|
Depends. Ranger 1/Psion 6/Slayer 9/Sanctified Mind 4 is a fairly standard psy gish build. But seriously. Just have a look. You'll see.
Thank you for taking the time to explain to me what “broken” means to you. I am not familiar with Pun Pun. I have come across this reference on the Wizards of the Coast boards, but I don’t know who or what Pun- Pun is. Thank you for also providing some reference points as well. I understand that a “wizard is toeing the line but not breaking it.” Where as a Wizard + particular prestige class would be crossing the line so to speak. Where does the “shadow craft mage” come from? I would like to read about what class features the “Shadow Craft Mage” gets, so I can have a sense of where the Wizard is toeing the line but the Wizard+shadow craft mage is breaking it. I have looked up the Shadowcaster in the Tome of magic, the Shadow adept in the Forgotten Realms campaign setting, and I have not been able to find this class in either the Complete Arcane nor Complete Mage books. Perhaps I have missed something.Pun-Pun is a means of getting every single one of your stats to infinity, doable at low levels.
Shadowcraft mages are in Races of Stone. Mainly it is the illusions becoming more real than the real thing, which means being able to do more than completely real spells such as Shadow Miracles out of low level spell slots.
Tome of Magics Shadowcaster is incredibly weak, and if the Shadow Adept is the one I think it is that's just a dip to get access to the Shadow Weave.
Druids end up broken because Wild Shape automatically makes them at least as good at meleeing as the melee guys (better with buffs) while still being able to cast spells, etc. Also, the Animal Companion alone can completely replace another melee guy.
Desert Wind is the weakest martial adept school because it is 1: Blasting and 2: Fire based. He was actually fairly weak because of this. Though smart swordsages are Tier 3. If the Wizard was remotely outclassed by this guy, he was...
This is actually a very helpful post. Thank you for posting that CoL (edited acronym as CoL pointed out LC doesn't make much sense).
Wait, who said that ToB = Anime?
It came up a little while back.
Edit: I assume LC is referring to me. Odd acronym.
|
I am well aware of the difference between fact and opinion and have made sure my language clearly reflects whichever is the case.
Actual example:
Fact: Sunder is screwing yourself via wasting actions, breaking your own stuff, or both.
Opinion: I don't like Sunder.
Solution: Make it so that Sundered stuff can be repaired on the cheap. I still won't like it, but it fixes the factual problems with it so that it is no longer objectively flawed. Well actually, it only fixes some of said issues. It still either ends up being too easy to break stuff, or too hard to be worth it. But it's a start.
Please read the PRPG Beta and look up the rules for mending on page 249.
Please read the PRPG Beta and look up the rules for mending on page 249.
Similarly, I notice at least one build in active discussion on the Pathfinder playtest forum that relies on the 3.5 Arcane Strike, not the Pathfinder one.
Mending does not repair broken magic items. It implicitly states this. Unless you consider the MW Longsword that once was a Holy Avenger 'repaired'?
|
That's a nice gish you have here. Good job.
Now, it saddens me. The "broken" part of your gish stems from a waste of spells through Arcane Strike (Which would be better served as actual casting), not ToB. The material is good, yet you have to blame it for everything.
To everyone who never read the Book of Nine Swords: Before listening to any random internet guy's rant, read the book. You'll see he got a knee-jerk reaction.
BTW: 1) Why 36d4? Shouldn't it be 28d4, or did I miss something?
2) Emerald Immolation has a save, deals about 70 pts of damage
and can only be used once a week.
It does not sadden me. This is a character build that I personally like to play - fighter/mage (I don't like the githyanki term gish). You may think it is a waste of spell slots, whatever, I like it. Ever since first edition I have played fighter/magic-users, so, I am always looking for new ways to make them effective. So if I wanted to make a wizard who just casts spells at opponents and hopes for a bad save roll (or random effect off of prismatic spray), I would have designed the character that way. This character is about "DD" and does a very effective job at doing it. BTW, I did play a variation of this character from 1st to 7th level - 1/2 orc Warblade 2/Wizard 4/Jade Phoenix 1 through the ebberon modules. It was more potent than the others at the table, save possibly the Psion :p.
Falchion deals 2d4 damage. He has a +4 Keen Falchion (crits on a 15+)
Emerald Immolation has a save for getting banished.
