Now that Sorcerer/Wizards are given the opportunity to attack every round and do damage (Hand of the Apprentice/Various “Rays”) it seems that these casters become ‘range fighters’ like the bow specialists used to be, but with unlimited arrows. (Oversimplification intended).
Although it is true that some Sorcerers have claws instead of range attacks, it seems that there is a constant blurring between classes, (casters having spells that are similar, etc) with regards to melee and being able to do damage every round to an opponent. I can understand the ability ‘creep’ in game design that comes in when you think “if he only had X like the (name class here).” But isn't it easier to do a touch attack as a caster than to use a crossbow (-4 for firing into combat)? By keeping mages 'in' combat in direct damage role once they have exhausted their spells seems to be too much of a blurring into the role of fighters.
The Divination School Ability “Diviners Fortune” seems to go back to the ‘limited’ support roll that mages have once their primary ammunition (spells) is gone. While the “Hand of the Apprentice” makes them fighters at range, but without using touch attacks (yet using their INT bonus to get them back in line with fighters) while the various rays are touch attacks that bypass much of he protection armor provides.
Philosophically, cantrips include several ‘support’ spells that already threw acid/cold, etc, which did minor damage, but now these have become ‘abilities’ for sorcerers and the amount of damage has been increased to d6 as “Bloodline” ‘abilities’. While daze and dazzle were ‘support’ cantrips and well within the ‘support’ philosophy.
, is that it seems that you would think that once they are done with their ‘direct damage’ spells, casters should be put into a ‘support’ role so that they can ‘do’ something instead of keeping them in a ‘direct’ role of directly dealing damage of significance. (This WAS the case when they could either do 1-3 HP from acid/cold, or could dazzle/daze thorough cantrips.)
would seem that ‘abilities’ like “Hand of the Apprentice” should perhaps do things like “Aid”/”Trip”/”Disarm” (each of which gives the fighters an significant advantage through AoO or bonuses (i.e. Aid)).
, the direct damage of the rays (acid/cold etc) that more easily hit off of touch attacks should have either have damaged reduced (unpopular) or have them modified where if they successfully hit there is a chance they do damage to the opponents armor (natural) or cause ‘pain’ which reduces the opponents chances to hit.
Of course the only offset to this is that a caster who is shooting rays at an enemy engaged with his party’s fighter, has a -4 for firing into melee.
I have often thought that a quarterstaff, which can be the height of the body, should be considered a ‘reach’ weapon for the purposes of the ‘aid’ special attack maneuver. It puts the caster out of reach yet allows the opponent to get him in reach by taking a 5 foot step – and this calls for tactical decisions which is a key part of the game.
In conclusion:
Quarterstaffs should be reach weapons for the purposes of “Aid” (or ‘aiding’ a “Trip”)
Hand of the Apprentice should be able to Aid/Trip/Disarm, with Disarm perhaps only occurring for weapons like flail or spiked chain that have bonuses to disarm, and Trip to only those weapons that can trip (like flails).
Also, would there be a benefit from having a Cantrip (or single 1st level spell that is a 12 or 24 hour spell) that lets Hand of the Apprentice wield a larger and heavier two handed weapon as some of these also allow for trip or reach.
ACtually that's a pretty cool idea. But frankly the rules are already being printed. You'll have to do it yourself if you want to alter such rules.
I especially like hand of the apprentice aiding.
I think the design philosophy behind those abilities was to let even low-level wizards and sorcerers being using magical abilities all the time, rather than shooting crossbows once their extremely small pool of spells ran out, which is very mundane and every other class does it better.
|
Really, from my understanding and experience at least, what those new abilities do is take away some of the suckage that squishy spellcasters used to experience at low-level. At higher levels, when they already excelled, spellcasters won't be using those abilities anymore, because their normal class skills will have come to maturity.
On the other hand, Fighter-types, who used to be great at low-level and start to suck higher up, have been given quite a boost to compensate later in the game. So isn't it fair that if melee classes are given a late-game boost, spellcasters would get an early-game boost?
Wow, lots of stuff here. Looks like one of my posts...
Now that Sorcerer/Wizards are given the opportunity to attack every round and do damage (Hand of the Apprentice/Various “Rays”) it seems that these casters become ‘range fighters’ like the bow specialists used to be, but with unlimited arrows. (Oversimplification intended).
