of that is DM territory.
The most abusable spells all come down to a DM call. Yet most people here talk as if it's a given they'll just work, or at least that their way is the only way. You want to play RAW, take out all the spells where the GM has to make a decision and go play.
All of this is perfectly RAW. Charm Person makes them regard you with the attitude of 'friendly'. Look up the Diplomacy skill for a second and you'll see the same thing there. Follow these for Charm Person and you're good. Yes, the GM has to make some decisions, on how things unfold, but this spell doesn't do anything appreciably different from what the skill does. Charm Person is not the type of example people are thinking about when they discuss a 'martial-caster divide'.
Classic mistake of assuming everyone plays the same way.
What about those of us who don't play that way yet still see no issue?
What about those of us who have players who build and play martials very intelligently? Not building for uber damage output above that required, but for shoring weaknesses and maintain damage output. That's easily doable.
I played with a fighter like this recently. He was amazing in combat, tripping and disarming and repositioning his heart out. Before that, we had a fighter NPC who specialized in grappling, to some good degree of success. They were good combatants, but they were also only good combatants. Outside of skills and story-oriented fame and whatnot, neither had any exceptional ability to influence the course of events in the campaign unless it was on the field of battle. That's what Kirth is talking about. The fighters I'm talking about couldn't get themselves back from the Outer Planes when offensively shifted there, the casters had to go get them. They couldn't heal themselves, we had to do that. They couldn't go underwater and fight effectively (granted, our casters didn't do fantastic at this either by default), they needed the help of the casters' spells for that. They couldn't close enemy gates, prevent teleporters from fleeing, or block off hallways so the enemy couldn't swarm us in the middle of a boss fight, the casters could. When we fought the most powerful vampire lord on the planet, who would otherwise one-shot 1+ PCs a round, they couldn't strip away his magical buff spells and deactivate his gear so we stood a chance...the casters could though and thus we won the day. Also, said vampire lord I mentioned? He went down in the middle of a maze effect after our sorcerer wished us into it so we could play thunderdome without his minions interfering. These are not examples from 'sterile conditions', these are actual scenarios that happened in these two campaigns I've played using PF in the past few years. Don't get me wrong, Garrouseus and Gibbs were bad-asses, but there are some things they would never be able to do whereas the casters, while not able to do the martials job as well or as often by default, could still duplicate the martial's role if they built for it and set themselves to that purpose.
Everyone talks about martials being gear dependent. Take away a casters gear and they suck at high levels as much as the martial, particularly since their saves are now crap.
If you put a level 10 sorcerer and a level 10 fighter naked inside of an arena and ask them to kill each other, which do you think stands the better chance of victory? No seriously, assume they start out decently well built, want to win this fight, get no prep time, and suddenly appear about 60 ft. apart from each other without a shred of gear except for their clothes, then tell me who you would place your money on. The sorcerer has access to level 5 arcane magic, giving him things like flight and energy draining, damage resistance and scrying, invisibility and teleporation, illusions of all kinds and minor shape-changing. This is on top of damage dealing magic. He doesn't need his gear for any of this, his gear simply augments his spell-casting. This is just at level 10, imagine him at level 20. Without his gear, what's a fighter going to do, punch people really hard? Hopefully get them into a full-nelson? Curl up into a corner and cry so that the magic user is compelled to not kill him out of pity?
EDIT: some words missing and dun not gud
Kirth Gersen |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kirth talks about the hidden rules breaking at tables like that is the only reason people don't see this issue he has.
Classic mistake of assuming everyone plays the same way.
What about those of us who don't play that way yet still see no issue?
So far, pretty much all the people who see no issue have agreed with the list of "gentleman's agreements" (aka "secret rule-breaking") that we're talking about -- whether overtly or in terms of their own play lining up with what I'd outlined. Every cry of "our DM fixes it" is a point in that category.