I don't want to trample on your fun with the Bo9S. If, you have not devised in overpowered or broken builds from it - more power to you. You must be playing within the scope of where they intended power level was aimed.
|
|
Mending does not repair broken magic items. It implicitly states this. Unless you consider the MW Longsword that once was a Holy Avenger 'repaired'?
EDIT: Actually, you are completely wrong. In PRPG mending can repair broken magic items.
Sunder breaks items. If you choose to reduce the item to 0 hit points, it is destroyed.
|
Don't assume the Druid is stupid (A dire rat? Who would take that?) and do not put words in my mouth. The ToB = anime thing has been ongoing. I meant what I said exactly as I said it. The impatience is entirely intentional to reflect my loathing repeating myself when it doesn't even register the first time.
What I find interesting is that the same people that say how worthless the fighter is tout the druid's animal companion as this mystically powerful creature that can stand in for the fighter.
Animal companions (especially those juicy ones at 10th and above like the vaunted dire lion):
(1) as a rule don't swim well and shun water making water a real hazard
(2) can't fight on the wing (flying fighters and wizards are therefore out of reach)
(3) won't fit in tight spaces easily (even worse when enlarged), making dungeon crawling difficult
(4) are not acceptable in civilized locations
(5) have the intelligence of a dog (e.g. they are stupid animals) - they cannot communicate danger, develop plans, act independently without training (and only then in very limited circumstances)
(6) typically require a great deal of care and feeding (15 lbs of meat a day for a regular lion, who knows how much for a dire lion)
(7) are susceptible to all of the same things to which a fighter is susceptible, only they are more vulnerable because they lack the reasoning ability, skills, tools and training to deal with situations rationally and by applying knowledge of similar situations. A fighter might be able to leave a wall of solid fog by walking in one direction until he is out (understanding what has happened to him and knowing he can't be trapped forever if he moves in one direction) but a lion, with no concept of why it can't move and no foresight, may remain trapped in the fog for an entire battle, never venturing far enough in any direction to exit the place and struggling against an unseen force which it does not understand and very likely would instinctively flee from).
I could come up with more, but if I had to choose, I would take the fighter over the lion.
It does not sadden me. This is a character build that I personally like to play - fighter/mage (I don't like the githyanki term gish). You may think it is a waste of spell slots, whatever, I like it. Ever since first edition I have played fighter/magic-users, so, I am always looking for new ways to make them effective. So if I wanted to make a wizard who just casts spells at opponents and hopes for a bad save roll (or random effect off of prismatic spray), I would have designed the character that way. This character is about "DD" and does a very effective job at doing it. BTW, I did play a variation of this character from 1st to 7th level - 1/2 orc Warblade 2/Wizard 4/Jade Phoenix 1 through the ebberon modules. It was more potent than the others at the table, save possibly the Psion :p.
Please understand I am not belittling your play style. What "saddened me" was that you attributed the "brokenness" of your character to the ToB, while the damage you shown was obviously caused by material outside the book.
Falchion deals 2d4 damage. He has a +4 Keen Falchion (crits on a 15+)
Ah, thanks! Somehow, I was convinced he had a scimitar, not a falchion.
Emerald Immolation has a save for getting banished.
Which only affect creatures with the extraplanar subtype. Come again?
EDIT: Perhaps you meant the save was only for the banishment effect.
Read the book again: It has a reflex save for half damage.
I don't want to trample on your fun with the Bo9S. If, you have not devised in overpowered or broken builds from it - more power to you. You must be playing within the scope of where they intended power level was aimed.
Broken material exist everywhere. You must understand its your choice to use it or not. Do I say kobolds are broken because of Pun Pun? That would be foolish, right?
If you play to break the game, be assured you will, no matter what books you use.
|
|
What I find interesting is that the same people that say how worthless the fighter is tout the druid's animal companion as this mystically powerful creature that can stand in for the fighter.
Plus, I don't see a rule in the Wealth-by-Level guidelines that says an animal companion gets an equal share of treasure. I suppose a druid could spend his own wealth on an amulet of mighty fists +5 and +5 full plate barding.
Mending does not repair broken magic items. It implicitly states this. Unless you consider the MW Longsword that once was a Holy Avenger 'repaired'?EDIT: Actually, you are completely wrong. In PRPG mending can repair broken magic items.