Not really. There is something to be said for good AC, good HP, and high BAB when it comes to calling yourself a "fighter". Without those, you're just a pretender, and you'll soon get a tough lesson from the school of hard knocks.
Although it is true that some Sorcerers have claws instead of range attacks, it seems that there is a constant blurring between classes, (casters having spells that are similar, etc) with regards to melee and being able to do damage every round to an opponent.
Is that a bad thing?
In a team of Navy Seals, for example, you might have one guy who specializes in demolitions, another who is the main go-to guy for role of sniper, and a third guy who is a medic.
But each of them can plant charges, fire a sniper rifle, and battle-dress a wound.
Is it so bad to have some cross-over?
I can understand the ability ‘creep’ in game design that comes in when you think “if he only had X like the (name class here).” But isn't it easier to do a touch attack as a caster than to use a crossbow (-4 for firing into combat)?
Sure, but there is a lot more risk, like casting spells in melee provokes an AoO, and casting defensively, particularly at lower levels, runs a risk of losing the spell.
Also, if you can touch the orc, that means the orc can touch you. With his greataxe. Mages tend not to be built well to avoid greataxe attacks or survive greataxe wounds.
By keeping mages 'in' combat in direct damage role once they have exhausted their spells seems to be too much of a blurring into the role of fighters.
Given the risks involved, I don't see this as a bad thing. And as I mentioned, I don't think some crossover is bad, either.
The Divination School Ability “Diviners Fortune” seems to go back to the ‘limited’ support roll that mages have once their primary ammunition (spells) is gone.
Compared to the other school powers, this one frankly sucks. Only once/day per ally. But the other schools can use their powers 10 times a minute, 60 mintues per hour, 24 hours a day. That's 1,440 times in a day, if they so desire. Why is the divination school so limited?
While the “Hand of the Apprentice” makes them fighters at range, but without using touch attacks (yet using their INT bonus to get them back in line with fighters) while the various rays are touch attacks that bypass much of he protection armor provides.
I've lost your point here. This adequately describes these powers.
Philosophically, cantrips include several ‘support’ spells that already threw acid/cold, etc, which did minor damage, but now these have become ‘abilities’ for sorcerers and the amount of damage has been increased to d6 as “Bloodline” ‘abilities’. While daze and dazzle were ‘support’ cantrips and well within the ‘support’ philosophy.
Still not following your point.
Since almost all of the schools/bloodlines give the casters something at-will to do, arcane casters can now use cantrips for utility purposes, such as mending, or detecting magic, etc. They no longer need to fall back on catrips for combat use.
And they don't need to fall back on crossbows, either.
I really like this for them.
A lot.
My point then, is that it seems that you would think that once they are done with their ‘direct damage’ spells, casters should be put into a ‘support’ role so that they can ‘do’ something instead of keeping them in a ‘direct’ role of directly dealing damage of significance. (This WAS the case when they could either do 1-3 HP from acid/cold, or could dazzle/daze thorough cantrips.)
Why must this be the case?
What's wrong with letting casters blast a little damage now and then?
They are still doing less damage than the fighter with his weapon training and specialization, less than the barbarian with his greatsword, less than the rogue with sneak attacks, less damage than everyone, really.
Therefore would seem that ‘abilities’ like “Hand of the Apprentice” should perhaps do things like “Aid”/”Trip”/”Disarm” (each of which gives the fighters an significant advantage through AoO or bonuses (i.e. Aid)).
I am fairly positive that in most fights I've run as a DM, or most I've experienced as a player, tripping a key bad guy would have had far more beneficial effect for the party than merely slapping him with a d6 of damage.
The ability to disarm or trip enemies is huge. And it's a huge ability at 1st level or at 20th level, and all levels in between.
One of the balancing factors of the RAW mechanic is that those 1d6 at-wills become decreasingly useful as the mage gains levels. This balancing factor goes right out the window if they can simply trip the balor, giving the whole group +4 to hit it for a round and forcing it to use a move action to stand up, limiting it to one attack/round instead of full attacks. It would be really handy to disarm the balor's vorpal sword and his flaming whip, too. But no, by the time the mages are fighting balors, they are only able to slap them around for around 13-14 average damage per round. If your mage is doing this in a fight against a balor, you're probably doomed.
Furthermore, the direct damage of the rays (acid/cold etc) that more easily hit off of touch attacks should have either have damaged reduced (unpopular) or have them modified where if they successfully hit there is a chance they do damage to the opponents armor (natural) or cause ‘pain’ which reduces the opponents chances to hit.