But I don't in any way assume that everyone plays that way -- indeed, my point is that the different outcomes are a direct result of different playstyles. Some people play by straight RAW, for example. Those are, overwhelmingly, the people who do have a problem with the disparity. I don't think that's a coincidence.
And there are people like me, who have no problem because they've constructed written house rules to address the problems.
Wrath |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Wrath, anecdotal evidence is usually not used in science for a reason, because you can only prove a point in a sterile environment. it's hard to determine if other factors cause issues out in the wild, so you put it in a sterile room and see if it still happens.
Anecdotal is the evidence used in Science my friend. You're thinking of math.
In science, you make observations, create hypothesis and then test it. During the testing you make observations, both measureable and observational. You check to see if the anecdotal evidence matches the theoretical hypothesis.
So far all I've seen is anecdotal evidence from any one. They show math which doesn't add up in gaming experience for so very many people.
If you want science, this is what we call a failed hypothesis.
Sure some people find the casters are OP, omg after level 5 we just win. But there are also soooooooo many more who don't.
However, rather than accept that maybe your hypothesis is incorrect, instead they come here and make up reasons why not everyone's experience is the same. Suddenly, everyone who's game experience doesn't match the "Casters rule everything" is now playing with kid gloves and using gentlemen's agreements.
Hypocrisy reeks in these threads.
You want science. Get 30 games of all casters and play through a number of AP's. Preferably this is done under the same DM to control variation in table decisions. Stick as close to RAW as possible but allow the DM to run the world as a reactive and intelligently played environment. Internal world consistency is a key element here.
You could get different players to run characters for each game, to see if skill varies it.
You could get the same players to run them all based on minimizing variables.
You could one player to run 4 casters etc etc etc.
The science is extremely complex. And it has not yet been done properly.
So instead, we get folks sprouting pseudo maths and saying "This must be right because the maths says so!!!!!!" The math is just the background research to support your hypothesis. To get a scientifically determined answer, you now need to run the games and collect data in controlled fashion.
What we do currently have is anecdotal evidence from peoples games. Some folks see an issue, some don't
What we don't have on the Paizo forums is a fair representative of the player base. In fact we have a biased representation, as clearly shown by looking at the people who post in these threads. There are about 20 - 30 regular posters. Some have issues, some don't. 20 -30 posters is no where near the representative of Pathfinder.
There is a reason the Devs aren't changing things dramatically. I find the arrogance of those who say "They are blind to the problem" to be profound. Just because your play style means things aren't working so well for you, does not mean it is the same for everyone, nor in fact for the majority even.
Kirth did something amazing, and I absolutely applaud him for it. He found that the DEV's weren't making changes like he wanted. So he went and made them himself. He has in essence created his own roleplay game based off 3.5 and Pathfinder. Currently its free. Also to his credit, he is not calling for sweeping changes any more. He does pop in to make his point occasionally, and to defend his position (especially when I misquote him...oops).
My advice for people in this situation is to take these discussions to the homebrew section.
I drop in to these threads so that casual visitors can get the alternate view from the noisy minority (minority in my opinion)
andreww |
10 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's funny, but most times I mention for people making these claims to actually prove it through game play, they tell me they don't need to.
What's funnier is that dozens of people have provided real actual examples of martial/caster disparity happening in their actual real games in dozens of different threads and people like you still deny that these experiences have happened or outright lie about it.
Really it is very tiresome.
Bandw2 |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bandw2 wrote:@Wrath, anecdotal evidence is usually not used in science for a reason, because you can only prove a point in a sterile environment. it's hard to determine if other factors cause issues out in the wild, so you put it in a sterile room and see if it still happens.Anecdotal is the evidence used in Science my friend. You're thinking of math.
In science, you make observations, create hypothesis and then test it. During the testing you make observations, both measureable and observational. You check to see if the anecdotal evidence matches the theoretical hypothesis.
So far all I've seen is anecdotal evidence from any one. They show math which doesn't add up in gaming experience for so very many people.
