RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
For sheer damage output, I'd say make a 5th level raging barbarian using a 2 handed weapon and using power attack with a strength of 18 or 20. They'll be dishing out 30+ damage a hit every round, and more on crits. Compare that to the wizard's 1 fireball (assuming there's a good tactical situation to use it in even.) You can get similar results at different levels, as the barbarian will hit more often (and more than once a round).
I don't think there's a problem. Having the different classes play differently is a good thing, but I don't think it makes any class or group of classes better overall. You can't mathmatically compare them, but a bard could be viewed as way better than a barbarian or a wizard if their high diplomacy and/or bluff skills avoid fights, or make them much easier.
Ok, have just downloaded and am currently looking through the beta, and it appears to me that playing a caster is still the 'best' choice, what I mean is that a pure melee character will be left behind in versatility, damage output, and well usefulness, once the Cleric/Mage/Druid/Sorcerer, gets to about 5th, maybe a little higher, am I missing something?
I hope I am because I am hoping for a system where the sneak attacking rogue, and the fighter with the 2h sword are as deadly, and necessary a part of the party as the spell slingers.
I never had a problem with this. In all of the fantasy I have ever read this is just the way it has always been. Spellcasters are ALWAYS more powerful than non-spellcasters as far as sheer power goes. For it to be otherwise would not be true to the genre. I think the balance of power is pretty close to what it should be right now. The Conan's and t he like still have tricks up their sleeves that are not necessarily sheer power that help them come out on top despite the odds. Having said that though the other classes are definately no slouches these days when it comes to damaging potential. If you want a character that can do everything well... play a spell caster. That is what magic is for.
Charles
Ok, have just downloaded and am currently looking through the beta, and it appears to me that playing a caster is still the 'best' choice, what I mean is that a pure melee character will be left behind in versatility, damage output, and well usefulness, once the Cleric/Mage/Druid/Sorcerer, gets to about 5th, maybe a little higher, am I missing something?
I hope I am because I am hoping for a system where the sneak attacking rogue, and the fighter with the 2h sword are as deadly, and necessary a part of the party as the spell slingers.
My gut tells me you may be right, but the beta has changed a number of rules (including spells), so I feel as if we can't be sure without playtesting, or at least some strong comparisons (meaning we'd have to build a bunch of characters at key levels and see how they look. I'd pick 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 17, and 20 for a good spread).
I never had a problem with this. In all of the fantasy I have ever read this is just the way it has always been. *snip*
Well, in the fantasy that I've read, healing magic is hard to come by and wounds have lasting effects, taking days or weeks to recover from. Additionally, death is actually a significant (generally unassailable) hurdle. That doesn't mean that either of those things actually make for a better game. We are talking about fantasy roleplaying here, not fantasy fiction, it's not the same and it's foolish to compare the two. The game should be balanced, or at least attempt to be. No class should do everything well, it eliminates the need for other classes.
For sheer damage output, I'd say make a 5th level raging barbarian using a 2 handed weapon and using power attack with a strength of 18 or 20. They'll be dishing out 30+ damage a hit every round, and more on crits. Compare that to the wizard's 1 fireball (assuming there's a good tactical situation to use it in even.) You can get similar results at different levels, as the barbarian will hit more often (and more than once a round).
Well, an 18 str barbarian at 5th level, power attacking for max with a greatsword and raging against an average CR 5 opponent (AC 18 is the expected AC according to the beta) will hit on a 11+ (assuming weapon focus and +1 weapon) and do an average of 29pts when he hits...7 (avg) + 9 (raging str) + 12 (power attack) +1 (weapon). However, he will miss 50% of the time and rage points are a finite resource. So he'll actually be dishing out ~15pts per round, every round that he is raging (not raging his chance to hit stays the same but average hit drops to 22, so ~11pts per round). Further, power attack doesn't scale like it used to, now that it is connected to strength bonus rather than base attack bonus.
Of course, the real glitch with the "power attacking 2hander" argument is that is assumes a raging (barbarian class...what about paladins/fighters/etc?), greatsword (what if I want to use 2 weapons?), maxed out strength (what if I want a decent wis or int?) and power attack (what if I want to get other feats?). The spellcaster's damage output on the other hand is tied only to their caster level and the spell that they happen to cast.
This whole argument of course ignores the save or "die" (ie. remove from the combat to slay at your whim) spells which are still alive and well...sleep, charm person, hold person, etc.
edited for silly typo
|
|
i am with charles in that i believe that magic should be powerful... but also dangerous... butno one woudl listen to me if i ask wizards to be hurt if they fail spellcraft to not lose an spell, right?
also for level 5 a fighter may be able two use 2 weapons with evry little penalties... there is a lot of combinations for max damage around here.
A couple of years ago, I had an idea for an alternate magic system which abolished spell slots but made the caster make a check every time he cast a spell, which went up every time he cast a spell. Failure meant special fatigue which also affected his casting (so three failures in a day meant a KO). Obviously, that would be taking a hard right turn into "Nonbackwardscompattible Ville" (they're working on the name).
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
For sheer damage output, I'd say make a 5th level raging barbarian using a 2 handed weapon and using power attack with a strength of 18 or 20. They'll be dishing out 30+ damage a hit every round, and more on crits. Compare that to the wizard's 1 fireball (assuming there's a good tactical situation to use it in even.) You can get similar results at different levels, as the barbarian will hit more often (and more than once a round).Well, an 18 str barbarian at 5th level, power attacking for max with a greatsword and raging against an average CR 5 opponent (AC 18 is the expected AC according to the beta) will hit on a 11+ (assuming weapon focus and +1 weapon) and do an average of 29pts when he hits...7 (avg) + 9 (raging str) + 12 (power attack) +1 (weapon). However, he will miss 50% of the time and rage points are a finite resource. So he'll actually be dishing out ~15pts per round, every round that he is raging (not raging his chance to hit stays the same but average hit drops to 22, so ~11pts per round). Further, power attack doesn't scale like it used to, now that it is connected to strength bonus rather than base attack bonus.
