Is it me or do casters overpower melee classes past about lvl 5?


General Discussion (Prerelease)

151 to 200 of 326 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

Reposted from another thread, as it applies equally or more here.

Here's a recollection of a lowly level 9 Barbarian owning the game:

The party is climbing a necromancer's tower to recover some ancient artifacts. Said party includes:

  • CN male drow battle sorcerer 8 with worg familiar

  • CN male kobold rogue 9

  • CG male aasimar cloistered cleric 8/paladin of freedom 1

  • CG male dwarf barbarian 9

    Note there are 2 casters in the party. So the party gets to the top of the tower, unaware of the enemy they face. They descend some stairs (wierd tower design) and round a corner.

    4 grimlocks (level 4 fighters) rush up the 5ft corridor to block the path. A bloodhulk fighter (140 hp) approaches as party members prepare their positions and begins pounding on the sorcerer. Finally, the enemy reveals itself - a medusa peers around the corner.

    - sorcerer turns to stone right away
    - rogue comes down the stairs on his turn and is turned to stone
    - worg escapes the gaze by hiding behind a statue, out of combat
    - cleric turns to stone as he moves forward into line of the gaze

    At this point the players start thinking of new characters. That is, until the raging barbarian jumps heroically into battle with 136 hit points of his own and dealing 2d6+16 damage per attack. On the third round he slaughtered the medusa, with 3/4 his hit points remaining then turned on the bloodhulk and slaughtered that in a few rounds. The grimlocks got some extra muscle as the worg re-entered the fray.

    The players all took a breath and said "Holy Crap! That was awesome. Now, how do we get turned to flesh again?" The barbarian then carried the statues out of the tower one at a time and sold the loot from the medusa to pay for everyone to be returned to normal.

    That is what play experience tells me about fighters vs spellcasters. D&D isn't just about PC class versus PC class in ideal hypothetical scenarios.


  • well my group may be weird, but it sometimes DOES come down to player vs player one on one, because the characters that people like to play are so different, I like evil (or at least ambigous) fighters, another player nearly always plays a paladian, then we have a guy who loves playing LN casters, and a guy who loves kleptomaniac rogues the final player doesn't really have a preference, apart from he loves gnomes.

    The arguements get quite heated and can come down to IC fisticuffs :p. So having 1 class that dominates is an issue, because he will dictate how the group functions (yes we try to avoid these arguements by ignoring the fact that 1 guys a psycho, and another has just robbed the inn we were staying in, but the players sometimes enjoy the friction as well.)


    Tremaine wrote:
    Is it me or do casters overpower melee classes past about lvl 5?

    No, it's not you. Open-ended spellcasters are more powerful than melee types after 5th or 6th-level. I know a lot of folks talk about gish builds with raging barbarians and fighter and pious templar builds. But, no melee type can keep up with the potential for doing harm with an open-ended spellcaster (clerics and wizards) in D&D 3.x.

    I've judged and played hundreds of RPGA games and open-ended spellcasters with the rights feats and spells rule the day at mid and high levels. Melee types become bags of hit points for creatures and monsters to chew through while clerics and wizards do the real damage, generally. There is strong merit for the concept of blasting things with strong meta-magic affected spells at range.

    The inequality was readily apparent in the controlled environments of Living Greyhawk, Xen'Drik Expeditions and Mark of Heroes. It was exponentially more dramatic in private/home games.


    I agree that spellcasters are by nature more powerful, and Im so sick of "its a party game, do your part meatshield" I want there to be a scene in my game where the young master of swords fights the lich king one on one, and have the swordsman have a chance at winning.

    how many people defending nonspellcaster classes play mostly nonspellcaster classes? well I play them and as well built as they might be, they lack so much in comparison to spellcasters.

    I feel there will always be those who fight against the nerfing of spellcasters because it hurts their cash-cow. so im going to offer some feats and cheap equipment to equal out the equation.

    Fighters sense (combat manuever)
    Preq BAB+3, Blindfighting,
    all magical concealment bonuses are removed, and you can sense the five foot square that an invisible creature occupies as long as its within your line of sight

    Tagged Flyer
    Preq BAB+5, point blank shot
    if you take a standard action to use a ranged attack against a fly creature/person, you immediately instigate a CMB check, IF you succeed, the flying creature plumments to the ground (taking only half falling damage for being a controlled fall)and lands prone

    Dismissive strike (combat manuever)
    Preq 1 rank in spellcraft
    if you strike a spellcaster who has buffs already up. the spellcaster has to then make a Spellcraft roll vs the 10+damage dealt or lose their highest level buff.

    close the distance
    Preq BAB+6 lightning reflexes, spellcraft 3 ranks
    if a magical barrier is going up (blade barrier,wall of fire/force/stone etc etc) you get an immediate action to use a move to place yourself closer to the spellcaster (note you must be attempting to move towards the spellcaster)

    heres a bit of overpowered feats that nonspellcasters need to make the classes more balanced


    the idea of giving feats as you are suggesting wouldnt solve anything really. the argument is over the classes and their abilities, having a feat to fix hurts the class just as much. now if a feat is a must have to equal casters its taking up a slot that originally was an open option to help customize a melee class. also what if it isnt a fighter with his plethora of feats? everyone else has a very limited selection and has to choose wisely and might need that feat slot for some other important feat.

    and i have a quick story of my own of melee ownage. this was a level 5 campaign and the group had just defeated the big bad boss deep in the cave. the rogue was down, the almighty spellcaster was plum tapped out due to the shear volume of the boss fight, the cleric had run off due to some moral code that he followed to help someone else in the cave, and the barbarian (me) was at 5odd hit points. now i tried to stop the cleric but he just had more life then me and was willing to kill me if i tried to stop him. so the caster was physically weak and couldnt carry the rogue so my muscles had to trudge along with him on my back. first encounter i got hit once taking me to 1 but destroyed the mooks. second encounter got taken to -3 but took the 2 mooks with me. now this left the caster the only upright person, so what did he do? spent check after check bringing me back with his rather lousy healing skill. he finally got it, just in time for the next random encounter in which i went under again, but not without one hell of a cleave taking both mooks with me again. sadly caster boy couldnt bring me back fast enough for the next one. so tpk. but i want to point out, the caster was completely reliant on me to get us out, and all i did was have an axe, nothing fancy. and i got us farther then he could have fully charged, with only 5 hit points managed to kill 7 mooks, carrying another person on my back while at it. he even congratulated me on getting us that far out (3/4 of the way) after the game.


    Warning -- radical changes proposed!

    The discussion goes around the problem but not directly at the problem.

    1) At low levels casters are one shot wonders. So give them multiple spells. But then they will be to strong, so nerf the spells. Give low level casters twice the spells, but 1/2 as strong (4 at 1/4 would be more like more level 0 spells with do not get used as creatively as they should).

    2) High level casters are too powerful relative to others. Push all the
    high spell up one level or even to double level. But keep the multiplier -- i.e. more slots.

    so a 5th level that currently has

    4 (0th) 3(1st) 2(2nd) 1(3rd)

    would have eqivalent to

    8 (0th) 6(.5) 4(1st) 2(2nd)

    He does not have the top end, but there is more he can do.

