My point is fighters and wizards are two very different classes and should be treated as such. Neither really is better then the other both having their strengths and weaknesses. Neither the Wizard or Fighter are my favorite class but I don't slam on them saying they suck. It's how they are made and played that can make them suck or be great.
I apologize if I was mean but it get's frustrating when someone slams on me without really reading what I wrote. I think it's unfair to say all classes suck even though I personally hate the Bard. I have apologized for my opinion on them. If you hate a fighter don't play on but don't slam on someone who loves them.
They are different, but you can still measure if one does better than the other at stuff.
Like say, it's clear to see that the fighter is tougher than the wizard. It's also clear that the wizard can make himself roughly as tough as the fighter for a short time by casting a spell. It'll be a toughness with holes in it (i.e. Mirror Image or Displacement is useless against AoE, fly does not protect you from ranged attacks, and windwall does jack squat to melee attackers), but it still serves to even the playing field a good bit.
Obviously, fighters are better than wizards at killing things with melee or ranged attacks, depending. But wizards are better at making a lot of things die at once than fighters. They're better at taking down opponents without killing them than fighters, and they arguably might even be better at taking single foes down quickly than fighters are.
They're better in almost any non-combat situation too. They have better knowledge skills, and while the figther probably has ranks in climb and a big strength score, spells give better mobility than the movement-related skills do, from feather-fall & spider climb, to dimension door, to gate.
They're better at gathering information. The fighter is limited to the diplomacy skill for this, and is likely equally as bad at it as the wizard, charisma being a tertiary stat at best to both classes.
The wizard has spells that can gather information, like scry, clairvoyance, true seeing etc.
Obviously, if your measuring stick is 'how good is it at hitting things?' the fighter will win. But I'm pretty sure there's more to RPGs than hitting stuff.
Also, a drawback of the wizard class is the admittedly bad low levels. Their greatness becomes evident around the time they get 4th level spells. At that point they have enough spells to cover defense, while also providing utility & pumping out offense. Before that point, they run out of spells a little too quickly to really show off their potential.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now this group, being friends, they stop, somebody says, "Dude, what are you doing?" and hopefully a conversation begins that leads to the five friends finding common ground about the problem, solving it, and moving on.
Which doesn't have to have anything to do with "fixing" anybody's character so that it is created "correctly."
It might involve fixing a character so it's created 'correctly'.
Player 1: "Dude, what are you doing? Your crossbow rogue is completely useless in combat, and you put all your skill points in Perform?"
Player 2: "I thought it would be funny. See, he thinks he's a bard!"
Player 3: "My character nearly died trying to protect yours. Twice. I like my character."
Player 2: "Can't our GM reduce the difficulty of encounters a bit so I can play my funny crossbow rogue without you guys dying?"
GM: "Look, guys, I do five hours of prep a week for this game just so I can keep track of all the complicated NPCs in this Adventure Path. I don't want to have to rewrite everything as well to lower the difficulty. I have a family."
Player 4: "Would you let him rebuild his character to be less 'funny'?"
GM: "Definitely."
Player 2: "OK, if it will make the game more fun for everyone else..."
If you have a good character rolling a 2-5 are perfectly acceptable rolls. And other good characters don't need to make rolls to do their things so rolling <5 for what few rolls they make in a game is also fine.
|
So only a part of the game is about combat. I have played characters who were completely incompetent at combat. I would sit down in game, or start searching the room for things while the rest of the party did the combat stuff. Now were my character was good at. The other parts of the game besides combat. Trap finding, disabling, lore, talking, getting the party out of trouble.
If your game really relies on every single member of the party being able to hold their own in every single encounter then that is a hard core game and could be fun, i would enjoy it, but this should be know going in and everyone needs to agree that this is the game they want to play, and everyone should work together on making their characters.
Other games do not need every single player to be optimized, and if your party is nearly loseing every single encounter because of a single player you need to step back and look at everyone and not just blame one character (unless he is intentionally sabotaging the party in game)
If you are not having fun because someone else built their character in a way that doesn't work "for you," it isn't the character build that needs to be adjusted.
Right?
If there's a problem - and for cases where there's no problem, there's no issue to be discussed, so the question wouldn't arise - a character sheet is one of the easier things to adjust.
If the GM is building an adventure around your characters, there's no problem - unless, for example, the player who made the weaker character isn't having fun because his character fails at everything all the time.
If the GM is running an adventure as an uncompromising challenge that the players need to co-operate to overcome, then the situation is different. If one player makes an unusually weak character, everyone else has to optimize to compensate, or die.
If I'm on a basketball team, and I'm no good at it, and I don't work very hard, is that a problem? If it's a group of friends throwing a ball around for fun, no. If they play competitively, maybe it is.
If you are not having fun because someone else built their character in a way that doesn't work "for you," it isn't the character build that needs to be adjusted.
Right?
I agree with you, but I'm sure a lot don't. It really all comes down to style of play.
If the style of play is difficulty = x, and each PC is supposed to be .25x, then someone who makes a .3x or .5x character is "better" than someone who made a .25x or.15x character, and those less than .25x are a hindrance to the group.
Personally, whatever the group ends up being is what I set x equivalent to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The two most important things here I think are:
1. The party has to get along. If there are going to be problems because some people's characters are vastly outshining other people's characters, and there are hard feelings about that these things need to be addressed. They don't necessarily need to be fixed by people changing up their characters, but sometimes these things fester below the surface before blowing up, so clearing the air is important.
2. A character has to have something to do in the campaign you're planning. If someone wants to roll a character that's specialized at killing the undead, and you're GMing a story that doesn't really have any undead in it, you should let them know about it. Some character concepts are viable, but narrow, and if someone is trying to play something that wouldn't have that much to do in your game, you should let them know. I mean most of the "piratey" archetypes are poor choices *unless* you have a nautical campaign going.
