| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Am I (and the GMs I regularly play with) the only pathfinder players that don't give their players infinite time? Sure, at first level a wizard can put to sleep 3 or 4 goblins for the first two fights, but what about the other six? Do GMs really let their players get away with a 15 minute work day? I always have a time limit of some kind, or have the monsters do something each time the players sleep. Seriously, do most GMs just have their monsters standing around, timidly, awaking destruction? Most full casters lose a lot of fire if you don't let them sleep after every two encounters.
That has nothing to do with the issue.
Once you hit level 3, your Wizard can spend a couple spells every encounter for a standard four-encounter day, which is all that's generally necessary. Past that, spell slots are not a meaningful limiter on casters' power. Part of making an effective spellcaster is knowing how to make effective use of those low-level spell slots in combat so that you have an overabundance of resources with which to engage challenges throughout a full adventuring day.
Having infinite time is, likewise, not the issue. There are many flexible spells one is likely to prepare on a regular basis. As a class less dependent on magic items, they also tend to carry useful scrolls and wands that can help solve problems they can't solve directly, they can leave spell slots empty and fill them with the ideal spell in fifteen minutes for non-combat utility, and with a bonded item, they can dive through their entire spellbook for the ideal spell for the occasion.
Dimension Door can get you past an entire encounter (no EXP or loots), but what about when you have to go back? Or if the creatures hear you later and attack from behind? You can take 3 friends @ level 9, or level 12, if someone has a familiar, or level 15 if someone also has an animal companion.
The game does not have fights that give you experience points.
The game has encounters that give you experience points.
You do not gain experience points from winning fights.
You gain experience points from overcoming encounters.
If your mission is to save the fair dragon from the evil princess, and there are a bunch of guards standing between you and your path to the ritual chamber where the fair dragon is about to be sacrificed, and you dimension door past that encounter, then yes, you just overcame that encounter, accomplished the goal of said encounter, and earned your XP, per the rules of the game. To deny characters their justly-earned XP for accomplishing goals through means other than murder is violating the rules of the game and of fair play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Im pretty sure the kineticist powers list was written by watching Fairy Tail and One Piece then going "oh man, that was rad as hell"The fact that you choose those two instead of referencing, say... Avatar: The Last Airbender, makes me twitch.
It's not even that old, and people have forgotten it already?
I cant eyeroll hard enough at this response.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even at the lowest levels, sleep or color spray can 'obviate entire encounters'. A wizard's problem solving abilities aren't as well developed as they will be later but keeping a vanish on hand and a few odd spells in your spellbook will make sure they top the spontaneous casters at those levels. Their weakness at those levels is being unable to really get over their vulnerability to attack.Am I (and the GMs I regularly play with) the only pathfinder players that don't give their players infinite time? Sure, at first level a wizard can put to sleep 3 or 4 goblins for the first two fights, but what about the other six? Do GMs really let their players get away with a 15 minute work day? I always have a time limit of some kind, or have the monsters do something each time the players sleep. Seriously, do most GMs just have their monsters standing around, timidly, awaking destruction? Most full casters lose a lot of fire if you don't let them sleep after every two encounters.
Seems like people are always complaining about spells that are already fixed in some way, it's just the GM always forgets to enforce the rules.
Dominate Person: Has a 1 full round casting time and forcing a creature to violate their alignment grants a 2nd save at +2.
Scrying: A creature can notice the sensor by making a Perception check with a DC 20 + the spell level. The sensor can be dispelled as if it were an active spell.
Lead sheeting or magical protection blocks a scrying spell, and you sense that the spell is blocked. (from pathfinder SRD)
Dimension Door:After using this spell, you can’t take any other actions until your next turn. You may also bring one additional willing Medium or smaller creature (carrying gear or objects up to its maximum load) or its equivalent per three caster levels.Dimension Door can get you past an entire encounter (no EXP or loots), but what about when you have to go back? Or if the creatures hear you later and attack from behind? You can take 3 friends @ level 9, or level...
Sure they get as much time as they want in certain situations. It's not something with a binary answer.
If you sleep in enemy HQ someone could find you before you finish sleeping. If you previously cleared out a location it doesn't make sense for you to be attacked every night if you go back there to sleep.
Edit:Rope Trick comes online at around level 7, and later on Magnificent Mansion exist. With GM fiat the party can rest when they have those two spells. You can't hide the rope anymore with rope trick, but you can cast it high enough in the air so that no land based creatures are going to bother you, even if they can see the rope. If you cast the spell in a good location you are likely to not be attacked unless the GM pulls the "because I said so card".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Am I (and the GMs I regularly play with) the only pathfinder players that don't give their players infinite time? Sure, at first level a wizard can put to sleep 3 or 4 goblins for the first two fights, but what about the other six? Do GMs really let their players get away with a 15 minute work day? I always have a time limit of some kind, or have the monsters do something each time the players sleep. Seriously, do most GMs just have their monsters standing around, timidly, awaking destruction? Most full casters lose a lot of fire if you don't let them sleep after every two encounters.That has nothing to do with the issue.