    3) Casters have scrolls for everything that is not attack spells. OK, make scrolls and magic items more expensive -- require more experience per spell or limit of scrolls by level (e.g. Only spells at half casters max level can be written into scroll). One game house rule
    required 1/2 market value of spell to be experience. (I do not see experience costs in the Beta Rules).

    Provide mechniasm for non casters to supply the experience points
    for a magic item (scroll, poition, armour, weapon). That fighter
    can sacrifice experience for that special sword (which now requires
    a big sacrifice of expoerience). This gives the bad guys real incentive to capture high level characters for creating magic!

    This is deserving its own post:

    FINAL NEEDS AN INDEX!

    An autogenerated index would be a nice download for now.
    For those who have access to the original (not-pdf), there
    are tools that will generate indexs relative to phrases and
    words (ignoring verbs, 'and', 'the', numbers, ...).


    Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
    LogicNinja wrote:

    ANIMAL COMPANION:

    Fluffy, a Dire Lion. With Natural Bond, he gets +2 bonus HD (and a bonus feat and +1 AB), +2 NA, +1 STR/DEX (+1 to hit and damage, +1 AC), Evasion.

    Hmm, I may be missing something here, but a Dire Lion is a level -9 animal companion, so a 10th level druid would be treated as a 1st level druid for everything related to it's animal companion, so would only have a bonus trick, link and share spells.

    The Exchange

    Mistwalker wrote:
    LogicNinja wrote:

    ANIMAL COMPANION:

    Fluffy, a Dire Lion. With Natural Bond, he gets +2 bonus HD (and a bonus feat and +1 AB), +2 NA, +1 STR/DEX (+1 to hit and damage, +1 AC), Evasion.
    Hmm, I may be missing something here, but a Dire Lion is a level -9 animal companion, so a 10th level druid would be treated as a 1st level druid for everything related to it's animal companion, so would only have a bonus trick, link and share spells.

    Natural Bond adds 3 to the effective druid level when determining level for animal companion (can't make druid level exceed character level). I am unsure though if this bonus is applied to this situation. I was under the impression that this was a way to help a multiclass druid keep his animal companion viable, not a way to counteract the adjustment to druid levels for taking alternate animal companions and like to think that this was part of Complete Adventurer's attempt to help the druid find ways to get into PRCs without sacrificing the power of their animal companion.


    Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

    I have to disagree that the mage owns the game after 5th level.

    Control of the battlefield is important, but not the only aspect of the game.
    From some of the descriptions of mages, scrolls, wands and such, I am gathering that the mages are carrying a lot of gear. Most of it has to be handy, otherwise it will take a round to get it out (and possibly cause an AoO) before you can cast it. Rogues can acquire that accessible gear that is hanging off the of the mage. Fighters can sunder that wand of X.
    This is not even addressing what can happen in town, between adventures, with all that gear hanging off of you.

    Rope Trick: Now, the rope stays in place, marking where the pesky adventurers disappeared.
    If you are using rope trick, you can't be using any kind of bag of holding, belt of many pouches, handy haversack, etc.. as if you bring any of them into the rope trick, bad things happen. So limiting what the mage can carry.
    If the enemy, whom you just handed them them hats recently, just before you retired to the rope trick to refresh yourself, doesn't take advantage of knowing where you will show up at, they deserve to whatever happens to them. Personally, I would hang a blanket and/or a sheet of lead just under the "window", blocking view of those inside to what is happening outside. Acid vat, elaborate traps, water filled area, etc...

    Ray of Enfeeblement can hurt a fighter, but not all fighters. A dex fighter will not be as affected, nor will a Crossbowman.

    As an aside, Empower Spell only affects the variable, as per the Beta.

    Overland flight: As mentioned by others, of limited use inside and/or underground. Sure, there will be rooms with high ceilings, but most will not be. Still useful in not setting off any ground level traps.

    Summon X spells: short duration, and while you are casting those, you aren't doing other things (controlling the battlefield, damaging opponents, etc..). Still useful, but you cannot have a lot of them active at the same time.

    Wall of Stone: for a 10th level mage (the example level that LogicNinja was/is using for his examples, so figured it would be appropriate here) is 10' x 25', needing rock to attach to. Good for temporarily controlling an area, but can be broken thru by the denigrated fighters in fairly short order. Less useful outside, as for the most part they can go around or over.

    LogicNinja has a talent for making spellcasters, but maybe less so for making fighters.

    Here is an example of a fighter that I believe can be pretty competent at all levels of play.

    Feats at 10th level for a human: Weapon Focus (heavy crossbow), Point Blank, Far Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Reload (heavy crossbow), Rapid Shot, Weapon Specialization (heavy crossbow), deadly aim, heavy crossbow mastery (no more AoO for reloading), crossbow sniper, greater weapon focus (heavy crossbow), improved critical (heavy crossbow)

    Gear 62k for 10th level: Heavy Crossbow +1 (distance, seeking, magebane)(32k), boots of speed (12k), belt of dexterity +2 (4k), cloak of resistance +3 (9k), ring of see invisibility (4k), misc gear for 1k.

    Modified Dex now at 22. Range increment is at 240', with -1 per increase. Miss chance at 0 (blur, displacement, etc.. buffs no longer effective).

    Against mages, this character would see the mage with improved invisibility, reach them at range. With deadly aim, boots of speed and rapid shot, this fighter will be at +15/+15/+15/+10 to hit, with 1d10+18+2d6 damage, crits on 17-20. Average damage would be 31 per hit.
    With deadly aim, boots of speed: +17/+17/+12 to attack.

    As the mage described by LogicNinja has high int (22+ with magic), and a dex of 16, that doesn't leave much for other stats, so if the con is calculated to be at 12 (guess on my part), total HP for 10th level would be 50. Two hits from the crossbowman above would take that mage out, dead.

    There are viable options for mage and for fighters. It depends on play style, character choices, what is happening in the game world around you, etc... Yes, fighters need a little more love, but are useful and productive, even if they don't get any more love.

    Hmm, rambled on longer than intended, so will sign off for now.


    Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
    Fake Healer wrote:
    Mistwalker wrote:
    LogicNinja wrote:

    ANIMAL COMPANION:

    Fluffy, a Dire Lion. With Natural Bond, he gets +2 bonus HD (and a bonus feat and +1 AB), +2 NA, +1 STR/DEX (+1 to hit and damage, +1 AC), Evasion.
    Hmm, I may be missing something here, but a Dire Lion is a level -9 animal companion, so a 10th level druid would be treated as a 1st level druid for everything related to it's animal companion, so would only have a bonus trick, link and share spells.

    Natural Bond adds 3 to the effective druid level when determining level for animal companion (can't make druid level exceed character level). I am unsure though if this bonus is applied to this situation. I was under the impression that this was a way to help a multiclass druid keep his animal companion viable, not a way to counteract the adjustment to druid levels for taking alternate animal companions and like to think that this was part of Complete Adventurer's attempt to help the druid find ways to get into PRCs without sacrificing the power of their animal companion.

    I read on that has always been that it helps with multi-classing. Re-reading it, I am still of that opinion. If your character level is 10 (your level, natural bond will not raise it higher), then 10-9 is still 1.

    Others may have read it differently.