I don't think you know what anecdotal means, it means specifically taken from a personal experience. Testing a hypothesis would be done by removing outside interactions, if you want to check to see if something is true, you need to control all other factors except the one you are testing.
so we remove all the "noise" or constantly changing information and make it sterile or more correctly worded, unchanging, we make it constant.
since when all these factors are removed, it's clear an imbalance exists, then other factors in the field must compensate for them, especially considering the inconsistency with which it is reported.
SCIENCE!
we want these compensation methods codified to help inexperienced GMs or to change the system so they're not a problem for inexperienced GMs.
Wrath |
Wrath wrote:Hypocrisy reeks in these threads.Look to the beam in thine own eye before inspecting the dust in mine.
Am I the one calling for change?
Am I the one claimed the developers are blind to the problem?Am I the one claiming an entire set of classes are broken because my experiences have shown it to be so?
No.
But when I state my own experiences, and indeed that of everyone I have played with (100s) of people, I am told that my stuff doesn't count.
Wrath |
Wrath wrote:Bandw2 wrote:@Wrath, anecdotal evidence is usually not used in science for a reason, because you can only prove a point in a sterile environment. it's hard to determine if other factors cause issues out in the wild, so you put it in a sterile room and see if it still happens.Anecdotal is the evidence used in Science my friend. You're thinking of math.
In science, you make observations, create hypothesis and then test it. During the testing you make observations, both measureable and observational. You check to see if the anecdotal evidence matches the theoretical hypothesis.
So far all I've seen is anecdotal evidence from any one. They show math which doesn't add up in gaming experience for so very many people.
I don't think you know what anecdotal means, it means specifically taken from a personal experience. Testing a hypothesis would be done by removing outside interactions, if you want to check to see if something is true, you need to control all other factors except the one you are testing.
so we remove all the "noise" or constantly changing information and make it sterile or more correctly worded, unchanging, we make it constant.
since when all these factors are removed, it's clear an imbalance exists, then other factors in the field must compensate for them, especially considering the inconsistency with which it is reported.
SCIENCE!
we want these compensation methods codified to help inexperienced GMs or to change the system so they're not a problem for inexperienced GMs.
An anecdote is an observation of an experience.
This is an experiment involving the interactions of humans, not some classroom chemistry. It will involve complex nested design and observation from external sources.
The game is designed with human interaction at its core. You cannot take that out, so must design with it in mind in order to minimise the effect. You in fact are making the classic mistake of any first year science experiment. You're so removed from the actuality of the world itself, your design becomes irrelevant.
Bandw2 |
the simple math of the game dictates there is an imbalance, the number of possible things a caster can do at any moment are much greater than the options given to martials. you have no ignore, change or work around the rules to make them even.
your experiences are simply due to the general gentlemen's agreements that are made to cover the games issues. they work very well and can negate the issue, but unfortunately inexperienced GMs aren't so lucky, and i want to make it easier for new players and GMs to have fun without these issues coming up.
Wrath |
Wrath wrote:It's funny, but most times I mention for people making these claims to actually prove it through game play, they tell me they don't need to.What's funnier is that dozens of people have provided real actual examples of martial/caster disparity happening in their actual real games in dozens of different threads and people like you still deny that these experiences have happened or outright lie about it.
Really it is very tiresome.
I don't deny that those people have an issue. I deny that the game itself has an issue. Very different.
If a persons experience in a game is bad, but some one else's isn't, who should we listen to?
If lots of people have bad experiences, but lots don't, who should we listen to?
If a company has access to feedback from multiple sources other than these threads, and they don't make sweeping changes, what does that tell you?
Do we take it that they may have found an overwhelming majority of folks are not finding issue?
Or do we take it they must not know what the problem is, so if we yell louder they will know?
Paizo is probably the most successful roleplay developer around. I know which one I'll accept.
Again, I don't deny some of you have issues with the game. Do what Kirth did and house rule. (Or easier still, use his rules).