If those two hurdles are cleared, more or less anybody can play anything. Want a fighter with a 10 strength and an 18 intelligence? Knock yourself out, but some ways of doing that are better than others so keep an ear out for advice that's intended to help you (elven battle style is your friend here, but you might want to bump Str to 13 anyway.)
If you are not having fun because someone else built their character in a way that doesn't work "for you," it isn't the character build that needs to be adjusted.
Right?
I agree with you, but I'm sure a lot don't. It really all comes down to style of play.
If the style of play is difficulty = x, and each PC is supposed to be .25x, then someone who makes a .3x or .5x character is "better" than someone who made a .25x or.15x character, and those less than .25x are a hindrance to the group.
Personally, whatever the group ends up being is what I set x equivalent to.
Or difficult = x and each PC is .25x except for this one guy who is .1x. Now your party is .85x because someone made a conscious decision not to pull their own weight.
"It's how I play" is only an acceptable argument for being terrible if your character concept would be invalidated if you were competent. The only character I could think of that would suffer from such a situation would be one whose concept is "I suck".
Let me also be clear: when I mean terrible I don't meant "I took skill focus and cleave on my vanilla fighter". I'm looking more at the roof runner rogue who dumped CHA and took rumormonger.
Oftentimes another problem is that it creeps up on you. In the early levels everyone sucks at least a little bit, the fighter is about as good at shooting his ow as the Wizard is at using his light crossbow.
The problem is when characters extend their suckage into mid levels and you have the fighter frustrated that he can't hurt the Green Drake while the Bard is unleashing Rapid shot+Arcane Strike hell upon his foes while performing a power ballad.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My argument is valid because I said otherwise identical stats. I'm not talking about point buy system or anything like that I said identical meaning exactly that.
So you are assuming something like the elite array? Or, did you mean that Wizard A has all tens except a sixteen in Int while Wizard B has all tens except a 12 in Int?
You putting a 12 in Int when you don't have to is stupid. No I didn't forget the stat boost at four and eight. You actually by twenty have +5 stats I did add that in.
Don't call people stupid, and don't try to weasel out by saying "I called his actions stupid not him!" A pejorative is a pejorative.
Fighters don't suck you don't play them right.
This is another Ad-Hominem coupled with an unfounded assertion. Please provide mathematical proof of such, no anecdotes or "My Friend/GM/Some Guy said!".
Also please stop with the attacks and implying lack of capabilities on others parts, it makes you look bad and does nothing for the discourse.
Every class with a few exceptions balance out at mid level and at high levels have their strengths and weaknesses. Wizards at high level have powerful spells. However they have low Hit Points and even with magic their AC is generally lower then a fighters.
This shows a fundamental disconnect with the basics of pathfinder. Are you really asserting that a 20th level fighter is "Different but Equal" with a 20th level Wizard?
Also a wizard usually does not play the AC game but if they do their AC is fine.
Lvl 20 Wizard
10 (Base) + 7 (Dex) + 8 (Bracers of Armor) + 6 (+5 Mithral Buckler) + 5 (Amulet of Natural Armor +5) + 5 (Ring of Protection +5) + 1 (Dusky Rose Prism Ioun Stone) + 1 (Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier)= 43
Lvl 20 Fighter
10 (Base) + 13 (Dex) + 8 (Bracers of Armor) + 7 (+5 Heavy Shield) + 5 (Amulet of Natural Armor) + 5 (Ring of Protection) + 1 (Dusky Rose Prism Ioun Stone) + 1 (Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier)= 50
Please note this is only if you are playing a Dex based Shield using fighter so your damage will be terrible, a more likely AC is somewhere from 45-48. Also the Wizards Dex started at 14 and was boosted via a belt +6 and a +4 tome.
As for Hit points.
Lvl 20 wizard
6 (1rst level max) + [7*20] (Con mod) + [3.5*19] (level HP) + 20 (Favored Class) + 31 (False Life, Greater) = 263
Lvl 20 Fighter
10 (1rst level max) + [7*20] (Con mod) + [5.5*19] (level HP) + 20 (Favored Class) = 274
Not a whole lot of difference. "But the fighter has more feats and can fit in toughness!" You say? Well that would give him a 29 HP lead over a wizard without.
Then we get to things like Mirror Image, Blur, or Displacement. Even one of these will give the wizard a higher effective hit point total and AC.
That does not count things like overland flight which a wizard will always have on. Or, things like Blacklight or Emergency Force sphere which are short duration.
It also does not get into clone/magic jar/create greater demi-plane.
A tough monster can kill a wizard in one full attack.
If the monster gets to the Wizard and is allowed a full attack perhaps. But as I just showed the same monster will most likely kill the fighter as well.
Also a Wizard most likely will notice the monster more often than the fighter due to more access to skill points, better class features (Diviner wizard/divination spells!), and more mobility.
The Wizard is also more likely to act first due to having a higher Initiative due to Familiar + Class Features + needing fewer stats + spells like Heightened Awareness.
If acting first a wizard can Blur/Mirror image/Displacement/D-Door/Teleport/Plane Shift/Emergency force sphere. All of which cannot fail and auto avoid attacks or automatically defend the wizard.
At higher levels half the monsters have spell resistance and high saves.
SR = True
Saves = False
Almost all monsters past mid levels have a weak save that wizards can target.
That is why a knowledge check + an appropriate spell = 95% chance of success post level 15 usually.
That is if the wizard did not simply use no save you lose spells such as waves of exhaustion/wall of force/timestop/reverse gravity.
Even with the right build blasting past spell resistance can be challenging then they have their saves.
This is false. Average high SR if possessed is 11+CR. Average low SR if possessed is 6+CR.