    The Exchange

    Mistwalker wrote:
    A bunch of good points.....

    2 Things to point out.

    You can pull the rope in with you on a rope trick.
    How does the fighter hit a mirror imaged, false lifed, stoneskinned, displacemented wizard that wins initiative and tosses up a wind wall, and can be up to 800' away and still hit with long range spells?
    It all depends on the wizard and the fighter involved but most times the wizard is favored. A smart wizard (which they all are by nature!) could cast some spells to find out about the challenges coming up. Arcane Eye effectively allows the wizard to scout out almost the whole dungeon/building and give him an idea of the challenges ahead. Knowledge is power and a wizard has a ton of spells that give him knowledge of his surroundings.
    Also with immediate action spells that can make a person not attack and things like that the wizard is almost untouchable.


    I've only read the first third of this so far. Why are so many people using Fireball vs two handed weapons as their baseline for comparison? Yes, smart melees are using two handers. Smart casters are not using blasting spells. Support magic is better than blasting magic. Crowd control and SoD magic is better than support magic. Apples to apples.

    By the way, Sculpted Glitterdust is a 3rd level spell that has a chance to blind 4 creatures (minimum, more if they don't spread out). It's a Will save. Enemy will saves still aren't that great for the most part, but are getting better.

    Also, Fighters don't keep going all day. Hit Points are a finite resource. Do you know what recovers Hit Points? Yes, that's right. Spells. So when the spells run out, they can't keep going either. Seeing as they're the ones in front of big things that want to eat them, guess who needs rest first?

    Here's my page 2 response: Archers? Seriously? First off, there are only two archer builds that do half decent damage. Both require heavy specialization. One requires being within 30 feet and the enemy is susceptible to precision damage. The other requires a 3.0 PRC and also that the enemy is susceptible to precision damage. As precision damage immunity is easily gotten via one of several means, meaning that regardless the archer is doing 15 damage a shot (best case) on average, assuming Wind Wall doesn't automatically win against any and every archer lacking a Force bow... Yeah, have fun. We haven't even mentioned Greater Mirror Image (even if you do somehow catch the Wizard with his pants down and full attack, he can still throw this up in lieu of Blur, Displacement, Invis, Stoneskin, Flight, etc... We also have not mentioned the Ring of Entropic Deflection. As long as the Wizard moves 10 feet, all ranged attacks miss him 20% of the time (and that's 50% with any speed boosting item). Since casting is a standard and perhaps a swift action, he loses nothing by staying mobile and even CC skill ranks make it not hard to hit a DC 15 check. Suffice it to say, the wizard does not give a damn about any ranged attacks except maybe Disintegrate (and GMI + ED ring means there is a 10% or less chance it even hits, so who cares)?

    Also, someone mentioned the Fighter taking hits for the wizard. What ability is allowing him to do this? Because last I checked, unless you go the spiked chain tripper route there is absolutely nothing stopping the enemies from going right past you, shaking off the AoO, and attempting to attack the wizard anyways. If they're smart, they utilize their most likely superior mobility to bypass the fighter and not even worry about that much. Unless in a relatively narrow passage, fighter is difficult terrain. Any summon bigger than Medium does it better, because they fill more 5*5 squares and no one gets upset if they die so they don't require resources (healing). A wall of whatever does it still better.

    Now, it is possible to do this if you use the 3.0 Devoted Defender PRC... except now you have the Fighter PC subserviant to whatever caster PC he is remaining within 5 feet of so that he can use his prestige class abilities to parry attacks directed at said caster, switch places with said caster to block attacks with his face, and AoO anything that attacks said caster. Also, he can only defend one person at a time. He can change who he protects at the start of battle, but then he's stuck with it. He chooses to guard the Wizard, but the dragon decides the Rogue is crunchy and tastes good with ketchup? There is nothing he can do. He cannot change who he is bodyguarding this combat.


    Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
    Fake Healer wrote:

    2 Things to point out.

    You can pull the rope in with you on a rope trick.

    Not anymore. Please see the the new wording in the Beta.

    Fake Healer wrote:
    How does the fighter hit a mirror imaged, false lifed, stoneskinned, displacemented wizard that wins initiative and tosses up a wind wall, and can be up to 800' away and still hit with long range spells?

    Well, that is part of what we have been saying about the circumstances. Any set up can lead either side to pretty well a guaranteed victory.

    The wizard in your example has had time to cast 4 spells before the fighter even get's an initiative....hardly a fair set up.

    Plus, the displacement would not affect that particular crossbowman, due to the seeker ability of his crossbow.

    But in this case, the crossbowman would just move back around the corner, run and stealth for about 10 minutes, until the spells durations ran out.

    Fake Healer wrote:
    It all depends on the wizard and the fighter involved but most times the wizard is favored. A smart wizard (which they all are by nature!) could cast some spells to find out about the challenges coming up. Arcane Eye effectively allows the wizard to scout out almost the whole dungeon/building and give him an idea of the challenges ahead. Knowledge is power and a wizard has a ton of spells that give him knowledge of his surroundings.

    Oh, I agree, it often depends on the wizard and the fighter. What they have with them, what spells are memorized, what spells have already been cast, etc... Oh, and who the players are (that can and often does count for a lot)

    As for your arcane eye, with see invisibility, the arcane eye would be seen.
    Point two would be that the mage cannot see anything that he would not normally see....so, stealth, camouflage and cover are your friends. If the mage does not pass his perception check, he does not see you.

    Quite a few of the other divination spells have serious limitations, and can lead the mage into a false sense of security.

    Fake Healer wrote:


    Also with immediate action spells that can make a person not attack and things like that the wizard is almost untouchable.

    Which ones would those be? If I am reading your comment right, those may be spells that need to be toned down or removed. No class should be untouchable all the time.


    Mistwalker wrote:
    I have to disagree that the mage owns the game after 5th level.

    Sure, me too. He doesn't own it after 5th level, but he starts getting closer and closer to it, becoming more and more the cornerstone of the party's effectiveness.

    Mistwalker wrote:
    Control of the battlefield is important, but not the only aspect of the game.

    Control, and disabling, and buffing... anyone can fill the "do some damage" role, just about.

    Mistwalker wrote:

    From some of the descriptions of mages, scrolls, wands and such, I am gathering that the mages are carrying a lot of gear. Most of it has to be handy, otherwise it will take a round to get it out (and possibly cause an AoO) before you can cast it. Rogues can acquire that accessible gear that is hanging off the of the mage. Fighters can sunder that wand of X.

    This is not even addressing what can happen in town, between adventures, with all that gear hanging off of you.

    In town? Who the hell is dumb enough to try and pickpocket a bunch of heavily armed adventurers in town?

    The mage carries his scrolls in a scrollcase, his wands in wrist sheaths (or, as of Dungeonscape, in wand chambers in his staff). He keeps miscellaneous gear like rods and other (utility) scrolls in his Handy Haversack, which--after the very first time the DM pulls some trite "and some thieves take your stuff, go get it back!" move on them--he keeps a Fire Trap or something on.
    Rogues can't acquire the gear in the Handy Haversack, and the Haversack itself is not a small object you can filch with Sleight of Hand.
    Any Fighter who's located a wizard and is close enough to sunder his wand is a fool if he tries to sunder the wand instead of trying to kill the wizard as quickly as possible.