Once you hit level 3, your Wizard can spend a couple spells every encounter for a standard four-encounter day, which is all that's generally necessary. Past that, spell slots are not a meaningful limiter on casters' power. Part of making an effective spellcaster is knowing how to make effective use of those low-level spell slots in combat so that you have an overabundance of resources with which to engage challenges throughout a full adventuring day.
Having infinite time is, likewise, not the issue. There are many flexible spells one is likely to prepare on a regular basis. As a class less dependent on magic items, they also tend to carry useful scrolls and wands that can help solve problems they can't solve directly, they can leave spell slots empty and fill them with the ideal spell in fifteen minutes for non-combat utility, and with a bonded item, they can dive through their entire spellbook for the ideal spell for the occasion.
Dimension Door can get you past an entire encounter (no EXP or loots), but what about when you have to go back? Or if the creatures hear you later and attack from behind? You can take 3 friends @ level 9, or level 12, if someone has a familiar, or level 15 if someone also has an animal companion.The game does not have fights that give you experience points.
The game has...
Great response here. I know when I play casters, no matter if it is wizard, cleric, or <insert other full caster> I don't cast spells every round. Sometimes I won't cast a spell for the entire combat if the party has the fight in hand.
Example: I hooked the party up with fire resistance, and the duration was over an hour. The party ran into enemies who did fire based damage and struggled to hit the frontliner's AC. On the other end the frontliners could take out the enemies with one full round attack. They were virtually immune to the bad guys so I did nothing.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure they get as much time as they want in certain situations. It's not something with a binary answer.
If you sleep in enemy HQ someone could find you before you finish sleeping. If you previously cleared out a location it doesn't make sense for you to be attacked every night if you go back there to sleep.
Edit:Rope Trick comes online at around level 7, and later on Magnificent Mansion exist. With GM fiat the party can rest when they have those two spells. You can't hide the rope anymore with rope trick, but you can cast it high enough in the air so that no land based creatures are going to bother you, even if they can see the rope. If you cast the spell in a good location you are likely to not be attacked unless the GM pulls the "because I said so card".
Also the whole group will likely have keep watch up. So you have full lookouts in full gear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An Int 18 first level evoker gets 7 magic missiles a day, just from his school. That's not counting his rays of frost which he can do every round. He can save his 3 actual spells for more important things than just killing stuff.
Other schools have other tricks that helps on those long adventuring days.
An Int 18 first level evoker gets 7 magic missiles a day, just from his school. That's not counting his rays of frost which he can do every round. He can save his 3 actual spells for more important things than just killing stuff.
Other schools have other tricks that helps on those long adventuring days.
Fair point, but when people say wizards are OP, they actually mean conjurers and diviners. A first level fighter or barbarian is frequently doing 2d6+9, so a 1d4+1 or 1d3 or firing your crossbow wildly into the crowd is really just killing time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An Int 18 first level evoker gets 7 magic missiles a day, just from his school. That's not counting his rays of frost which he can do every round. He can save his 3 actual spells for more important things than just killing stuff.
Other schools have other tricks that helps on those long adventuring days.
4 spells if you chose the Arcane Focus
5 spells if you decide a 20 Int is worth more than a 10 Cha.
1. Certain information is blocked by the modules or adventure path. I call that 'The Black Door' . Try to use a crystal ball to see "My enemy" You see the black door. Cast augury, get the Black Door card. If you try to scry on someone who fell into an orb of oblivion, BLACK DOOR, BLACK DOOR, BLACK DOOR!
2. You find out about your enemies using research and gather information. You role play finding NPCs and books with information.
3. When creating PCs, set limits.
All PC start with the same number of hit dice.
Were creatures have set alignments. There is no atonement. The GM just vetos the wrong actions.
Bonus skills for background are limited. Possibly to 6 points.
4.Stamina and combat tricks in unchained helps balance any wizard fighter difference. Monsters with fighter levels should also have stamina.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Where do you get the notion that a 4 encounter day should be the norm? I understand in certain situations there may be 4 (or less) encounters in a given day, but as mentioned previously, if you want to challenge players you need to get up to 8 to 12 encounters per day by mid level.
The 4-ish encounter day is the firmly established norm for APs and Pathfinder Society play, not going up to the levels you're talking often if at all, even in book six of most of these APs.
Where are you getting 8-12? (Which you can still sling a couple spells an encounter in around level 6 or 7. And yes, even those 1st-level spell slots are highly effective.)