Sunder breaks items. If you choose to reduce the item to 0 hit points, it is destroyed.
...Huh?
Mending: This spell repairs damaged objecting, restoring 1d4 HP to the object. If the object has the broken condition it is removed if the object is restored to full HP. All the pieces of an object must be present. Magic items can be repaired as long as your CL is equal to or better than the object. Magic items that are broken (at 0 HP or less) can be repaired, but they're still nonmagical.
You are completely wrong.
|
|
Plus, I don't see a rule in the Wealth-by-Level guidelines that says an animal companion gets an equal share of treasure. I suppose a druid could spend his own wealth on an amulet of mighty fists +5 and +5 full plate barding.
Oh I wish. If one of my NPC wizards found a druid with the "my pet is so bad we don't need a fighter" attitude, it would be Charm Animal / Teleport with a postcard to follow showing a picture of the wizard enjoying lion chops and sitting on a heap of lion treasure.
Not that I would do that to a player, unless of course, the player was trying to do something wonky initially. +5 gear on a stupid beast? Every ner'do'well in the region would be gunning for that lion. Ya, the druid and animal companion may be great and all, but with the prima facia assumption that "casters rule all with hundreds of I win tricks", I can't see how a pissant PC druid with an attitude is going to make it long in the big wide world.
See, here's the thing. Animal Companions... they don't take a share of the loot and XP. If they die they come back 24 hours later, no harm no foul. Can the same be said of the Fighter? Why no... he works out to be about the same effectiveness wise, except his presence has a cost.
Only a retard/horrible DM would punish a player for spending his own wealth to improve his animal companion's efficacy.
|
|
Mending does not repair broken magic items. It implicitly states this. Unless you consider the MW Longsword that once was a Holy Avenger 'repaired'?EDIT: Actually, you are completely wrong. In PRPG mending can repair broken magic items.
Sunder breaks items. If you choose to reduce the item to 0 hit points, it is destroyed.
...Huh?
Mending: This spell repairs damaged objecting, restoring 1d4 HP to the object. If the object has the broken condition it is removed if the object is restored to full HP. All the pieces of an object must be present. Magic items can be repaired as long as your CL is equal to or better than the object. Magic items that are broken (at 0 HP or less) can be repaired, but they're still nonmagical.
You are completely wrong.
I respectfully disagree, and reassert that you are incorrect. Read the Sunder rules and the Glossary.
How did I learn of these changes? I actually used Sunder in a game as the DM, and so did a player as a fighter PC.
Oh I wish. If one of my NPC wizards found a druid with the "my pet is so bad we don't need a fighter" attitude, it would be Charm Animal / Teleport with a postcard to follow showing a picture of the wizard enjoying lion chops and sitting on a heap of lion treasure.
If one of my NPC wizards found a fighter with the "I'm so bad I am still effective to the party" attitude, it would be charm person / teleport with a postcard to follow showing a picture of the wizard enjoying cannibalism and sitting on a heap of meat shield treasure.
:P
The Mending description does not say what you say it says. Exact links to your evidence.
|
|
See, here's the thing. Animal Companions... they don't take a share of the loot and XP. If they die they come back 24 hours later, no harm no foul. Can the same be said of the Fighter? Why no... he works out to be about the same effectiveness wise, except his presence has a cost.
True enough, though they come back sans tricks (beyond their starting tricks) and sans gear. A fighter can drive a wagon, overhear rumors, act independently to the benefit of his friends (like oh, performing healing on a downed comrade, reclaim a wand from the forest floor) and a myriad of other things a pet cannot do.
|
|
If one of my NPC wizards found a fighter with the "I'm so bad I am still effective to the party" attitude, it would be charm person / teleport with a postcard to follow showing a picture of the wizard enjoying cannibalism and sitting on a heap of meat shield treasure.
Luckily no fighter can have that attitude :p
|
|
Only a retard/horrible DM would punish a player for spending his own wealth to improve his animal companion's efficacy.
Who is punishing him? In your world, PR, the wizards and casters are grandmasters of all, the puny fighter stands no chance. Ok, I understand this, but why then would you deny NPC wizards and casters the very tricks you use as casters? If a plain old fighter is susceptible to the wall of stone/cloudkill trick, isn't the dire lion? Why whine when the NPC casters do what the PC's do?