    Mistwalker wrote:

    Rope Trick: Now, the rope stays in place, marking where the pesky adventurers disappeared.

    If you are using rope trick, you can't be using any kind of bag of holding, belt of many pouches, handy haversack, etc.. as if you bring any of them into the rope trick, bad things happen. So limiting what the mage can carry.

    1) No, you can pull the rope up after you. There is absolutely no sign of where you cast it.

    Edit: okay, the Beta changed that. Still, all this means is that the party needs to (a) get somewhere out-of-the-way first and (b) set a watch. Maybe cast Alarm. Why would they do that to the spell, instead of just setting the duration to AD&D's more reasonable 10 minutes/level? That would let a party hide from patrols and such, or go into a room and spy on the people who come in after them, but wouldn't let them sleep.
    2) No, you can be using any bag of holding, handy haversack, etc. First of all, the line about how it's dangerous to bring extradimensional spaces into a Rope Trick is an AD&D holdover with absolutely no rules behind it. It just says "it is hazardous". WotC has said to ignore it, because it's a holdover that doesn't add anything to the game...
    ...and of course, Bags of Holding and Handy Haversacks are nondimensional spaces not extradimensional spaces. So you can take them in anyway!

    Mistwalker wrote:
    If the enemy, whom you just handed them them hats recently, just before you retired to the rope trick to refresh yourself, doesn't take advantage of knowing where you will show up at, they deserve to whatever happens to them. Personally, I would hang a blanket and/or a sheet of lead just under the "window", blocking view of those inside to what is happening outside. Acid vat, elaborate traps, water filled area, etc...

    If the enemy just got handed their hats, they're probably dead.

    Also, they have no idea of where the rope trick is, and it's not like you don't post a watch inside the rope trick and jump out and kill them if it looks like they've found you.

    Mistwalker wrote:
    Ray of Enfeeblement can hurt a fighter, but not all fighters. A dex fighter will not be as affected, nor will a Crossbowman.

    A Dex fighter is so unthreatening he doesn't need to be debuffed. Crossbowmen are rare because bows are superior. Also, the spell will hurt many, many other things. Finding one specific thing unaffected by Ray of Enfeeblement is not significant.

    Mistwalker wrote:
    Overland flight: As mentioned by others, of limited use inside and/or underground. Sure, there will be rooms with high ceilings, but most will not be. Still useful in not setting off any ground level traps.

    And as I've mentioned, a wizard has his own advantages underground (Wall of Stone suddenly looks really good, as does the rest of the wizard's crowd control.

    And it does help everywhere that ISN'T a 10-foot-high room. Trying to argue that Overland Flight is fine, honest, because you can just put all the encounters in 10-foot-high rooms is disingenuous.

    Mistwalker wrote:
    Summon X spells: short duration, and while you are casting those, you aren't doing other things (controlling the battlefield, damaging opponents, etc..). Still useful, but you cannot have a lot of them active at the same time.

    "while you're casting those, you aren't doing other things"? Well, no. The mage can only cast one spell per round (two if he Quickens) all the time. Yes, they have a short duration; I'm aware. You can still summon monsters with various useful abilities. Summon Monster really shines when you hit SMVII and can call in Bone Devils (with a fear aura, teleportation... and Wall of Ice at will).

    Mistwalker wrote:
    Wall of Stone: for a 10th level mage (the example level that LogicNinja was/is using for his examples, so figured it would be appropriate here) is 10' x 25', needing rock to attach to. Good for temporarily controlling an area, but can be broken thru by the denigrated fighters in fairly short order. Less useful outside, as for the most part they can go around or over.

    Unless they have adamantine weapons, hacking through stone is not that easy--Hardness makes it, well, hard.

    Mistwalker wrote:

    LogicNinja has a talent for making spellcasters, but maybe less so for making fighters.

    Here is an example of a fighter that I believe can be pretty competent at all levels of play.

    I think you meant "here is an example of a Fighter whom I've set up specifically for trying to kill a wizard, who is in turn set up for a generic adventuring day."

    Mistwalker wrote:
    Feats at 10th level for a human: Weapon Focus (heavy crossbow), Point Blank, Far Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Reload (heavy crossbow), Rapid Shot, Weapon Specialization (heavy crossbow), deadly aim, heavy crossbow mastery (no more AoO for reloading), crossbow sniper, greater weapon focus (heavy crossbow), improved critical (heavy crossbow)

    Are we really getting noncore here? I stuck with a core wizard. Against a noncore one, you have absolutely no chance, thanks to things like Nerveskitter and Celerity.

    Furthermore, bows are inherently superior to crossbows.

    Pathfinder fighters do make good archers (thanks to all the AB/damage bonuses, Vital Strike, etc)

    Mistwalker wrote:
    Gear 62k for 10th level: Heavy Crossbow +1 (distance, seeking, magebane)(32k), boots of speed (12k), belt of dexterity +2 (4k), cloak of resistance +3 (9k), ring of see invisibility (4k), misc gear for 1k.

    -You can't afford the crossbow. It's more than half of your wealth; you're not allowed to do that.

    -Ring of See Invisibility? That's not in any book. Custom items are not something you want to bring in--the guidelines are terribly broken. They don't tend to be accepted by DMs, they're not balanced... they're a very, very vague guideline at best. And considering the price of items that let you see invisibility *with an action to activate, temporarily* in the MIC, a continuous See Invisible item would cost you far more than 4k.
    Also, your fighter's gear expenditure is totally, completely unreasonable for an adventurer. He has no AC bonuses, none of the usual necessary stuff. It's almost like he's designed specifically to take on this wizard, what with his Magebane crossbow and all.

    Mistwalker wrote:
    Dex now at 22. Range increment is at 240', with -1 per increase. Miss chance at 0 (blur, displacement, etc.. buffs no longer effective).

    Greater invisibility remains quite effective, because you can't actually get that item of See Invisible you just made up.

    Mistwalker wrote:

    Against mages, this character would see the mage with improved invisibility, reach them at range. With deadly aim, boots of speed and rapid shot, this fighter will be at +15/+15/+15/+10 to hit, with 1d10+18+2d6 damage, crits on 17-20. Average damage would be 31 per hit.

    With deadly aim, boots of speed: +17/+17/+12 to attack.

    As the mage described by LogicNinja has high int (22+ with magic), and a dex of 16, that doesn't leave much for other stats, so if the con is calculated to be at 12 (guess on my part), total HP for 10th level would be 50. Two hits from the crossbowman above would take that mage out, dead.

    Too bad he can't count on winning initiate, can't find the wizard once the wizard goes (there's no such thing as a ring of see invisible, much less so cheaply), can't shoot past a Wind Wall, etc.

    Besides which--celerity, teleport, scry on you, kill you in your sleep.

    Mistwalker wrote:
    There are viable options for mage and for fighters. It depends on play style, character choices, what is happening in the game world around you, etc... Yes, fighters need a little more love, but are useful and productive, even if they don't get any more love.

    "Archer" is about the only viable option for fighters at high levels, and it still has big weaknesses. For all that you talk about "useful and productive", your crossbowman is set up for wizard-hunting and wouldn't be too useful to a party--in fact, given that he spent more than half his money on that crossbow, he'd die prety quickly.