Of course, the real glitch with the "power attacking 2hander" argument is that is assumes a raging (barbarian class...what about paladins/fighters/etc?),...
I agree that when you assume a 50% hit chance, the numbers change, but in my play experience, that would be low. There's flanking, buff spells, and debuffs on the enemies often in play (again, in my games), that tend to have the hit chance more often at 75%.
As for comparing non-2handed raging power attackers to wizards, I was picking the biggest damage output fighter type to compare to the blaster damage dealing wizard. If you pick a different option, or don't optimize for damage, you could compare those characters to non-damage optimized wizards (say a buffing enchanter/transmuter , a monster summoner, abjurer, etc.) Wizards have their other build types as well.
|
Saving throws and SR become the big things at high (16+) level that tend to limit a caster's damage potential. A warrior-type with two-weapon fighting or a rogue with some form of greater invisibility (or an obscene Hide/Stealth check) and 8-10 dice of sneak attack can easily outpace a mage's damage against a single target. Now, for more than 8 targets at once, of course the mage will outdo the warrior or rogue, but that's as it should be.
Edit: Though I do admit that there is definitely a "sweet spot" for casters at about 8th to 12th level. I've seen it first-hand as both a player and DM. Chain Lightning and Fireball just change the game to a radical degree. 20 orcs are no longer a reason to run, they're a reason to duck and cover.
|
For sheer damage output, I'd say make a 5th level raging barbarian using a 2 handed weapon and using power attack with a strength of 18 or 20. They'll be dishing out 30+ damage a hit every round, and more on crits. Compare that to the wizard's 1 fireball (assuming there's a good tactical situation to use it in even.) You can get similar results at different levels, as the barbarian will hit more often (and more than once a round).
I don't think there's a problem. Having the different classes play differently is a good thing, but I don't think it makes any class or group of classes better overall. You can't mathmatically compare them, but a bard could be viewed as way better than a barbarian or a wizard if their high diplomacy and/or bluff skills avoid fights, or make them much easier.
Skip the fireball, lets talk about a 2nd level spell, Glitterdust. Sure it doesn't kill anyone and does no physical damage. DC 16-17ish(higher if you try) will save or everything in a 10' radius is blind. Most of the time this is used against a group of fighterish types who have a +2 will save or so. Yeah, the barbarian may have almost killed one of the fighters but the wizard just effectively took out 7 out of the other 10. "Hey Krusk and Lidda, make sure you kill all my victims, thanks." and the wizzo can do stuff like this alot if he keeps scrolls of most spells that don't have DCs or are strictly utility and use his slots for this type of stuff.
And let's not even think about the idiocy that can happen around 10th-11th level. I saw 2 spells ruin an encounter that was 4-5 above the party's EL just last week in my game. Sculpted Black tentacles and sculpted Glitterdust. The caster has pumped his DCs a bit resulting around DC23 for the Glitterdust and DC 25 for the tentacles. Almost all the melee baddies were blinded and any that weren't were grappled. All the caster baddies that weren't blinded were grappled. All with the wizard floating 200ft away and 35 feet off the ground. Big deal if the Barbarian can hit 3-4 times in a round for 100 damage if he doesn't move, the fight is already over, the barbarians job is cleanup.
Well, in the fantasy that I've read, healing magic is hard to come by and wounds have lasting effects, taking days or weeks to recover from. Additionally, death is actually a significant (generally unassailable) hurdle. That doesn't mean that either of those things actually make for a better game. We are talking about fantasy roleplaying here, not fantasy fiction, it's not the same and it's foolish to compare the two. The game should be balanced, or at least attempt to be. No class should do everything well, it eliminates the need for other classes.I never had a problem with this. In all of the fantasy I have ever read this is just the way it has always been. *snip*
Um well no it isn't foolish to compare the two. In the early days of fantasy role playing (in other words the early days of D&D) one of the goals of a good fantasy role playing game was to emulate at least to some degree fantasy fiction in a game. It also depends on what fantasy you read. If you read Conan then yeah healing magic is rare death is almost always final and magic itself is rare. If you read Smost of Steven Brust's novels, raising the dead is so common that they created Morganti weapons that steal the victims soul in order to prevent it from happening, magic and psionics are almost everywhere and they are darn fine fantasy not the cheap stuff (not in price in quality) usually written to support a RPG campaign setting. The idea for D&D magic came from a series of fantasy novels Jack Vance's "Dying Earth" series I believe. Please let me say this loudly and clearly because I don't happen to be one of these new fangled worshipers of the god called "game balance." Yes I believe balance is important up to a degree but I have absolutely no problem with threats existing in a game world that will cause a party of PCs to grab their hats and RUN. We did it that way in the old days and it was dang fun, created a lot of good suspense and tension when you didn't have the almighty Challenge Rating trying to make sure everything was survivable.
Don't get me wrong I am not a killer DM I give my players more breaks than they need probably and I am quite sensitive to designing my encounters so that they are fun and not blood baths but sometimes there is that foe that just cannot be beat without some thinking and planning, and you might have to run a time or two in order to survive long enough to figure that out. Quite honestly I wish someone would take the whole challenge rating system and throw it out a twenty story window somewhere. Hit Dice were enough of a balancing factor for me. So no I have no problem with powerful spellcasters whether they are divine or arcane they are supposed to be powerful that is why they choose the path of magic, they are weak at lower levels but they are powerhouses when they mature. But it was Steven Brust who wrote: "No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style." If Sethra Lavode ever shows up in one of my games I pray that she is not "balanced" if so she just wouldn't be Sethra. If you don't know who Sethra Lavode is go read some Steven Brust man.