It's already less damage than any melee or ranged combatant in the group is doing. Sure, ranged touch attacks hit more easily, but mages also have the worst BAB, too, so there is a bit of balance. Throw in the balance for weak damage, and it's not that big a deal. really.
Heck, crossbows do the same average danage and have way more range.
Of course the only offset to this is that a caster who is shooting rays at an enemy engaged with his party’s fighter, has a -4 for firing into melee.
If he plans to use this tactic much, Point Blank Shot gives him +1 to hit and to damage with those rays and then Precise Shot takes away the -4 penalty.
I have often thought that a quarterstaff, which can be the height of the body, should be considered a ‘reach’ weapon for the purposes of the ‘aid’ special attack maneuver. It puts the caster out of reach yet allows the opponent to get him in reach by taking a 5 foot step – and this calls for tactical decisions which is a key part of the game.
A proper length for a quarterstaff is for it to be "no longer than the height of your nose, or like as not you'll bruise your toes". Or so I've been told. And I was told that this simple country saying is as old as quarterstaves have been used in Europe.
For the average man, that is not a whole lot longer than 5'.
Which means if you stand behind your fighter, and try to poke the orc in front of him with your quarterstaff, you will have to lean halfway into your fighter ally's square to reach that orc.
With you leaning on your ally's back, your're likely to impair him as much as you aid him.
But sure, it could be houseruled in, if you want.
Surely the mechanics behind aiding another are far less impactful than tripping and/or disarming the balor.
In conclusion:
Quarterstaffs should be reach weapons for the purposes of “Aid” (or ‘aiding’ a “Trip”)
Sure, why not?
Hand of the Apprentice should be able to Aid/Trip/Disarm, with Disarm perhaps only occurring for weapons like flail or spiked chain that have bonuses to disarm, and Trip to only those weapons that can trip (like flails).
I've just pointed how how far-reaching this could be. I think it overpowers this ability somewhat.
And Universalist school(?) is already considered to be the best of the bunch.
Also, would there be a benefit from having a Cantrip (or single 1st level spell that is a 12 or 24 hour spell) that lets Hand of the Apprentice wield a larger and heavier two handed weapon as some of these also allow for trip or reach.
Of course there would be a benefit to that. Give up one cantrip slot (they are at-will, remember, so the duration is irrelevent since the mage can recast it whenever he wants) to take the best at-will ability in the wizard game and make it even better.
You bet this would be useful.
But probably a bit too useful, if you catch my drift.
it seems that these casters become ‘range fighters’ like the bow specialists used to be, but with unlimited arrows. (Oversimplification intended).
Arrows aren't exactly a scarce commodity.
And the arcanists' at will attacks can hardly compete against a ranged warrior's ranged barrage.
Although it is true that some Sorcerers have claws instead of range attacks, it seems that there is a constant blurring between classes, (casters having spells that are similar, etc) with regards to melee and being able to do damage every round to an opponent.
I don't call that blurring classes at all.
In fact, now that wizards have their schools and sorcerers their bloodlines, the line has become less blurry. The sorcerer is actually its own class now, instead of a fighter with a couple of tweaks.
Wizards and sorcerers were always able to do damage every round. They used to use a crossbow for that before (or bow, if it was an elven spellcaster). Now they have something that's a little better, but still not nearly as good as their spells, or what a fighter can do.
I can understand the ability ‘creep’ in game design that comes in when you think “if he only had X like the (name class here).” But isn't it easier to do a touch attack as a caster than to use a crossbow (-4 for firing into combat)?
No one says the new thing isn't better than the old one. But it's their fallback ability, not their primary weapon.
So when they don't have any attack spells left, or want to conserve them, they can do a little better than before, but their raw power hasn't really increased.
By keeping mages 'in' combat in direct damage role once they have exhausted their spells seems to be too much of a blurring into the role of fighters.
The role of a fighter is not really "Be able to fight all day" and not everyone who can do that is a fighter or encroaches on the fighter's territory. The role of a fighter is to fight with weapons. They do so consistently.
Wizards still aren't consistent. Yes, the difference between primary weapon and fall-back weapon has decreased, but it's still significant.
