RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
You can add 1 for Hero's Feast to the Fighter's will save at 11+ level, assuming a typical (wizard, cleric, rogue, fighter) high level party. If I've not already thrown it, at level 18+ my wizard is going to toss Mage's disjunction at the BBEG as soon as that Dominate/Utter Thrall hits Fred Fighter. Heck, I drop a silence on Fred, and a) he can't hear dominate orders, and b) as long as he's standing next to BBEG, he can't cast easily. That is assuming I didn't beforehand burn a 3rd level spell to put extended protection from evil on him (36 min duration) or Mind Blank (24 hour duration) or Fred didn't buy/have me craft for him a ring of spell turning ("Who's your daddy now?)
I think the flaw in the arguement of 'everything is too powerful' is that you're assuming that the fighter exists in a vacuum. Are Fighters too powerful when they catch the BBEG alone in his jammies in a dead magic zone?
When the golem attacks, the Wizard is not helpless, he's relying on the fighter to do, and take, the physical damage. When he's hit by the level draining oogity boogity, it's the cleric who saves his bacon. When he needs to have the complex death machine of null magic disarmed it's the rogue he turns to. The system relies on teamwork. That's a strength, not a weakness of 3e. You don't just use your resources for yourself, you use them for everyone.
I'm glad you posted that. We can't ask for every class to be designed ina vacuum. While the fighter is getting mentally bombarded, the rest of the party usually isn't . . . that's why people adventure in parties. Classes aren't (and shouldn't be) designed for solo adventuring, at least not efficiently. A fighter that is a "solo" act should probably be blowing some of his feats on those that boost his will save, and his gold on magic items that protect him from such things instead of on his neat magic weapons and armor.
I suspect that part of why its hard for low level characters to resist magic is because the designers actually want magic to work once in a while. If it becomes more likely than not that any given character will resist an effect, you have tons of theoretically abilities that never really do anything.
In fact, I kind of suspect that's why there aren't defensive magics for every single kind of condition or spell that might come down the pike. Too many of those, and your wizard never casts anything "of note" in the campaign world.
Fighter: Why don't I ever see you cast a spell?
Wizard: I use all of my abilities to counter hostile dweomers?
Fighter: Magic is a sham . . . I've never even seen a spell go off.
The above might work in some settings, but D&D is suppose to be high magic, and once in a while, a fireball is suppose to go off, or someone is suppose to be paralyzed by magic or at the very least pick up a few negatives from being afraid.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Thats' the funny 'trap' of the psychic warrior. He can do it all, but not for long.
Self Buff? Yup, animal affinitiy, biofeedback, form of doom, check.
Direct damage? Breath of the dragon, Hostile empathic transfer, check
Self Heal? Body adjustment, Claws/blade of the vampire, Hostile Empathic Transfer, check.
Scout? Psicrystal for one, please.
Defence? Evade burst, force screen, force armour, check.
Travel? Expanded knowlege to go please.
Do it all at once? ummmm how many power points do I have again?
The Psychic Warrior (and long term the Psion/Slayer combo) both better the fighter in that they can pinch hit for other roles too. but believe me, power points are more precious than spell slots any day.
|
Well again if the fighter doesn't have it the wizard won't either... meaning that DC drops by 3 to 31. Beyond that the DM that you where dealing with House Ruled out the magic item shop, not a game designer. If your fighter isn't getting decent equipment it's not the fault of the game designer who put it in and at low enough cost that it could be bought and used for more than half the character levels.
Read my post again -- that's *FIVE* DMs, and two of them self-admitted "powergamers" running games for similarly-minded people. And, I don't think they've "houseruled out" magic shops, since I don't remember magic item shops being an *official rule* in any D&D book
(note that "houseruling" something means that you're inventing a new rule, or "tweaking" an existing, "broken" one). If you can point me to which D&D core rulebook has rules about them or officially refers to them as an option for PCs, please do so. As I said, the existence of such shops may easily shatter game balance -- especially if the PCs may buy whatever they want to. Does your GM let you freely do this?Also, I don't ever remember reading about official "magic item equipment lists" for each level, at least in the core rulebooks. If such assumptions like "Fighter: Cloak of Resistance +1 per every 3 levels, Ring of Protection +1 per every 3 levels, Magical Weapon +1 per every 3 levels, etc." exist, I'd sure like to know how I've missed them.
As to "balancing" via equipment, I would point out I took the most extreme of both cases and compared them. The top of the top came out the same as the bottom of the bottom. If the DM is sending you in against maxed out wizards with all the goodies they need to stomp you, but not letting you prepare your character likewise...
Most wizards I see are not set up to make use of the MAXIMUM possible DC of 34. Anything higher than a DC 34 requires 1 of three things:
1. DM intervention
2. Not following the rules
3. HomebrewThat fighter could easily have a Wisdom of 14 to start with, which would adjust the save throws in his favor so more.
Finally I draw exception to you taking the "Poor stupid fighter with nothing" and throwing him at the top of the top for a wizard and then complaining when he gets his butt stomped. Of course he got his butt stomped you didn't do anything for him!
Tell me, how many Fighters actually *have* Wisdom 14+? Even using the Epic Point-Buy (which seems to be more or less the "semi-official" and most balanced way to go) in PF, a fighter simply *cannot* invest 20% of his points in Wisdom. Reasonably high STR, DEX and CON scores are what you can afford now, with any "surplus" points put into INT. Unless, of course, you want to ignore any INT and DEX based Feats (e.g. Dodge, Mobility, Combat Expertise and so on).
My 18th level fighter I've used as an example actually *has* Wisdom 14 (after a stat bump), because I got really lucky when I rolled his stats (he began as an AD&D character). He also has Iron Will, and a +1 Resistance bonus on all Saves. That gives him a grand total of +10 on Will Saves.
Let's use a 9th level wizard as an example here, and assume that he's got Greater Spell Focus and INT 22 (no stat boosts). Going against a wizard half my level would require me to roll a 10 against his 1st level spells, and *15* against his 5th level spells. Against his *WEAKEST* spells, I've only got about 50% chance to succeed... and he's *HALF* my level. Isn't there something wrong about this? *AND*, he's burned a Feat plus actually *HAS* a much higher Wisdom score than most fighters. Realistically, most fighters in PF probably have +6 or +7 on Will Saves at that level.
In AD&D, my high-level fighter could shrug off spells and *FUNCTION* at least half the time -- now I can barely take on 1st level apprentices without being, say, 'Charmed' or overcome with fear, and taken out of action on the first round. And if we're talking about spellcasters with 10 levels or more, it's frustrating. Is this the same game in which I slew dragons, single-handedly? Those same drgaons that now strike utter terror into my fighter's heart, if I just get a glimpse of them -- unless, of fourse, I roll a natural 20 against 'Dragonfear'? And if the DCs stay at the same range in PF, your +4 from 'Bravery' doesn't help a bit.
BTW, certain monster spellcasters can easily have more than 34 in their primary "mental" ability score, giving them +12 on all DCs and if they've also got spellcaster levels and Feats, the DCs may be higher than what you listed there without the GM "cheating" or "houseruling" anything. Epic level DCs? Forget about it -- no chance. Also, in my experience it's a rare mid- or high-level adventure that doesn't feature "inhuman" monsters with supernatural/spell-like abilities which typically have DCs well beyond 20.
If the party is anything nearing intelligent and they know they are going against a very high level wizard they will walk in with buffs on. If not it's like going to a gun fight with your clip in your back pocket.
Or a dragon, or a demon BBEG... or just about one-third of the monsters in MMs with either (Su) or (Sp) abilities. Do you assume the PCs have time (or slots) to "buff" themselves in every encounter? Or that the melee types typically even survive the first rounds the spellcasters -- instead of concentrating on atrgeting the monsters and villains -- spend "buffing" them to get them into *minimum* expected "fighting shape"?