Charles
For sheer damage output, I'd say make a 5th level raging barbarian using a 2 handed weapon and using power attack with a strength of 18 or 20. They'll be dishing out 30+ damage a hit every round, and more on crits. Compare that to the wizard's 1 fireball (assuming there's a good tactical situation to use it in even.) You can get similar results at different levels, as the barbarian will hit more often (and more than once a round).
I don't think there's a problem. Having the different classes play differently is a good thing, but I don't think it makes any class or group of classes better overall. You can't mathmatically compare them, but a bard could be viewed as way better than a barbarian or a wizard if their high diplomacy and/or bluff skills avoid fights, or make them much easier.
Skip the fireball, lets talk about a 2nd level spell, Glitterdust. Sure it doesn't kill anyone and does no physical damage. DC 16-17ish(higher if you try) will save or everything in a 10' radius is blind. Most of the time this is used against a group of fighterish types who have a +2 will save or so. Yeah, the barbarian may have almost killed one of the fighters but the wizard just effectively took out 7 out of the other 10. "Hey Krusk and Lidda, make sure you kill all my victims, thanks." and the wizzo can do stuff like this alot if he keeps scrolls of most spells that don't have DCs or are strictly utility and use his slots for this type of stuff.
And let's not even think about the idiocy that can happen around 10th-11th level. I saw 2 spells ruin an encounter that was 4-5 above the party's EL just last week in my game. Sculpted Black tentacles and sculpted Glitterdust. The caster has pumped his DCs a bit resulting around DC23 for the Glitterdust and DC 25 for the tentacles. Almost all the melee baddies were blinded and any that weren't were grappled. All the caster baddies that weren't blinded were grappled. All with the wizard floating 200ft away and 35 feet off the ground. Big deal if...
Yeah but isn't this why we have parties that have different powers and abilities? In a super hero game (or comic) Thor can't do what Dr. Strange can do either if he could he wouldn't be Thor. But you get a big nasty breaking through Docs mystical shields and shrugging off mystical bolts like they were paper streamers the big guy is handy to have around and so is Doc Strange when some magical baddie captures Thor in the Crimson Bands of Cyttorak.
Charles
Skip the fireball, lets talk about a 2nd level spell, Glitterdust. Sure it doesn't kill anyone and does no physical damage. DC 16-17ish(higher if you try) will save or everything in a 10' radius is blind. Most of the time this is used against a group of fighterish types who have a +2 will save or so. Yeah, the barbarian may have almost killed one of the fighters but the wizard just effectively took out 7 out of the other 10. "Hey Krusk and Lidda, make sure you kill all my victims, thanks." and the wizzo can do stuff like this alot if he keeps scrolls of most spells that don't have DCs or are strictly utility and use his slots for this type of stuff.
10 people? Really? A 10' spread can only hit 16 people at most (unless they're packed in tighter than one per 5 foot square). That's just the DM not knowing how to run enemies. There's generally no reason a 10' spread should hit more than three, maybe 4 guys, except maybe in a mass combat situation or very tight quarters.
Don't get me wrong 3.x is still a vastly superior system to 4.$
Don't do this. It makes you look like a tool, like the people who write "M$" for Microsoft. I don't care how you feel about 4E--that's not witty, it's not clever, and it just plain makes you look dumb.
---
Everyone comparing wizard damage output to melee character damage output is Doing It Wrong. Damage-dealing wizards aren't and have never been a problem. It's all the OTHER stuff that's a problem. Evokers fundamentally suck; save-or-loses targeted at weak saves and no-save spells are where it's at.
I never had a problem with this. In all of the fantasy I have ever read this is just the way it has always been. Spellcasters are ALWAYS more powerful than non-spellcasters as far as sheer power goes. For it to be otherwise would not be true to the genre. I think the balance of power is pretty close to what it should be right now. The Conan's and t he like still have tricks up their sleeves that are not necessarily sheer power that help them come out on top despite the odds. Having said that though the other classes are definately no slouches these days when it comes to damaging potential. If you want a character that can do everything well... play a spell caster. That is what magic is for.
Charles
This is wrong. Why bother having levels, if levels of class X are superior to levels of class Y? Two level X characters should be about equal.
This is a game, not a fantasy novel. Spellcasters being overwhelmingly powerful at high levels does not add to one's play experience, isn't fair to people who want to play melee characters, and is just plain bad for the game. Spellcasters are already inherently more versatile; there is absolutely no need to reward them by making them more powerful too.
Anyone who thinks that spellcasters are going to be inherently more powerful should check out Arcana Evolved.
The idea for D&D magic came from a series of fantasy novels Jack Vance's "Dying Earth" series I believe.
The only thing really drawn from Vance is the "spell memorization" thing. Vance's casters had, like, six spell slots tops, and all of them were overwhelmingly powerful.
Please let me say this loudly and clearly because I don't happen to be one of these new fangled worshipers of the god called "game balance." Yes I believe balance is important up to a degree but I have absolutely no problem with threats existing in a game world that will cause a party of PCs to grab their hats and RUN. We did it that way in the old days and it was dang fun, created a lot of good suspense and tension when you didn't have the almighty Challenge Rating trying to make sure everything was survivable.
YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG.
Challenge Rating tells you (or is supposed to tell you; 3E's CRs don't *work*) how tough the monster is for a party. Nowhere dows it say a party should only encounter things of CR = their level.If you want a monster that will make the PCs run away, use a higher-CR monster.
So no I have no problem with powerful spellcasters whether they are divine or arcane they are supposed to be powerful that is why they choose the path of magic, they are weak at lower levels but they are powerhouses when they mature.
This is a fundamentally bad approach. It means that they're not balanced at low levels (few spells/day, run out fast, shoot a crossbow), and then balance out briefly, then become unbalanced again. "Suck now, rock later" is bad, bad design that has no place in games. It doesn't apply in games that don't run the whole range of levels, and all it means is that *someone* is constantly lagging behind the party being mostly useless.