I always put it to my groups this way: you, the players, are in charge of the game rules. If you want scry and die in the game, then it will be used against you. If you want uber buffed animal companions, then you will see those used against you. If you summon hordes of undead to do your bidding, then you will face hordes of undead directed against you or yours. If you want a blinking, flask throwing thief, expect that all thieves you meet will have learned this trick.
Why would the DM cripple his casters (or for that matter not even *include casters* in a meaningful encounter), if it is common knowledge that having a "competent" druid or cleric with your faction is a must-have for victory?
True enough, though they come back sans tricks (beyond their starting tricks) and sans gear. A fighter can drive a wagon, overhear rumors, act independently to the benefit of his friends (like oh, performing healing on a downed comrade, reclaim a wand from the forest floor) and a myriad of other things a pet cannot do.
Lassie could!
Luckily no fighter can have that attitude :p
:)
|
|
True enough, though they come back sans tricks (beyond their starting tricks) and sans gear. A fighter can drive a wagon, overhear rumors, act independently to the benefit of his friends (like oh, performing healing on a downed comrade, reclaim a wand from the forest floor) and a myriad of other things a pet cannot do.Lassie could!
Yeah, I can see that now:
Timmy: Fetch the wand, girl!
Lassie: Arf! (runs around in a circle in the general area Timmy is pointing)
Timmy: The wand, the...stick with the carving...
Lassie: Arf! (picks up a stick with termite marks on it)
Timmy: No, no, the one... the long one with... it's next to the other stick.. no not that one...
Lassie: Arf?
True enough, though they come back sans tricks (beyond their starting tricks) and sans gear. A fighter can drive a wagon, overhear rumors, act independently to the benefit of his friends (like oh, performing healing on a downed comrade, reclaim a wand from the forest floor) and a myriad of other things a pet cannot do.Lassie could!Yeah, I can see that now:
Timmy: Fetch the wand, girl!
Lassie: Arf! (runs around in a circle in the general area Timmy is pointing)
Timmy: The wand, the...stick with the carving...
Lassie: Arf! (picks up a stick with termite marks on it)
Timmy: No, no, the one... the long one with... it's next to the other stick.. no not that one...
Lassie: Arf?
I don't know what you are talking about.
The Lassie I know not only would find the wand, but would also be the one to activate it. :)
Who is punishing him? In your world, PR, the wizards and casters are grandmasters of all, the puny fighter stands no chance. Ok, I understand this, but why then would you deny NPC wizards and casters the very tricks you use as casters? If a plain old fighter is susceptible to the wall of stone/cloudkill trick, isn't the dire lion? Why whine when the NPC casters do what the PC's do?
I always put it to my groups this way: you, the players, are in charge of the game rules. If you want scry and die in the game, then it will be used against you. If you want uber buffed animal companions, then you will see those used against you. If you summon hordes of undead to do your bidding, then you will face hordes of undead directed against you or yours. If you want a blinking, flask throwing thief, expect that all thieves you meet will have learned this trick.
Why would the DM cripple his casters (or for that matter not even *include casters* in a meaningful encounter), if it is common knowledge that having a "competent" druid or cleric with your faction is a must-have for victory?
Here's a simple test, Lich-Loved:
Ask yourself, "If I were a player and the DM did this to me, would I think he were being a douche?"
If the answer is "yes," then you're being a douche. If the answer is "no," then you're not being a douche. If the answer is, "I don't know," then you're probably stepping into douchebag territory.
Also, you need to trim down your walls of text. It's ridiculous how few ideas you put into so many words.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
The Lassie I know not only would find the wand, but would also be the one to activate it.
SCENE: The workshop of a withered alchemist and his faithful hunchback swarf assistant.
ENTER: Teth the Despairing, the Black Lord of Fear, steaming mad and still crispy around the edges, smoke trailing from the ashes around the edges of his shroud.
TETH: (barely able to contain his rage) What did you use for the command word on that Wand of Fireballs?
ALCHEMIST: I- I don't ...
IGOR: Oh, I know, mathter! You wanted thomething eathy to remember, "onomotopoetic" you thaid. "Like thomething going up in a ball of fire."
ALCHEMIST: Ah...