The reason infinite time is an issue is that is allows for an infinite succession of 4 combat days where the wizard is at or near full power. The more you push the party, the more the wizard will have to rely on less powerful options.
Dear lord, how many encounters do you expect to be between you and your next relevant objective? The degrees of combat you seem to expect would have characters leveling up every other day!
And it makes neither narrative nor tactical sense.
So, the evil King Richard has captured the dashing Robin Hood, and the Merry Men (the party) must go rescue him before he is executed at sunset.
By your reasoning, the correct answer you expect the party to do is bash through a dozen squads of guards head-first like a bunch of idiots, when it would make infinitely more sense to say, "There are over a hundred soldiers in that castle. We need a cunning plan," and devise a way to get past those soldiers, possibly by mustering a diversionary force of their own, then get past the guard, get Robin with as little engagement as possible, and run like Hell. That Plan B seems like the more sensible narrative, and more in line with genre convention.
The moment you combine intensely tight time limits with inordinately large numbers of enemies in the way, the clear, most sensible answer to the problem is to NOT fight everything that gets in the way, and find a way around them to directly strike at the heart of the problem.
Four people deciding the sensible course of action is to slaughter an army is not a plan sane people make. Nor is it an interesting plan.
If you allow that logic (as mentioned previously), that would allow a 1st level party to teleport to the BBEG and level up to 20 at the cost of a scroll.
If you stealth/disguise/bluff/teleport past an encounter, those enemies don't stand frozen for eternity or crumble into dust. If used sparingly, there might not be a problem, but if abused there should be some in game consequence for using those tactics.
It would be reasonable for a GM to have these enemies attack en masse, kill a beloved NPC, or otherwise disrupt what the players are trying to accomplish.
I should think this self-evident, but one does not encounter an encounter one does not encounter.
No, the guard patrol does not poof out of existence when you skip the encounter. Nor does it magically and instantly make a beeline for the Wizard's wife back in town to murder her for slighting the GM. The guard patrol presumably keeps patrolling. 'Cuz, y'know, that's kind of their job.
So, you have a three day trip to the big bad, and it's three days before they sacrifice the princess to Zuul. There are thirty six squads of enemy troops on the exact route you happen to be taking, for that dozen encounters a day.
You are right that those guards don't poof when you sneak past them, but they also aren't the entire universe.
If there are over a hundred enemy soldiers on the exact path you happen to be taking on the way to the Temple of Doomydeath, then either the enemy has an improbable level of information on your location or there are a thousand enemy soldiers who aren't on that path. Why is it that the exact cluster of enemy soldiers you skip past also just happens to be the exact cluster of soldiers making a bee line to skewer Minstrel Dave's pet dog? How does that make sense?
It doesn't. It's not a natural consequence of the party's actions. It's abusive GMing.
And as for the attacking en masse, if it's along multiple days' travel, no. No, the last three days' worth of soldiers are not converging on the temple over the course of thirty seconds.
And no, when there are over a hundred soldiers between you and your three friends and a goal you need to accomplish today, it is never the abusive option to find a way past them. It's the sensible option. Strike for the heart, deal with the remnants later.
Hell, most of these fantasy stories, when someone unites the monstrous hordes, the heroes don't slaughter them to the last. They seek out the leader, do epic battle, and then the hordes disperse into something less organized and therefore less dangerous to civilized lands. Not harmless, but genocide and scorched earth tactics are not necessary to create sustainable stability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Post A: "Wizards are overpowered."
Post B: "Nuh uh, only if you're a wuss GM who doesn't throw 27 encounters a day at the lazy PCs!"
I think we went through this whole # of encounters/day thing on another thread.
|
Honestly it seems like the easiest thing to do as a DM is to just Ban Tier 1 casters altogether.
Cause even if you do you still got, Sorcerers, Oracles, Magus's, Warpriests to mess around with
Or Force a Wizard to specialize, Cause i noticed the biggest issue seems to stem from wizards being able to just prepare anything on a lark.
and if that doesn't work then at least suggest whoever wants to play a wizard to play an arcanist instead. Cause at least then if they break the campaign in 2, they will at least make it interesting. Whereas the wizard makes a campaign both trivial, and boring. How do you make taking a campaign under your knee a total snore?
And on a side note, is it just me or are people who play tier one characters just not fun to be around? Be it they are uninteresting as people, or just complete jerks.
I'm in a carrion crown campaign and we had a wizard in our party......who basically did nothing. He kinda just stood around watching us go to work maybe casted like 1 spell the whole time.
Second Session, he flat out said he hated us, thought we were wastes of air and just pissed right off.
I guess my biggest issue with people who play tier one classes or rather people who ONLY play tier one classes. Isn't the fact that the classes themselves are busted to hell, it's that the people who play them are more often then not very unlikable.