But it was Steven Brust who wrote: "No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style." If Sethra Lavode ever shows up in one of my games I pray that she is not "balanced" if so she just wouldn't be Sethra. If you don't know who Sethra Lavode is go read some Steven Brust man.
Two problems here:
1) In D&D, you wind up being unablce to place that knife between the wizard's shoulders... and if you do, it definitely doesn't kill him or even slow him down.
2) You want to make an "unbalanced" NPC? Make them higher level! Sethra isn't hardcore just because she's a spellcaster--she's hardcore because she's such an exceptionally powerful spellcaster (among other things). That translates into "higher level", not "super-powerful class that owns all the other PC classes".
For sheer damage output, I'd say make a 5th level raging barbarian using a 2 handed weapon and using power attack with a strength of 18 or 20. They'll be dishing out 30+ damage a hit every round, and more on crits. Compare that to the wizard's 1 fireball (assuming there's a good tactical situation to use it in even.) You can get similar results at different levels, as the barbarian will hit more often (and more than once a round).
Which is why you cast Charm Person or Suggestion on him, to make him on your side? Or Hold Person or Deep Slumber to slit his throat next round? Or Glitterdust or Web to incapacitate? Or Fly and then spam Magic Missile?
I agree. Fireball is a suboptimal choice with the barbarian. It's probably better to do it to the cleric or use it to clear out mooks.
To me, casters are about pounding the weak save, the versatility to end combats, and change the battlefield.
We found that fighter types (well barb and pal in our game) regained some supremacy after about 13th level. So in the arcane caster vs fighter comparison it was fighter better for levels 1-4, then fairly even for 5-8, then arcane for 9-13, then even again depending on the situation (lots of stuff starting getting SR etc but the DR was normally able to be penetrated)
god i am so tired of people crying about spellcasters vs fighter types, its a fact of the game that spellcasters are better then fighter types and there is not much PF can do with this system if it still wants it to be 3.5 useable
That's ignorance talking. Look at Arcana Evolved--it managed to balance spellcasters and non-spellcasters just fine, and it's a variant 3E PHB, basically.
We found that fighter types (well barb and pal in our game) regained some supremacy after about 13th level. So in the arcane caster vs fighter comparison it was fighter better for levels 1-4, then fairly even for 5-8, then arcane for 9-13, then even again depending on the situation (lots of stuff starting getting SR etc but the DR was normally able to be penetrated)
Pathfinder gives everyone more feats. Considering the scarcity of good core feats, any spellcaster who wants to can and will have Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration. On top of that, you've got +2 from the Robe of the Archmagi, boosted caster level from an Orange Ioun Stone, and other miscellaneous bonuses.
Spell Resistance isn't much of an issue, certainly not as big of one as you're making it out to be.
Pathfinder does give melee types Devastating Blow, but that's a really bad solution, since it just means that melee types treat non-crit-immune enemies the way spellcasters treat low-Will-save enemies--and the side effect is that two-handed weapons reign horrifically supreme compared to everything else, and x4 crit weapons are the kings of those.
|
|
Skip the fireball, lets talk about a 2nd level spell, Glitterdust. Sure it doesn't kill anyone and does no physical damage. DC 16-17ish(higher if you try) will save or everything in a 10' radius is blind. Most of the time this is used against a group of fighterish types who have a +2 will save or so. Yeah, the barbarian may have almost killed one of the fighters but the wizard just effectively took out 7 out of the other 10. "Hey Krusk and Lidda, make sure you kill all my victims, thanks." and the wizzo can do stuff like this alot if he keeps scrolls of most spells that don't have DCs or are strictly utility and use his slots for this type of stuff.10 people? Really? A 10' spread can only hit 16 people at most (unless they're packed in tighter than one per 5 foot square). That's just the DM not knowing how to run enemies. There's generally no reason a 10' spread should hit more than three, maybe 4 guys, except maybe in a mass combat situation or very tight quarters.
They were on a ship, smart@$$. I just love the people who immediately think "sumfin' wrong?!? Mus' be yous slackjawed dee-emmmin' style". Also a sculpted glitterdust takes up 4- 10' squares of the caster's choosin'. Thanks for insulting my dming and not having a friggin' clue also.
|
|
I believe glitterdust was 'adjusted' in the Alpha to give victims of the blinding a save every round to shake it off. The Beta may be the same.
Edit:
Just checked my Beta pdf, and glitterdust does give a save every round to shake off blinding, the same as hold person victims get to shake off paralysis.
Yeah, they've done some stuff to help with certain spells in PRPG beta but there is still alot to do.
They were on a ship, smart@$$. I just love the people who immediately think "sumfin' wrong?!? Mus' be yous slackjawed dee-emmmin' style". Also a sculpted glitterdust takes up 4- 10' squares of the caster's choosin'. Thanks for insulting my dming and not having a friggin' clue also.
*Ahem*:
There's generally no reason a 10' spread should hit more than three, maybe 4 guys, except maybe in a mass combat situation
(Emphasis added).
|
|
I've never understood why people always feel fighter types are outclassed by magic types. Given the varying situations that can pop up in a game I really think all the classes have a place to shine. Give a magic user lots of room to move around and open lines of targetting then they're gonna own a situation for sure. It's what they do.
Put same magic user in tighter quaters where their spells effect their friends as much as the enemy and you start to limit their options.
The average fighter can take a hit or two from damage spells and keep going. Give a wizard a round or two in tight quarters with a fighter getting all heavy on him and he's not going to walk away so easily. Especially if the fighter is trained for hunting mages (lots of mage hunting feats int he 3.5 ed splat books). We need to remember that Pathfinder is written to be compatibable with the 3.5 game in its entirety. It's being done so people don't have to throw away all of their old books for new ones.