TETH: I believe the word you're looking for is "Woof."
|
|
Ask yourself, "If I were a player and the DM did this to me, would I think he were being a douche?"
If the answer is "yes," then you're being a douche. If the answer is "no," then you're not being a douche. If the answer is, "I don't know," then you're probably stepping into douchebag territory.
Also, you need to trim down your walls of text. It's ridiculous how few ideas you put into so many words.
I also think that a player should ask themselves "If I were a DM and a player used this, would I think he were being a selfish jerk?"
If the answer is "yes" then you're being a selfish jerk. Etc.
Roleplaying goes both ways and everybody needs to respect each-other at the table. As a player I volunteered to stop using the light of lunia spells with my cleric because they completely destroy undead with greater power than searing light. I saw the look on his face when I annihilated his vampire NPC, and I thought "Man, if a player used this spell against my NPC I would definitely re-assess it's place in the game."
|
|
The Lassie I know not only would find the wand, but would also be the one to activate it.SCENE: The workshop of a withered alchemist and his faithful hunchback swarf assistant.
ENTER: Teth the Despairing, the Black Lord of Fear, steaming mad and still crispy around the edges, smoke trailing from the ashes around the edges of his shroud.
TETH: (barely able to contain his rage) What did you use for the command word on that Wand of Fireballs?
ALCHEMIST: I- I don't ...
IGOR: Oh, I know, mathter! You wanted thomething eathy to remember, "onomotopoetic" you thaid. "Like thomething going up in a ball of fire."
ALCHEMIST: Ah...
TETH: I believe the word you're looking for is "Woof."
110% awesome + 10% bonus for using the word "onomatopoetic".
Swap "player" and "DM" in the sentence above and consider the question yourself.
And your lack of etiquette and civility is already a strong indication of where you may be found on the spectrum you defined above.
Pray tell, how is the druid spending his own resources to improve his pet a douchebag thing to do? His arrogant attitude is the problem. The solution, of course, would be to introduce a fighter that can kick ass by virtue of being well-built.
Your back-handed insult is noted and disregarded.
See, here's the thing. Animal Companions... they don't take a share of the loot and XP. If they die they come back 24 hours later, no harm no foul. Can the same be said of the Fighter? Why no... he works out to be about the same effectiveness wise, except his presence has a cost.True enough, though they come back sans tricks (beyond their starting tricks) and sans gear. A fighter can drive a wagon, overhear rumors, act independently to the benefit of his friends (like oh, performing healing on a downed comrade, reclaim a wand from the forest floor) and a myriad of other things a pet cannot do.
Animals can drive a wagon (assuming you don't just teleport). Low Listen skill. What healing? You're naming things a 1 sp a day hireling can do by the way. Hint: 1 sp is less than an even share of the loot.
Khalarak: Incorrect. My stance is casters are best because they are. This is fact. Though to be more specific it's that the Big 5 (Artificer, Archivist, Cleric, Druid, Wizard) are in fact the Big 5. Go down a bit lower and you get classes like Beguilers, Dread Necromancers, etc that are still good enough to be usable. They just won't break the game in half (which is a good thing).
If you don't have spells, and aren't from the ToB you are not going to be able to keep up with enemies. You are past your expiration date. This too is fact. Why? Lack of adaptability. Power is irrelevant if you cannot apply it.
My ideal balance point is Tier 3, which translates into useful in a variety of situations without breaking the game. That means the restricted list casters (Beguiler, Duskblade, Dread Necro), martial adepts, etc. Higher and you have to hold back considerably, lower and well... you don't get to do much.
Along the same lines, Fighters have it among the worst. Especially since for whatever illogical reason they got nerfed in PF. So yes, they are pretty screwed. Liking them, or not is irrelevant. One of my favorite archetypes? Heavy armor sword and board knight. Doesn't change the fact that 1: Heavy armor is crap. 2: SAB is crap. 3: Non magical classes are doomed to mediocrity at best. Ergo, the archetype is not viable in D&D. I like liches too, but the execution fails miserably. To let liking something get in the way of admitting its flaws is known as rabid fanboyism.