Note that in many campaigns I've played in, people have multiclassed for one primary reason: to rack up their saving throws. And I'm sure that's happened in other groups, too.
I would like to put forth, the main issue with 3.5 was this "idea" of CRs in general is broken.
Not only that it was the dumbest thing ever invented by WotC and it caused the artificialness to the gaming worlds we play in these days.
Do you really think the idea of a number measuring the deadliness of a monster is something invented by WotC for 3.5? Even AD&D had the idea of the "dungeon level" of a monster (e.g. kobolds belong on dungeon level 1, beholders belong on dungeon level 10).
Read my post again -- that's *FIVE* DMs, and two of them self-admitted "powergamers" running games for similarly-minded people. And, I don't think they've "houseruled out" magic shops, since I don't remember magic item shops being an *official rule* in any D&D book
(note that "houseruling" something means that you're inventing a new rule, or "tweaking" an existing, "broken" one). If you can point me to which D&D core rulebook has rules about them or officially refers to them as an option for PCs, please do so. As I said, the existence of such shops may easily shatter game balance -- especially if the PCs may buy whatever they want to. Does your GM let you freely do this?
Well there are the following.
Character Wealth
...
The baseline campaign for the D&D game uses this "wealth by level" guideline as a basis for balance in adventures. ...
Community Wealth and Population
Every community has a gold piece limit based on its size and population. ... Anything having a price under that limit is most likely available, whether it be mundane or magical. While exceptions are certainly possible (...), these exceptions are temporary, all communities will conform to the norm over time.
Let's use a 9th level wizard as an example here, and assume that he's got Greater Spell Focus and INT 22 (no stat boosts). Going against a wizard half my level would require me to roll a 10 against his 1st level spells, and *15* against his 5th level spells. Against his *WEAKEST* spells, I've only got about 50% chance to succeed... and he's *HALF* my level. Isn't there something wrong about this? *AND*, he's burned a Feat plus actually *HAS* a much higher Wisdom score than most fighters. Realistically, most fighters in PF probably have +6 or +7 on Will Saves at that level.
You have a +10 to will saves but it takes you a 10 to beat a DC 19 first level spell? (10+1+6+2=19). He has burned two feats compared to your 1. Against his fifth level spell you only need a 14. Considering it is your bad save that's not a bad deal. IF the wizard is stupid enough to target you with a fear effect you get an additional +5 against fear due to your bravery class ability. Dropping the roll you need to a 5 and a 9 respectively.
Further more a fighter can have a Wisdom of 14 and still function. Lets go with a 20 point buy. 14 str 14 dex 14 con 12 Int 14 wisdom 8 charisma. Those are not bad stats by a long shot, and if the player is willing he could drop 2 points out of Int and 2 more out of Cha and have two physical stats at 15 to start with becoming 16's at 4th and 8th level respectively.
As to the availability of magic items...
"
Table 12–4 lists the amount of treasure each PC is
expected to have at a specific level. This table assumes
an average fantasy game. Low fantasy games might have
only half this value, while high fantasy games might have
double the value. It is assumed that some of this treasure
is consumed in the course of an adventure (such as potions
and scrolls), and that some of the less useful items are sold
for half value so more useful gear can be purchased. This
table can also be used to purchase gear for characters above
1st level. Higher level characters should spend no more than
half their total wealth on any single item. For a balanced
approach, PCs that are built after 1st level should spend no
more than 25% of their wealth on weapons, 25% on armor
and protective devices, 25% on other magic items, 15% on
disposable items (like potions, scrolls, and wands), and 10%
on ordinary gear and coins. Different character types might
spend their wealth differently than these percentages allow
(such as arcane casters who generally spend very little on
weapons and a great deal more on other magic items and
disposable items)."
Designer Notes: High and Low Fantasy
[b] Magic items are an important component of a PC’s arsenal.
If you want to run a low fantasy campaign where magic is
rare, treat all of your PCs as if they were one level lower when
designing challenges for them. [b] If you want to run a high
fantasy campaign where magic is common, treat all of your
PCs as if they were one level higher when creating encounters.
You might need to make other adjustments along the way,
especially with a low magic campaign (creatures with damage
reduction become especially difficult to hurt).
As it is pointed out in the Magic Item Compedium that if a character points to an item in the DMG and asks "Can I buy that?" and he has the wealth to do so, he should be able to buy the item (I realise that some will not like to accept "out of core" as a means to discuss this, but you did ask for any source so I provided both the indirect ones in the Beta and a direct one in 3.5)
Average D&D assumes the player can sell and buy magic items appropriate to his level. Hence the designer notes for what to do if magic items are rare in your campaign, instead of the default assumption that they will be rare and hard to get.
Do you really think the idea of a number measuring the deadliness of a monster is something invented by WotC for 3.5? Even AD&D had the idea of the "dungeon level" of a monster (e.g. kobolds belong on dungeon level 1, beholders belong on dungeon level 10).I would like to put forth, the main issue with 3.5 was this "idea" of CRs in general is broken.
Not only that it was the dumbest thing ever invented by WotC and it caused the artificialness to the gaming worlds we play in these days.
no I think you missed my point. My point is players judge how good their character is by measuring what CR monster they SHOULD be fighting.
Example: My 20th level character is a 7th level wizard/3rd level cleric/ 10th level Mystic theurge and I suck because I cant battle CR 20 monsters because I dont get access to 9 th level spells that I need to fight Cr 20 monsters.Its an invisibile mechanic that should be more "guidelines than an actual code" and its been twisted into a guage of what your character CAN do or SHOULD do, which is balderdash.
Now as far as saving throws. My firt edition fighter tht I played for ever (you have to remember first edition fighter was kind of the favorite character class, rangers were sorta lame (could wear plate mail and only got d8) clerics were well a shadow of what they are today, and with 3d6 could you really honestly qualify for paladin?
Anyway, his saves were 7,8,6,7 and 3!
pretty much if he rolled an 8 or higher he saved! if he rolled lower like a 6 or 7 I actually had to pay attention to which save we were looking at.
So he was pretty much guaranteed to save most of the time, not fail most of the time.
As for 3.5-3.p I started a fighter a few weeks ago, who is now 5th level (we play twice a week right now) I used 20 point buy, and he started the game with a 14 wisdom.
I did this deliberately to play test this very thing we are talking about. (well and I wanted to try out the new fighter)
His current saves at 5th level are: +8 fort, +4 reflex and +5 Will.
So will is NOT his worst save.
The fighter started the game with a 14 strength from point buy, added his plus 2 human, and then plus 1 for leveling so he has a respectible 17 at 5th level.
I come from the old days when you really couldnt get more than an 18 stat as a PC without magic (or 19 in dex as an elf or con as dwarf)
So it's likely this fighter will hover at 17 for a while which is good enough to do whatever he needs, he does need a 22 str. He NEEDS more wisdom, Future level ups will see his 14 wisdom grow.
Here's the charater stats:
S 17 (14 orginal, plus for human, plus on for leveling)
Dex 12
Con 14
Int 12
Wis 15
Cha 11
He has 54 hit points (favored lass buns and an ok con help) and his Ac is currently 24 (which is really good, the sorc hits him with shield and the cleric hits him with shield of faith and he basically kills things and doesnt get hit)
I sort of wish I made him with the plus 2 in wisdom, and then leveled the plus 1 to strength, so he would have been 15 str and 16 wisdom. But i didnt want everyone crying that I was trying to min/max him just to make him have good saves.
I think this is a reasonable build for a fighter, and I only have a 12 in int so I get SOME skill points now and then.
Alot of people will just keep stacking as many point as they can into str and con. But I think thats a trap for the fighter. because he doesnt NEED any more than what he has right now.
Clearly he has plenty of AC and Hitpoints, and he does the most damage out of anyone (right now).