The classes work well when they work together. On their own they each have their weaknesses. I used to feel druids were the weakest class in my opinion because out of the core book their spell selection was pretty limited in usefulness. With the various splat books that's all changed.
Now clerics...they're tough. Good AC, moderate attack ability and good magic. That's hard to beat.
of course this is only an opinion, based on how things have traditionally worked around my table, so I'm sure I'll get shot down. Have at me lads :) (oh, and lasses)
Cheers
I've never understood why people always feel fighter types are outclassed by magic types. Given the varying situations that can pop up in a game I really think all the classes have a place to shine. Give a magic user lots of room to move around and open lines of targetting then they're gonna own a situation for sure. It's what they do.
Put same magic user in tighter quaters where their spells effect their friends as much as the enemy and you start to limit their options.
In tight quarters, battlefield control is more effective. A Wall of Force or Stone can trap a melee enemy, or several of them, while letting the wizard attack them (wall doesn't go *quite* all the way up) without letting them to attack back. Close quarters have their own advantages for wizards.
The average fighter can take a hit or two from damage spells and keep going. Give a wizard a round or two in tight quarters with a fighter getting all heavy on him and he's not going to walk away so easily. Especially if the fighter is trained for hunting mages (lots of mage hunting feats int he 3.5 ed splat books). We need to remember that Pathfinder is written to be compatibable with the 3.5 game in its entirety. It's being done so people don't have to throw away all of their old books for new ones.
The fighter doesn't "take a hit or two from damage spells". Any competent wizard uses damage spells very, very rarely.
Sure, the level 10 Fighter can survive a Fireball. But Hideous Laughter or Deep Slumber or Slow are going to take him out, basically, and Glitterdust isn't exactly going to make him a happy camper.If Pathfinder is 3.5 Compatible, then it should abandon the fighter because the Warblade is the perfect Fighter fix.
The classes work well when they work together. On their own they each have their weaknesses. I used to feel druids were the weakest class in my opinion because out of the core book their spell selection was pretty limited in usefulness. With the various splat books that's all changed.
If you used to feel druids were the weakest class, you have no freaking sense of what's strong and what isn't.
In core, the Druid is overwhelmingly the strongest class until the high-level wizards really come into their own. Outside of Core, they stay that way for a long time, with only well-played wizards being better.By level 10, a 3.5 core druid is a Dire Lion, has a Dire Lion animal companion, and can summon another dire lion or bear (and then hit the summon and companion with Animal Growth). With Pathfinder, he's a bird instead of a dire lion--it's OK, he doesn't need to melee himself; he's more efficient that way.
He has spells like Wall of Thorns and the ridiculous Control Winds.
He has Plant freaking Growth--seriously, read what it does--outdoors, and even combines it with Entangle (finish off with Call Lightning and laugh).
Now clerics...they're tough. Good AC, moderate attack ability and good magic. That's hard to beat.
"Moderate" attack ability? Without Pathfinder, the cleric is a *better* melee guy or archer than the Fighter, for the most part, after level 7 or so. With Pathfinder, the cleric is still a competent warrior and full caster.
|
|
In tight quarters, battlefield control is more effective. A Wall of Force or Stone can trap a melee enemy, or several of them, while letting the wizard attack them (wall doesn't go *quite* all the way up) without letting them to attack back. Close quarters have their own advantages for wizards.
The fighter doesn't "take a hit or two from damage spells". Any competent wizard uses damage spells very, very rarely.
Sure, the level 10 Fighter can survive a Fireball. But Hideous Laughter or Deep Slumber or Slow are going to take him out, basically, and Glitterdust isn't exactly going to make him a happy camper.If Pathfinder is 3.5 Compatible, then it should abandon the fighter because the Warblade is the perfect Fighter fix.
Hey listen, don't feel you have to hold back on the personal attacks or anything. Go the whole hog and attack my inteligence, ability to game and DM. Ignore the the number of years I've been playing and keeping the players at my table happy while bringing new members into the fold. Obviously my personal experiences are completely wrong and should be ignored. Allow me to start the group that needs to bow down before your obviously superior intellect and gaming prowess.
Sheesh
Hey listen, don't feel you have to hold back on the personal attacks or anything. Go the whole hog and attack my inteligence, ability to game and DM. Ignore the the number of years I've been playing and keeping the players at my table happy while bringing new members into the fold. Obviously my personal experiences are completely wrong and should be ignored. Allow me to start the group that needs to bow down before your obviously superior intellect and gaming prowess.
Sheesh
You're awfully butthurt considering that the onloy thing that remotely RESEMBLED a personal attack was "if you thought the Druid was weak you have no sense of what's weak and what's strong"... because it's true. The Druid is ridiculously, notoriously overpowered. If you thought it was *weak*, you made an enormous mistake and are probably bad at analyzing game balance.
You said something. I said that you're wrong. Why does this necessitate passive-agressive sarcastic whinging?
|
Hey listen, don't feel you have to hold back on the personal attacks or anything. Go the whole hog and attack my inteligence, ability to game and DM. Ignore the the number of years I've been playing and keeping the players at my table happy while bringing new members into the fold. Obviously my personal experiences are completely wrong and should be ignored. Allow me to start the group that needs to bow down before your obviously superior intellect and gaming prowess.
Sheesh
You're awfully butthurt considering that the onloy thing that remotely RESEMBLED a personal attack was "if you thought the Druid was weak you have no sense of what's weak and what's strong"... because it's true. The Druid is ridiculously, notoriously overpowered. If you thought it was *weak*, you made an enormous mistake and are probably bad at analyzing game balance.
You said something. I said that you're wrong. Why does this necessitate passive-agressive sarcastic whinging?