While the “Hand of the Apprentice” makes them fighters at range, but without using touch attacks (yet using their INT bonus to get them back in line with fighters)
Back in line with fighters? Just because they can use int doesn't mean that they're in line with fighters. It might be true in the first couple of levels, when wizards' int is probably better than fighters' str (but not by that much), but then, it will quickly go against the wizard:
Fighters' BAB is twice as much as wizards', they can use more than one attack per round, they don't have to concentrate, they get combat feats....
At level 20, the ultimate wizard will have, say, Int 36 (20 base +5 inherent +5 levels +6 item), and Bab +10. Thats one attack at +23 with 1d8+13. Or +28 at 1d8+18 if he has a +5 weapon.
22 points of damage on average, if you hit.
The ultimate fighter will have, say, Str 32 (16 base +5 inherent +5 levels +6 item) and BAB +20. He'll get +4 to attack and damage from weapon training, +2 to attack and +4 damager from feats, +5 attack and damage from the weapon. That's +42/+37/+32/+27 for 2d6+29. And there's probably an extra attack for haste involved, and very nasty criticals (15-20/x3 or even x4, with automatic confirmation and an extra effect like stunning or staggering). And power attack, and various other feats.
36 points of damage on average. Per attack. Not counting crits. And the attacks are much more likely to hit than the wizard's one.
Worlds. apart.
while the various rays are touch attacks that bypass much of he protection armor provides.
For 1d6+10 if it hits. 13.5 points of damage on average. Magic missiles do better for 17.5 on average. And they'll always hit.
I wouldn't have a problem with wizards at higher levels (15+) casting magic missile at will. 20 points? Half of what a fighter does with a single attack.
My point then, is that it seems that you would think that once they are done with their ‘direct damage’ spells, casters should be put into a ‘support’ role so that they can ‘do’ something instead of keeping them in a ‘direct’ role of directly dealing damage of significance.
And why should that be? Why should they be forced to sit back and do nothing?
It's not as if those attacks were very powerful, as I said.
Therefore would seem that ‘abilities’ like “Hand of the Apprentice” should perhaps do things like “Aid”/”Trip”/”Disarm& #8221; (each of which gives the fighters an significant advantage through AoO or bonuses (i.e. Aid)).
I'm all for the option of doing that. I'm all against something that imposes an artificial role on wizards. If you want to play a damage wizard, the rules should allow you to play a damage wizard. If you want to be in a more supportive role, let that be it.
A few key points.
Everyone seems to talk about the difference between low and high levels. At low levels it is where these 'extra' direct damage attacks are where I see a problem.
(ASIDE: Now if you were to give the Sorcerers an ability to 'make' a Chewing Gum that allows them to spit acid (as a cantrip level spell), instead of as a ray, it would allow everyone around the table reason to chew gum.)
Allowing casters to use a Trip ability ONLY if they have Hand of the Apprentice, or in particular “aid” is a narrow ability if you pick the universal school.
I just think that at low levels, (after all your comments giving a variety of opinions) that casters should have more of a ‘buff’ ability than a direct damage ability. At higher levels, this need to help buff would go away.
I've always had a problem with the iconic image of an arcane spellcaster whipping out a crossbow just to be useful in a fight. In my current campaign, I've taken a shot at rectifying the "issue".
Here's a link to my house rules page. Take a look at the section on battlewands (under Character Class Changes).
I've always had a problem with the iconic image of an arcane spellcaster whipping out a crossbow just to be useful in a fight.
Its an obvious questions, but have you tried firing a crosbow? Point and shoot, and it is easy to hit a broad side of a barn becasue your target can't react to your "swing" as that is literally the twitch of your finger.
This is a point and finger squeeze weapon, while a bow requires two hands, that have to coordinate together - aligning themselves before releasing the string.
If a mage, or ANYBODY was handed a loaded crossbow, then it would be easy/intuitive. Besides, when royalty went hunting, did they always bring a bow, or was a Crossbow not much easier since when you weren't sure of your shot, you didn't have to spend effort withholding the arrow.
One LAST thing, you can't BRACE a bow against anything to increase your accuracy, but a caster (or anyone) can drop to a knee, or brace the crossbow on something to help his shot, but this isn't in the abstract rules system.
|
I've always had a problem with the iconic image of an arcane spellcaster whipping out a crossbow just to be useful in a fight.Its an obvious questions, but have you tried firing a crosbow? Point and shoot, and it is easy to hit a broad side of a barn becasue your target can't react to your "swing" as that is literally the twitch of your finger.