Granted the sorc isnt an optimized wizard and is being played by someone he thinks being able to cast spells at all is cool. So the fighter will likely out shine the sorc for the rest of the game (although I realize that normally that wont be common)
Both the cleric and the sorc ENJOY buffing the fighter and watching him stomp everything while they count gold peices. I doubt we will see that change after level 11.
In all actuality, the cleric has been killed three times and cost the party most of its coinage (and some servitude via a lesser geas) to get him risen from the dead the one time in did actually, totaly die.
So right now, the cleric is the weak one, and he sees buffing the fighter as a good investment on him not getting killed anymore.
The feats the fighter has are Improved shield bash, Power attack, Cleave.
Weapon focus longsword
Weapon specialization longsword.
He chose weapon training heavy blades
He is going to be classic sword and board, im gong for shile dmaster eventually, which is why I dont have two weapon fighting ( to maximize the improved shield bash)
Right now I just use the shield bash in case I need to hit something that needs to be blunted (like skeletons) instead of talking half damage from a sword.
It keeps me from having to carry around a mace or club for that purpose.
I actually like the saving throw system we have now, and I have high hopes for this less optimized fighter build (putting those points into wisdom)
I just think the fighter should get a few more points into hsi save progression as he levels.
We will see how this guy goes, but my intention is to build a fighter that is a) viable at higher levels and b) not a puppet for higher level spell caster.
As such my choices will be made with this in mind.
But the Idea that the fighter cant "afford" to get a 14 wisdom is ridiculous, he has more than he needs in other stats and he has a 14 wisdom right now and I only used a 20 point build.
Im sorry I wasnt looking he has a FIFTEEN wisdom ( I forgot I decided to put the 15 in wis instead of con after deciding plus 2 hp/ HD and the fact that his fort save was already his best, that a 14 con was more than sufficient)
You've listed a number of magic items there, but here's the thing: in the numerous campaigns I've DMed and played in (under five different DMs with different gaming styles) I've never, *EVER* seen a character who's worn a Cloak of Resistance +3 or better (in one campaign we had a Luckstone and Cloak of Resistance +2, for a short time). Or had an Ioun Stone. Ditto for any items giving Inherent Bonuses (Librams or Tomes). My 18th level 3E fighter held a Belt of Giant Strength for a, but he lost it to a 'magic-eating' trap.
Five different DMs, some of who gave plenty of +3 Long Sword of This and +3 Full Plate of That in high level campaigns, but no items granting Inherent, Resistance, Luck or Competence Bonus (except for a single Luckstone and Cloak of Resistance +2, both of which the PCs have lost since). *None* of those DMs let any character go shopping for items, unless a singular magic item was *ABSOLUTELY* necessary or served as a 'plot device' in the campaign. I guess most DMs/GMs fear that players having 'free' access (or, actually, ANY access) to such items would break the game balance . Or maybe it feels too 'easy', i.e. 'cheating'? I know that I wouldn't let my players do it either, but on the other hand, I don't they *should* be necessary for the game to function. Also, let's bear in mind that most 'rural' campaigns probably don't have magic item shops/merchants anyway, unless the DM is very lenient with his players.
While I agree that's the way quality campaigns are run, d20 is designed around point-buy characters and wealth-by-level. This is under the misguided notion that a player should be able take his character to another game, or a conference tournament, or whatever, and automatically "fit in" without having to be vetted with a fine-toothed comb.
We have to account for wealth-by-level as part of the "core mechanics" of the magic system, meaning that characters will have numerous buffs that they would be unlikely to find in the loot collected by the monsters they've battled.
The Psychic Warrior (and long term the Psion/Slayer combo) both better the fighter in that they can pinch hit for other roles too. but believe me, power points are more precious than spell slots any day.
A spell point system is the best way to balance 3.x, but a truly balanced system will be complex. The Vancian magic system is inherently simple.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
listed a number of magic items there, but here’s the thing: in the numerous campaigns I’ve DMed and played in (under five different DMs with different gaming styles) I’ve never, *EVER* seen a character who’s worn a Cloak of Resistance +3 or better (in one campaign we had a Luckstone and Cloak of Resistance +2, for a short time). Or had an Ioun Stone. Ditto for any items giving Inherent Bonuses (Librams or Tomes). My 18th level 3E fighter held a Belt of Giant Strength for a, but he lost it to a “magic-eating” trap.
Seems like you're playing with some pretty stingy DM's then.
Five different DMs, some of who gave plenty of +3 Long Sword of This and +3 Full Plate of That in high level campaigns, but no items granting Inherent, Resistance, Luck or Competence Bonus (except for a single Luckstone and Cloak of Resistance +2, both of which the PCs have lost since). *None* of those DMs let any character go shopping for items, unless a singular magic item was *ABSOLUTELY* necessary or served as a “plot device” in the campaign. I guess most DMs/GMs fear that players having “free” access (or, actually, ANY access) to such items would break the game balance . Or maybe it feels too “easy”, i.e. “cheating”? I know that I wouldn’t let my players do it either, but on the other hand, I don’t they *should* be necessary for the game to function. Also, let’s bear in mind that most “rural” campaigns probably don’t have magic item shops/merchants anyway, unless the DM is very lenient with his players.
Leniency has nothing to do with the fact that the system assumes you will have access to a certain level of magic at each level. If your campaign doesn't have large cities, it's the DM's job to provide suitable items in the treasure found by the PC's.
Crafting items is, indeed, a possibility. Only, as Sueki already noted above, you need a *spellcaster* to create such items -- assuming your group has one with the necessary spells and feats. Also, it takes time… in fact, to create all that items for every PC would take… uh, some years in game time? Actually, even a single “set” would take a year or two, by my estimation (and no, I didn’t check that – it may actually take more). Even if you paid an NPC spellcaster to do that, it’s a long time. Now, *very* few high-level campaigns allow you to take so much time off, because in my experience virtually every mid-to-high level campaign has a “deadline”, and deviating from it will have catastrophic consequences (i.e. the villain gets to destroy the world). How many items could you create, for example, in the course of ‘Curse of the Crimson Throne’ or ‘Second Darkness’? Both seem to be very plot-driven campaigns with very little “spare time” for the PCs.
Well there are some new feats in PFRPG that are allowing non spellcasters to craft using their Skills ranks instead of Caster Level, so you no longer require Spellcasters to make your items. Also as a DM prepping Curse of the Crimson Throne, there are very few time constraints on the flow of the campaign. In fact CotCT works extremely well with time in between modules or within them. I've been lining up several side-treks and plan on using the slower XP advancement rates to compensate.
In the end, probably the highest total I’ve seen a PC have as bonuses on saves from magical items has been +3 (for a sorcerer, not a fighter, mind you). And that’s during my whole “career” of 20+ years as a DM and a player. So let’s give that +3 to a 20th level fighter who has, say, CON 20 (+5) and Base Fort Save +12 and Great Fortitude (+2) = +22 Fort Total (a more realistic total than in your example). Better, but still he’d need to roll, what, 12-14 to succeed against the DCs in your example – still too much, if this is his *best* save. You really think fighters carry +6 WIS headband and Cloak of Resistance +5 in every campaign? I’d say it’s a rare fighter who has Will or Ref save +10 or better (i.e. he would need, a natural 20 to succeed).
In my current STAP most if not all of my PC's have Saves in the low to mid 20's before buff spells at 20-21st level. Granted we've been using a wide selection of splatbooks and thus our power level is higher, but it's my experience that saves can quickly out pace save DC's in 3.5, whereas is was the other way around in 3.0.
And technically in this discussion we ALL have only about 9 years of experience with the d20 system. I couldn't even tell you how to run a 1e/2e game anymore and I played them for years as well.
--Vrocknrolla!
But that's not the point, for either of us and will break down into sematics quickly... dominate is a direct command spell, as it is said so will you do as long as it is not "obviously" deadly (attacking a trigger happy wizard that calls you a friend normally qualifies as deadly)...