In this and a couple of other places you've said things in a more vehement manner than absolutely necessary. Passion is good and all, and having a good head for numbers and rules could be beneficial for Beta discussion, but it's best not to sabotage one's points by being a dick. It starts to rub people the wrong way and taints views of your future posts, whether they're valuable or not.
See also: Frank Trollman.
In other words: This isn't /tg/. Modicum of decorum plz.
Of course that should go for everybody.
|
|
10 people? Really? A 10' spread can only hit 16 people at most (unless they're packed in tighter than one per 5 foot square). That's just the DM not knowing how to run enemies. There's generally no reason a 10' spread should hit more than three, maybe 4 guys, except maybe in a mass combat situation or very tight quarters.
*Ahem*
Act like a tool and I talk to you like a tool.
A game that caters to casters is going to make it seem like casters are very OP.
If every group is grouped up into a 20 foot spread, Fireball becomes nearly omnipotent.
Thus- once the group hits levels 6-7, the DM starts spreading groups out. (Yes, i know fireball comes at 5. Let the wizard have his fun.)
Result? Fireball becomes less effective /in actual use/.
The same can be said for most of the spells that they have. And, they can only cast them X times per day.
Sure, in an optimal scenario the Wiz can Glitterdust a half dozen or so goons so the Barb and Rogue can mop 'em up.
Good job. Teamwork at its best.
What happens in the next room/scenario/encounter?
Does 3rd level wizard-boy do it again? Maybe- if he prepared it twice. If his int his high enough to get a 2nd one in the first place. Lets say he can. And does.
Great.
They do it twice.
Now the wizard is out of his 2nd level slots for the day. His highest level spell slot has had great effect- he's helped to clear 2 full groups of baddies with nary an HP lost to the group.
3rd encounter?.. No more GD.
4th?
5th?
However many encounters are left in tne day (remember- the player has no idea how many are left) your PC is without his best spell slot. Barbarian never runs out of that 2 handed swing of his, and Lidda's SA just keeps on pluggin away.
Yes, Wizard (and cleric) spells are fairly powerful but they are also few in number. You cast 'em a few times and they are gone. Gotta wait 'till tomorrow to refresh and you really don't know how long you have until "tomorrow" comes. Fighters, rogues, paladin, barbarians- they never run out of sword swings. The casty types may get a nova off but then they are spent. The others just keep goin. That is the balance.
(not to mention the general issues of Beta having seriously taken the nerf grenade to SoD spells. GD just being one among /many/ that've been neutered, if not out right castrated by the changes).
-S
|
|
A game that caters to casters is going to make it seem like casters are very OP.
If every group is grouped up into a 20 foot spread, Fireball becomes nearly omnipotent.
Thus- once the group hits levels 6-7, the DM starts spreading groups out. (Yes, i know fireball comes at 5. Let the wizard have his fun.)
Result? Fireball becomes less effective /in actual use/.
The same can be said for most of the spells that they have. And, they can only cast them X times per day.
Sure, in an optimal scenario the Wiz can Glitterdust a half dozen or so goons so the Barb and Rogue can mop 'em up.
Good job. Teamwork at its best.
What happens in the next room/scenario/encounter?
Does 3rd level wizard-boy do it again? Maybe- if he prepared it twice. If his int his high enough to get a 2nd one in the first place. Lets say he can. And does.
Great.
They do it twice.
Now the wizard is out of his 2nd level slots for the day. His highest level spell slot has had great effect- he's helped to clear 2 full groups of baddies with nary an HP lost to the group.
3rd encounter?.. No more GD.
4th?
5th?
However many encounters are left in tne day (remember- the player has no idea how many are left) your PC is without his best spell slot. Barbarian never runs out of that 2 handed swing of his, and Lidda's SA just keeps on pluggin away.
Yes, Wizard (and cleric) spells are fairly powerful but they are also few in number. You cast 'em a few times and they are gone. Gotta wait 'till tomorrow to refresh and you really don't know how long you have until "tomorrow" comes. Fighters, rogues, paladin, barbarians- they never run out of sword swings. The casty types may get a nova off but then they are spent. The others just keep goin. That is the balance.
(not to mention the general issues of Beta having seriously taken the nerf grenade to SoD spells. GD just being one among /many/ that've been neutered, if not out right castrated by the changes).-S
Yeah that sounds limiting in theory except that in practice you have a wizard running around with more like 6 spells/level a day once you count int bonus and specialization(does Beta still give the bonus spell for that). Also spend a few XP and walk around with a ton of scrolls. Start figuring in pearls of powers and all the other items that a wizard 'must have' and it isn't 2-3 fights a day that this happens, it become almost every fight. In my experience the wizards in the group get a ton of scrolls with none DC related spells on them and utility spells and load up their spell slots with whatever their specialty school is and stuff like that. A few minor items and consumables frees up a wizard to use his slots for nothing but making sure he has plenty to do in combat. Anyone not using scrolls and other items is ignoring a major part of what makes a wizard strong(over-powered?).
*Ahem*
Act like a tool and I talk to you like a tool.
I posted those qualifications in the next specifically because I didn't know the circumstances of the example and didn't want to insult DMs who didn't have a choice where to distribute the enemies due to topography. I assumed my post would be taken as the whole it was written as. Most of the time, it would be just bad DMing to let a spell hit so very many targets, but if it's an enclosed space, there may not be much choice. That's what I was trying to say, and I'm sorry you misunderstood me, but that still doesn't justify being mean. That that often seems par for these forums, though...
Sure, in an optimal scenario the Wiz can Glitterdust a half dozen or so goons so the Barb and Rogue can mop 'em up.
Good job. Teamwork at its best.
What happens in the next room/scenario/encounter?
Does 3rd level wizard-boy do it again? Maybe- if he prepared it twice. If his int his high enough to get a 2nd one in the first place. Lets say he can. And does.
Great.They do it twice.