This is a point and finger squeeze weapon, while a bow requires two hands, that have to coordinate together - aligning themselves before releasing the string.
If a mage, or ANYBODY was handed a loaded crossbow, then it would be easy/intuitive. Besides, when royalty went hunting, did they always bring a bow, or was a Crossbow not much easier since when you weren't sure of your shot, you didn't have to spend effort withholding the arrow.
One LAST thing, you can't BRACE a bow against anything to increase your accuracy, but a caster (or anyone) can drop to a knee, or brace the crossbow on something to help his shot, but this isn't in the abstract rules system.
Then why are firearms exotic weapons?
Let anyone shoot a firearm as a simple weapon, but reloading, good luck...
That is why the Heavy crossbow has a winch. ;-)
That is why the Heavy crossbow has a winch. ;-)
Oooh, that's useful. Included in the price?
At that price, she must be homely...
"Hey, wench! Load my crossbow! And then go find me an ale!"
What?
Oh, nevermind.
You said "winch".
Sorry.
Carry on.
I've always had a problem with the iconic image of an arcane spellcaster whipping out a crossbow just to be useful in a fight.Its an obvious questions, but have you tried firing a crosbow?
The problem is not that we can't imagine a wizard being able to use a crossbow.
The problem lies with the image of a wizard being forced to use weapons instead of magic.
I've always had a problem with the iconic image of an arcane spellcaster whipping out a crossbow just to be useful in a fight.Its an obvious questions, but have you tried firing a crosbow?
The problem is not that we can't imagine a wizard being able to use a crossbow.
The problem lies with the image of a wizard being forced to use weapons instead of magic.
Yes, exactly. Firing a crossbow or firearm is a no-brainer: point, shoot, kill. However, I see arcane spellcasters as not as martially inclined as the other character classes. Mages don't generally train for long hours with weapons, so they aren't trained to take into account the variables of wind, trajectory, hitting a moving target, shooting under duress, etc.
Yes, exactly. Firing a crossbow or firearm is a no-brainer: point, shoot, kill. However, I see arcane spellcasters as not as martially inclined as the other character classes. Mages don't generally train for long hours with weapons, so they aren't trained to take into account the variables of wind, trajectory, hitting a moving target, shooting under duress, etc.
That is why casters don't have a -4 with only 'simple' weapons - oops, my bad, they don't even get simple weapons, they get ONLY
ClubDagger
H. & L. crossbows
Quarterstaffs
That is a total of 5 weapons, where the difference between two of them (the point and squeeze trigger) is 'weight' but not operation.
As for compensating for wind, when do wizards really use crossbows for long ranges? It is really a non-issue and one that would affect everybody (hence 'distance' penalties).
Besides, having casters be proficient in a crossbow indicates that it is not a 'skill' weapon and that fighters really don't have to 'practice' it much themselves since it is 'aim & trigger' - not much need for practice there.
One thing I learned in the military - once you learn to shoot a rifle, you can always shoot a rifle, BUT a pistol takes practice. Crossbows are as heavy or heavier than rifles once you learn how to shoot, unless you are trying to become a special competitive marksman, you can use them in combat without ANY sort of proficiency penalty.
At level 20, the ultimate wizard will have, say... 22 points of damage on average, if you hit. Not counting crits.
The ultimate fighter will have, say... 36 points of damage on average. Per attack. Not counting crits. And the attacks are much more likely to hit than the wizard's one.
Worlds. apart.
Quite. When the wizard's backup ability is 2/3 as effective as the fighter's primary ability, there's a credibility problem for fighters. I still find it interesting that no one has a problem increasing wizards' BAB by level at half the fighter's rate, but that the whole world gets up in arms if you recommend that fighters get half-caster martial abilities that are exactly analogous to spells.
Quite. When the wizard's backup ability is 2/3 as effective as the fighter's primary ability, there's a credibility problem for fighters. I still find it interesting that no one has a problem increasing wizards' BAB by level at half the fighter's rate, but that the whole world gets up in arms if you recommend that fighters get half-caster martial abilities that are exactly analogous to spells.At level 20, the ultimate wizard will have, say... 22 points of damage on average, if you hit. Not counting crits.
The ultimate fighter will have, say... 36 points of damage on average. Per attack. Not counting crits. And the attacks are much more likely to hit than the wizard's one.
Worlds. apart.