    Melee fighters need the kind of love that helps patch their crippling Will save, makes them more able to go toe-to-toe, and most importantly removes the reliance on the Full Attack.


    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
    The Authority wrote:
    Tremaine wrote:
    ;.;

    I can only assume that you're feeling pretty guilty about playing D&D like it's a fan fiction and lash out defensively whenever someone suggests that someone out there is a psionic monk spiked chain drow paladin.

    You might feel attacked, but I need to point out that if you'd read my post without feeling like someone was commenting on your behavior in your psychologist's waiting room you might take a different perspective.

    I can only assume your assumption that anyone who disagrees with you, or has had a different experience is lying, speaks of a mental imbalance on your part.


    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

    also you qouted me implicity making the post about me, especially as you altered what I had said. I could do that and make you appear to admit being a self harming drug addict, wouldn't make it true tho.


    Thank you LogicNinja, for covering everything else I was going to say and a few things I didn't think of.

    The Exchange

    Wow. Good job on the 'rope trick' fix, Paizo. It seem that I really need to brush up on my Beta Changes. That spell fix and others tells me that Paizo is trying pretty hard to fix some problems. Keep it up Paizo.

    Liberty's Edge

    Fake Healer wrote:
    Wow. Good job on the 'rope trick' fix, Paizo. It seem that I really need to brush up on my Beta Changes. That spell fix and others tells me that Paizo is trying pretty hard to fix some problems. Keep it up Paizo.

    I know, I hadn't even noticed that. I'm personally in favor of the fix.


    I would like to remind everyone though that Rope Trick holds 7 people, plus the rope. That's not just the Wizard not getting stabbed by some random night encounter.

    Just making sure that hasn't been overlooked. Carry on.


    I can take out a powerful wizard as a disguise-mastered rogue. Boost my Charisma to some ungodly number and then disguise with my awesome skill and when the wizard reaches for his book (me)...

    SNEAK ATTACK!

    Muwahahaha!

    (Thank you to Lidda for that awesome strategy!)


    Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

    I do not believe that I will have time to answer all of your comments, but I will try to get to the majority.

    LogicNinja wrote:
    Mistwalker wrote:

    From some of the descriptions of mages, scrolls, wands and such, I am gathering that the mages are carrying a lot of gear. Most of it has to be handy, otherwise it will take a round to get it out (and possibly cause an AoO) before you can cast it. Rogues can acquire that accessible gear that is hanging off the of the mage. Fighters can sunder that wand of X.

    This is not even addressing what can happen in town, between adventures, with all that gear hanging off of you.
    In town? Who the hell is dumb enough to try and pickpocket a bunch of heavily armed adventurers in town?

    Am I to assume from your comment that your mage always travels with the rest of his adventuring buddies? Shopping, researching, visiting agreeable individuals for a romantic evening?

    That your mage is always geared up, ready to rock and roll? Personally, I have trouble with the idea of characters wandering around town in full gear. The authorities would probably have a problem with that. Yes, a small town may not be able to make you behave, but neither do they need to cooperate, and can quite easily sabotage you if you use threats to get your way (poisoned stew anyone? info about the invading adventurers? call for aid to more powerful NPCs?). I suppose that it can be chalked up to different game styles.

    LogicNinja wrote:

    The mage carries his scrolls in a scrollcase, his wands in wrist sheaths (or, as of Dungeonscape, in wand chambers in his staff). He keeps miscellaneous gear like rods and other (utility) scrolls in his Handy Haversack, which--after the very first time the DM pulls some trite "and some thieves take your stuff, go get it back!" move on them--he keeps a Fire Trap or something on.

    Rogues can't acquire the gear in the Handy Haversack, and the Haversack itself is not a small object you can filch with Sleight of Hand.
    Any Fighter who's located a wizard and is close enough to sunder his wand is a fool if he tries to sunder the wand instead of trying to kill the wizard as quickly as possible.

    It takes time (and provokes an AoO) to retrieve a scroll from a case (and I am not even going to go into how you know which scroll to take out without sorting). From your earlier response to what the wizard would do, I was reading that they were casting scrolls every round, hence had then in some sort of quick access bandolier.

    LogicNinja wrote:

    No, you can be using any bag of holding, handy haversack, etc. First of all, the line about how it's dangerous to bring extradimensional spaces into a Rope Trick is an AD&D holdover with absolutely no rules behind it. It just says "it is hazardous". WotC has said to ignore it, because it's a holdover that doesn't add anything to the game...

    ...and of course, Bags of Holding and Handy Haversacks are nondimensional spaces not extradimensional spaces. So you can take them in anyway!

    Well, according to the Beta, taking a extradimentional space (bag, haversack) into an extradimentional space (portable hole, rope trick), a rift is astral space is formed, sucking both items away, forever lost p366 Beta, and p62 web supplement.

    Could you please quote book and page number of the WotC comment, or provide a link to the official message? It appears to be moot, as Paizo seems to have decided otherwise.

    LogicNinja wrote:

    If the enemy just got handed their hats, they're probably dead.

    Also, they have no idea of where the rope trick is, and it's not like you don't post a watch inside the rope trick and jump out and kill them if it looks like they've found you.

    Unless you have killed everyone and are only resting in the rope trick, due to paranoia (justified or not), there are enemies still around. Tis why you are resting in a safe place.

    As per the Beta spell description, they can see the rope hanging down. So they do know where you are.

    If you had plenty of oomph left, you would have kept going. So jumping down is not as great an option with a second look. It is also why I said that they covered the "window", so that you would not know what they were doing. Jumping down into readied actions can be very painful.

    An I wasn't saying that overland flight was useless, or not a good choice. I was just pointing out that it was by no means perfect if you were inside or underground (where a lot of the combat seems to take place).

    LogicNinja wrote:
    Unless they have adamantine weapons, hacking through stone is not that easy--Hardness makes it, well, hard.

    Strength check of 22 will break one 5' section of the wall, as per the Beta. 15 points per inch, with 8 hardeness. So at the most a couple of round to "chip" out a door. Most likely, at 10th level, a round for one of the fighters.

    LogicNinja wrote:
    Mistwalker wrote:

    LogicNinja has a talent for making spellcasters, but maybe less so for making fighters.

    Here is an example of a fighter that I believe can be pretty competent at all levels of play.
    I think you meant "here is an example of a Fighter whom I've set up specifically for trying to kill a wizard, who is in turn set up for a generic adventuring day."

    Actually, no, this is a character from an active campaign. Rise of the Rune Lords. Rear guard for the group, the reason for the ranged weapon and the precise shot feat.

    LogicNinja wrote:
    Mistwalker wrote:
    Feats at 10th level for a human: Weapon Focus (heavy crossbow), Point Blank, Far Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Reload (heavy crossbow), Rapid Shot, Weapon Specialization (heavy crossbow), deadly aim, heavy crossbow mastery (no more AoO for reloading), crossbow sniper, greater weapon focus (heavy crossbow), improved critical (heavy crossbow)

    Are we really getting noncore here? I stuck with a core wizard. Against a noncore one, you have absolutely no chance, thanks to things like Nerveskitter and Celerity.