A non-elf wizard will have at least 2+level due to Spell penetration. This is a 60%-85% chance of success against an at CR opponent.
A wizard built to penetrate spell resistance will have:
2 (elf) + 2 (Spell penetration) + 2 (Greater Spell Penetration) + 5 (Dweomer's Essence) = 11+level or 95% chance.
This is without penetrating spell metamagic/rods or spell perfection shenanigans.
Also saves answered above. This is all assuming the Wizard does not simply use Save: no SR: no spells like say Lesser Wish ---> Geas.
Most of the higher level spells are save or die essentially. Monsters usually save and hence nothing happens wasted spell.
False.
A Wizard with a 16 starting int after racials will have DC's of:
11 (Stat) + Spell Level + feats + 10.
A CR 20 monsters good save is ~22, a bad save is ~17. This means with no feats spent the monster fails 35%-60% of the time against a wizards spells.
A properly built save or die wizard will either go the spell perfection route or use something to weaken the monster first like enervation. This along with targeting a weak save results is 80%-95% chance of save failure.
That is if the wizard even plays that game and does not simply drop a summon/wall spell.
Monsters like that tend to be balanced by having lower AC which a Wizard still won't hit with a melee attack. A fighter on the other hand will hit him every time.
Wizards are not usually attacking AC and if so usually touch AC. Touch AC usually scales down as you face higher CR threats unless your GM always uses only Humanoids with class levels and never uses monsters.
This means that wizards actually improve in accuracy as their level goes up without any investment.
Yes with a low point buy system you won't have high stats, no one will. One of the reasons half the groups I've played or talked to don't use it. Low stats means more of a challenge except at some point most people get really disappointed with a character that can't even handle a low level monster because their stats are so low.
What do you mean by "High stats" or "Low point buy"? Considering the game is designed around 15 point buy as said in the CRB and that Pathfinder society organized play is 20 point buy, I just want to make sure we are on the same page.
My argument is valid you are missing what I posted and assuming after the first sentence my statement. Please read everything I wrote and you will see I have taken what you said in mind.
I just line by lined everything you said and honestly it was all mostly wrong.
The impression you give me is that you either play such a heavily house-ruled game that we might as well call it something different, you are weak in system mastery and are making common new player mistakes, or that your GM ignores the rules and does "what feels right".
Please understand on the boards we are usually talking about pathfinder as it is in the books, that may be your disconnect.
Hope this helps you, happy gaming.
P.S. Separating sections of your text by using the enter key helps vastly with readability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's weird when people try to argue that a martial is just as powerful as a caster at the same level even into high levels, when this disparity has been a thing in pretty much every edition of any D20 game, and this disparity is greater in Pathfinder than it is in a lot of similar games.
This is not to say that fighters and their ilk are bad characters, they're just not granted awesome cosmic power by virtue of leveling up like some classes are. A salient criticism of Pathfinder is that it caster types are too good at non-magical combat relative to non-casters; I mean a druid can be a pretty nasty frontliner in addition to a 9-level caster.
One of the reasons that games almost never get to level 20 is that after a certain point (some time after level 12 or so) casters just take over games.
I would just like to chime in and point out that not only is it very possible to build a strong wizard with a 12 casting stat, it is also possible to build a reasonably strong figher with a 12 strength. The route where you build an archer with a high dex focus is obvious enough that I won't even bother getting into why that would work well, but you can also create a moderately strong two handed weapon trip build off of that.
Essentially, you pump dex in place of strength and take Agile Maneuvers (that feat noone ever takes, because it is usually redundant with weapon finesse for most builds that want that effect at all) and use a reach weapon, like a Guisarme. You need to get to 13 strength so you can get power attack so you can hurt things, but that build would not only be viable, it would trivialize a reasonable percentage of encounters in a typical AP. The high dex focus gives the fighter the huge number of AOOs they need to abuse greater trip and lock out ground based melee combatants. The high dex focus also means the fighter has a decent ranged backup game when fighting flying enemies, a high AC because they can max out the dex bonus on a mithral breastplate+armor training, and good reflex saves.
This would not shine in every battle, because it still has issues that trip builds always have (flying enemies, ranged combatants, etc) except worse because the backup plan of just hitting things doesn't work as well without the strength focus. However, APs usually have a bunch of fights like "Hey, we're level 4 and going to fight 5 ghouls in a moderately confined space now" where this build has a very good chance of soloing the encounter with 0 resource use, letting the casters on the team save their spells for fights where the fighter is less dominant. Even at mid levels, there will be some cases where a caster uses a 1st level spell for enlarge person and the fighter proceeds to mop up the entire enemy group of giants/ogres/whatever on his own.
I guess the point I want to make is that the options are usually there to build a reasonably strong character even with what looks like suboptimal stat assessment. As long as you're not doing anything truly bizzare like a 7 int wizard, you can probably be more than capable if you know what you're doing.
Also, for wizard vs. fighter AC; generally, the fighter also gets 6 points for combat expertise and I think you would use Mithral full plate vs. bracers, since it both cheaper and relaxes the dex requirement significantly while hitting the same 21 AC. If you're building for AC, you probably also get dodge/shield focus/greater shield focus, which gets you to a 59 AC if needed. Due to the non-linear way AC mitigates physical attack damage, 10-16 points of AC usually translates to being 5-10x as durable against physical attacks, more than enough to make up for the increased durability wizards get from miss chance effects. Wizards are stronger than fighters in a ton of different ways at high levels, but AC isn't usually one of them if the fighter bothered to build for it at all.
There's a difference between "not as useful" and "actively harming the team with their presence".The only example you gave that might fall under the second category is the love interest, and useless love interests are only tolerated because, well, they are love interests. Bad PCs are generally not love interests. They are failures who are swallowing large amounts of wealth and forcing party tactics to revolve around protecting them but giving the party almost nothing in return. The question of "why are we letting this clown be around us when his presence puts our lives in jeopardy" is a very reasonable one for a group of professional mercenaries and monster slayers* to be asking when one of their members is making their job harder and endangering their lives.