And here's another problem with Enchantment/Charm spells - semantics. You end up getting into arguments about what "deadly" really means and what "doing something against your nature" really means. These spells really need to be re-written, re-balanced, and fleshed out more if they are actually going to be used in Pathfinder.
However you do get another save throw every day* (*prices and participation may vary see spell discription for details)... more than what you got back in the old editions when it could be weeks or months before you got another save, and the spell "domination (the closest to the dominate person and so forth that we have now) didn't even have a duration, once on it on it was pretty much set.
It's good to know that these spells are slowly trudging towards being completely balanced, but they aren't quite there just yet. I'd like to see Paizo finish the job that others failed to do.
Hold Person is a spell that's been balanced. You get a saving throw every round to resist the effect. Dominate Person is WAY BETTER then Hold Person (you take someone out of combat and used them to kill your enemies), but you don't get a round-by-round save like Hold Person does. Why the discrepancy?
In 2nd ed saves versus spells where still the fighter's worse save throw, and spells themselves often gave penalties to the save throw, and you didn't start accuring bonuses from Wisdom until wisdom 15, even then it was only a +1.
And yet even though it may have been their worse saving throw, they still had a good chance of resisting these kinds of effects because their saving throw against Enchantment/Charm effects wasn't as rock-bottom, god awful as they are now.
IF these spells involved start giving a save throw every round I would like there to be a penalty to the save. After all it got you the first time when you did have a free will, you are enslaved afterwards and even less able to break free than at the start.
The whole reason that we've suggested giving characters cumulative round-by-round Will saves against Enchantment/Charm effects in combat is to balance the spell. By your own admission, a Figher that is going up against a Wizard of "equal power" in terms of level and gear has an 80% chance of failing his Will saving throws against that Wizard's spells. Having that chance drop even further does nothing to advance the idea of balancing the spell.
Finally we are still talking only about the fighter and the wizard. The rogue gets the slippery mind ability plus whatever other goodies he decides to bring with him
So change the Slippery Mind ability so that it gives a player a bonus to their initial saving throw against these kinds of effects. I don't think that a +4 bonus to their initial save against Enchantment/Charm effects would be inappropriate.
the barbarian gets bonuses while raging, and just about everyone else has good will saves (the ranger doesn't, however his spells are wisdom based so he'll probably have a higher stat based bonus to save throws too).
If a character has a good Will save, then their ability to make saves against the effect on subsequent rounds is irrelevant because they are almost guaranteed to resist the effect as soon as it is cast upon them. This is why people currently throw Enchantment/Charm spells at Fighters instead of Wizards right now. This mechanic would fix how powerful Enchantment/Charm spells are against Fighters, but wouldn't have any appreciable effect on their power level against characters with high Will saves.
Assuming none of the other classes have a bonus to will saves due to wisdom they'll still have +6 more than the fighter... meaning they only need an 11 to save... less once you factor in Wisdom.
Once again, this doesn't really change anything because these guys aren't typically considered viable targets under the current rules. Rogues have the Slippery Mind ability, Paladins and Rangers have bonuses to their Will saves from their WIS scores, Monks have awesome saves, and Barbarians get bonuses against mind-control while raging.
In a game where economy of actions is paramount, there really is only one viable target for Enchantment/Charm spells in combat as it stands right now - and that target is the Fighter. The change I've suggested merely moves him from "totally boned" to "mostly boned" in situations where he has to make do with a Bard or a Druid as a spellcaster (who can't cast Protection From Evil) instead of a proper Cleric or Wizard (who can spam it all day if they wanted to).
And as as you pointed out yourself, if the Fighter is with a "balanced" party, this rule change is completely irrelevant to your game and your objection to its implementation is probably a moot point. The Cleric or the Wizard is just going to cast Protection from Evil on him the next round anyway after all, correct? So who cares if he would get a save the next round? But the party with the Fighter, Druid, Bard, and Rogue - well, at least the Fighter will probably only be hacking away at them for 3 to 5 rounds before he stops...
If a character has a good Will save, then their ability to make saves against the effect on subsequent rounds is irrelevant because they are almost guaranteed to resist the effect as soon as it is cast upon them. This is why people currently throw Enchantment/Charm spells at Fighters instead of Wizards right now. This mechanic would fix how powerful Enchantment/Charm spells are against Fighters, but wouldn't have any appreciable effect on their power level against characters with high Will saves.
So basically you're saying that right now, alot of other classes aren't really threatened by these spells, so you'd like to see NO class be threatened by them?
Will saves -> weak against spellcasters
Ref Saves -> weak against dexy characters (rogues, rangers, monks)
Fort Saves -> weal against tough characters
If you are a smart mage, you have a nice mix of these and you spread the "wealth". Hit the other mage with a fort save spell, hit the fighter with a will save spell, hit the cleric with a ref save spell.
You can add 1 for Hero's Feast to the Fighter's will save at 11+ level, assuming a typical (wizard, cleric, rogue, fighter) high level party. If I've not already thrown it, at level 18+ my wizard is going to toss Mage's disjunction at the BBEG as soon as that Dominate/Utter Thrall hits Fred Fighter. Heck, I drop a silence on Fred, and a) he can't hear dominate orders, and b) as long as he's standing next to BBEG, he can't cast easily. That is assuming I didn't beforehand burn a 3rd level spell to put extended protection from evil on him (36 min duration) or Mind Blank (24 hour duration) or Fred didn't buy/have me craft for him a ring of spell turning ("Who's your daddy now?)
That's really super if you have a "typical" (wizard, cleric, rogue, fighter) high level party. But if you don't have a Wizard or a Cleric, what do you do? That's right - you get facerolled. If you have a "typical" party, this whole theoretical situation is a moot point because you have a number of "hard counter" spells at your disposal. But of you don't have a Wizard or a Cleric, you're pretty much boned. And no offense, but I think that the spell mechanics should be robust enough to accommodate a wider variety of parties then (wizard, cleric, rogue, fighter).
I think the flaw in the arguement of 'everything is too powerful' is that you're assuming that the fighter exists in a vacuum. Are Fighters too powerful when they catch the BBEG alone in his jammies in a dead magic zone?
How many dead magic zones do you run into over the course of a campaign? Unless you're going sightseeing in Alkenstar, do you think this will be a regular event?
When the golem attacks, the Wizard is not helpless, he's relying on the fighter to do, and take, the physical damage.
No, he just casts an illusion spell of a pit around the Golem, and since it has no INT score, it can't disbelieve, and it's completely shut down.
When he's hit by the level draining oogity boogity, it's the cleric who saves his bacon.
The Wizard can always benefit from having the Cleric and the Druid around! But everyone else? Not so much...
When he needs to have the complex death machine of null magic disarmed it's the rogue he turns to.
Why play a Rogue when you can play a Wizard that has the Leadership feat and have a pet Rogue do that kind of dirty work for you? And I must say - you do seem to run into a LOT of dead magic effects.
The system relies on teamwork. That's a strength, not a weakness of 3e. You don't just use your resources for yourself, you use them for everyone.
Well, the classes below Tier 1 rely on teamwork. But the Tier 1 classes (Wizard, Cleric) only require a very limited amount of teamwork between themselves to function well.
If a character has a good Will save, then their ability to make saves against the effect on subsequent rounds is irrelevant because they are almost guaranteed to resist the effect as soon as it is cast upon them. This is why people currently throw Enchantment/Charm spells at Fighters instead of Wizards right now. This mechanic would fix how powerful Enchantment/Charm spells are against Fighters, but wouldn't have any appreciable effect on their power level against characters with high Will saves.So basically you're saying that right now, alot of other classes aren't really threatened by these spells, so you'd like to see NO class be threatened by them?
