Kind of like how it's literally impossible for a greatsword-fighter to attack with his weapon while grappled. He has to reach for that dagger. Anything a fighter can't do in combat, a mage shouldn't get a better chance to do.Um, yeah I agree. In particular when you consider the wizard can still pull out a wand of dimension door and teleport out without even provoking an AoO. There are quite a few other powers/ spells casters can use to get out of a pickle as well without provoking.
You mean the wand that costs 21,000gp which you can't afford until at least 14th level?
You mean the wand that costs 21,000gp which you can't afford until at least 14th level?
I was thinking of the one he crafted on his arcane bonded wand for 10,500 GP. Or the gaseous form wand he bought (or crafted) if he couldn't afford a DDoor one. Or the wizard's arcane bonded ring of spell storing with gaseous form. Or the Conjurer's 9th level specialist ability. Or the clerics travel domain ability. Or the druid wildshape ability. Or the freedom of movement spell your cleric or druid cast long before combat. Or any of a dozen other ways casters can get out of jail free if they take the time to prepare for it.
Yes, a caster is in a pickle if he gets gobbled by T-Rex but with a little preparation they are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves. This is assuming of course that the caster even gets grappled through the mirror image/ displacement/ blur/ freedom of movement effects they typically have going by 10th level.
|
Hey everyone, I'm trying to find the rule about following an opponent when they make a 5-foot step. Can someone point it out to me? So far as I've been able to find, you can only make a 5-foot step during your turn.
When you ready an action, you may take a five foot step as part of that readied action. (page 203)
"You can take a 5-foot step as part of your readied action, but only if you don't otherwise move any distance during the round.
Also the feat Step Up.
"Benefit:Whenever an adjacent foe attempts to take a 5-foot step away from you, you may also make a 5-foot step as an immediate action so long as you end up adjacent to the foe that triggered this ability. If you take this step, you cannot take a 5-foot step during your next turn. If you take an action to move during your nect turn, subtract 5 feet from your total movement."
|
Hey everyone, I'm trying to find the rule about following an opponent when they make a 5-foot step. Can someone point it out to me? So far as I've been able to find, you can only make a 5-foot step during your turn.When you ready an action, you may take a five foot step as part of that readied action.
Also the feat Step Up.
Hmm. It might be easier for a spellcaster to withdraw then, and establish range again so they can get a good spell in on the next round.
I am of the opinion that basing the DC partly on the BAB of whoever the mage is being threatened by is a good compromise between realism and balance.
The first level mage should be roughly as scared of the wild swings of a level 1 barbarian as an Archmage is of the rapier of an expert duelist.
I don't think that it should be 50% or more of a chance to fail your spell. If i tell my players that they only have a 25-45 percent chance to get a spell off successfully just because an enemy managed to get close to them I doubt I'd have any single class wizards in my games anymore. Hell, if thats the case, forget rolling a d20, can just flip a coin and not worry about any pesky modifiers.
That being said, lowering the DC from 15+2x mod to 10+2x mod or something in between might be something for me to look at too.
*I* think you should have a 100% chance to fail a spell when you get hit. I've *never* understood the reasoning that somehow they get to save a spell after they've been hit.
It was that way back in first edition. Your players maybe shouldn't play wizards. Works in the DM's favor, no?
I've *never* understood the reasoning that somehow they get to save a spell after they've been hit.
It doesn't make sense that getting a little cut on the arm somehow causes all the magical energy to dissipate - if you can ignore the pain and keep the spell alive, you should be able to finish casting it just fine.
Arguing otherwise is like saying a fighter shouldn't be able to make an attack if he's hit by an AoO while moving into position.
|
I've *never* understood the reasoning that somehow they get to save a spell after they've been hit.It doesn't make sense that getting a little cut on the arm somehow causes all the magical energy to dissipate - if you can ignore the pain and keep the spell alive, you should be able to finish casting it just fine.
Arguing otherwise is like saying a fighter shouldn't be able to make an attack if he's hit by an AoO while moving into position.
Pathfinder Combat:
Roll for initiative.
Roll to hit on your turn.
First person to hit wins.
;)
It'd also hurt Wisdom-based spellcasters, now that I think of it. In fact, making concentration part of any Knowledge skill immediately makes wizards the best at the skill and makes ALL OTHER spellcasters less good at it. Why? Because wizards are the only core spellcasting class that uses Intelligence to cast spells, and thus they'll generally always have better Intelligence modifiers (and thus better Knowledge checks) than other spellcasting classes.
This whole line comes from me saying that the mechanics of Spellcraft - identifying spells as they're cast and learning new spells for your spellbook - should be rolled into the Knowledge skills. It has nothing to do with the Concentration checks.