Slightly off topic, why do people hate wizards but not arcanists? Even I think arcanists are OP. Is there something that makes them worse than wizards, because the look like wizards on steroids, magically speaking.
|
|
Slightly off topic, why do people hate wizards but not arcanists? Even I think arcanists are OP. Is there something that makes them worse than wizards, because the look like wizards on steroids, magically speaking.
Again If you're gonna be overpowered as all hell, at least be interesting while you're doing it. Arcanists can do that, Wizards can't
What book is the Arcanist in?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly it seems like the easiest thing to do as a DM is to just Ban Tier 1 casters altogether.
Cause even if you do you still got, Sorcerers, Oracles, Magus's, Warpriests to mess around with
Or Force a Wizard to specialize, Cause i noticed the biggest issue seems to stem from wizards being able to just prepare anything on a lark.
and if that doesn't work then at least suggest whoever wants to play a wizard to play an arcanist instead. Cause at least then if they break the campaign in 2, they will at least make it interesting. Whereas the wizard makes a campaign both trivial, and boring. How do you make taking a campaign under your knee a total snore.
And on a side note, is it just me or are people who play tier one characters just not fun to be around? Be it they are uninteresting as people, or just complete jerks.
I'm in a carrion crown campaign and we had a wizard in our party......who basically did nothing. He kinda just stood around watching us go to work maybe casted like 1 spell the whole time.
Second Session, he flat out said he hated us, thought we were wastes of air and just pissed right off.
I guess my biggest issue with people who play tier one classes or rather people who ONLY play tier one classes. Isn't the fact that the classes themselves are busted to hell, it's that the people who play them are more often then not very unlikable.
You have to take what is said on these forums with a grain of salt. Most games don't play out with wizards and the other full casters taking over the game for various reasons. One is that most people want everyone to have fun, so if they solo encounters it will annoy the other players, and likely the GM also. Another is that not everyone has the system mastery to make this happen.
If someone can do this, and they only care about their own enjoyment they can also do the same with lesser classes, even if its not to the same extent. You can optimize about any class to trounce the monsters as written in the book. You can get martial characters with AC's of 45+ at higher levels, and doing enough damage to kill most that are level appropriate rather easily.
If you get a bunch of really good players, who work together as a team they walk through encounters like a hot knife through butter without a full caster present. Their out of combat solving utility might no be as great as when they have a full caster, but it can still be good enough to not worry about a lot of things.
Anyone who can wreck the game with a wizard can likely do it with a sorcerer also. The effect on the game in the hands of a skilled player is not that much different.
The skill level and attitude of the player is more of a problem than the class since players who aren't as good with mechanics arent hard to deal with even with a more powerful class.
I've never had problems with people who only like to play casters. This is a player issue. I say that because the players who were problems tried to bend the rules with every class no matter what it was or they just wanted the spotlight all the time.
Don't hate the class, hate the player.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Slightly off topic, why do people hate wizards but not arcanists? Even I think arcanists are OP. Is there something that makes them worse than wizards, because the look like wizards on steroids, magically speaking.Again If you're gonna be overpowered as all hell, at least be interesting while you're doing it. Arcanists can do that, Wizards can't
Interest is based on the RP'ing of the player, and personal taste. It's very possible to play an interesting <fill in the blank>. I get that you have had jerk players with T1 classes, and maybe you are just venting. I'm not sure, but don't mix personal taste with what is objectively true.
I say the same to people who say "If the entire party isn't flying, and doing <other things they like> by level <insert a number> you're doing it wrong".
They think because they like a certain style of play, that is the only way to do it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
yeah, pretty sure most tier list of classes put all three, wizard sorcerer and arcanist into tier 1 category don't they?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Slightly off topic, why do people hate wizards but not arcanists? Even I think arcanists are OP. Is there something that makes them worse than wizards, because the look like wizards on steroids, magically speaking.
Reduced spellcasting progression, for starters. Less spells per day as well. Did I also mention that they can't use Pearls of Power and that they have zero in-game support for their class features in the way of magic items and other such stuff compared to a Wizard? Seriously, nobody knows if they are prepared or spontaneous or some unknown combination that has zero support for what they can or can't do.
The only thing that makes them comparable is the Quick Study exploit and their other Arcane Reservoir stuff. They might also be better at Blasting or Save or Suck/Die effects, depending on archetype. But an Exploiter Wizard gets most all of that stuff while still maintaining their improved progression and being more SAD with the choices they make in relation to the Exploits (since I believe even the exploit effects are Intelligence based as well). The Arcanist is otherwise a clearly inferior class.
yeah, pretty sure most tier list of classes put all three, wizard sorcerer and arcanist into tier 1 category don't they?