That assumes the group is made up of professional mercenaries and monster slayers rather than having something else binding them together as a group. Goober may be a bit dumb and clumsy, but if he's kin, you put up with his foibles. Or maybe the group has been thrown together by circumstance and form bonds of friendship.
A lot is going to depend on the group and why they associate.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I said identical stats. It was just for comparison purposes. Half the groups I've seen use static numbers. The comparison was him choosing over having a higher stat elsewhere when he should be placing with the prime stat for his class.
I'm not sure what you mean by "static numbers" but I'll do my best to try and answer based on common ability score generation means.
Rolling Dice
Using any of the traditional methods (3d6, 4d6 drop lowest, 5d6 drop lowest two), you will generate 6 numbers between 3-18. With some nontraditional methods (such as 2d6+6) you will generate slightly different numbers but generally within the 8-18 range.
If we're talking about "identical stats", then it means we rolled the same numbers. Such as maybe 11, 16, 15, 12, 18, and 6. We then assign where those numbers go.
I said that it's not hard to build a competent wizard by prioritizing minimum necessary Intelligence. In fact, you could very easily produce a very competent wizard by assigning those numbers as: Str 11, Dex 16, Con 18, Int 12, Wis 15, Cha 6. Our hypothetical wizard would be very playable for all the reasons I mentioned before.
Arrays
If we're talking about Arrays, you're picking from a static set of numbers. The ability score array that the d20 system was designed around is the "Elite Array", which I might add includes a 15 as the highest base statistic.
The Elite Array is 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8. As before, prioritizing our wizard's statistics into something like Str 10, Dex 14, Con 15, Int 12, Wis 13, and Cha 8 will not gimp our wizard. In this case I'd probably flip the Int and Wisdom just so I could put off raising my Int for another 2 levels.
If we're talking about a collection of arrays, I'm going to use the 20 Point Buy Arrays from geekindustrialcomplex.com to avoid having to make a bunch, even though they're 20 PB and 15 PB is what I personally prefer.
18, 13, 10, 10, 10, 10 = 5 net
17, 14, 12, 10, 10, 10 = 6 net
16, 14, 14, 10, 10, 10 = 7 net
16, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12 = 8 net
15, 14, 12, 12, 12, 12 = 8 net
14, 14, 14, 14, 10, 10 = 8 net
One Dump Stat:
18, 13, 12, 12, 10, 7 = 7 net
18, 12, 12, 12, 11, 7 = 7 net
17, 12, 12, 12, 12, 9 = 7 net
16, 14, 12, 12, 12, 7 = 9 net
16, 15, 14, 12, 10, 7 = 8 net
15, 14, 14, 14, 12, 7 = 9 net
14, 14, 14, 14, 12, 8 = 9 net
Two Dump Stats:
18, 15, 12, 10, 8, 7 = 6 net
17, 14, 14, 14, 7, 7 = 7 net
17, 16, 14, 10, 7, 7 = 6 net
16, 16, 14, 13, 7, 7 = 6 net
16, 14, 14, 14, 9, 7 = 6 net
Three Dump Stats:
18, 17, 12, 7, 7, 7 = 4 net
18, 17, 10, 8, 7, 7 = 4 net
18, 16, 14, 7, 7, 7 = 5 net
18, 15, 14, 9, 7, 7 = 5 net
17, 16, 14, 8, 8, 7 = 6 net
16, 16, 16, 8, 7, 7 = 6 net
Just as with rolling, if we're choosing our arrays then it's all about our prioritization. Stats don't exist in a vacuum. You don't "pick" your stats in most cases. Putting a high stat in one score means not having that high stat in another, so it's virtually never about "choosing to be the same but with a lower stat" unless something very, very strange is going on.
Using examples from the arrays, if I opted for 16, 14, 12, 12, 12, and 7, I could make a very competent wizard by spreading those into Str 12, Dex 14, Con 16, Int 12, Wis 12, Cha 7. If I was building a Save or Die specialist or a dedicated AoE blaster or something then I might opt for one of the arrays such as 18, 15, 12, 10, 8, 7 in order of Str 8, Dex 12, Con 15, Int 18, Wis 10, and Cha 7; possibly adding some nice racial modifiers (a dwarf would look really, really good here).
Point Buy
Same deal with rolling and arrays. You get some numbers and you prioritize those numbers. What you are prioritizing and why is what matters. I already went into higher stats = more costs previously so I don't feel the need to do so again. It just comes back to what you're prioritizing based on what you want to play.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
An Example low Int Wizard Spell Build
I'm going to go with a Dwarf Wizard because they're awesome for making very good God-wizards. I'll be sticking to the Core Rulebook to show how practical this is in more or less any Pathfinder game and it only gets better outside of Core.
Pre-Game: We're given 15 PB to build our characters. I choose my base statistics to be Str 7, Dex 14, Con 16, Int 13*, Wis 14, and Cha 7. Dwarf racials bring it to Str 7, Dex 14, Con 18, Int 13*, Wis 16, and Cha 5.
*: On 15 PB, having Int be a 12 resulted in a floating 1 point (14/15 PB) with no other locations to drop the 1 point legally so it gets dropped into Int for a 13. It has the same modifier though and it means we get to be lazy and not worry about a headband of intellect until 6th level.