I'm not suggesting that they be rendered immune to Enchantment/Charm spells like Dominate - I simply want them to have a decent chance of actually being able to resist the effect at some point during combat. Right now, Fighters have approximately a 80% chance of being completely put out of combat by a Dominate Person/Monster cast by a spellcaster of the same power in terms of level and gear. I'd like for Fighters that aren't paired with Wizards and Clerics (god forbid) to be able to do something besides wandering away from the gaming table to find something else to do while his Dominated character proceeds to try and hack the rest of the party to bloody cubes.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Sueki,
Mayhaps you would like to propose fixes for the car wars game as well my naked pedestrian is always getting killed.
Or maybe revisit the Wizard of Oz, the scarecrow would be impressed with your strawmen.
D&D is a game of teamwork. 3.x is built around certain tropes. Warrior/Skill Monkey/Healer/Blaster is one of those tropes. Wealth per level is another.
Your party with no wizard or cleric will find most adventures as lethal. That's not a flaw of the published game, that's the fault of a DM who doesn't modify the adventure for your party's style.
If your 20th level character is proud of his +3 weapon, then yes he's going to die horribly against a cr 20 or even a 19 encounter. He isn't a level 20 challenge if he doesn't have the gear (or bonuses)
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
That's really super if you have a "typical" (wizard, cleric, rogue, fighter) high level party. But if you don't have a Wizard or a Cleric, what do you do? That's right - you get facerolled. If you have a "typical" party, this whole theoretical situation is a moot point because you have a number of "hard counter" spells at your disposal. But of you don't have a Wizard or a Cleric, you're pretty much boned. And no offense, but I think that the spell mechanics should be robust enough to accommodate a wider variety of parties then (wizard, cleric, rogue, fighter).
Well both Paladins and Bards have Break Enchantment, Druids have Dispel and Greater Dispel and both the Druid and Ranger have Summon Natures Ally V for a unicorn which projects a Magic Circle against Evil. So there is some robustness in the spell system if you look at it.
And face it there will be times when you just don't have anything to help your teammate out. And if you really want to turn a PC against the party it's far mor effective to use say a limited wish to reduce the Spellcasters save by 7 and then Dominate them. It's extremely easy to debuff in 3.5 afterall.
Oh Sueki, just because a Golem lacks an Int score doesn't mean that it can't interact with an illusion and disbelieve it. Perception is based off Wisdom, of which Golems have, thus they can make a save.
--Vrock 'em Sock 'em Robots!
listed a number of magic items there, but here’s the thing: in the numerous campaigns I’ve DMed and played in (under five different DMs with different gaming styles) I’ve never, *EVER* seen a character who’s worn a Cloak of Resistance +3 or better (in one campaign we had a Luckstone and Cloak of Resistance +2, for a short time). Or had an Ioun Stone. Ditto for any items giving Inherent Bonuses (Librams or Tomes). My 18th level 3E fighter held a Belt of Giant Strength for a, but he lost it to a “magic-eating” trap.Seems like you're playing with some pretty stingy DM's then.
Five different DMs, some of who gave plenty of +3 Long Sword of This and +3 Full Plate of That in high level campaigns, but no items granting Inherent, Resistance, Luck or Competence Bonus (except for a single Luckstone and Cloak of Resistance +2, both of which the PCs have lost since). *None* of those DMs let any character go shopping for items, unless a singular magic item was *ABSOLUTELY* necessary or served as a “plot device” in the campaign. I guess most DMs/GMs fear that players having “free” access (or, actually, ANY access) to such items would break the game balance . Or maybe it feels too “easy”, i.e. “cheating”? I know that I wouldn’t let my players do it either, but on the other hand, I don’t they *should* be necessary for the game to function. Also, let’s bear in mind that most “rural” campaigns probably don’t have magic item shops/merchants anyway, unless the DM is very lenient with his players.Leniency has nothing to do with the fact that the system assumes you will have access to a certain level of magic at each level. If your campaign doesn't have large cities, it's the DM's job to provide suitable items in the treasure found by the PC's.
Crafting items is, indeed, a possibility. Only, as Sueki already noted above, you need a *spellcaster* to create such items -- assuming your group has one with the necessary spells and feats. Also, it takes time…...Firstly, the "system" doesnt "assume" any acces to nada. The magic per level thing is an example of NPC's and what not for quick generation.
The ACTUAL system isnt supposed to allow players to eyeball throw magic compendiums as say "my character is making X"
What the SYSTEM is set up for in randonly generated magic items and treasure is to make certain things more likely to be found and others quite quite rare.Many mnay DMs only do random treasure generation unless the magic item is part of the story.
20 years a go I had a 91st level fighter with a +2 sword, why? He never found a +3 or better, he just found that one at 8th level when he was still a paladin (as I got older I got tired of being a paladin....you know the story...) By the time he was 91st level we made him a Tyrant Lord NPC and changed is alignment to Lawful Evil (he was Laful Neutral for most of his levels)
Of course that was back when you only got 3 hps per level after what was it? 13th?
Saving throws didnt increase any more and well basically the only reason to level at all was 3hp (and the ludricious Idea of having a 100th level character, which actually never happened)
any way I played that character on and off for 9 years, and the dice never gave me a sword better than +2.
Sure I found a mace of St cuthbert, +4 hand axe, Even a +3 military pick, but sword was my thing.
Come to think of it we even randonly generated the wand of orcus once. Still no sword better than +2.
Our theif even had a +3 vorpal dagger!
So it wasnt like the DM was stingy, and we didnt get stuff, just bad dice (for nine years I guess)
By the way, I forgot...It's been so long, that +2 sword was actually a holy avenger, but since I hadnt been a paladin since 11th level, I think I just wrote it down as a +2 sword when character sheets wore out. (so tecnically,we did roll a random sword that was beter than +2, once,but it was only better for a paladin)Older versions of the game definately werent set up for making your own magic items (rituals with vague rules back then) and buying them was pretty much discouraged.
Older versions of the game definately werent set up for making your own magic items (rituals with vague rules back then) and buying them was pretty much discouraged.
Which I think is a great advancement in 3rd edition. Of course I am the belief that it is "better" to keep the same sword you have and enhance it as you go along so that Mr. Old Trusty Pokey gets better as you do, than to drop a beloved weapon that has saved your life numerous times for the next best thing.
Of course I go so far as to houserule that you can improve your boring standard sword you start with at first level and make it masterwork (which later allows it to be magic) by paying to have it "repaired" and then masterworked.
Older versions of the game definately werent set up for making your own magic items (rituals with vague rules back then) and buying them was pretty much discouraged.Which I think is a great advancement in 3rd edition. Of course I am the belief that it is "better" to keep the same sword you have and enhance it as you go along so that Mr. Old Trusty Pokey gets better as you do, than to drop a beloved weapon that has saved your life numerous times for the next best thing.
Of course I go so far as to houserule that you can improve your boring standard sword you start with at first level and make it masterwork (which later allows it to be magic) by paying to have it "repaired" and then masterworked.
The problem with the new system is its too cheap and easy to make whatever you want. In which case the DMG and other books wit magic items in them become shopping lists for players rather than a source of information and a tool for the DM.
In the fantasy game earthdawn, they do what you are talking about, the legendary deeds you accomplish with your weapon (or armor or boots or whatever) allows you (not just spell casters) to assign magical properties based on things like level and how powerful you are and the enhancements have to have something to do with what you did or do.
(ie to have a dragonslayer sword, it must have already been used to slay a dragon in the first place)
Although you can effectively "make" your own magic itmes that way, it is a bit harder, and takes longer in the gaming world to do, but ti techincally doesnt "cost" any money.
But thats a whole differnt system.
The Dollar menu of magic in this game I think has really ruined things.
Its cool to let player characters make magic items, but there should be higher costs and it should be harder to do.
