| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait a minute... people play wizards without at least 14 constitution?
Search Posts
All I got is pointing out that Barbarian is actually supernatural class once you get the good rage powers(spell sunder) and doesn't have anywhere near the aging problems of Fighter/Rogue/Cavalier/etc because of it. Thus, making that a pretty bad example. In the end though this is very similar to another point: In a world where magic is basically everywhere and you'll be fighting undead, demons, dragons, and other mages: Why the hell would you NOT learn magic if you could? Why IC-wise does it make sense for someone to go out of there way to not use at all by training to be a fighter? Sure: NPCs don't have that luxury since they don't fall in the 2-20% of people who can learn magic(depending on sourcebook) but PCs are always in that % and they know it. It's like /damn/ at least become a Barbarian who has anti-magic abilities so casters don't destroy you.
Let me begin this post by saying; I'm actually in the process of writing a book using the Pathfinder setting and just spent a good part of the day going through all 1st and 2nd level spells making note of the macro effects such spell availibility would have on society assuming a 2% caster population based on the 3.5 DMG.What is this book that would lead to such an awesome work day?! I actually haven't even come up with a name. "Druid Story" was one idea I threw out there at one point, if that gives you any indication of the content. I've spent the last 4 days struggling with how to wrap up chapter 3 so it's not very far along yet.
Use summons to fill the gaps? It shouldn't be the DMs job to handle memorization of summons. That's the summoning player's job, just like it's their job to keep track of their own damn sheet. On our table I play a lot of Druids, which btw are way better summoners then default wizards or even the summoner class, and it was my job to keep track of the stats of all my summons without it slowing down the game. I had all the summons I'd use at all levels of the spell prepared ahead of time(having a computer helps) and prepared the turns of both my character, my animal companion, and my summons all before my turn actually came so I could execute it as fast as I could speak. I even pre-rolled attack dice if my DM let me, or at least had all the dice ready to roll. Any summoner who could not do this on our table was not allowed to use those spells. That being said, the wizard still has to have summon spells prepared. They cannot spontaneously cast them like a Druid can(or even a cleric with the right build). A wizard who is not strictly prepared for the encounter hes facing is just a worse version of a Sorcerer with better knowledge skills. However, proper execution of the class is assumed when doing these theorycrafting comparisons which does skew things a bit. Many people just don't have the mindset to play Wizards, and no I'm implying those players are less intelligent they simply think in a different way that doesn't mesh perfectly or whats expected out of them when playing a wizard isn't their kind of fun. Everyone plays differently. I happen to really like the vancian preparation spell system because it reminds me of playing Magic or other CCGs, but not honestly a lot of people hate it and I originally did to. Those players simply aren't gonna be game breaking with the wizard and either move on from them or not play them in the first place. Honestly, I can't even remember the last time I played with a wizard in our party...
The DnD/Golarion Great Beyond. Nothing makes sense, everything's stupid, deities should just be patron saints/sinners or something. In more general terms: When a player goes behind the DM's back to present an idea to another player that the DM won't approve of, gets the other player all hyped for the idea, and then tries to paint the DM as the badguy for saying no.
A hyperbole example I'll admit but generally the Wizard ends up being about as useful as the rogue on their own or ends up augmenting the rogue depending on the charisma disparity. In your example, the quest just becomes a repeat of scenario 1 aka the Wizard is just better. However, this scenario is generally assumed to be followed up by more social/intrigue related quests. I was trying to be general to save space on an already long post as anyone who can deconstruct my example probably already knows why wizard is strong already.