Bandw2 |
Bandw2 wrote:Wrath wrote:Bandw2 wrote:@Wrath, anecdotal evidence is usually not used in science for a reason, because you can only prove a point in a sterile environment. it's hard to determine if other factors cause issues out in the wild, so you put it in a sterile room and see if it still happens.Anecdotal is the evidence used in Science my friend. You're thinking of math.
In science, you make observations, create hypothesis and then test it. During the testing you make observations, both measureable and observational. You check to see if the anecdotal evidence matches the theoretical hypothesis.
So far all I've seen is anecdotal evidence from any one. They show math which doesn't add up in gaming experience for so very many people.
I don't think you know what anecdotal means, it means specifically taken from a personal experience. Testing a hypothesis would be done by removing outside interactions, if you want to check to see if something is true, you need to control all other factors except the one you are testing.
so we remove all the "noise" or constantly changing information and make it sterile or more correctly worded, unchanging, we make it constant.
since when all these factors are removed, it's clear an imbalance exists, then other factors in the field must compensate for them, especially considering the inconsistency with which it is reported.
SCIENCE!
we want these compensation methods codified to help inexperienced GMs or to change the system so they're not a problem for inexperienced GMs.
An anecdote is an observation of an experience.
This is an experiment involving the interactions of humans, not some classroom chemistry. It will involve complex nested design and observation from external sources.
The game is designed with human interaction at its core. You cannot take that out, so must design with it in mind in order to minimise the effect. You in fact are making the classic mistake of any first year...
observations in a study or experiment are not anecdotal, as they are recorded evidence, that is the difference between anecdotal evidence and what is done in an experiment.
these humans are trying to use a set of rules, you can analyze the behaviors of these rules as easily as you can two substances in a beaker. as stated above, you have to ignore the rules to have the issue mitigated, in other words, the issue exists but experience can make it go away. new players do not have this experience and thus do not play after their first session goes badly.
Bandw2 |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, I don't deny some of you have issues with the game. Do what Kirth did and house rule. (Or easier still, use his rules).
everyone on the board already has 8 times over, we want to solve the issue so that new player's who are less likely to make house rules or even think about making their own rules, will not have to in the first place.
Wrath |
the simple math of the game dictates there is an imbalance, the number of possible things a caster can do at any moment are much greater than the options given to martials. you have no ignore, change or work around the rules to make them even.
your experiences are simply due to the general gentlemen's agreements that are made to cover the games issues. they work very well and can negate the issue, but unfortunately inexperienced GMs aren't so lucky, and i want to make it easier for new players and GMs to have fun without these issues coming up.
Please don't tell me how [b]my[/] experiences are earned. We don't do gentle mans agreements. I roll openly. I sunder gear. I play intelligent opponents. I do all this when we want challenging things. And still my experience differs from yours.
I can just as easily state that your experiences are due to ineptitude and no grasp of rules complexity.
There is already a set for new players, it's called the beginner box.
Bandw2 |
Bandw2 wrote:the simple math of the game dictates there is an imbalance, the number of possible things a caster can do at any moment are much greater than the options given to martials. you have no ignore, change or work around the rules to make them even.
your experiences are simply due to the general gentlemen's agreements that are made to cover the games issues. they work very well and can negate the issue, but unfortunately inexperienced GMs aren't so lucky, and i want to make it easier for new players and GMs to have fun without these issues coming up.
Please don't tell me how [b]my[/] experiences are earned. We don't do gentle mans agreements. I roll openly. I sunder gear. I play intelligent opponents. I do all this when we want challenging things. And still my experience differs from yours.
I can just as easily state that your experiences are due to ineptitude and no grasp of rules complexity.
There is already a set for new players, it's called the beginner box.
then do not tell me your experience is more indicative of the game's state.
all that you listed have nothing to do with gentleman's agreements, a gentleman's agreement is such that, i will not try to make a necromancer so long as you as the GM do not try to do the same agaisnt us.