Lastly, I am only aggressive to those who attack me, or cannot understand basic math after many (dozens) of attempts. I've only met one person here in the latter category. He followed me from another board just to be a pest. Attacking an idea is not an attack on the person presenting it.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Unwillingness to admit defeat is probably a large part of it, yes. Doesn't change the fact that, seeing as this is the internet, belligerence tends to not get a whole lot done (and Crusader does have a pretty abrasive way of saying his piece). Face-to-face, maybe; knock your opponent on the head and go about your business. :P I don't really think I have anything beyond anecdotal information on how the game actually runs, so I try to keep quiet during most rules discussions, but I get aggravated when people start snarling.
Edit: I've rarely noticed a serious disparity in my games, though I realize it probably exists; Crusader of Logic and his compatriots are far better informed in how the numbers pan out than I. If the problem is as serious as all that, I think I'd rather see everyone equalized somewhere between the two current extremes.
Has anyone tried just using a slower XP progression for casters? Seems like it might work as a bandage at least. I don't think anyone's going to be perfectly happy as long as we expect this to somewhat resemble third edition rules.
That was the 1st/2nd Ed solution. Sort of. Druids and clerics had fast XP tables early but slowed down a lot later. Wizards were slow at the beginning, a bit faster in the middle, and really slow at high levels.
Still, for all that complexity the level difference was rarely more than a level or two (excepting thieves, who would be an additional level or so ahead), and other classes had slow xp (paladin in particular).
It's a sorta kinda solution, but ends up being a lot of effort for not a lot of net effect.
*shrug* I have nothing but a big pile of anecdotes to counter this with, so I won't bother. I'm just saying, you'd probably get more people to listen to you if you chilled out a little and switched off the aura of contempt once in a while. Warranted or not, if you're trying to get people to listen to you, telling them they're idiots is a poor way to do it.
When have I said this? Was it saying blasting is stupid? Because all it takes is one look at blasting spells, the other spells, and enemy stats to figure that out. Especially when it screams in your face. Burning Hands, I'm looking at you.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Pray tell, how is the druid spending his own resources to improve his pet a douchebag thing to do? His arrogant attitude is the problem. The solution, of course, would be to introduce a fighter that can kick ass by virtue of being well-built.
There is nothing preventing a PC from spending dough on equipping an animal companion or a cohort or a hireling or anything else, nor is it in any way douchey to do that. When I've had animal comps I often buy some stuff for them. I also give stuff that falls to my PC in treasure splits to my cohort.
It is, however, splitting the PC's wealth and diminishing what the PC can buy for him/herself, to where neither PC nor [assorted sidekick] will have full-on PC-level gear. Then again, given the scaling of costs, you could buy two sets of pretty good for the same cost as one set of awesome.
Alright. Put yourself in the character's shoes a moment, which is the definition of roleplay (imagine your fictional character as if they were a real person and play them accordingly).
You're faced with some monsters. Most likely they are bigger and stronger than you. They also think you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Do you:
A: Try to hurt them a bit, (blast) knowing that no matter how much they get burned they don't ever seem to be any worse at fighting. Until they die of course. But that takes a lot more than one shot.
B: Weaken them, (debuff) thereby limiting their combat effectiveness so that they can't hurt you and your buddies as badly and giving you some more breathing room.
C: Try to kill them instantly, (SoD) essentially skipping to the point of A.
Clearly, B and C are the intelligent choices here. A is... well pretty stupid. If you had enough power to just blow them away quickly it would not be, but in the world physics your character lives in he would have to be stupid to choose A unless he had a nuclear cannon for a boomstick (heavily optimized blasting).
When I say blasting is stupid, it is a stupid choice for the character to make especially given their high Intelligence and/or Wisdom considering the way their world works. Declaring that blasting is 'fun' is a metagame concept because you enjoy rolling lots of D6s. Funny thing is I can actually argue at this point the blaster wizard is being a dirty munchkin for putting metagame before observable in character traits. I will not, because I refuse to misuse the English in that way.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Alright. Put yourself in the character's shoes a moment, which is the definition of roleplay (imagine your fictional character as if they were a real person and play them accordingly).
You're faced with some monsters. Most likely they are bigger and stronger than you. They also think you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Do you:
A: Try to hurt them a bit, (blast) knowing that no matter how much they get burned they don't ever seem to be any worse at fighting. Until they die of course. But that takes a lot more than one shot.
B: Weaken them, (debuff) thereby limiting their combat effectiveness so that they can't hurt you and your buddies as badly and giving you some more breathing room.