Could we keep the discussion related to low levels, as per the original poster's wishes?
My two cents: I think the "zap" powers of the evocation school or the elemental bloodline are just fine; why shouldn't a fire sorcerer be able to shoot some (minor) fire blasts? On the other hand, I think the Hand of the Apprentice is too much (maybe remove the Int bonus to damage) and the "acid ray" of the abberant bloodline just seems dumb (what's an acid ray? and what does it have to do with mind flayers and otyughs?).
Overall, I like my wizards firing off cantrips rather than crossbow bolts.
|
My two cents: I think the "zap" powers of the evocation school or the elemental bloodline are just fine; why shouldn't a fire sorcerer be able to shoot some (minor) fire blasts? On the other hand, I think the Hand of the Apprentice is too much (maybe remove the Int bonus to damage) and the "acid ray" of the abberant bloodline just seems dumb (what's an acid ray? and what does it have to do with mind flayers and otyughs?).
Okay an acid ray is in my mind like a line of acid that shoots out from your palm. since its acid the first thing it hits stops the line. Granted in this image if you were shooting past soft cover the soft cover should probably take the 1 point of splash damage, but that's how I picture it in my head, not so much a ray but a line, sorta like you squirt it out in a stream like a watergun.
Overall, I like my wizards firing off cantrips rather than crossbow bolts.
I agree. Whether it's a cantrip or a battlewand, I prefer the traditional flavor of a wizard using magic instead of a weapon.
I agree. Whether it's a cantrip or a battlewand, I prefer the traditional flavor of a wizard using magic instead of a weapon.
Overall, I like my wizards firing off cantrips rather than crossbow bolts.
The overall problem includes that while giving the sorcer unlimited cantrips, you also give him (in some cases) a double strength cantrip of the same type.
Give him something to either 'buff' or aide one of his party members in combat. Either let the quartertaf be a weapon that can only do the "Aid" combat manouver at 'reach' range, or have him make other 'combat monouvers' easier (like trip/sunder) through some cantrips, since there are already direct damage cantrips that are helpful at low levels.
At higher levels, I would think that you could start doubling or tripling the damage that the cantrips do.
Quite. When the wizard's backup ability is 2/3 as effective as the fighter's primary ability, there's a credibility problem for fighters.
I think you have not been paying attention.
All the wizard can do is that one attack for 22 points on average. If he hits. (And we've been assuming a +5 sword here, which might not what he has)
The fighter gets 4, maybe 5, attacks that are basically all more likely to hit than the wizard's, deal more damage (i.e. 36 on average), and have extra perks.
Of course, if you only count the raw damage for one hit and discount everything else, it seems close.
But that's not how it works.
For a bit more accuracy, we have to pick an enemy. Let's pick a Balor with his AC 35.
So if the wizard attacks the balor, he needs to roll at least a 7 to hit. 70% chance of hitting. Statistical damage 15.4 (70% of 22). And let's add critical hits. 10% chance of threatening a crit. You can double your damage if you hit again, meaning a crit will deal another 15.4 damage, statistical average. 10% threat range means you add 10% of that damage, for a total of 16.94 points of damage per round on statistical average.
If the fighter attacks the balor, he will get 4 attacks. (Let's ignore haste or a weapon of speed for the moment).
Base Damage 36.
Attacks 42/+37/+32/+27
That gives you 95%/95%/90%/65% to hit, total 124,2. And now for the fun part: Crits! With improved crit, the increased multiplier feat and weapon supremacy, you'll have 15-20/x4 crits, and you don't have to confirm your roll! That means 30% per attack for quadruple damage, i.e. an extra 36*3 points! 4 attacks means 120% to score a crit, meaning 1,2*108 points extra damage, with a grand total of 253.8.
So we're not talking about 22 against 36. We're talking about 16.94 against 253.8.
And even if the fighter only gets one hit, he will have a very diabolic 66.6 points on average. About 4 times as much.
That is, of course, if he doesn't decide on using power attack with that strike. +42 (2d6+29 / 15-20/x4) becomes +31 (2d6+51 / 15-20/x4).
Average damage is 58. 85% of hitting = 49.3. Crits 30% for an extra 174, that's an extra 52,2. Total 101,5. 6 times as much.
Aren't numbers fun?
Yes, exactly. Firing a crossbow or firearm is a no-brainer: point, shoot, kill.
Well, firearms do have recoil.