We will not try to scry and fry the mage so long as you do not try to scry and fry the party.
I will buff the martial since this is a team effort and he specifically wants to be good at combat.
I will shy away from save or die spells so long as you do not use them on the party.
I will give the fancy sword we found to the martial since he can use it better and i don't need loot as badly.
it goes on and on.
Wrath |
Final post from me. I will focus just on Kyrts project from here on.
Bandw, I have helped start up 6 pathfinder groups in the last two years. 4 of them were teenage groups ranging from 13 to 17 year olds. 2 of them involved adults.
2 years on and not one of those groups has your issue. I don't give them feedback, they all play independently. All I did was run the first few sessions then sit in on the first one GMd by the group.
The teenage groups play far more frequently than I ever can. In two years they've finished 2 APs (well three of them have, the other one is home brewing).
New players may not actually need the rules changed!
Bandw2 |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Funny thing is, the more intelligently opponents are played, the worse the caster-martial disparity becomes, as martials are no longer able to make full attacks.
this is true, i also know a how to 5 foot step out of any type of flanking to deny a rogue their sneak attack
RDM42 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
bookrat wrote:Funny thing is, the more intelligently opponents are played, the worse the caster-martial disparity becomes, as martials are no longer able to make full attacks.this is true, i also know a how to 5 foot step out of any type of flanking to deny a rogue their sneak attack
Of course, by that measure your opponent will be expending most of its resources trying to take out that caster, which will seem to lower the disparity again ...
But of course, anything that would argue against the notion o 'casters are just gods' just doesn't count.
Bandw2 |
Final post from me. I will focus just on Kyrts project from here on.
Bandw, I have helped start up 6 pathfinder groups in the last two years. 4 of them were teenage groups ranging from 13 to 17 year olds. 2 of them involved adults.
2 years on and not one of those groups has your issue. I don't give them feedback, they all play independently. All I did was run the first few sessions then sit in on the first one GMd by the group.
The teenage groups play far more frequently than I ever can. In two years they've finished 2 APs (well three of them have, the other one is home brewing).
New players may not actually need the rules changed!
probably because they're doing the gentleman's agreement's because they had you to guide them. i know the only reason i stayed with TTrpgs in because of the person who helped me get into it. had i just tried to pick it up and GM it would have been horrendous.
if you want to use my real nickname instead of bandw, it BW2 the and is supposed to be a &, but paizo usernames don't allow it.
Bandw2 |
Bandw2 wrote:bookrat wrote:Funny thing is, the more intelligently opponents are played, the worse the caster-martial disparity becomes, as martials are no longer able to make full attacks.this is true, i also know a how to 5 foot step out of any type of flanking to deny a rogue their sneak attack
Of course, by that measure your opponent will be expending most of its resources trying to take out that caster, which will seem to lower the disparity again ...
But of course, anything that would argue against the notion o 'casters are just gods' just doesn't count.
mirror images, i had one caster destroying a party once, no one would attack him because he had mirror image up and so they stuck to killing the minions.
except the wizard in the party anyway.
bookrat |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
bookrat wrote:Wrath wrote:Hypocrisy reeks in these threads.Look to the beam in thine own eye before inspecting the dust in mine.Am I the one calling for change?
Am I the one claimed the developers are blind to the problem?
Am I the one claiming an entire set of classes are broken because my experiences have shown it to be so?No.
But when I state my own experiences, and indeed that of everyone I have played with (100s) of people, I am told that my stuff doesn't count.
You claim that people are discounting your experiences; yet you discount their experiences.
There is very clearly a disagreement on whether the problem exists, and personal experience is not enough to determine whether the problem truly exists or not. Some people have experienced it, some have not.
So what's left? Mathematical analysis. The very math that you hand waved away while calling everyone else hypocrites for hand waving your own evidence away.