    Furthermore, bows are inherently superior to crossbows.

    Well, there are only two feats that are not in the Beta. heavy crossbow mastery is from CotCT and the campaign setting -Paizo stuff, so I figured it would be OK. Yes, you are right, there is one from the PHB II, crossbow sniper, which adds in +3 to the damage. It can easily be removed, and since it seems to be important to you and a few others, replace it with Improved Initiative.

    I disagree that crossbows are inherently inferior to bows. But that is a discussion for another thread.

    LogicNinja wrote:

    -You can't afford the crossbow. It's more than half of your wealth; you're not allowed to do that.

    -Ring of See Invisibility? That's not in any book. Custom items are not something you want to bring in--the guidelines are terribly broken. They don't tend to be accepted by DMs, they're not balanced... they're a very, very vague guideline at best. And considering the price of items that let you see invisibility *with an action to activate, temporarily* in the MIC, a continuous See Invisible item would cost you far more than 4k.
    Also, your fighter's gear expenditure is totally, completely unreasonable for an adventurer. He has no AC bonuses, none of the usual necessary stuff. It's almost like he's designed specifically to take on this wizard, what with his Magebane crossbow and all.

    Actually, the fighter can afford the crossbow. The rules in the Beta concerning gear are guidelines, and those for creating characters that have a starting level higher than 1. The key word is "should" not spend more than, not "can't".

    Those guidelines are not tell characters how they should spend their gold, but highlight the usual way in which characters will spend their gold.

    My apologies for the ring of see invisibility, they have been around in several books/adventures since 1st Ed, that I forgot that they were not in the Beta. If you prefer, I can simply change it out for the fighter drinking a potion of read magic (25 gp), taking 10 on a scroll of see invisibility (150 gp), have a charisma buff cast on him, a cleric of Desna use a "bit of luck" on him, use a scroll of permanency 6125 gp), for a total of, say 6500 gp?

    The character is currently 5th level, and has no magical items on him, besides a couple of potions that the party bought with group stores. He is saving up for his crossbow. Eventually, he also will have dragon bane and giant bane put on it. He has a chain shirt, a dozen daggers, a MW crossbow that he made, and lots of bolts.

    But, if it will make things easier, drop the distance on the bow, which will give the character 18k back. So, add in a mithral chain shirt +3 (1.1k + 9k), with about 6k left for other things, such as magical bolts.

    LogicNinja wrote:
    Mistwalker wrote:
    Dex now at 22. Range increment is at 240', with -1 per increase. Miss chance at 0 (blur, displacement, etc.. buffs no longer effective).
    Greater invisibility remains quite effective, because you can't actually get that item of See Invisible you just made up.

    Actually, yes, he can see the mage. You just avoided answering the question.

    LogicNinja wrote:

    Too bad he can't count on winning initiate, can't find the wizard once the wizard goes (there's no such thing as a ring of see invisible, much less so cheaply), can't shoot past a Wind Wall, etc.

    Besides which--celerity, teleport, scry on you, kill you in your sleep.

    Well, now he can. And he can see the wizard.

    Hmm, how did the mage suddenly get a wind wall in his memorized spells? I was comparing a working character to what I assumed was your idea spell set up for a 10th level char, from the 1st page of this thread. Suddenly having wind wall show up in his spell list smacks a wee bit of metagaming to me. Anyone can win if they are allowed to impose all of the rules/set-up of the encounter.

    Again, why would the wizard, who "knows" that crossbows are inherently inferior to bows, even think about scry on you, kill you in your sleep? Metagaming? This fighter now a threat to the mage? If so, doesn't that prove that fighters are not useless at high levels?

    LogicNinja wrote:
    "Archer" is about the only viable option for fighters at high levels, and it still has big weaknesses. For all that you talk about "useful and productive", your crossbowman is set up for wizard-hunting and wouldn't be too useful to a party--in fact, given that he spent more than half his money on that crossbow, he'd die prety quickly.

    Actually, this fighter has been able to more than hold his own. He wasn't designed to be a mage killer, but does consider mages to be high priority targets. As stated earlier, he is the tail-end charlie of the group, and needed to be able to guard the rear, and participate in the fight. I do believe that he does that well.


    Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
    Crusader of Logic wrote:

    I would like to remind everyone though that Rope Trick holds 7 people, plus the rope. That's not just the Wizard not getting stabbed by some random night encounter.

    Just making sure that hasn't been overlooked. Carry on.

    Actually, no, the rope no longer can go inside the space. Please see p265 of the Beta.


    Fake Healer wrote:

    Wow. Good job on the 'rope trick' fix, Paizo. It seem that I really need to brush up on my Beta Changes. That spell fix and others tells me that Paizo is trying pretty hard to fix some problems. Keep it up Paizo.

    I don't think they're doing it right. The "fix" castrates the spell for *any* purpose, not just safe resting. Rope Trick was originally intended to be used for spying purposes.

    Giving it a 10 minutes/level duration would be a better fix.

    As for p.366, it only talks about Bags of Holding put in Portable Holes and vice-versa (which is another one of those AD&D carryovers that does nothing good for the game). So does p.62 of the Web Enhancement.

    Portable Holes and Bags of Holding are NONdimensional spaces, not EXTRAdimensional spaces. They can safely go into rope tricks. The only things they can't go into are each other (which, again, is a minor rules quirk which does nothing for the game except (a) makes it more bloated and (b) causes problems whenever someone gets the bright idea to use the tactic offensively.

    Edit: also, Read Magic does nothing for your Fighter, since all it does is let you identify what a scroll says... and is a Personal spell that therefore can't be read into a potion.
    Are you really suggesting a Fighter UMDing scrolls, including Permanency, in an elaborate attempt to get himself See Invisible... at a low CL, which will be dispelled the first time an AoE dispel hits the party?

    I'll get into the rest later.

    The Exchange

    LogicNinja wrote:
    Fake Healer wrote:

    Wow. Good job on the 'rope trick' fix, Paizo. It seem that I really need to brush up on my Beta Changes. That spell fix and others tells me that Paizo is trying pretty hard to fix some problems. Keep it up Paizo.

    I don't think they're doing it right. The "fix" castrates the spell for *any* purpose, not just safe resting. Rope Trick was originally intended to be used for spying purposes.

    Giving it a 10 minutes/level duration would be a better fix.

    Actually I can see it getting used but with more creativity. Last one in the hole tucks the rope into a niche, behind a curtain, spooled up and place in a tree branch, etc. then climbs(or flys) the rest of the way in.

    Not totally nerfed yet the party won't be climbing in and resting up in the middle of a hot zone.

    The Exchange

    Why not make a fighter and a wizard, head over to the PBP boards, find a GM, and go for a best out of 3 or 5? Maybe try them at different levels also.
    My knowledge of the Beta is not good yet or I would volunteer to referee, but I am sure someone here wouldn't mind and it may help with playtesting too.

    Silver Crusade

    Did anyone point out that you can get saves from most wizards spells for half damage and no saves verses melee damage. I think it they are equal.


    Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
    LogicNinja wrote:

    I don't think they're doing it right. The "fix" castrates the spell for *any* purpose, not just safe resting. Rope Trick was originally intended to be used for spying purposes.