Now the wizard is out of his 2nd level slots for the day. His highest level spell slot has had great effect- he's helped to clear 2 full groups of baddies with nary an HP lost to the group.
3rd encounter?.. No more GD.
4th?
5th?However many encounters are left in tne day (remember- the player has no idea how many are left) your PC is without his best spell slot. Barbarian never runs out of that 2 handed swing of his, and Lidda's SA just keeps on pluggin away.
Good luck spreading all your enemies out so a 10-foot burst can't hit a few to a handful of them.
No, at level THREE, the wizard is not clearly superior, nor does he have enough spells to keep going for lots of encounters.
Wanna count his spell slots at higher evels, or actually high levels?
Yes, Wizard (and cleric) spells are fairly powerful but they are also few in number. You cast 'em a few times and they are gone. Gotta wait 'till tomorrow to refresh and you really don't know how long you have until "tomorrow" comes. Fighters, rogues, paladin, barbarians- they never run out of sword swings. The casty types may get a nova off but then they are spent. The others just keep goin. That is the balance.
(not to mention the general issues of Beta having seriously taken the nerf grenade to SoD spells. GD just being one among /many/ that've been neutered, if not out right castrated by the changes).
-S
That's supposed to be the balance.
Of course, in practice, melee guys run out of HP. And, in practice, far from everything the PCs do has a time limit, so the wizard can just pop off a Rope Trick and the party can take a rest.Fighters and rogues continuing without caster support get mauled, too.
Also, that's a really bad way of balancing things.
-It means you need to have X encounters, or the casters will walk all over everything. X starts at 3 or 4, and winds up being 5-6. A game whose mechanics make you fight X times per day for balance ain't doing so hot.
-It means that most of the time, SOMEBODY is mostly sitting the fight out. Whether that's the Fighter because he's basically been relegated to "janitor" due to the wizard's spells or the wizard because the party's on the sixth encounter and he's down to a few spell slots, this is bad.
|
|
Skip the fireball, lets talk about a 2nd level spell, Glitterdust. Sure it doesn't kill anyone and does no physical damage. DC 16-17ish(higher if you try) will save or everything in a 10' radius is blind. Most of the time this is used against a group of fighterish types who have a +2 will save or so. Yeah, the barbarian may have almost killed one of the fighters but the wizard just effectively took out 7 out of the other 10. "Hey Krusk and Lidda, make sure you kill all my victims, thanks." and the wizzo can do stuff like this alot if he keeps scrolls of most spells that don't have DCs or are strictly utility and use his slots for this type of stuff.
And let's not even think about the idiocy that can happen around 10th-11th level. I saw 2 spells ruin an encounter that was 4-5 above the party's EL just last week in my game. Sculpted Black tentacles and sculpted Glitterdust. The caster has pumped his DCs a bit resulting around DC23 for the Glitterdust and DC 25 for the tentacles. Almost all the melee baddies were blinded and any that weren't were grappled. All the caster baddies that weren't blinded were grappled. All with the wizard floating 200ft away and 35 feet off the ground. Big deal if...
Just pointing out some relevant stuff....
And don't pretend to be a victim, Blaine. You crapped on me first.
For the record, Grey Elf Generalist Wizard 10:
INT: 16 base +2 race +2 levels + 4 item = 24 = +7
1st level: 4 + 1 bonus + 2 INT + 1 Pearl of Power I = 8.
2nd level: 4 + 1 bonus + 2 INT = 7
3rd level: 4 + 1 bonus + 2 INT = 7
4th level: 3 + 1 bonus + 1 INT = 5
5th level: 2 + 1 bonus + 1 INT = 4
5th: Overland Flight, Cloudkill, Baleful Polymorph, Baleful Polymorph.
-Scrolls scribed: a couple of Walls of Stone, one Overland Flight.
4th: Fear or Confusion, Fear or Confusion, Black Tentacles, Solid Fog, Greater Invisibility
-Scrolls scribed: a couple of Solid Fogs; a bunch of Greater Invisibility.
3rd: Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement, Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement, Ray of Exhaustion, Haste, Slow, Suggestion, Stinking Cloud.
-Scrolls scribed: bunch of Hastes.
2nd: Rope Trick, Mirror Image, Mirror Image, Web, Glitterdust, Minor Image, See Invisibility
-Alternatively, Alter Self for natural armor.
1st: Ray of Enfeeblement, Ray of Enfeeblement, Grease, Grease, True Strike, Enlarge Person, Enlarge Person.
Just an example.
Edit: he took Quicken and Empower. Thanks to Pathfinder, he can apply Quicken once (to a high-level spell--Wall of Stone if he prepares it, combo with Cloudkill) per day for free, or Empower twice per day for free (next level he can start tossing around empowered Scorching Rays for 6d6*3 if he wants).
Just pointing out some relevant stuff....
And don't pretend to be a victim, Blaine. You crapped on me first.
No, you misunderstood me are refusing to be corrected. Though that still wouldn't justify being mean.
But what if some DM were to regularly clump the bad guys together like that when he didn't have to? Wouldn't that be just bad strategy on his and their part?
|
|
For the record, Grey Elf Generalist Wizard 10:
INT: 16 base +2 race +2 levels + 4 item = 24 = +71st level: 4 + 1 bonus + 2 INT + 1 Pearl of Power I = 8.
2nd level: 4 + 1 bonus + 2 INT = 7
3rd level: 4 + 1 bonus + 2 INT = 7
4th level: 3 + 1 bonus + 1 INT = 5
5th level: 2 + 1 bonus + 1 INT = 45th: Overland Flight, Cloudkill, Baleful Polymorph, Baleful Polymorph.
-Scrolls scribed: a couple of Walls of Stone, one Overland Flight.
4th: Fear or Confusion, Fear or Confusion, Black Tentacles, Solid Fog, Greater Invisibility
-Scrolls scribed: a couple of Solid Fogs; a bunch of Greater Invisibility.