Sorcerers are tier 2, but at an actual table with a skilled player it won't really matter. The difference is negligible in actual play.
Slightly off topic, why do people hate wizards but not arcanists? Even I think arcanists are OP. Is there something that makes them worse than wizards, because the look like wizards on steroids, magically speaking.
I've played both to high levels. There isn't really much difference. Both are better than a sorcerer though. The wizard gets spells a level earlier which can matter a lot. I also think the wizard also gets more spells per day, but once you that is a minor point in my opinion since neither one is running out of spells past a certain point. The arcanist has better class features to me. Wizards also get free feats for metamagic and magic item creation. They(wizards) are slightly ahead, but I dont see it as a huge advantage.
What book is the Arcanist in?Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Advanced Class Guide
So Very much Legal.
I don't have that book.
I can't even discuss it.
What book is the Arcanist in?Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Advanced Class Guide
So Very much Legal.I don't have that book.
I can't even discuss it.
Is there a reason you can't discuss it without owning the book? You can read up on the arcanist on any of the srds.
You can certainly make an interesting wizard. And dimension door'ing in and out isn't restricted to tier 1-2 casters after a while - a magus with improved spell recall can have enough spell slots to do it easily.
7-9 encounters per day seems hard to justify or enforce against a reasonably intelligently played party at mid-high levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’m referring to mid level, levels 7 to 13 in my opinion. Most campaigns play around in that area at some point. I have never played in a campaign where it was expected that we would rest every 4th encounter.
Most people don't rest every 4 encounters in my experience, but it is the assumption of the designers. As they get higher up in level they can take on more encounters per day. Technically since the enemies are harder it should be 4 enounters, but depending on the skill level of the players They might do 7 encounters or more. Another issue is that if the magic guys run low on spells it's the martials who want them to rest so they can have the support.
Cleric is low on healing ability=Fighters(not the class, hit point damage dealers) want to rest. They don't want to take a crit, and the cleric/orcale/druid not be able to hook them up.
I am not saying that you can’t or shouldn’t use those tactics. I can see that making for an interesting solution for a challenge. Once. But if it is to be a primary tactic, then why play anything other than a full arcane caster? Why buy anything but scrolls of dimension door and teleport? Every campaign should just be a series of teleports until you reach the objective. That sounds supremely uninteresting.
I don't think he was suggesting to teleport past everything. The point was to use creativity to bypass enounters instead of doing things the hard way if possible.
As an example if they can charm some guards into getting them some uniforms, and get any passwords the guards might use that makes for a better idea than trying to fight past a large amount of enemies.
If you have casters, the BBEG has casters. If you can teleport past them, they can teleport to you, or to the next place you are likely to go. Once you have rescued the kidnapped poodle or stolen the gem that was to summon an eldritch god, the guards have nothing to guard, so it would make sense logically for them to be put to some other use. To do otherwise would be weak GMing.
Enemy casters are typically lower level than the party so they may not have teleport, and even so the bad guy normally has a home base. The PC's are not stationary in many cases so finding out where they are isn't easy. You can try to scry on them, but most likely a PC will make the will save at least on one attempt. Many posters on these boards have things such as Mind Blank up at higher levels. I've never used it to avoid scrying, but it is common to some people.
With regard to the guards moving after ____ was stolen it can work depending on the narrative. If they are guards for a castle then it doesn't really make sense, if that was the home base of the bad guys. If they were only hired for the crystal then it could work, but that assumes the PC's have families. But if you run the games like that the players will know it, and player will play the game based on how the GM runs it. So they'll likely either not have family in their backstories or have them hidden.
Even if the BBEG pulls the "trade <insert item> to save your friends/family" trick the PC's are likely to hide the item and then go for the rescue.
Also the "kidnap the family" thing would get old after a few games, probably on the 2nd campaign it was done in.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Slightly off topic, why do people hate wizards but not arcanists? Even I think arcanists are OP. Is there something that makes them worse than wizards, because the look like wizards on steroids, magically speaking.
Wizards are simply the common go-to example.
Most discussions on the matter apply equally, if slightly differently, to the Cleric, Druid, Witch, Shaman, and Arcanist.
yeah, pretty sure most tier list of classes put all three, wizard sorcerer and arcanist into tier 1 category don't they?
Tier 1 is Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Witch, Shaman, Arcanist.
Tier 2 is Oracle, Psychic, Sorcerer, Summoner, Unchained Summoner.
There are only very specific tricks like Paragon Surge and the shenanigans that come with it let the Sorcerer into the Tier 1 club.