C: Try to kill them instantly, (SoD) essentially skipping to the point of A.
Clearly, B and C are the intelligent choices here. A is... well pretty stupid. If you had enough power to just blow them away quickly it would not be, but in the world physics your character lives in he would have to be stupid to choose A unless he had a nuclear cannon for a boomstick (heavily optimized blasting).
When I say blasting is stupid, it is a stupid choice for the character to make especially given their high Intelligence and/or Wisdom considering the way their world works. Declaring that blasting is 'fun' is a metagame concept because you enjoy rolling lots of D6s. Funny thing is I can actually argue at this point the blaster wizard is being a dirty munchkin for putting metagame before observable in character traits. I will not, because I refuse to misuse the English in that way.
You know, what, rolling all those dice IS a lot of fun. My beguiler PC, by virtue of a PrC with the Good domain, gets to cast blade barrier, and against those annoying monsters we keep meeting that are immune to mind-affecting (and most SoS/D, for that matter) (nightwings, varrangoin liches, abyssal ant swarms, super-bodaks, Stygian drakes, retrievers, and that's just in the last 2 sessions), it is tons of fun to bust out the fistful-o-dice, especially when you can stack several BBs back to back.
The problem with C, though, is that most (not all) SoS/D effects affect fewer targets than their same-level blasting equivalents, and many SoS/D effects are entirely blocked or ignored by commonplace defenses or entire creature types. The choice of C is high-risk/high-reward, unless you have foreknowledge of precisely which defenses are in play. If you set it up right, you're on easy street. If you guess wrong, you just wasted your turn.
A and B are different flavors of the same brand of ice cream. They are lower-risk/lower-reward. A gets you fairly certain damage, which does not impair their fighting capability directly.
B impairs their fighting capability (assuming no immunity or resistance to your debuff), and you usually get more area/targets with de-buffs than with SoS/D.
Really B could also include in-combat buffs you cast to aid your fellows (in case you were not able to do a full suite of prep spells).
Either way, B is trying to change the relative effectiveness of your side vs. their side so that in the future you will hurt them more and they will hurt you less.
A and B are attrition strategies. C is a take your shots and hope for the best strategy. With proper preparation and resources, and as long as nothing unexpected happens, C will usually serve you best. But, when C fails, it can fail spectacularly - it only takes one enemy with spell turning to bounce your SoS/D (or no-save power word) back onto you to make you say ouch.
EDIT: As a side note, usually A and B are "do lesser effect to more targets" while C is "do greater effect to one target" (there are exceptions, of course). If you are facing a group of relatively equal threat range, A and B are more attractive. If you are fighting a single enemy, or a group with one real heavy hitter and a bunch of mooks, then C is your better option (unless for some reason you are forced to clear out the mooks to successfully engage the real threat).
|
|
Alright. Put yourself in the character's shoes a moment, which is the definition of roleplay (imagine your fictional character as if they were a real person and play them accordingly).
You're faced with some monsters. Most likely they are bigger and stronger than you. They also think you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
First, lots of people make "sub-optimal" choices because, for them, the choice *isn't* sub-optimal. It's a part of life and having a personality. So if a character concept says that picking spell "A" over spell "B" is more appropriate, despite the fact that spell "A" might not be quite as good as spell "B", who's to say which is the "optimal" choice? Meta-gaming for effect? Or role-playing for concept?
Second, you keep talking about facts, but I haven't seen anything to support these facts as true. No numbers, no proofs, etc. Without this information, these "facts" are nothing more than your opinion strongly stated. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm not saying you're right. I'm just saying that without evidence to support your supposition, it holds no more wait than anyone else's opinion.
Finally, you keep refering to linear versus quadratic growth. "Blaster and fighter damage grows linearly, while monster HD grow quadratically" (paraphrased). I don't know of any monster who's HD grow by the square. Admittedly, most of them gain multiple HD per level or CR, but that's still a linear growth. Please stop using the linear vs. quadratic as an excuse of why blasters and fighters don't measure up. To quote you one more time: Math "Learn it".
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
You know, what, rolling all those dice IS a lot of fun...
Alright. Put yourself in the character's shoes a moment, which is the definition of roleplay (imagine your fictional character as if they were a real person and play them accordingly)....