So look to your own hypocrisy before calling everyone else out on theirs.
RDM42 |
Problem with mathematical analysis in this case is that you have to make an awful lot of starting assumptions about a given campaign that may not be true, from what the opponent mix will consist of, to wealth availability, to environmental hazards ... It's somewhat like predicting the weather, it's really hard to get enough data to truly do it in more than general terms. You can't answer that question that definitively for every starting set of assumptions.
Bandw2 |
But bookrat!!!! Dont you see! He found the one true way of playing! You are actually badwrongfun for trying to a pury RAW!
/Sarcasm
i don't even think anyone here runs pure raw, it's just raw is bad and inexperience leads for bad calls or misjudgements on what to replace raw with
Bandw2 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Problem with mathematical analysis in this case is that you have to make an awful lot of starting assumptions about a given campaign that may not be true, from what the opponent mix will consist of, to wealth availability, to environmental hazards ... It's somewhat like predicting the weather, it's really hard to get enough data to truly do it in more than general terms. You can't answer that question that definitively for every starting set of assumptions.
not starting assumptions, we're clearing the board
RDM42 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RDM42 wrote:Problem with mathematical analysis in this case is that you have to make an awful lot of starting assumptions about a given campaign that may not be true, from what the opponent mix will consist of, to wealth availability, to environmental hazards ... It's somewhat like predicting the weather, it's really hard to get enough data to truly do it in more than general terms. You can't answer that question that definitively for every starting set of assumptions.not starting assumptions, we're clearing the board
And if you clear the board than its an utterly meaningless analysis for any given campaign.
PIXIE DUST |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Problem with mathematical analysis in this case is that you have to make an awful lot of starting assumptions about a given campaign that may not be true, from what the opponent mix will consist of, to wealth availability, to environmental hazards ... It's somewhat like predicting the weather, it's really hard to get enough data to truly do it in more than general terms. You can't answer that question that definitively for every starting set of assumptions.
Wealth availability is determined by WBL chart...
Anything less hurts the martials EVEN MORE (see any arguement of anything requiring martials yo do something other than hit things i.e. "i got boots of flying ")
For enemies you look at average capabilities for monsters at a given CR. Also you simply look at how many things the Classes are ahut down by. For instance, the list of things that completely ahut down a.caster is significantly smaller than that of a Melee Martial.
Environmental hazards are often not mentioned because casters are so much better at handling them. Bad Weather? Control Weather. Cold/hot? Endure elements. Boulder in thw way? Stone Shape. Need to rest? Rope Trick... the one area martials can DEFINETELY NOT compete in iS out of combat stuff...
Bandw2 |
Bandw2 wrote:And if you clear the board than its an utterly meaningless analysis for any given campaign.RDM42 wrote:Problem with mathematical analysis in this case is that you have to make an awful lot of starting assumptions about a given campaign that may not be true, from what the opponent mix will consist of, to wealth availability, to environmental hazards ... It's somewhat like predicting the weather, it's really hard to get enough data to truly do it in more than general terms. You can't answer that question that definitively for every starting set of assumptions.not starting assumptions, we're clearing the board
its more meaningful than any given campaign is to any other
edit: a better way is the game shouldn't assume anything it should for all it knows have you fighting in a blank white room against cardboard cutouts and still work.
PIXIE DUST |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I find sad is that if you have a room with nothing but a 10 square foot pillar that is 30 ft tall with a level 1 kobold with a light crossbow and stook A naked level 20 fighter and a naked level 20 sorcerer, the ffighter would actually die... (unless he can climb smooth verticle surfaces...).
The fighter can literally be defeated by something as mundane as a pillar. .. at level 20... THAT is what is sad...
Lemmy |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lemmy wrote:Well... He might have an adamantine weapon, so there is that....I mentioned naked so it is purely a measure of.class abilities vs class abilities. A level 20 should atleast be able yo JUMP that high or something... but a simple pillar is kinda sa
Well, to be fair, a Wizard without his spell component pouch isn't going to do much better... Though he can solve that problem with a single feat.
kyrt-ryder |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well... He might have an adamantine weapon, so there is that....