3rd: Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement, Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement, Ray of Exhaustion, Haste, Slow, Suggestion, Stinking Cloud.
-Scrolls scribed: bunch of Hastes.
2nd: Rope Trick, Mirror Image, Mirror Image, Web, Glitterdust, Minor Image, See Invisibility
1st: Ray of Enfeeblement, Ray of Enfeeblement, Grease, Grease, True Strike, Enlarge Person, Enlarge Person.Just an example.
Good example, and done without Fireballs, lightning and other easy to deal with damage spells. That is an ugly spell-list, as a DM, and hard to deal with. Sure you can spend a ton of time customizing scenarios to challenge that caster but you shouldn't have to. If that caster wins initiative the battles are all but over. If he doesn't win initiative then the baddies need to suddenly recognize him as a caster and take severe measures to kill him very quickly (which makes it seem like a DM who is 'gunning' for the caster).
Good example.|
|
Skip the fireball, lets talk about a 2nd level spell, Glitterdust. Sure it doesn't kill anyone and does no physical damage. DC 16-17ish(higher if you try) will save or everything in a 10' radius is blind. Most of the time this is used against a group of fighterish types who have a +2 will save or so. Yeah, the barbarian may have almost killed one of the fighters but the wizard just effectively took out 7 out of the other 10. "Hey Krusk and Lidda, make sure you kill all my victims, thanks." and the wizzo can do stuff like this alot if he keeps scrolls of most spells that don't have DCs or are strictly utility and use his slots for this type of stuff.10 people? Really? A 10' spread can only hit 16 people at most (unless they're packed in tighter than one per 5 foot square). That's just the DM not knowing how to run enemies.
That would be taking an example of my DMing, ridiculing it and stating that it is an example of bad DMing. I called you out on it.
Now you pretend that this wasn't a shot at my DMing then apologize that I misunderstood.I apologize too. Sorry you decided post in tool-mode.
Hey listen, don't feel you have to hold back on the personal attacks or anything. Go the whole hog and attack my inteligence, ability to game and DM. Ignore the the number of years I've been playing and keeping the players at my table happy while bringing new members into the fold. Obviously my personal experiences are completely wrong and should be ignored. Allow me to start the group that needs to bow down before your obviously superior intellect and gaming prowess.
Sheesh
You're awfully butthurt considering that the onloy thing that remotely RESEMBLED a personal attack was "if you thought the Druid was weak you have no sense of what's weak and what's strong"... because it's true. The Druid is ridiculously, notoriously overpowered. If you thought it was *weak*, you made an enormous mistake and are probably bad at analyzing game balance.
You said something. I said that you're wrong. Why does this necessitate passive-agressive sarcastic whinging?
In this and a couple of other places you've said things in a more vehement manner than absolutely necessary. Passion is good and all, and having a good head for numbers and rules could be beneficial for Beta discussion, but it's best not to sabotage one's points by being a dick. It starts to rub people the wrong way and taints views of your future posts, whether they're valuable or not.
See also: Frank Trollman.
In other words: This isn't /tg/. Modicum of decorum plz.
Of course that should go for everybody.
Great job LogicNinja; you really know the subtle art of combining smart and ass into smartass. You must find it real easy to RP high INT and low CHA characters.
It's a shame really; I love reading what smart people have to say. Then when they act like you and just ignore them. Too bad I won't be reading your snide, condescending, over thought response.
Great job LogicNinja; you really know the subtle art of combining smart and ass into smartass. You must find it real easy to RP high INT and low CHA characters.
It's a shame really; I love reading what smart people have to say. Then when they act like you and just ignore them. Too bad I won't be reading your snide, condescending, over thought response.
My post contained examples and supporting reasoning. It happened to contain one line of incredulity at something really wrong.
Your post contains nothing but insults. Why would you post just to throw insults at me? Is that the kind of example you want to set for me? Is that going to contribute anything?
Pot? This is kettle. About the whole "you're black!" thing?
Wake up.
That would be taking an example of my DMing, ridiculing it and stating that it is an example of bad DMing. I called you out on it.
Now you pretend that this wasn't a shot at my DMing then apologize that I misunderstood.
I apologize too. Sorry you decided post in tool-mode.
*Sigh*
Look, you threw out an example as if it had no context, as if it were a group of bad guys standing on an endless plane in the middle of conceptual space. I analyzed it as it was given. I then added a modifying sentence which qualified my analysis as only being valid if the bad guys have room to maneuver but don't. Perhaps I should have made it clearer by pushing them into one sentence, but then that runs the risk of becoming run-on. I apologize for my lack of clarity, but I stand by what I was trying to say.
And I repeat: no matter what I said, and no matter the tenor of the board in general, it still wouldn't justify being mean.
You guys are fun to watch.
You guys are fun to watch.
I'm expecting Sebastian to show up with some marshmallows to toast if the fires burn on for much longer....
Oh, and smurf!
It is only bad strategy for the DM if the game for a DM is about 'trying to *win* by killing the players' characters in combat' (in which situation the only 'good' strategy is to bombard the PCs with ambushes consistently rated at their ECL+8).
The DM's job in combat is to challenge the characters, preferably in an interesting way. Poor strategy makes it more difficult to challenge them appropriately and tends to make combat boring, especially over long periods of play.
As far as NPC's/monsters go, sure it may be bad strategy, but except under unusual in-game circumstances NPCs/monsters often have little reason to know what's about to hit them, nor are located in areas which allow anything resembling optimal deployment.
Sure, but if there are a lot of enemies with a lot of space, and they didn't get any forwarning about the PC at all, they still probably shouldn't be clumped together all that closely. It doesn't need to be optimal, just not precisely terrible.
You guys are fun to watch.
Don't encourage them.