1st Level: My wizard is fresh off wizard Farm with 10 Hp (1d6+4), +4 Fort, +2 Ref, and +5 Will (as well as an additional +2 vs poisons and magical effects), darkvision 60 ft.; speed 20 ft.; and a weasel familiar (assuming I'm limited to core rulebook familiars) for another +2 Reflex (net saves at 1st level vs magic = Fort +6, Ref +6, Will +7). For my first level feat I take Toughness bringing my wizard to 13 Hp. I also choose Abjuration as my preferred magic school (because I decide I like the idea of a dwarven rune warder and there are tons of good [abjuration] spells) with Enchantment and Evocation as prohibited schools.
Out of my starting wealth I buy the following:
equipment that might be carried on your person. The kit includes
the following items (and their quantity): backpack (1), bell (4),
bedroll (1), winter blanket (1), candle (10), chalk (10), fish hook
(10), flint and steel (1), bullseye lantern (1), small steel mirror
(1), pint of oil (1), signal whistle (1), soap (1), torch (2),
waterskin (1), whetstone (1). Cost: 22 gp, 2 cp; Weight: 20 lb
(½ weight if designed for small characters).
With the other 47.98 gp, I scribe one scroll of magic weapon and one scroll of enlarge person, leaving me with 22.98 gp remaining. I don't buy any food initially because my character can take 10 on Survival checks and feed herself and another person.
I also take a walking stick (club) and pack several slings on my character. These are free and the latter is weightless.
Each day when I prepare spells, I pick an energy to be 5 points resistant to. I choose Fire, making my dwarf wizard all but immune to alchemist-fire spam or most low-level environmental hazards.
0-detect magic, detect poison, acid splash.
1st-enlarge person, mage armor, shield.
At 1st level, offense isn't a concern. Supporting others is. Using her above-average Dexterity she'll take pot-shots at minor enemies with acid splash. If the party has a druid or something she'll happily cast mage armor on the animal companion instead of herself, and enlarge person turns the party's martial into a dangerous presence on a battlefield. Outside of battle she can search for traps and identify magical doodads with detect magic and detect poison.
2nd Level: Hp +8 (21), Will +1.
Not much changed here, Learned 2 new spells (protection from evil and reduce person). Makes a few scrolls of each. She now also keeps a 4th cantrip slot empty and fills it depending on where she is and what she's doing, and she has another 1st level spell slot which she keeps empty until after the party has done some stuff and other spells have been used (she then decides what spells need re-preparing).
3rd Level: Hp +8 (29), Fort +1, Ref +1.
She takes Craft Wondrous Item as a feat and learns protection from arrows and invisibility. She also spends some of her treasure to scribe a see invisibility from someone else's spellbook in a community large enough to have access to 2nd level spells (see arcane magical writings in the magic chapter).
She immediately converts wealth into creating a +1 cloak of resistance and a pearl of power I, giving her effectively +1 1st level spell and the ability to prepare a wider breadth of spells reliably.
She scribes a scroll of see invisibility for emergencies.
4th Level: Hp +7 (36), Will +1. +1 Int.
Not much changed here. We get to be lazy and putt off crafting a +Int item until 8th level though. She learns resist energy and false life for free.
5th Level: Hp +7 (43). +1 feat. +1 bonus feat.
Now we're cooking with gas. She learns haste and dispel magic, then seeks a community with 3rd level casting services and pays to scribe the following spells: heroism, wind wall*, invisibility sphere, fly, greater magic weapon, flame arrow, summon monster III, and magic circle against evil. Total cost = 1,080 gp. We'll then scribe a scroll of wind wall for less than 200 gp (we're penalized for preparing it but can cast it from a scroll in emergencies A-OK). Spell loadout depends entirely on the party and needs.
Feats & bonus feats are optional. Improved Initiative and Craft Magical Arms and Armor are good choices for a buff/support focused wizard.
6th Level: Hp +7 (50). +1 Fort, Ref, Will.
She adds phantom steed and explosive runes to her spells.
7th Level: Hp +7 (57). +1 Feat.
Adds stoneskin and any awesome 4th level spell that doesn't give a crap about her Intelligence. Great choices include black tentacles, greater invisibility, wall of fire, wall of ice, animate dead, mnemonic enhancer*, enervation, fire shield, solid fog, etc.
*: Mnemonic enhancer is recommended if you've decided to pick up Craft Wand because it's broke as ****.
Craft stuff. Whatever.
8th Level: Hp +7 (63). +1 Will. +1 Int.
Crap, gotta put off making that headband for another two levels. >_>
Pick some more spells, make some more stuff (especially pearls). Enjoy that your party adores you because you're just a bundle of party-enabling spells.
9th Level: Hp +7 (70). +1 Fort, +1 Ref. +1 Feat.
As before, we're gonna pick lots of spells that are awesome and don't care about saves/SR/Int. Break enchantment, private sanctum, overland flight, cloudkill, wall of stone, shadow evocation, waves of exhaustion, etc.
10th Level: Hp +7 (77). +1 Will.
Same deal. Finally, finally, we'll make a headband of intellect if we didn't already.
11th Level: Congratulations, you win D&D.
Other Notes: I was being lazy but with the sheer amount of wealth you've got in D&D over the course of these levels, combined with the ability to craft magic items (especially if you have a valet familiar), you should be a magical trinket god. Your Con and saves should always be maxed out. You should have a variety of situational and helpful trinkets for various occasions. You should have enough pearls of power to string together like Christmas tree ornaments.
Even your AC can be kept up to surprisingly degrees. Your party will be so happy to have you around that you should be able to get them to contribute to your "wizard support fund" for things like more pearls of power and to pay for mnemonic enhancer wands. You'll be rolling in spells/day, shwanky shwag, and your party will roflestop everything because they're running around with stuff like stoneskin, greater invisibility, haste, greater magic weapon, flame arrow, magic circle against evil, and you only know what else. Meanwhile you can shut down tons of enemies with no-save no-SR spells like black tentacles.
EDIT: Crap, I forgot to add in the .5 Hp / level average so our wizard is lowballed. By 11th level they should have an extra +5 Hp. I know it's not much of a difference but I wanted to note it.