However, I see arcane spellcasters as not as martially inclined as the other character classes. Mages don't generally train for long hours with weapons, so they aren't trained to take into account the variables of wind, trajectory, hitting a moving target, shooting under duress, etc.
That's not the problem. The problem is that they do not want. And they shouldn't have to.
With improved crit, the increased multiplier feat and weapon supremacy
No, do it without weapon supremacy, unless you start your campaigns at 20th level instead of ending them there. The analogy I used before is a Commoner with the 20th level capstone ability of at-will meteor swarms. What a character can do only at 20th level is irrelevant from 12th - 19th levels.
Again - I'm talking about 'low' levels.
I'm completely ignoring high levels becasue that is a DIFFERENT game.
Again - I'm talking about 'low' levels. I'm completely ignoring high levels becasue that is a DIFFERENT game.
Agreed. Low levels only on this thread, hereafter.
I agree. Whether it's a cantrip or a battlewand, I prefer the traditional flavor of a wizard using magic instead of a weapon.
Overall, I like my wizards firing off cantrips rather than crossbow bolts.The overall problem includes that while giving the sorcer unlimited cantrips, you also give him (in some cases) a double strength cantrip of the same type.
Give him something to either 'buff' or aide one of his party members in combat.
But some sorcerers/wizards are not 'buffing' types (e.g. a war-mage kind of character). In that case I think it's perfectly reasonable to give them an at-will blasting power, if it's thematically appropriate and if it's not too powerful (e.g. 2d6+6 at level 1 is too much, but 1d6 is fine).
I agree that the Hand of the Apprentice attack power is not appropriate (why should it get Int to attack and damage rolls?) and should be replaced with something else.
Well, firearms do have recoil.
Ok, just add that to the list of reasons why an arcane spellcaster would not be as skilled with a weapon.
Tom Qadim wrote:However, I see arcane spellcasters as not as martially inclined as the other character classes. Mages don't generally train for long hours with weapons, so they aren't trained to take into account the variables of wind, trajectory, hitting a moving target, shooting under duress, etc.
That's not the problem. The problem is that they do not want. And they shouldn't have to.
I never saw arming a wizard with a crossbow as a problem or rules oversight. It's just a flavor thing...personal taste if you will. I like the idea of wizards spending much of their youth studying magic....so they didn't have time for learning how to load and fire a crossbow.
I'm not sure what you mean by "they do not want". Who exactly is "they" (spellcasters, I assume?) and what don't they want?
KaeYoss is my kind of guy.
Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys
Thanks. By the way, stop to misrepresent yourself :P
Irori is the god of knowledge. Nethys is god of magic. Of course, you didn't know that, not being god of knowledge ;-P
Again - I'm talking about 'low' levels.
I'm completely ignoring high levels becasue that is a DIFFERENT game.
No, it's not. Same game. Not all games have to be the same all the time. In fact, I'd prefer if they weren't.
I'm not sure what you mean by "they do not want". Who exactly is "they" (spellcasters, I assume?) and what don't they want?
Spellcasters don't want to use mundane weapons. At least, I think a lot of wizards would think it beneath them.
Spellcasters don't want to use mundane weapons. At least, I think a lot of wizards would think it beneath them.
Ah, I see. I'm not sure that would be a universal truth, but it would definitely make for good role-playing!
The difference for high and low level games is extreme, and makes a huge difference for this discussion.
High level games: no one is concerned with the damage output of the mage hand or rays. Not a problem. Move on. I think everyone agrees that a mage who resorts to this at high level too often is not long for this world.
Low level game: with the INT bonus to hit and damage, they can outdo the fighters in ranged combat and 2nd line warriors (rogue, monk, etc) in melee. It also does better then most of their spells at that level. A 20 INT wizard with a masterwork short sword attacks at +6 and does d6+5. This is pretty damn good, and on par with a fighter or ranger focused on ranged attacks. Fighters can squeak by a bit more (rapid fire), but not by much. 2nd Line fighters are exceeded in melee and range, and this is with a minor ability of the caster, at range enough to avoid the risk the others take in melee.