When I say blasting is stupid, it is a stupid choice for the character to make especially given their high Intelligence and/or Wisdom considering the way their world works. Declaring that blasting is 'fun' is a metagame concept because you enjoy rolling lots of D6s. Funny thing is I can actually argue at this point the blaster wizard is being a dirty munchkin for putting metagame before observable in character traits. I will not, because I refuse to misuse the English in that way.I think you are missing the point. Of course it's fun to roll to fist fulls of dice
But IF you are claiming to be a "true roleplayer" who immerses themselves into their roles, than you should be studying the most effective spells rather than ones which out of character are more fun. This is the right thing to do RP wise because you are a wise and/or intelligent entity who would be able to recognize the most power spells to learn and would learn them. To otherwise is to not RP to the characters natural potential.
(this of course explains why sorcerors are high CHA characters, if they were smart or wise they would be wizards or cleric; also they need to BS people to convince them of a sorceror's worth)
Those paragraphs are obviously BS but no more BS than accusing optimizers of not roleplaying.
This is ultimately what is the matter with the current imbalance, some concepts are cool but less than ideal. Some people say to hell with it an play the concept anyways. Good for them. Some say "wait why do they present me with this option only to make it not really that good?" and feel trapped that the mechanics of the game make our favorite concepts mechanically bad choices.
We therefore request that this be...
Oh, I don't disagree with you at all.
The whole "powergamers =/= roleplayers" cant is silly and always has been. I've known some powergamers who were great roleplayers and some who were terrible. The one has nothing to do with the other.
I also agree with the idea that rules should back up roleplaying choices. This is a reason I preferred 3rd Ed skills to 2nd Ed proficiencies and 1st Ed secondary skills. Yes, I can SAY that my character is a sailor, but if there is nothing in the rules that advantages my PC in any way on a ship vs. the character who says he grew up on a farm (1st Ed), then what's the point of bothering to say it? And, if my skill at sailing is dependent 95% on my stat and not on my skill or experience (2nd Ed), then again why bother?
Every concept should be cool as a concept and as a rules system. Doing things that are fun shouldn't be inherently mechanically bad.
Reminds me of my last playing session when my cohort, a burly fighter type, tried to do something cinematic and fun and bull rush a scrawny low-strength varrangoin lich through TWO blade barriers (the cohort has evasion and a high Ref save and likely would have avoided damage). Which required a touch attack, and a miss chance (MI or displacement, don't remember which) followed by an opposed STR check. I rolled like crap, the monster rolled high, and the withered skag wuss-slapped my strapping he-man back into his square. Now I could've just made a full attack, and that would've been the smart move, but I thought it would be fun to try something more exotic. Not asking for auto-success, but the game-mechanical hoops involved made bull-rushing a suboptimal choice. I tried it anyway, and zip. No good deed goes unpunished. :)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Finally, you keep refering to linear versus quadratic growth. "Blaster and fighter damage grows linearly, while monster HD grow quadratically" (paraphrased). I don't know of any monster who's HD grow by the square. Admittedly, most of them gain multiple HD per level or CR, but that's still a linear growth. Please stop using the linear vs. quadratic as an excuse of why blasters and fighters don't measure up. To quote you one more time: Math "Learn it".
I won't bother arguing the nomenclature of math, but I think the function being referred to is that it is not just that HD go up, it is that CON *and* HD go up.
An orc has 1 HD and 12 CON (1d8+1) - 5 hp
An ogre has 4 HD and 15 CON (4d8+8, +3 for toughness) - 29 hp (his HD have increased 4x from the level 1 monster, but hp have increased 6x)
A hill giant has 12 HD and 19 CON (12d8+48) - 102 hp (his HD have increased 12x, hp 20x)
A wyrmling blue dragon has 6 HD and 13 CON (6d12+6) - 45 hp
A wyrm blue dragon has 36 HD and 27 CON (36d12+288) - 522 hp (his HD have increased 6 x, hp 11x)
Whatever examples you want to use, it's not a uniform function but it is true that hit points escalate at a much faster rate than HD/level.
On the other hand, the damage you dish out usually tends to escalate at a slower rate. You can add lots of bonuses to damage (crit amplifiers, bane/holy/vicious/energized), and as long as you're fighting what's right in your wheelhouse you're fine. Meet something from another side of the street, and you get a shrinky winky.