I am not saying that you can’t or shouldn’t use those tactics. I can see that making for an interesting solution for a challenge. Once. But if it is to be a primary tactic, then why play anything other than a full arcane caster? Why buy anything but scrolls of dimension door and teleport? Every campaign should just be a series of teleports until you reach the objective. That sounds supremely uninteresting.And it makes neither narrative nor tactical sense.
So, the evil King Richard has captured the dashing Robin Hood, and the Merry Men (the party) must go rescue him before he is executed at sunset.
By your reasoning, the correct answer you expect the party to do is bash through a dozen squads of guards head-first like a bunch of idiots, when it would make infinitely more sense to say, "There are over a hundred soldiers in that castle. We need a cunning plan," and devise a way to get past those soldiers, possibly by mustering a diversionary force of their own, then get past the guard, get Robin with as little engagement as possible, and run like Hell. That Plan B seems like the more sensible narrative, and more in line with genre convention.
The moment you combine intensely tight time limits with inordinately large numbers of enemies in the way, the clear, most sensible answer to the problem is to NOT fight everything that gets in the way, and find a way around them to directly strike at the heart of the problem.
Four people deciding the sensible course of action is to slaughter an army is not a plan sane people make. Nor is it an interesting plan.
I want you to reread that exchange, friend.
I talk about Robin Hood's Merry Men mustering a diversionary force to sneak into a castle, and you're still talking about scrolls of teleport?
There are many, many ways to be clever, and there are many intelligent options that make sense in the context of a story.
Personal experience. By mid level, first level spells may be useful, but they won’t be highly effective against most encounters.
I see. And your personal experience means so much more regarding the way the game is designed to be played and what ought to be considered "normal" play than literally every piece of content put out by the designers of the game. That's an interesting flavor of arrogance.
Anyways, at level 7, 1st-level spells are still highly effective; Grease will still put a Hill Giant on its ass quite reliably. At level 13, you have so many spells it hardly matters anymore.
You seem to have some absurd mental block so that whenever I say “8+ encounters per day” you hear “hellish slog fit for neither man nor beast”. It is exactly like any other game with encounters and challenges set before the party, simply with more encounters between rest than some.
And I'm saying once you have such a large number of encounters, the sensible solution stops being to fight everything and becomes getting around a lot of these obstacles.
Besides, not everything is a soul-devouring horror. I'm sure a lot of these monsters just want to eat a nice, fat deer and get on with their lives. Operation: Genocide doesn't seem very heroic when there's a less murdery alternative.
If you have casters, the BBEG has casters. If you can teleport past them, they can teleport to you, or to the next place you are likely to go. Once you have rescued the kidnapped poodle or stolen the gem that was to summon an eldritch god, the guards have nothing to guard, so it would make sense logically for them to be put to some other use. To do otherwise would be weak GMing.I should think this self-evident, but one does not encounter an encounter one does not encounter.
No, the guard patrol does not poof out of existence when you skip the encounter. Nor does it magically and instantly make a beeline for the Wizard's wife back in town to murder her for slighting the GM. The guard patrol presumably keeps patrolling. 'Cuz, y'know, that's kind of their job.
So, you have a three day trip to the big bad, and it's three days before they sacrifice the princess to Zuul. There are thirty six squads of enemy troops on the exact route you happen to be taking, for that dozen encounters a day.
You are right that those guards don't poof when you sneak past them, but they also aren't the entire universe.
If there are over a hundred enemy soldiers on the exact path you happen to be taking on the way to the Temple of Doomydeath, then either the enemy has an improbable level of information on your location or there are a thousand enemy soldiers who aren't on that path. Why is it that the exact cluster of enemy soldiers you skip past also just happens to be the exact cluster of soldiers making a bee line to skewer Minstrel Dave's pet dog? How does that make sense?
It doesn't. It's not a natural consequence of the party's actions. It's abusive GMing.
And as for the attacking en masse, if it's along multiple days' travel, no. No, the last three days' worth of soldiers are not converging on the temple over the course of thirty seconds.
And no, when there are over a hundred soldiers between you and your three friends and a goal you need to accomplish today, it is never the abusive option to find a way past them. It's the sensible option. Strike for the heart, deal with the remnants later.
Hell, most of these fantasy stories, when someone unites the monstrous hordes, the heroes don't slaughter them to the last. They seek out the leader, do epic battle, and then the hordes disperse into something less organized and therefore less dangerous to civilized lands. Not harmless, but genocide and scorched earth tactics are not necessary to create sustainable stability.
If you're fighting a large-scale organization, they'll have the resources of a large-scale organization. Why is it those specific three hundred soldiers that were on the path are the only ones that have the instant-teleport-to-boss button and not the other thousand that were not on the path? That doesn't sound like logic.