They should be rituals that take time and weird peices of dragon nose boogers and a meteorite, not just "X" goldpieces and there you have it. Not to mention, HUGE amounts of time devoted to study, preparation and what not (which keeps you from adventuring and leveling)
The old days of DnD had 3 out of 5 aventures with the group doing something to get a rare component for a spell (just a spell mind you) or something needs for some crazy wizard so he could make a wand of back scratching +2.
3.x made a mega magic fantasy world of out of a world where magic was rare and wonderous,not used to light the town and cook meals.
IS there any wonder why guys swinging swords with no magical talent have a ahrd time competing in this world?
Endless cantrips are cool. Huge cities with "Light" on poles of illumination is cool.
Endless oodles of magic items on low to mid level charaters so much that every NPC is trotting around with them too?
Not cool.
On that note, has anyone tried playing a campaign where PC class magic is the ONLY magic out there?
And Maybe "lost artifacts" (randomly rolled) are the only magic items one can have? And the PCS cannot have access to feats that make magic items (the rituals have been lost)
wonder what that would be like?
(probably just like playing in 1e....)
Just a thought
On that note, has anyone tried playing a campaign where PC class magic is the ONLY magic out there?
And Maybe "lost artifacts" (randomly rolled) are the only magic items one can have? And the PCS cannot have access to feats that make magic items (the rituals have been lost)
wonder what that would be like?
(probably just like playing in 1e....)
Just a thought
It would be way harder no doubt, as both CRs and ELs assume the party is already loaded with the proper amount of magical hoard for their level. That's just the way the system is engineered. Starting lvl 6 A GM would need to keep using ELs three or more levels lower than the party if he doesn't want to see them turning tail more often than not. A party who actually knows the meaning of both teamwork and work division might survive encounters of their own EL or even higher, but those parties are rare at best.
|
|
...his Dominated character proceeds to try and hack the rest of the party to bloody cubes.
This would seem to me to be directly addressed by the part of the Dominate Person spell description that reads:
"Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions
against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus.
Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out."
I would hope that hacking one's own party members into bloody cubes would be against most PCs nature. Of course they could be secretly planning to back stab their own party and then hacking away might then qualify as "their nature".
That's how I see it anyhow.
I wonder how some people can have played all these years with such a broken game....
|
Sueki,
D&D is a game of teamwork. 3.x is built around certain tropes. Warrior/Skill Monkey/Healer/Blaster is one of those tropes. Wealth per level is another.Your party with no wizard or cleric will find most adventures as lethal. That's not a flaw of the published game, that's the fault of a DM who doesn't modify the adventure for your party's style.
but will an adventure without nonspellcasters suffer the same fate? the answer is no, because a group composed of nopthing but (as long as they have a healthy spread of arcane and divine) can shift their focus and cover all the points. the DM doesnt have to make "special arrangements" for that group, THAT IS IMBALANCED.
your right, this game is about teamwork, and as of right now the spellcasters dont NEED their other half. until wizards and clerics of ANY level ALWAYS need a Warrior class and a Rogue class, the mechanics are not doing their job
|
|
I know this is going back a bit but I'm playing catch up here.
...(note that "houseruling" something means that you're inventing a new rule, or "tweaking" an existing, "broken" one)...
This again is an opinion masquerading as a fact. House rules do not equal "broken" RAW.
Our group house rules HP, Death & Dying because we like a little more realism than the very abstract nature of the "normal" rules. We don't think that Death & Dying is broken at all, we just prefer an alternate system.
its a great game that only need a moderate amount of tweaks to fix the problems that it took us several years of playing to find out. it has its "Vista" moments but is actually worth it.
It's a great game, and I'm going to play it again for years.
But the amount of tweaks and rule changes we can see now in PRPRG is not "moderate". It's a very different game for me.|
|
I, for one, do not buy into this belief that wizards and clerics don't need any other classes to function effectively. I would really like to see the play test report of the "2 arcane and 2 divine spell casters party" adventuring through any one of the published AP.
How do they deal with creatures with high saves? High SR? Spell casters on par with their own (or better) abilities?
Something else that strikes me as odd. Why does it seem that from most posts regarding class balance I get the feeling that the 1st thing an enemy spell caster does is go after the "weak" fighter types? Why in a "economy of actions" kind of argument does the spell caster ignore his "biggest threat", that being the opposing spell casters? It would seem that he should concentrate on that which threatens him most.
I mean if I am fighting a major threat surrounded by weak minions, I am more apt to concentrate on the major threat first while hoping to catch the minions with collateral damage.
If you truly beleive that the fighter is the weak minion, why "squander" your first precious actions neutralizing him?
Better yet, why not Dominate the opposing spell caster(s) and really mess things up for them. Even with only a 50% chance to Dominate the opposing spell caster versus the 80% chance versus the fighter, its probably the smarter strategy. Why Dominate hamburger when you can Dominate a steak?
your dominates will probably fail on the high Will save spellcasters, take out the problems that can go down easy.
2 divine and 2 arcane can ROLL through AP's, (as well as "balanced" parties) if you have a thug cleric and thug druid, its all good.
So I assume the first thing anyone that plays a PC wizard tries to do in a fight typically is mind control a fighter type foe? Always? Really?
|
|
I, for one, do not buy into this belief that wizards and clerics don't need any other classes to function effectively. I would really like to see the play test report of the "2 arcane and 2 divine spell casters party" adventuring through any one of the published AP.
How do they deal with creatures with high saves? High SR? Spell casters on par with their own (or better) abilities?
Something else that strikes me as odd. Why does it seem that from most posts regarding class balance I get the feeling that the 1st thing an enemy spell caster does is go after the "weak" fighter types? Why in a "economy of actions" kind of argument does the spell caster ignore his "biggest threat", that being the opposing spell casters? It would seem that he should concentrate on that which threatens him most.
I mean if I am fighting a major threat surrounded by weak minions, I am more apt to concentrate on the major threat first while hoping to catch the minions with collateral damage.
If you truly beleive that the fighter is the weak minion, why "squander" your first precious actions neutralizing him?
Better yet, why not Dominate the opposing spell caster(s) and really mess things up for them. Even with only a 50% chance to Dominate the opposing spell caster versus the 80% chance versus the fighter, its probably the smarter strategy. Why Dominate hamburger when you can Dominate a steak?
If the wizard is either flying/levitating and/or surrounded by an Antipathy or a Forbiddance spell, he most likely will go after the spellcasters. However, you need to determine their defenses, such as if they have Spell Turning or SR (in which case it's probably best to just Dominate the fighter and let him do the dirty work). If the spellcaster is of higher level, then you may be screwed (naughty GM, naughty GM -- that's not allowed!).
Me? I'd cast Time Stop and Mage's Disjunction at the enemies. Then maybe a few Meteor Swarms, or Weird, or... plenty to choose from, actually!
As for SR and high saves -- sure, but most wizards at that level wouldn't bother with physical form anymore. Ring Gates, Scrying, Simulacrum, Project Image, Telepathic Bond -- there're plenty of items and spells you can use in combo to "beat" the adventure without being there. If you can't scry or teleport your Simulacrum near the place, or if you meet high-SR or magic-immune creatures, you could always seek an NPC paladin to temporarily ally with you.
|
|
Sueki,
Mayhaps you would like to propose fixes for the car wars game as well my naked pedestrian is always getting killed.
Or maybe revisit the Wizard of Oz, the scarecrow would be impressed with your strawmen.
D&D is a game of teamwork. 3.x is built around certain tropes. Warrior/Skill Monkey/Healer/Blaster is one of those tropes. Wealth per level is another.
Your party with no wizard or cleric will find most adventures as lethal. That's not a flaw of the published game, that's the fault of a DM who doesn't modify the adventure for your party's style.
If your 20th level character is proud of his +3 weapon, then yes he's going to die horribly against a cr 20 or even a 19 encounter. He isn't a level 20 challenge if he doesn't have the gear (or bonuses)
I thought it was *4E* that was supposed to be about "dynamic teamwork", "constrained roles", "team optimization" and "magic item shopping" -- not 3E or PF? Have I been playing wrong? Evidently, if all my high-level PCs should be carrying Cloaks of Resistance +5, Ring of Protection +5 and the Golf Bag of Weapons (all of which should be at least +5, naturally).