I can't even imagine how that is actually supposed to work.
Don't you actually have to play the game, you know, be involved in adventures, which might result in catastrophes, party loses which take wealth, or maybe towns that charge fees that reduce your wealth when you roll into town with treasure.
And how do you guarantee that you always find spell books, and people willing to share them? And what happens if your character dies, doesn't that take some wealth away.
And how does having this character even make it to this mean you win D&D? You certainly wouldn't win in any of the games I am running if you had this character, unless you know, you actually rolled well and had the right spells ready at the right time.
That whole description assumes you are both the player and the DM, or at least you're playing with a DM who has already decided that the adventure is secondary to your character's build progress win?
Huh, maybe this is what it's like to have an unoptimized party? In our games the only losses we suffer are TPKs and occasionally a party member death. We rarely lose.
A town that charges you an entry fee is very suspicious and we'd sooner suspect it to be a town that needs saving.
Paying for scrolls of spells is something assumed in the core books, not allowing it s a houserule.
There should be no guarantees. If there are, why play at all, since you already know you are going to win?I guess I don't get it. I'm probably missing something important so I'll stop offering my opinion.
I think we're on the same page now. A lot of people are unhappy precisely because of this situation.
It's like playing a game with cheat codes. Sure it's fun for a while, but it gets boring having ultimate power.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't even imagine how that is actually supposed to work.
Okay, let's break it down.
Don't you actually have to play the game, you know, be involved in adventures, which might result in catastrophes, party loses which take wealth,
Yes. Which is why we're building to help deal with those issues and survive more effectively. That's actually one of the biggest arguments for not maxing Int on a Wizard since you may need other stats to find overall success.
or maybe towns that charge fees that reduce your wealth when you roll into town with treasure.
Which doesn't actually exist in any meaningful way unless you're contriving some weird niche case. According to the core rules, taxes and such aren't very expensive. I'm not sure what other sorts of "fees" you're talking about.
And how do you guarantee that you always find spell books, and people willing to share them? And what happens if your character dies, doesn't that take some wealth away.
The rules actually note that there are spellcasting services available in towns based on size in the equipment chapter. You could house rule this away but if we're playing Pathfinder, it's not hard to find other spellcasters. The Magic Chapter notes that they charge 50% of the cost to scribe the scroll into your book to allow you to copy from their books.
And how does having this character even make it to this mean you win D&D?
Because you're a wizard on the "back-9" and this is your strong game. At this point you only get stronger and stronger and stronger and without house ruling or hand of god shenanigans you can do wonderful, horrific things, most of which don't require a high Int to do.
You certainly wouldn't win in any of the games I am running if you had this character, unless you know, you actually rolled well and had the right spells ready at the right time.
Wizards don't usually have to roll, but the higher stats in other things mean that when they do they're better at it (better saves, better touch attacks, etc). As for right spells, sometimes you will have the perfect spell for the job, sometimes you won't, but by mid levels you will very rarely have no spells that aren't at least helpful or in the "good enough" category of situational opportunities.
That whole description assumes you are both the player and the DM, or at least you're playing with a DM who has already decided that the adventure is secondary to your character's build progress win?
No, it just assumes that the rules of Pathfinder are being followed. It assumes nothing more and nothing less.
In fact, Pathfinder takes into account that a fair amount of your actual wealth will go to things like consumables and miscellaneous expenditures so WBL isn't a measure of how much a character makes over the course of their careers, it's a measure of how much they're expected to at least still have.
For Example
On the Medium experience track (standard), it takes 20 CR 1 encounters to go from 1st -> 2nd level. The treasure value of those encounters is expected to be 260 / encounter or 5,200 gp worth of loot.
Now that's 1300 gp / party member. WBL for 2nd level is 1000 gp. This means if you run the game as expected, players will amass 300 gp over their expected WBL. Giving them 300 gp for consumables, roleplaying, or whatever.
Similarly, each additional level requires 20 equivalent CR encounters to reach the next level, so going from 2nd->3rd level takes 20 CR 2 encounters. Each encounter awards an average of 550 gp or +2750 gp / party member. That's a total of 4,050 gp amassed by 3rd level. The WBL of a 3rd level character is 3,000 gp. That's 1050 gp over WBL you're expected to amass during adventures per party member.
While some encounters won't award treasure others reward lots, and these are noted as being the average treasure/encounter values of the adventure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There should be no guarantees. If there are, why play at all, since you already know you are going to win?I guess I don't get it. I'm probably missing something important so I'll stop offering my opinion.
I think we're on the same page now. A lot of people are unhappy precisely because of this situation.
It's like playing a game with cheat codes. Sure it's fun for a while, but it gets boring having ultimate power.
The thing is you don't know you're going to win but you don't play to fail either. The complaints being lodged are akin to saying "Well you can't be sure that your Fighter can buy chainmail, even if it says it's an assumed thing in the book and says you can buy it at settlements of X size".
Basically, we're either talking about playing Pathfinder or we aren't. If we are, then certain things are true unless noted as house rules (such as being able to buy chainmail or find spellcasters in settlements of X size or larger). Unless something screwy is going on, a player can assume that they can go to a settlement of X size or larger and purchase a potion of cure light wounds because that's how the rules of the game work.
If we're not using the rules of the game when discussing the game then we're not talking about the game, we're talking about someone's "almost Pathfinder" game they're running and there input on anything Pathfinder related is useless.
"Rogues are freaking OP man"
"Why so?"
"Because they can dual-wield lightsabers which ignore armor and are light finesse weapons"
"Um, where did they get lightsabers?"
"They're available to buy on the planet Jelluko where the sorcerer knights make them,"
"I...there isn't really anything relevant I can say for your situation,"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its quite clear that very very few people actually run Pathfinder as written...developers included.