And yes. Yes, after you thwart a villain's nefarious scheme, they are angry and act against you. That is literally their narrative function. That is, assuming there's still a coherent organization left in the power vacuum after they're slain; their organization can just as easily collapse to infighting in the ensuing power vacuum, rendering them ineffectual in any immediate retaliation, or in defense against the lawful authorities of the land.
Of course mention them do another edition where they fix those supposed problems and everyone loses their mind.
Cause apparently a game isn't fun unless there's something absolutely busted to exploit.
No, no, there's a totally deep background that requires my character to be a storm giant wereroc gestalted with mystic theurge!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course mention them do another edition where they fix those supposed problems and everyone loses their mind.
Because spells are fun and interesting. Would rather see other classes elevated with fun and interesting abilities than chopping down the casters. 4E had its own quirks but did what it set out to do well, i.e. be a pen and paper MMO, but in 5E everything is just so bland and tedious.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey I don't find it a problem myself. My game does not experience the M/C disparity thing. The power seems to spread pretty evenly. I find the debate pointless because even if you try to offer solutions theirs always people flipping out one way or the other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because spells are fun and interesting. Would rather see other classes elevated with fun and interesting abilities than chopping down the casters. 4E had its own quirks but did what it set out to do well, i.e. be a pen and paper MMO, but in 5E everything is just so bland and tedious.
Magic can be fun and interesting without giving you the ability to do everything.
You can have things that are narrower in focus, like the Beguiler, and still have cool, interesting magic.
But the current design of casters does too many different things too well simultaneous to be a sensible design. You can't bring non-casters up to that level without doing some ridiculous stuff. Best to meet somewhere in the middle.
But the current design of casters does too many different things too well simultaneous to be a sensible design. You can't bring non-casters up to that level without doing some ridiculous stuff. Best to meet somewhere in the middle.
I can see your point. If you wanted a fairly quick and easy way to try to "balance" the game, banning 9th level casters would do a lot for you. As for non-full casters with nice things, the Barbarian/Bloodrager is still the gold standard in my mind: That is what non-full casters should be compared to in terms of awesome. Everyone should have cool stuff like that. With so many archetypes and alternate rules now, I feel like pretty much all classes are starting to have options that live up to that ideal. It only took X number of years, Y books, and Z splat books. Even Rogue and Monk can have some nice things now. What a time to be alive.
|
|
But the current design of casters does too many different things too well simultaneous to be a sensible design. You can't bring non-casters up to that level without doing some ridiculous stuff. Best to meet somewhere in the middle.
I can see your point. If you wanted a fairly quick and easy way to try to "balance" the game, banning 9th level casters would do a lot for you. As for non-full casters with nice things, the Barbarian/Bloodrager is still the gold standard in my mind: That is what non-full casters should be compared to in terms of awesome. Everyone should have cool stuff like that. With so many archetypes and alternate rules now, I feel like pretty much all classes are starting to have options that live up to that ideal. It only took X number of years, Y books, and Z splat books. Even Rogue and Monk can have some nice things now. What a time to be alive.
Idk i think magus's and warpriests come up pretty close as well.
Magus's, warpriests and bloodragers. The trinity of awesome.
Hey I don't find it a problem myself. My game does not experience the M/C disparity thing. The power seems to spread pretty evenly. I find the debate pointless because even if you try to offer solutions theirs always people flipping out one way or the other.
The issue as I see it is that if you look at it completely objectively, as written, there is 100% a martial/caster disparity. That is not to say that you may not houserule to fix it or not have a group of players that exploit it, but it is objectively there though it may never be an issue for you. When people deny that the disparity exists, in the game as written, well, that is when the arguments start getting heated. The ability to Rule 0 something doesn't stop the rules from being bad at times: In fact, I would argue that if you need to Rule 0 it to begin with then the rule was probably bad to begin with.
See but I don't have any special rules against the wizard no rule 0's sometimes the wizard doesn't get through spell resistance sometimes the monster saves sometimes the fighter wins initiative and shreds something.
I imagine if you run your game in a certain way it creates a problem. which is still rule 0. maybe they don't allow role play to solve as many problem and require rules to do so. Since magic has the rules of how to do something then it dominates over someone making a few skill checks and role playing a conversation. I don't completely deny its existence mind you. I think the changes necessary are a lot less then what people say. Mostly a more robust higher level skill system would handle a lot of it. Save or suck spells at the point they come online is still saving throws, spell resistance and the occasional immunity.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
From what I have seen, this isn't a rule 0 issue. The main problem is that GMs go way too easy on casters. If they treated them like the threat they are, then there is no longer an issue.
I think in some ways we are going to be talking in circles. If there was not a caster disparity, then a martial and caster of the same level should be the same level of threat. But you are acknowledging that they aren't because clearly the caster is the more dangerous foe. I think that comes back to essentially saying, "yeah, casters are busted but you can mitigate if you specifically plan around them." It is like you are saying that no problem ever existed because you took steps to fix it, but if there was never a problem then why did you have to take those steps.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course mention them do another edition where they fix those supposed problems and everyone loses their mind.