The concept is great, though, and I would rather fix then remove it - what about giving +1/2 your level as a bonus to hit, +1/3 your level damage with the weapon. At low levels, not too extreme, but still safely distant from that nasty melee, perhaps even allowing the caster to aid other instead of making a direct attack. Now the caster can still do combat or aid his allies. As the caster rises in level, the ability loses its importance, but at least increases enough to make it somewhat useful. A 12th level caster has +13 to hit and does +5 damage with a +1 weapon. Not intense, but useful enough to consider using if a situation doesn't warrent using up spells. Nowhere near the power of the fighter, but perhaps close enough to a bards melee ability to be useful (bard at 12th has a base attack of +9) as backup.
Fine, be that way, evade the discussion by saying higher levels do not count.
Let's look at lower levels, then.
It is indeed true that at low levels, hand of the apprentice is too good, but that doesn't mean we have to get rid of it. A fix will work just as well.
But let's compare a fighter to a wizard with hand of the accolyte at lower levels.
In the first few levels, the hand of the apprentice can actually outshine the fighter, since his attack bonus can be better: Wizards tend to be more tightly focussed on magic than fighters on strength. At those levels, the lower attack bonus will not matter that much. But the fighter's superior fighting training (BAB and feats) will quickly overcome that.
The fighter starts with BAB +1, Str 16, weapon focus and overhand chop.
The wizard starts with BAB +0, and Int 20.
The fighter will use, say, a falchion (the slightly lower damage is made up for by the better crit - but an exotic weapon like the great falchion, which is a falchion with 2d6 damage, should not be that much of a stretch), while the wizard will use a scimitar.
Fighter: +5(2d4+6 / 18-20)
Wizard: +5(1d6+5 / 18-20)
Already, the fighter has a slight edge because of the better damage - 11 over 8.5. You could still argue that the wizard shouldn't be as good as the fighter in all this, and I'd agree.
But during the next few levels, the fighter will quickly come into his own:
Level 3: Baby steps, I'm sure, but it starts:
Fighter: +7 (2d4+6 / 18-20)
Wizard: +6 (1d6+5 / 18-20)
Level 5: Fighter has weapon specialisation and weapon training now, and the BAB gap has started to show.
For the sake of argument, let's say that both will boost their primary ability (str/int) by 2, and that none will get any special weapon (though it's quite likely that the fighter will get magic weapons much more quickly than the wizard).
Fighter: +11 (2d4+11 / 18-20)
Wizard: +8 (1d6+6 / 18-20)
The difference between damage is more pronounced now, and there is a difference between attack probabilities, which translates into even more damage for the fighter.
Level 9: Let's assume no change of str/int now, and still no magic weapon. Fighter has acquired backswing, improved critical and critical focus as feats (next will be greater weapon focus) Fighters also now get two attacks and another weapon training)
Fighter +16/+11 (2d4+12/15-20 / 2d4+10/15-20)
Wizard: +10 (1d6+6 / 18-20)
Damage is much more pronounced now - in addition to better attack probabilities, we have much more likely criticals, more raw damage, and, of course, an extra attack!
As for my former calculations: I totally forgot about overhand chop/backswing/devastating blow. Those feats further increase the fighter's possible damage output.
Ah, I see. I'm not sure that would be a universal truth, but it would definitely make for good role-playing!
Spellcasters don't want to use mundane weapons. At least, I think a lot of wizards would think it beneath them.
Yay!
Thanks for the compliment, though you knew not you gave it to me.
My mage, Telweir, is a bookworm. He spends every moment he can studying any book he can get his hands on.
And he hasn't carried a weapon. Ever. Not a staff. Not even a dagger. Despite the fact that as an elf, he's proficient with wizard weapons and certain bows and swords.
In Pathfinder, he hasn't needed a weapon. He can conjure an acid dart at will so he has no need of, nor desire for, any brutish physical weapon.
He does have a utility knife, for cutting rope or skinning a coney, or for whittling.
Yeah my wizard Ruaph Le Mao didn't mind going toe to toe with demons, devils, angels, undead, or the like -- he knew how to handle them. It was that 3 foot piece of steel that he knew was going to hurt that worried him.
My mage, Telweir, is a bookworm. He spends every moment he can studying any book he can get his hands on.
And he hasn't carried a weapon. Ever. Not a staff. Not even a dagger. Despite the fact that as an elf, he's proficient with wizard weapons and certain bows and swords.
In Pathfinder, he hasn't needed a weapon. He can conjure an acid dart at will so he has no need of, nor desire for, any brutish physical weapon.
He does have a utility knife, for cutting rope or skinning a coney, or for whittling.
Awesome! That's good stuff.