Though I always get a kick out of how folks are usually unaware of the settlements and WBL rules.
Admittedly, my campaigns are always filled with magic marts that can supply pretty much anything within your WBL. Even the tiny town with like four shacks has a deranged high level witch who is willing to craft some powerful magic items if you give her the shinies. This is more out of laziness and an unwillingness to bother with figuring out the settlement rules.
On the other hand I completely bar players from ever taking any sort of crafting feat, so it kinda evens out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now one of the reasons that God-wizards are very helpful to the overall success of a party and why wise players will share their wealth with the wizard is because the wizard enables them to achieve greater things, and is actually the sort of wizard that is least likely to upset anyone at the table for "stealing their thunder".
For example, I was writing the previous build outline with the assumption that we're in the typical 4-person party with an arcanist, a priest, a warrior, and a specialist. The actual class composition for these roles as well as whether these roles exist in the group at all can vary from group to group and your spell selection may change accordingly (for example, you might opt for reduce person instead of enlarge person if your team consists of a couple of druids and an archer.
However, it's hard to deny the sheer effectiveness of doing things like hasting the party, or dispelling buffs/debuffs, or casting stoneskin to give your party members DR 10/adamantine (which shuts down the threat of a lot of monsters outright), or casting greater invisibility on your party's rogue or pretty much anyone in your party (this spell is hax and contrary to what some might think, invisibility is a challenge to overcome even at high levels because see invisibility potions do not exist and true seeing is both rare and limited to 120 ft.), or casting black tentacles which ignores saves, ignores SR, makes a big area of "you can't be here", and while it's ineffectual at locking down giant brutes it's damn good at locking down most other things (especially enemy casters and hybrids).
Many party support spells like greater magic weapon, flame arrow, protection from arrows, mage armor, and magic circle against X have long durations. Being able to ensure that the Fighter's spare weapons are all sporting +X bonuses and all his arrows are flaming, or whatever is very strong. It can allow the martial to golf bag lots of different weapons of various material types and damages and keep their to-hit relevant without breaking their banks.
For example, a pearl of power III costs 9,000 gp or 4,500 gp to craft. It's actually more efficient for a party's martial to help you buy more pearls of power and have you cast greater magic weapon on most of his backup weapons each day than it is for him to try to field a variety of +3 weapons.
You have a large amount of problem solving opportunities outside of combat as well, and the ability to scribe scrolls of rarely used but "perfect for the job" spells is a boon to your party. You don't need to prepare knock all the time, but having a scroll or two of it for when your party comes across a barred door (not locked, barred, as in a wooden beam or something flipped down on the other side so nobody can open the lock it's just shut). Similarly, you won't prepare stuff like wind wall all the time but having a scroll or two incase your party ends up running through the Mines of Moria while a crapload of archers are shooting at your party as they make for the exit over a series of narrow stone bridges is just peachy.
In fact, it's a harder sell to say such a wizard wouldn't be an incredibly useful member of the party than to say they would. The fact the wizard can still use things like summon monster to add in extra firepower or meatshields to the party is icing on the cake. This is what it means to be a God wizard and not only is it one of the strongest forms of wizards in this game but it's likewise the most party friendly and the least reliant on a high Int score.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I don't get it. I'm probably missing something important so I'll stop offering my opinion.
You're not missing anything important - you simply play the game differently than the people that are disagreeing with you. For these kind of conversations, assume that there is no GM. Anything that the books say is possible, is possible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I don't get it. I'm probably missing something important so I'll stop offering my opinion.You're not missing anything important - you simply play the game differently than the people that are disagreeing with you. For these kind of conversations, assume that there is no GM. Anything that the books say is possible, is possible.
For the record, I don't always play standard rules when I'm running Pathfinder. I'm very pro-homebrew and if I'm going for a specific set of themes when I'm going to run a game I let the players know ahead of time what that means exactly.
For example, I ran a game that was magical things were common but mastery over magical things wasn't. In this campaign, the party dealt with a lot of supernatural stuff (werewolves, ghosts, undead, demons, etc) and magic was frequently considered strange and weird to the uninitiated and spellcasters were infrequent. However, I included a homebrew system that allowed characters to create magical doodads through the arts of alchemy, spellcraft, and other skills and such using various materials that had magical value.
So while you couldn't go to a store and just buy magical items, creating them yourself was much easier and open. Your amulet of mighty fangs might literally be made from a werewolf's tooth or something, or you might find that the serial killer in the city is stealing people's organs to use as material components for creating magic trinkets.
Various skills could be used to acquire materials. For example, one of the NPC alchemists in the game (as in the alchemy skill) made magical potions, salves, elixirs, and the like out of herbs, roots, and other things collected from the nearby forest with her skills (she was an expert) and she was secretly doing experiments on dead animals trying to find a cure for death (and was hiding it from the townsfolk).
But I let all the players know about these changes to what Pathfinder expects beforehand. I didn't spring it on them and I told them exactly what these things meant in clear detail, rather than being vague or telling them magic is rare except for sometimes (which usually translates with GMs as "My npcs are going to have cool stuff but you can't sell or buy any of it").
I think of all the things to houserule away to keep things from being too easy on the PCs, "wizards can pay other similarly inclined wizards to make copies of some pages of their spellbook" is one of the last things to houserule away. If we restrict wizards from knowing lots of spells, then they're basically just inferior to sorcerers, and if you're a wizard who isn't out adventuring and some adventurer offers to give you money in order to borrow one of your old spellbooks for a while, it's basically free money so why would you say no? "Bill the town wizard will rent out his old spellbooks" is a lot easier to GM than "remembering to put scrolls in lootpiles" anyway. If you're going to houserule anything, it would be being able to work "Bill wants a favor first" into a plot hook. Forcing the Wizard to choose what spells to prepare from a larger set doesn't exactly make the decision tree simpler for them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing about that particular campaign that was different was that magic item creation feats weren't a thing. You could just do it with the right skills. Making magic items required you to be trained in Spellcraft but I standardized how creation in general worked (essentially the same mechanics for mundane and for magical). Further, you acquired synergies for having associated skills (for example, being trained in both making Jewelry and Spellcraft was better than just using one or the other when making magic rinks, amulets, etc).