    Giving it a 10 minutes/level duration would be a better fix.

    You seem to be plugged into what was (is?) going on at WotC. Could you provide more detail? Or is this your view on the original purpose of the spell? Either works, I just like to know where this kind of statement is coming from.

    LogicNinja wrote:

    As for p.366, it only talks about Bags of Holding put in Portable Holes and vice-versa (which is another one of those AD&D carryovers that does nothing good for the game). So does p.62 of the Web Enhancement.

    Portable Holes and Bags of Holding are NONdimensional spaces, not EXTRAdimensional spaces. They can safely go into rope tricks. The only things they can't go into are each other (which, again, is a minor rules quirk which does nothing for the game except (a) makes it more bloated and (b) causes problems whenever someone gets the bright idea to use the tactic offensively.

    Beta web supplement, p62 wrote:
    When spread upon any surface, it causes an extradimensional space 10 feet deep to come into being

    I see a slight disagreement from Paizo. I see an extra-dimensional space going into a non-dimensional space causing problems (and vice-versa). That lead me to conclude that putting a bag of holding, or a handy haversack into a rope trick causes those same problems.

    I will admit that the description for portable hole describes it as both an extra-dimension space (1st paragraph) as well as a non-dimensional space (2nd paragraph).

    LogicNinja wrote:

    also, Read Magic does nothing for your Fighter, since all it does is let you identify what a scroll says... and is a Personal spell that therefore can't be read into a potion.

    Are you really suggesting a Fighter UMDing scrolls, including Permanency, in an elaborate attempt to get himself See Invisible... at a low CL, which will be dispelled the first time an AoE dispel hits the party?
    Beta, p351 wrote:

    It can duplicate the effect of a spell of up to 3rd level that has a casting time of less than 1 minute and targets one or more creatures......

    Potions are like spells cast upon the imbiber.

    I may be incorrect, but my interpretation of this is that any spell that targets a creature (range=personal=creature) can be made into a potion. So by drinking a potion of read magic, the fighter can avoid making a few UMD rolls to use his purchased scrolls.

    Well, you are correct in that it would probably not be a good idea (missed the dispelling part). So, drop the magical chain shirt, and have a ring of see invisibility made for 15k. Will that make you more comfortable with the idea of a non-mage being able to see invisibility?


    Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
    Fake Healer wrote:

    Why not make a fighter and a wizard, head over to the PBP boards, find a GM, and go for a best out of 3 or 5? Maybe try them at different levels also.

    My knowledge of the Beta is not good yet or I would volunteer to referee, but I am sure someone here wouldn't mind and it may help with playtesting too.

    Not a bad idea, but both LogicNinja, myself and that GM would have to agree on the interpretation of the rules.

    We seem to be having a few issues on interpretation, at the moment.
    And perhaps a bit of metagaming on our parts, as well.

    Hopefully the discussion isn't too irrelevant, boring, seen as two idiots going at it, etc... :)


    Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
    brent norton wrote:
    Did anyone point out that you can get saves from most wizards spells for half damage and no saves verses melee damage. I think it they are equal.

    I think some would point out stoneskin is similar to saving for partial damage.

    Nevertheless, a good point.


    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
    brent norton wrote:
    Did anyone point out that you can get saves from most wizards spells for half damage and no saves verses melee damage. I think it they are equal.

    Your AC is the 'save' against melee dmg imho.

    Liberty's Edge

    Rob Godfrey wrote:
    brent norton wrote:
    Did anyone point out that you can get saves from most wizards spells for half damage and no saves verses melee damage. I think it they are equal.
    Your AC is the 'save' against melee dmg imho.

    i always saw the melee attack (or ranged attack, for that matter) more like using a form of skill with the AC being the DC number, but yeah.


    Jal Dorak wrote:
    I'm a smart man who has played D&D.

    I agree, you are a smart man, and you have definitely played D&D before in a campaign. If only the majority of the posters here were as experienced as you.

    LogicNinja wrote:
    In town? Who the hell is dumb enough to try and pickpocket a bunch of heavily armed adventurers in town?

    "YOU CAN'T STEAL FROM PEOPLE IN OGRIMARR IT'S NOT A PVP ZONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

    Almighty Zordon, Lord of the Command Center! Besides the fact that pickpocketing is traditionally nearly completely restricted to crowded urban areas, you clearly have no idea how the slight of hand rules work.

    The rate at which you s~$* up every board you visit simply to spitshine whatever someone else has told you and you haven't ever playtested or even bothered to verify astounds me.

    Make a PFRPG rogue and learn to play her. While you're doing that, take a long, hard look at your motivation for posting here. If you're not going to bother to know what you're talking about before you start typing, perhaps you'd be better off spending the time playing D&D.


    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
    houstonderek wrote:
    Rob Godfrey wrote:
    brent norton wrote:
    Did anyone point out that you can get saves from most wizards spells for half damage and no saves verses melee damage. I think it they are equal.
    Your AC is the 'save' against melee dmg imho.
    i always saw the melee attack (or ranged attack, for that matter) more like using a form of skill with the AC being the DC number, but yeah.

    it is closer to that, but it's a fair comparison imho, as spells that are (ranged) touch attacks, tend to have no other save, not in all cases ofc, but you AC is the 'save; in that case.


    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

    and outside of heroic legend of pick pockets, they tended to pick on targets that couldn't cut them in half. or blast them to ash


    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

    the heroic pick pockets having class lvls, the 'normal' ones being npcs with a good dex.


    brent norton wrote:
    Did anyone point out that you can get saves from most wizards spells for half damage and no saves verses melee damage. I think it they are equal.

    Except you are comparing wizard blasting spells as if they were 'most spells' and as if they were the best thing the wizard can do instead of the worst to the best/only thing the fighter can do. This is not a fair comparison.

    I've seen plenty of arena fighter vs wizard stuff. Even when the arena rules are designed to favor the fighter, and the wizard can't use any of his best tricks such as Shapechange he still wins every single time in round 1 before the fighter gets a turn. Unless it is some supercharged gestalt monstrosity. Then it's almost even due to the fact gestalt means very high saves by default, and being able to get what few real anti mage measures exist without making yourself blatantly inferior to do it.

    The Artificer and Cleric do the same things, and can do it while beating him at his own game (hitting the thing with the other thing).


    LogicNinja, I have seen your 10th level wizard, he has a pretty decent spell selection. I would still be happy and not feel worthless playing a sword wielding fighter in a group with it. I would get to fight and kill most of the bad guys. I do think it is completely reasonable to assume my fighter would have access to a wand of clw worth of healing so I am not too worried about hit points being depleted over an adventure, if possible I would like to have a protection from evil (preferably that 3rd level one the cleric loves so much that lasts forever) to deal with most of those annoying charm type spells, an adamatine weapon and power attack to deal with those pesky walls of stone (or walls of plasterboard as I like to call them) to get to the monsters you keep trying to save from me!

    I do think ray of enfeeblement is too powerful and would allow a fort save for 1/2 damage as a fix.