One of the problems was the way it was done, not that it was done.
They tried to balance by making classes against each other instead of balanced in what they could do within the narrative of the story.
That is why people flocked to Pathfinder instead of staying with the new version of the other game
Personally I don't think the system was terrible. It just would have been better for something like mutants and masterminds which intends to keep all of the heros/superheros on a fairly even level.
I think Gallant Armor is saying to use better tactics and strategies. I agree to some extent. If you(generally speaking) are the GM you can also talk to the party about how you want the game to run. If you don't want your casters forcing saves so high that monsters need a 15 or better to save then say so or cut back on resources. If you don't want monsters only being able to hit on a nat 20 then say something or cut back on resources.
Having the game wide open so people can do what they want doesn't work for every GM. Sometimes you have to reel things in. That is what of what I like about the game. If you want to let players reach incredible power then you can do it. If you want to reign things in then you can play a game with a capped power level. Neither way is wrong. I think that on some level many GM's know this, but they don't want to upset the players so they end up ranting here about it.
At the same time you have to train your players not to need super-characters(not classes but very optimal builds). If you run the game on hard mode the players are going to adapt and build better characters. I used to always build really powerful characters because I thought it was necessary. Later on I got GM's who were less likely to run things in a way that might kill the party so I've dialed things back.
Another problem is GM's say things like "no OP characters" not realizing that what is OP is subjective. One person's OP is someone else's weaksauce. Give examples of what is not good to try to do. Don't be passive-aggressive. It just creates an arms race. Of course the GM will likely win, but he will still be frustrated from the extra work at times.
edit: I am not saying the GM's wouldn't allow us to die. I'm saying the challenges were less likely to kill us when I said, "...GM's who were less likely to run things in a way that might kill the party..".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gallant Armor
The fact of the matter is that the way your group plays negates the disparity, or at least lessen's its effects.
You have made it clear that your party would rather fight your way through the horde of enemies than find an alternate path that avoids the combat.
This basically means that your players do not care overly much for narrative agency. They want to fight stuff and kill it.
Other people however value narrative agency over combat ability, but would still like to play a non magical character.
They want to be able to do things that give them the same options that a caster has.
If I am not an arcane caster and my foe teleports away, I am screwed. There is no way for me to chase them.
I want my fighter who can swing a sword better than any man alive to sunder the fabric of reality and tear a whole through which I can follow my foe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gallant Armor
The fact of the matter is that the way your group plays negates the disparity, or at least lessen's its effects.
You have made it clear that your party would rather fight your way through the horde of enemies than find an alternate path that avoids the combat.
This basically means that your players do not care overly much for narrative agency. They want to fight stuff and kill it.Other people however value narrative agency over combat ability, but would still like to play a non magical character.
They want to be able to do things that give them the same options that a caster has.If I am not an arcane caster and my foe teleports away, I am screwed. There is no way for me to chase them.
I want my fighter who can swing a sword better than any man alive to sunder the fabric of reality and tear a whole through which I can follow my foe.
See now I specifically and utterly don't want a fighter who can slash his sword through reality to teleport somewhere. To me that just sounds like a magic user with a sword. I don't mind them doing cool impressive feats but that is into true anime territory. Its fine for an optional book designed for people that want a game like that but I don't want that in my standard DnD PF fantasy. Now if we are talking artifact sword then sure.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
See now I specifically and utterly don't want a fighter who can slash his sword through reality to teleport somewhere. To me that just sounds like a magic user with a sword. I don't mind them doing cool impressive feats but that is into true anime territory. Its fine for an optional book designed for people that want a game like that but I don't want that in my standard DnD PF fantasy. Now if we are talking artifact sword then sure.Gallant Armor
The fact of the matter is that the way your group plays negates the disparity, or at least lessen's its effects.
You have made it clear that your party would rather fight your way through the horde of enemies than find an alternate path that avoids the combat.
This basically means that your players do not care overly much for narrative agency. They want to fight stuff and kill it.Other people however value narrative agency over combat ability, but would still like to play a non magical character.
They want to be able to do things that give them the same options that a caster has.If I am not an arcane caster and my foe teleports away, I am screwed. There is no way for me to chase them.
I want my fighter who can swing a sword better than any man alive to sunder the fabric of reality and tear a whole through which I can follow my foe.
I'm guessing you're not a fan of the magus cause if you think about it they are basically anime as all hell. Spell combat+Dimensional Agility is basically what you're talking about.
And since we're talking about anime, Can i just point out that paizo literally added a magical girl archetype into the game not too long ago?