This meant that unlike in most campaigns, martial characters weren't screwed by the inability to go buy better gear. If they wanted to invest some ranks into skills they could make them as well. Failing to make a magic item typically resulted less in a failed magic item and more in a magic item that had quirks or curses).
I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this matter. A friend and I were discussing the playability of a monk. I know it's not a very good class but I really enjoy playing the class. Always have. I understand there are better options. I say it's my character I'll play it how I want. His argument is that other players shouldn't have to suffer because someone wants to play an un-optimized character. I assume he means in combat. So here's the question...
Lets say someone in a game you were DMing is playing a truly terribly built character that they enjoyed. Would let it be? Tell them to make a better one or version of that character? What would you do.
To start with, your friend is basing this on a false premise: that the Monk class is so bad that it makes the rest of the party suffer. This is simply untrue. Monks enjoy excellent saves, good AC, and most importantly their AC is largely consistent, even against touch attacks. Most of the complaints against them have been mitigated by the Amulet of Mighty Fists, the Unchained Monk, the Sacred Fist Warpriest archetype (which is basically an alternate monk), the Temple Sword, and the Brawler (basically a Monk for people who don't want to be Lawful).
Now to the larger question: is the player un-optimized for a specific reason, or just to be bad? Pretty much any character concept can be built in a way that contributes to the group. There's more to Pathfinder than DPR.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread makes me think of once upon a time, when another poster told someone else they weren't playing a class - a monk in fact - correctly and that they were actually super great at a thing. That was a delightful little side conversation, embarrassing as it was at some points.
Ahh, sentimental memories. The joys of nostalgia.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The monk really isn't a bad class.
The monk, however, does need an obnoxious amount of system knowledge in order to become powerful, and the means to make a viable monk aren't especially compatible with everybody's concept of what a monk ought to be. I mean, the Zen Archer Monk is great, but how many people follow up "I want to play a monk" with "and shoot everything with arrows."
Like the (core) monk is really the lone class that should never be played with fewer than 2 archetypes, and generally you'll want 3 unless you're picking one of the really strong archetypes.
The monk really isn't a bad class.
The monk, however, does need an obnoxious amount of system knowledge in order to become powerful, and the means to make a viable monk aren't especially compatible with everybody's concept of what a monk ought to be. I mean, the Zen Archer Monk is great, but how many people follow up "I want to play a monk" with "and shoot everything with arrows."
This is pretty much how I feel about the Monk, Rogue and Fighter.
Its obnoxious how much system mastery I need to put into practice after 7th level or so.
Monk less so since Unchained is pretty easy to use.
Worst thing I ever saw was a player intentionally using a CRB Rogue because it was "fine" despite the Unchained Rogue being an option available to him.
Everyone was sort of baffled as to why he'd shoot for the weaker option when the party was made up of a pretty solid line up of classes. Later he complained about not being able to do stuff that was useful.
I'm a little salty that UMonk only has like two archetypes.
The very first character one of my friends made was a monk. He didn't really know much about the system at all and we beat the campaign just fine (it was homebrew). We came close to death a few times, but not because the monk "sucked." It was due to bad luck with saves. The only one who actually died was the powergamer/sometimes munchkin with the disgustingly optimized character (who barely had any backstory/flavor at all). He proceeded to make another backstory-less pile of lame to replace the last one.
This is my view.
How about instead of whining about someone not min/maxing their character, people should bother to see how things go first? If problems occur - and they can be directly correlated to the character in question - then the DM could ask you to "fix" your character.
My group only does homebrew though. This seems like a problem that is limited to PFS only. As a DM, I'd rather have a sucky character with a cool concept/backstory than a boring, pile of stats. I can adjust the difficulty of encounters beforehand or even mid-combat if necessary. I guess you can't really do that in PFS (based on my vague understanding of what exactly goes on).
Sorry if this sounded really ranty and aggressive, but I absolutely detest the "optimize or we will all hate you" mentality.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a little salty that UMonk only has like two archetypes.
All they needed was a list of rules that said "if an archetype replaces this ability, it instead replaces this ki power". That's it. That's all it needed. But no instead they invalidate years of design
The very first character one of my friends made was a monk. He didn't really know much about the system at all and we beat the campaign just fine (it was homebrew). We came close to death a few times, but not because the monk "sucked." It was due to bad luck with saves. The only one who actually died was the powergamer/sometimes munchkin with the disgustingly optimized character (who barely had any backstory/flavor at all). He proceeded to make another backstory-less pile of lame to replace the last one.
This is my view.
How about instead of whining about someone not min/maxing their character, people should bother to see how things go first? If problems occur - and they can be directly correlated to the character in question - then the DM could ask you to "fix" your character.My group only does homebrew though. This seems like a problem that is limited to PFS only. As a DM, I'd rather have a sucky character with a cool concept/backstory than a boring, pile of stats. I can adjust the difficulty of encounters beforehand or even mid-combat if necessary. I guess you can't really do that in PFS (based on my vague understanding of what exactly goes on).
Sorry if this sounded really ranty and aggressive, but I absolutely detest the "optimize or we will all hate you" mentality.
You make it sound like optimization and roleplaying are mutually exclusive.
Also why would one not want to optimize every character? It makes sense to always choose the most ideal options to accomplish whatever concept you're working with.