    I admit I do get annoyed by that feral druid summoning all his furry friends (mostly becuse it takes so damn long to get to my turn) - personally I reckon for game balance and to keep things moving you should not be allowed to have more than 1 summoned creature at one time (I know another rule change to nerf those pesky spellcasters)and they should act a bit more like, well animals (or devils for that bone devil) than strategically minded, flanking, blocking, mind melded robo-clones but whatever.

    And those clerics who power up to step in and kick the monsters butt a couple of times an adventurer, hell I love the competition, after all the cleric is my best bud medic, if he doesnt get to release the tension by crushing skulls every now and them who knows what he will do. Most of the time he is keeping the party going.

    What would i like to be able to do? hmmm... move faster and throw off magical impediments. But truthfully i dont want all that tome of battle stuff, it makes me feel like a wizard try hard. Any other suggestions?


    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

    I think the issue is, the way the game is setup spells and SLA are nearly always going to be better than feats, unless the feats themselves basically are SLA's. How to fix this without creating an imbalance the other way, thats what needs testing, and working on, testing again, rinse and repeat till a workable solution is reached.


    Even if feats were comparable to spells and SLAs and such, you still get more of the latter than the former. If you then give them a bunch of extra feats... then you get 4.0, where 'everyone is equal' because everyone is the same.

    Alternately you can just delete every class not named 'Cleric', 'Druid', or 'Wizard'. Maybe Sorcerer too. That'd be much simpler.

    No, it's not an easy question to answer.


    Rob Godfrey wrote:
    I think the issue is, the way the game is setup spells and SLA are nearly always going to be better than feats, unless the feats themselves basically are SLA's.

    Thanks for that tidbit. Really well thought out and definitely necessary to post. When you're done comparing feats to spells, lets compare arrows to cows and platinum to zombies.

    Welcome to the design team, buddy!


    The Authority wrote:
    Rob Godfrey wrote:
    I think the issue is, the way the game is setup spells and SLA are nearly always going to be better than feats, unless the feats themselves basically are SLA's.

    Thanks for that tidbit. Really well thought out and definitely necessary to post. When you're done comparing feats to spells, lets compare arrows to cows and platinum to zombies.

    Welcome to the design team, buddy!

    Thanks for that tidbit. Really well thought out and definitely necessary to post. When you're done being useless while insinuating others do the same, let's discuss the necessary velocity for a cluebat to propel a creature of mass x a distance >= 50 yards.

    Welcome to the football team, buddy! (you're the ball)


    Crusader of Logic wrote:
    Welcome to the football team, buddy! (you're the ball)

    So now that we've noticed that Wizards have more spells known than Sorcerer, how about we start pointing out other really well thought out crumbs of "logic" such as "Consolidate your posts to avoid s@~#ting up the board with thirty seven "off the top of my head" comments in every thread" and "Common knowledge (such as how the base classes differ from each other) is commonly known by everyone. No need to post about it."

    Now I'd suggest you grab me and try to run for the first down, but there's a sorcerer out there and he doesn't have as many spells known as wizard, and that's terrible.


    If everyone knew it, I would not have needed to correct it.

    Further, my comments are almost always useful. Even when say... contingent flaming a troll, I make sure to separate the productive bits from everything else. Making good posts often is a bad thing how, exactly?

    Compare to frequent posts that consist of nothing but straw man arguments, unprovoked insults, and so forth... I believe most people would prefer a crusade of logic to an illithid brain snack.


    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
    Crusader of Logic wrote:

    If everyone knew it, I would not have needed to correct it.

    Further, my comments are almost always useful. Even when say... contingent flaming a troll, I make sure to separate the productive bits from everything else. Making good posts often is a bad thing how, exactly?

    Compare to frequent posts that consist of nothing but straw man arguments, unprovoked insults, and so forth... I believe most people would prefer a crusade of logic to an illithid brain snack.

    1 point to you sir.


    Crusader of Logic wrote:
    Making good posts often is a bad thing how, exactly?

    Oh my god, I haven't laughed this hard all evening.

    How's the gleemax wizard who's so "broken" treating you?


    The Authority wrote:
    Crusader of Logic wrote:
    Making good posts often is a bad thing how, exactly?

    Epic Troll is Epic. *insert witty 4chan picture here*

    How's the gleemax wizard who's so "broken" treating you?

    Oh noes! It's a strawman! Run!

    Oh right, you asked something. Let's see... infinite wishes, swimming in gold, plenty of females (several of which are giving me a lovely lapdance)... Yes, it's good to be a wizard.

    Are you about done derailing things yet, or shall I continue allowing you to embarrass and defeat yourself?


    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
    The Authority wrote:
    Crusader of Logic wrote:
    Making good posts often is a bad thing how, exactly?

    Oh my god, I haven't laughed this hard all evening.

    How's the gleemax wizard who's so "broken" treating you?

    The point being, if you can make a broken character then by definition the rules that allow you to are themselves 'broken'. As this is a beta test, the point is to find those rules, analyse the problems they cause and try to find solutions. Not make the 'my GM would never allow it' arguement, because thats not actually useful to a test.


    Rob Godfrey wrote:
    I think the issue is, the way the game is setup spells and SLA are nearly always going to be better than feats, unless the feats themselves basically are SLA's. How to fix this without creating an imbalance the other way, thats what needs testing, and working on, testing again, rinse and repeat till a workable solution is reached.

    Not really. Check the way it was solved in Arcana Evolved (my apologies, if I get something wrong - it's been awhile since I played this):

    Spells are divided into three categories, let's call them, simple, complex and exotic. Anyone can access simple spells (these spells tend to have toned down effects, with limited durations and usually do not affect outcome of combat significantly). Specific classes gain access to "complex" spells without inhibitions or by expenditure of a feat. Exotic spells are bought on one feat per spell basis and are some stronger spells there.

    That's how you can limit access to potentially unbalancing spells in the similar way combat feats are limited. Of course, that would take a significant review of current spell base.

    In my games, in order to somewhat limit the chaos introduced by various spell sources, we are giong to use something similar for all spells outside of core rulebooks.

    Regards,
    Ruemere


    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
    ruemere wrote:
    Rob Godfrey wrote:
    I think the issue is, the way the game is setup spells and SLA are nearly always going to be better than feats, unless the feats themselves basically are SLA's. How to fix this without creating an imbalance the other way, thats what needs testing, and working on, testing again, rinse and repeat till a workable solution is reached.

    Not really. Check the way it was solved in Arcana Evolved (my apologies, if I get something wrong - it's been awhile since I played this):

    Spells are divided into three categories, let's call them, simple, complex and exotic. Anyone can access simple spells (these spells tend to have toned down effects, with limited durations and usually do not affect outcome of combat significantly). Specific classes gain access to "complex" spells without inhibitions or by expenditure of a feat. Exotic spells are bought on one feat per spell basis and are some stronger spells there.

    That's how you can limit access to potentially unbalancing spells in the similar way combat feats are limited. Of course, that would take a significant review of current spell base.

    In my games, in order to somewhat limit the chaos introduced by various spell sources, we are giong to use something similar for all spells outside of core rulebooks.

    Regards,
    Ruemere

    Doesn't that turn everyone into a spell caster?

    151 to 200 of 326 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / General Discussion (Prerelease) / Is it me or do casters overpower melee classes past about lvl 5? All Messageboards