You have tto understand that most metrics of determining class power is based on the "Tier list" of 1 to 6. (I think it's been forever since I've looked). Tier 1 is the best and tier 6 is the worst. The thing about this list is it is based on a test of how that class generally functions in three scenarios: Scenario 1: A dungeon full of various monsters and traps. Pretty much your standard dungeon crawl with an end boss of APL+2-3 and various level appropriate challenges along the way. Scenario 2: A village is going to be attacked by generic evil horde of evilness. The party has X amount of time(usually a week) to prepare the village and townsfolk to recieve and hold against the attack with minimal casualties. Scenario 3: There is a King/Baron/Whatever. You need a great favor from this person that may put them at risk. Do whatever you can to get this favor. This scenario can be replaced with any other social only multilayered encounter. As you can see it's a bit skewed but let's compare Fighter, Unchained Rogue, and a Wizard (I'm leaving out cleric for simplicity as it falls in the same tier). Scenario 1: This is where the fighter has the most going for him, but still not very much. A fighter contributes two things: DPR and an HP buffer. The best he can do against traps is face-tank them and gets ruined by fireballs, dominate persons, but can tank fingers of death(assume these are all the same power level and DC or replace them with similar effects). The rogue is really good against traps and as long as she has a flanking buddy can mostly produce as much DPR as the fighter against any encounter not immune to sneak attack. The rogue can easily spot and deal with traps, can solve puzzles, can tank fireballs, has a better chance against will save effects with the right talents, and dies to finger of death. Rogue is almost or just as good at being an HP buffer as the fighter. The wizard on the other hand can do everything in this encounter. In fact, hes the best HP buffer too because he has summons and/or undead minions. With good preparation and divinations he will always have spells that are effective in every encounter. He can even deal with traps simply by sending a summoned sheep through the tunnel ahead and has the best knowledge checks to deal with puzzles. He can take will save effects but will die to reflex and fort save effects or wait he has Abjuration spells, or just straight up doesn't need to enter the room until his minions tank those spells first, if at all. Grades: Wizard +A, Unchained Rogue -B, Fighter -C Scenario 2: The wizard can again do everything. Summon outsiders to defend the town, build fortifications with spells, dominate the mayor and have him order around the townsfolk into preparing for the attack by conscripting them all into the militia. Blow up evil horde with fireballs as they approach.The fighter and rogue can't do anything here a commoner couldn't do but perhaps the rogue might have some useless skills to apply in places. Grades: Wizard +A, Unchained Rogue -C, Fighter F Scenario 3: Insivibility, nondetection,teleport,hold person, teleport, geas/dominate person=Instant friendly noble...until the spell ends. Rogue can do a lot here with just diplomancy and offering skills to assist the noble at less risk then the wizard. Fighter is useless. Grades: Wizard +A, Unchained Rogue A, Fighter F As you can see the Wizard is always useful in these scenarios, meanwhile the fighter is only sort of useful in combat. The rogue has some nice spots but is also very hit and miss. Stuff like Bard and Alchemist are somewhere in the middle between rogue and wizard obviously. Personally, I'd say Druid and Cleric as just as good as Wizards. The wizard just has different tools availible to them that people tend to gawk at more and are a little shinier at level 17+.
Druids and Paladins are my top two classes period. Ironically, I don't like any other divine classes very much(though Divine Paragon might change that for me). Both of these classes I find to be almost criminally underrated by most people I know. Versatility is my favorite thing in a class and the Druid is the paragon of versatility. Paladin is just cool and mechanically effective.
Let me begin this post by saying; I'm actually in the process of writing a book using the Pathfinder setting and just spent a good part of the day going through all 1st and 2nd level spells making note of the macro effects such spell availibility would have on society assuming a 2% caster population based on the 3.5 DMG. One particular spell is that effects this is Diagnose Disease. Which has the following effects:
This 2nd level cleric spell actually pushes Pathfinder setting medical knowledge lightyears ahead of modern medical technology in all aspects but one: You don't know what causes the disease if it's a normal disease. Meaning doctors would know exactly what the black plague is and how to treat it but not know how it spreads and thus prevent it from occuring to begin with. And yes, I said doctors not just clerics. The printing press exists in Golarion Canon(Pathfinder is actually an early-renaissance RPG not a medieval RPG)so there is nothing stopping all those good aligned clerics from writing books detailing the knowledge they've gleamed by casting this spell for years and have the books printed to be used in collages in larger cities. Remove Disease is a 3rd level spell which actually limits its availibility to larger towns unless someone has the restoration domain. No one in Sandpoint can cast this spell as an example, but there are clerics in Magnimar that can. This spell+a lesser/normal restoration or cure spell would, on it's own, cure cavities, tooth rot, and a bunch of other things I'm not actually qualified to answer. The claims that we've only had painkillers since the 20th century by some people in this thread are (respectfully) wrong. Opium has existed for longer than humans have and cultivating it goes back thousands of years. There are plenty of other analogues in Pathfinder that can do the same thing. There are also a broad range of spells starting at 1st level that can act painkillers and a potion is just 50gp. Polypurpose Panancea is the first that comes to mind as a mindpainkiller for 50gp that lasts an hour(If you ignore the "no personal potions" rule that I find shouldn't apply to such a spell) and delay pain is a second(or 1st level spell for Zon Kuthon worshippers of a specific domain) that can last for hours at a higher price. In conclusion: 1: They would be as common as any other medical practitioner but outside of a metropolise I'd wager most would be general practitioners who also did dental work. Then again, Alienists are a thing in Pathfinder... Anyway, magical healers would mostly be clerics or druids and as common or rare as NPCs of those classes would be based on settlemant stats or whatever the hell you are ruling with.
|