And I prefer "dysfunctional" parties over "harmonious" ones, because it offers more role-playing potential. But each to his own, I guess.
as each player picks one of the straightjacket "roles"?
No, you missed the point there -- you houserule something that *YOU* think is "broken" (note the quation marks here and in my post above). See the difference?This again is an opinion masquerading as a fact. House rules do not equal "broken" RAW.
Except he specificly said that his group often houserules things that they do not think are broken, just do not match the flavor they want.
oddly enough, as I keep playing this fighter (granted I have years of military under my belt, so maybe this is just me optimizing the battle field) But I hardly imagine there being situatiions where I am going to be "outmanuvered".
Maybe when we get to teleporting demons and devils and spell casters as we level, but going through these pre-written modules, most of the combats happen in a battlefield of limited terrain. If the enemy wants to spend time off roading on their atv to circumvent me, then I suppose there's nothing I can do about it.
But although I dont have +6/+1 bab yet (anyday now) I do have cleave and I have been able to slice away at just about anything that wanted to fight.
True, they could have chosen to not fight me and fight the cleric (the other sword and board character in the front of the party) AND if they chose to try and manuver inbtween us they would have risked AoOs from both of us, or manuver to the right or left of us AoO from one of us,
but there really hasnt been enough room from them to totally stay out of reach of a front line swinger. Even if they had, the Sorceror is only a 5 foot step behind us most ofthe time and if they stopped to maul her, they'd probably wiff because her AC is usually better than the clerics anyway, AND all I'd have to do is turn around to maul them.
The enemy could also choose to hoard the cleric instead of me (we dont LOOK different from each other really, except longsword on me an scimitar on him) but that would give me flanking shots and nothing more than a 5 foot step to full attack.
So Maybe all this out manuvering and flanking has to do with the players breaking ranks, running around like weirdos, and trying to optimize their economy of actions, rather than stiking in a fighting group?
Of course our combat technique and formation woukd have to be altered if we were thinking about(or expecting to) fight a AoE spellcaster, as we are all in a 15-20 foot radius of eachother, but most of the ights so far, the terrain itself has been that way unless we have meld with stone scrolls, and for the bigger chambers, we tend to let the enemies come to us, But if you fight as/in a group you will always be subject to AoE spells, as the more pwoerful they are the bigger the area, but I'm sure we would have to switch tactics.
However, if the bad wizard had minions, he want to try to hoard you into a tighter group to get off his fireball or whatever, but then he'd hit minions as well.
I dont' know. We shall see how it goes, but I don't really see the outmanuvered yet. Psoobily if Im fighting to defend little house on the prarie?
While I agree that's the way quality campaigns are run...
Way to completely denigrate all playstyles that aren't your own. Gotta love it.
|
|
your dominates will probably fail on the high Will save spellcasters, take out the problems that can go down easy.
2 divine and 2 arcane can ROLL through AP's, (as well as "balanced" parties) if you have a thug cleric and thug druid, its all good.
Again, I understand your claim. Again I ask for the proof.
The difference between the fighter and the wizard's saves is a maximum of 6 (at 20th level, power build, 9th level spell etc.). That is only a max difference of 30% on success versus failure. (Using mathematical examples from above and elsewhere.)
Given that your position is fighters are "weak" and "irrelevant" it would seem to me then that the smarter strategy would be to take 2 shots at the opposing arcane spell caster(s) rather than "waste" one on something "irrelevant".
Assuming a "fair" fight (ie one side not fully buffed while the other is not etc.) and leaving INIT implications aside for a second, why take a round to remove the weaker threat (which will still fail a minimum of 20% of the time) and then turn your attention to the "real" threat? In that time the opposing spell caster has had 2 rounds to try to remove your spell caster. A 50% (per round) chance of removing your spell caster from combat seems a little risky to ignore to me.
All of this fails to take into account a multitude of factors. Not the least of which is that, unless your adventuring party of spell casters only fight once a day, you will have expended at least some (and possibly a great deal)of your available spells prior to any one single encounter. That alters things fairly significantly in my books. The game I play isn't a series of singular gladiatorial matches existing inside of a vacuum.
Can I make a request that you please do not begin your response with something about "scry and die" attacks, or variations thereof, in response to the one combat a day "problem" mentioned above? In my world, high level adversaries do not sit blithely by, with no defenses against such tactics waiting for some strike team to teleport directly past their well thought out defenses and hordes of minions and attack directly (with all buffs in place and what not). Those tactics should be well known to any intelligent adversary, allowing for both defense against such, and subsequently, available as a tactic that they themselves could employ against you. They got to be the BBEG by being smart or resourceful, otherwise they would already have been defeated, no?
Their is no doubt in my mind that spell caster are extremely powerful and versatile, especially in situations that benefit from their unique skills and abilities, but to discount the role that the other classes play in the bigger picture is short sighted and highly biased at best.
If I may use a real world example to illustrate my point for a second. While a tank is obviously superior to infantry in many situations, the infantry still plays an important role. Just because the tank shines in certain moments and/or supports the infantry at times, doesn't make the infantry "less" valuable. One can also think of many times when the relationship works completely in reverse. They just fulfill different roles. No less, no more.
Create a scenario that favors your argument and it isn't much of a surprise that your view point will prevail.
Convince me with out the straight jacket.
Cheers
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I thought it was *4E* that was supposed to be about "dynamic teamwork", "constrained roles", "team optimization" and "magic item shopping" -- not 3E or PF? Have I been playing wrong?
Short answer. Yes.
Longer answer
Please check page 135 and 137 of the DMG as noted above. As has been pointed out, you're not playing in the system as it is constructed. I'm not going to say you're playing 'wrong' As I'd hate to imply that your arguements are flawed, or lacking a reading of the rules. You're having fun. knock yourself out.
Then again, if you're casting time stop and 'following up with Mage's disjuntion, meteor swarm and weird' and they're being effective. or your getting a shield spell cast on you by another caster, you're already using a lot of house rules and changing fundamental rules of the game.
|
|
If the wizard is either flying/levitating and/or surrounded by an Antipathy or a Forbiddance spell, he most likely will go after the spellcasters.
So you start each combat with a full load of spells and fully buffed with the most effective defenses against whatever foe you happen to be tangling with?
However, you need to determine their defenses, such as if they have Spell Turning or SR (in which case it's probably best to just Dominate the fighter and let him do the dirty work).
As mentioned quite a few times already, but never addressed by you, I don't think that Domintate works that way. Or is this one of your house rules "fixing" things?
If the spellcaster is of higher level, then you may be screwed (naughty GM, naughty GM -- that's not allowed!).
Not all "spellcasters" are leveled classes. Some monsters have high SR and high DC spells as natural abilities. Is your position based upon the premise that all enemy spellcasters will either be lower level with minions or at best equal if encountered alone? One can argue that CR is far from accurate (and that is something else to discuss), but as it stands, it does allow for encounters above the party power level. A GM is wholly in his/her right to (and many published adventures in fact do) place opponents well above the party strength against them. They are not "naughty" for doing so and it is indeed "allowed"!
Me? I'd cast Time Stop and Mage's Disjunction at the enemies. Then maybe a few Meteor Swarms, or Weird, or... plenty to choose from, actually!
All of which are legitimate tactics for the enemy to employ against you. Mage's Disjunction/Time stop work just as easily against you!
As for SR and high saves -- sure, but most wizards at that level wouldn't bother with physical form anymore. Ring Gates, Scrying, Simulacrum, Project Image, Telepathic Bond -- there're plenty of items and spells you can use in combo to "beat" the adventure without being there. If you can't scry or teleport your Simulacrum near the place, or if you meet high-SR or magic-immune creatures, you could always seek an NPC paladin to temporarily ally with you.