A level 20 fighter with even mundane gear [even ordinary mundane gear made of normal materials and not masterworked] isn't a problem here. He'd still kill the Kobold.
What's funny is the level 20 naked fighter is totally powerless to do anything to stop the Kobod [with the possible exception of punching the cube to death, which is highly dependent on the cubes material. I doubt even Solid Wood would be something he could destroy quickly enough, but I haven't done the math.]
Anzyr |
PIXIE DUST wrote:Well, to be fair, a Wizard without his spell component pouch isn't going to do much better... Though he can solve that problem with a single feat.Lemmy wrote:Well... He might have an adamantine weapon, so there is that....I mentioned naked so it is purely a measure of.class abilities vs class abilities. A level 20 should atleast be able yo JUMP that high or something... but a simple pillar is kinda sa
And a 100 GP Holy Symbol Tattoo.
Bandw2 |
PIXIE DUST wrote:Well, to be fair, a Wizard without his spell component pouch isn't going to do much better... Though he can solve that problem with a single feat.Lemmy wrote:Well... He might have an adamantine weapon, so there is that....I mentioned naked so it is purely a measure of.class abilities vs class abilities. A level 20 should atleast be able yo JUMP that high or something... but a simple pillar is kinda sa
even so he keeps all his prepared spells
bookrat |
PIXIE DUST wrote:Well, to be fair, a Wizard without his spell component pouch isn't going to do much better... Though he can solve that problem with a single feat.Lemmy wrote:Well... He might have an adamantine weapon, so there is that....I mentioned naked so it is purely a measure of.class abilities vs class abilities. A level 20 should atleast be able yo JUMP that high or something... but a simple pillar is kinda sa
That's probably why she said "Sorcerer." :)
RDM42 |
Lemmy wrote:even so he keeps all his prepared spellsPIXIE DUST wrote:Well, to be fair, a Wizard without his spell component pouch isn't going to do much better... Though he can solve that problem with a single feat.Lemmy wrote:Well... He might have an adamantine weapon, so there is that....I mentioned naked so it is purely a measure of.class abilities vs class abilities. A level 20 should atleast be able yo JUMP that high or something... but a simple pillar is kinda sa
No, I'd say the wizard equivalent of a naked fighter doesn't have spells prepared.
Bandw2 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bandw2 wrote:No, I'd say the wizard equivalent of a naked fighter doesn't have spells prepared.Lemmy wrote:even so he keeps all his prepared spellsPIXIE DUST wrote:Well, to be fair, a Wizard without his spell component pouch isn't going to do much better... Though he can solve that problem with a single feat.Lemmy wrote:Well... He might have an adamantine weapon, so there is that....I mentioned naked so it is purely a measure of.class abilities vs class abilities. A level 20 should atleast be able yo JUMP that high or something... but a simple pillar is kinda sa
did the fighter lose bravery? it's a class feature.
RDM42 |
RDM42 wrote:did the fighter lose bravery? it's a class feature.Bandw2 wrote:No, I'd say the wizard equivalent of a naked fighter doesn't have spells prepared.Lemmy wrote:even so he keeps all his prepared spellsPIXIE DUST wrote:Well, to be fair, a Wizard without his spell component pouch isn't going to do much better... Though he can solve that problem with a single feat.Lemmy wrote:Well... He might have an adamantine weapon, so there is that....I mentioned naked so it is purely a measure of.class abilities vs class abilities. A level 20 should atleast be able yo JUMP that high or something... but a simple pillar is kinda sa
So is the ability to use weapons, if he has them on hand. Or use armor well, if he is wearing it. Just like a wizard has the ability to cast spells, if he has them memorized. Or a sorcerer to cast his known spells, if he has the slots unspent.