I believe I, and others, have covered much of this in other posts (ie Scrying) and/or have counters available.
The issues regarding Ring Gates has likewise been discussed before. To sum up the gist of that discussion, this is once again an area of contention and that there is no agreed upon application of the rules governing this magic item.
So you send a Similcrum to adventure for you? Why not an army of cohorts or Golems? Besides that, I would think that your interpretation of Similcrum is far from accepted by the majority of players and/or fraught with hurdles I don't think you address properly. If you send a Similcrum of yourself to do your dirty work, it is severely limited in its power as per the spells power:
"it has only one-half of the real creature’s levels or Hit Dice
(and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special
abilities for a creature of that level or HD)."
So you send a Similcrum of a 20th level wizard (result is a 10th level wizard Similcrum, which indecently costs you 5000gp in raw costs) to do battle with adversaries designed for a 20th level adventuring group? Wow. How is that going to turn out?
You can create a creature of more power relative to your own:
"You can’t create
a simulacrum of a creature whose Hit Dice or levels exceed
twice your caster level."
I find the wording of this more than a little vague. It reminds me of the Polymorph issue. What restrictions are their regarding the type of creature created? Does your wizard have to have an "original" creature present to copy? Does first hand knowledge count. And again the resulting creature is only half the power of the "orginal" creature. Seems a "loose" interpretation of these rules could indeed lead to a powerful "loophole".
There is also the issue regarding:
"At all times the simulacrum remains under your absolute
command. No special telepathic link exists, so command must
be exercised in some other manner. A simulacrum has no
ability to become more powerful. It cannot increase its level
or abilities."
That's two more "problems" requiring solutions. I realize they can be overcome by the application of more wealth (5000gp a pop for a limited/built in obsolescence "tool") and additional magic but this brings me to my final point.
This reliance on Ring Gates and other magic items seems to fly in the face of your earlier statements regarding high magic versus low magic and the availability of "magic shops" etc. You can't have it both ways. It seems you emphasize "economy of actions" when it suits you and "economy of actions" at other times.
All in all that's a lot of "house ruling" going in your favor for me lend a lot of credence to your position.
Cheers
|
|
The simulaca part of this discussion has me thinking about xp. If the smulacra is the one travelling through the dungeon, and facing all the risks, how do you expect your DM to award you any where near as much xp? Xp is an abstract method of representing learning through experience.
While its true if you use the ringate method of telport simulacrum and cast though it, you may be contributing to the combat, its the simulacrum doing most of the work and therefore experiencing most of the situation. I'd awaard maybe 10 - 20% xp for such a tactic after the first combat really. (Other DM's may not of course, it's their game after all). Not a very effective method for advancing your charatcer.
Plus its fraught with fail options, which then handily alert your opponents you're coming. DC 20 int check to spot a scry. How hard is that at for high level critters? For an average human thats a natural 20. Scry for long enough an give enough people around, that's practically a guaranteed fail. This gives your opponents warning of magic using enemies, which they prepare for.
Invisibilty still means making stealth checks (although with high bonusses) if you move at all the DC drops fairly significantly to get spotted. If the enemies know your coming (failed scry) they can of course prepare defenses to limit approaches and therefore help pinpoint wher your handy simulacrum is coming from. Its not that hard to kill invisible critters when you know where they're coming from or casting from.
High level opponents are able to respond to high level threats. If they're intelligent creature (ie int 10 or more, standard human say) then they'll probably respon intelligently. If they've grown up in a world using magic they'll probably know how that magic works and have all sorts of tactics to help counter it. Just like PCs can. I think this makes the tactic of solo wizard pretty damn silly cos they would'nt have survived to the high level in the first place.
Of course, others will disagree :)
Cheers
|
|
The simulaca part of this discussion has me thinking about xp. If the smulacra is the one travelling through the dungeon, and facing all the risks, how do you expect your DM to award you any where near as much xp? Xp is an abstract method of representing learning through experience.
I too thought about this after I posted. Someone will argue that they deserve all the XP because the defeats are the result of "their" actions. Using that logic it would seem to me then, that the King who sends you on a quest and the friendly old wizard who provides you with information to defeat the mighty BBEG should get most of the XP from your quest.
Cheers
|
|
While its true if you use the ringate method of telport simulacrum and cast though it...
Does it not seem weird that nobody seems to be calling for a nerfing of the Ring Gate?
It does to me.
I think we should nerf the Ring Gate!
Done.
Possibly more of a clarification of what can and can't be done with it. Squirreloid's solo wizard thread brought this issue up way back in september. I'm fairly confident Jason Bhulman is aware of it and may clarify it. It'll come up in the magic items section. At the moment it is open to very loose interpretation. This means DM's need to make house rules for it.
I'm all for flexibilty in an item (it rewards creative thinking). I don't have a problem with a person trying the whole ring gate carried by mate and cast through, as long as they're ready for me to cast back through it or kill their mate and take it.
If a PC is casting through a ring gate using the tactic above, and the carrier gets hit by a fireball, whats to stop the fireball washing through the ring gate? However that all involves lots of house rules and in game discussions. Clarification would limit that and give more time for gaming.
I guess we bring it up in the magic item section Lord oKOyA, unless someone beats us to the punch.
Cheers
In my worlds, magic consortiums actually use ring gates to sell and store magic items. It is one of the ways I do "magic shops". You go talk to a mage that sells magic items. You get to his establishment and see there isn't much there, a few scrolls and potions, nothing too impressive. You ask about a special item. He says he'll look in the back and see what he has. In the back he has a ring gate to the central "bank", he passes a note through describing the item. If it is in the "bank" and not too valuable (or large), it is passed through for the mage to bring out front and show to the customers. If it is purchased, the mage can pass the (relatively) large sum of money through to the "bank" where it is stored and calculated for the value of the item and the mage's share of the profit. Such a magic "bank" can serve several different communities with each one having its own set of rings.
|
In my worlds, magic consortiums actually use ring gates to sell and store magic items. It is one of the ways I do "magic shops". You go talk to a mage that sells magic items. You get to his establishment and see there isn't much there, a few scrolls and potions, nothing too impressive. You ask about a special item. He says he'll look in the back and see what he has. In the back he has a ring gate to the central "bank", he passes a note through describing the item. If it is in the "bank" and not too valuable (or large), it is passed through for the mage to bring out front and show to the customers. If it is purchased, the mage can pass the (relatively) large sum of money through to the "bank" where it is stored and calculated for the value of the item and the mage's share of the profit. Such a magic "bank" can serve several different communities with each one having its own set of rings.
I don't do magic shops (buying magic items in my campaign is kinda like buying contraband, a lot of back alley deals and stuff like that), but I do like this idea for some other types of situations. Awesome use of the ring gate :)
|
|
Except he specificly said that his group often houserules things that they do not think are broken, just do not match the flavor they want.No, you missed the point there -- you houserule something that *YOU* think is "broken" (note the quation marks here and in my post above). See the difference?This again is an opinion masquerading as a fact. House rules do not equal "broken" RAW.
Maybe we both misunderstood each other there, because I got the impression that he's saying I'm claiming something I'm not? Actually, you're both correct that you can houserule something which you do not think is "broken" by your standards -- I've houseruled crits and certain aspects of the skill system, even though I think both work well in PF (two posters just made so good suggestions, that I wanted to try how they'd feel in play). However, usually the most common reason for houseruling something is that you feel a rule does not work the way it's meant to work.
|
|
While its true if you use the ringate method of telport simulacrum and cast though it...
Does it not seem weird that nobody seems to be calling for a nerfing of the Ring Gate?
It does to me.
I think we should nerf the Ring Gate!
Done.
Uh, you don't necessarily need the Ring Gate -- use Project Image for the same effect.