This was something I argued about strongly in the Beta, because you did exactly this - you made casting defensively based on Spellcraft, which benefited Wizards (who had INT as their primary casting stat) and penalized everyone else. Obviously, you took the complaints about this disparity to heart when you reinvented defensive casting in the final rules, but this was an argument that was presented frequently in those discussions from players on the boards, myself included. I was always a fan of the Concentration skill, though, because it used a unified stat that every class benefits from (Constitution), it meant that CON actually had a skill keyed off of it, and it was useful for certain other things and sub-rules.
Psionics, for example, certainly can't just replace Concentration with a caster level check, simply because of the mechanics of Psionic Focus. A fighter with Wild Talent or the Naturally Psionic racial ability can make Concentration checks to gain Psionic Focus and benefit from a plethora of feats that are keyed off that focus, and that same character has no manifestor level to speak of. He needs some other mechanic, like a skill, to invest in so that he can use the system. Autohypnosis would make a certain amount of sense as a substitution, and I believe that's what Dreamscarred Press is intending on doing when it revamps the XPH for Pathfinder, but there are other times when the Concentration skill could come in to play if the designers actually emphasized it. Picking a lock/disabling a trap in combat? Concentration checks would be a possible mechanic to prevent failure/increasing the DC.
There's lots of potential that could have gone into the skill beyond what the designers of the game had already done, but it's a moot point now. Either I houserule it back in or I have to rework several things that I enjoyed about the old skill. It was a surprisingly common thing to find, and I actually had a character once who actually emphasized just how good at concentrating she was - it was sort of a point of pride that she was just that much more focused than other people. Obviously I'm in something of a minority, though.
|
Contributor
|
Psionics has the Authypnosis skill which could easily be used to replace concentration for gaining Psionic Focus and it doesn't favor or penalize any psionic srd class.
As for Tome of Battle, Initiator level can be used as even non-ToB classes get one. The next most likely option would be to substitute the Martial Lore skill added by that book.
At least 90% of the uses of concentration (if not 99%) are easily replaceable. The remainder were rarely used (if at all) by the majority of players according to the feedback during the play test. I for one don't miss it in the least.
I was about to post this, but you beat me to it... Autohypnosis and intiator level are great solutions. Seriously, who wouldn't use their level to replace a saving throw?
I like the extra danger to casters. None of this 5th level caster getting 8 ranks+ 2 Con+ Skill Focus 3= +13 for a DC 18 check. 5+(80%) success while in melee? That's silly for a standard caster. Even 75% is silly (and I've almost never seen a caster with a Con of less than 12)
Psionics has the Authypnosis skill which could easily be used to replace concentration for gaining Psionic Focus and it doesn't favor or penalize any psionic srd class.
As for Tome of Battle, Initiator level can be used as even non-ToB classes get one. The next most likely option would be to substitute the Martial Lore skill added by that book.
At least 90% of the uses of concentration (if not 99%) are easily replaceable. The remainder were rarely used (if at all) by the majority of players according to the feedback during the play test. I for one don't miss it in the least.
Ah, but I also liked some of the cross-useful stuff in the game - that a martial adept/psion got a bit of a benefit from Concentration for both his classes.
And, just as I'm doing away with spellcraft as a skill (rolling it into knowledges), so I'll be doing it to martial lore (it'll go into knowledge (history), probably). I think, if I decide to stick closer to the PFRPG and DSP's revision, I'll key Diamond Mind off of autohypnosis. It's fitting enough, I suppose, but it's not quite what I'd have liked it to be. *shrug*
James tells us not to reinstate the skill, and I express my reasons for wanting to do so. It'll obviously not be brought back - even in the alpha, I got the distinct impression that Paizo just hated the skill on the whole, and it wasn't coming back no matter what, so I'll see how it fits for my games. I never had a problem with it, myself.
SQUAWK?
I've *never* understood the reasoning that somehow they get to save a spell after they've been hit.It doesn't make sense that getting a little cut on the arm somehow causes all the magical energy to dissipate - if you can ignore the pain and keep the spell alive, you should be able to finish casting it just fine.
Arguing otherwise is like saying a fighter shouldn't be able to make an attack if he's hit by an AoO while moving into position.
Ok, so in order to summon magical energies, I have to with absolutely no error perform a particular motion with my body while I intone a sequence of sounds. Any deviation from this procedure wrecks the spell.
So the simple resistance of the blade, or me getting bumped or jostled in the most small way is disruptive to this ritual and it fails.
It *totally* makes sense that a cut no matter how small on your arm causes the magical energy to dissipate. Hell, a loud noise that causes a moments hesitation should cause you to lose the spell. We're talking about magic here, not chopping down foes, or driving a transport.
Why should I be able to summon eldritch and arcane energies while I'm actually being wounded by a sharp? I've *been* stabbed at my job, and trust me, I can't think of any real world activity I'd be able to continue doing without interruption, to say nothing of using my will to reign the very fundamental energies of the universe to accomplish my ends.
How do you get that doing that takes *less* concentration?
-Campbell
Ok, so in order to summon magical energies, I have to with absolutely no error perform a particular motion with my body while I intone a sequence of sounds. Any deviation from this procedure wrecks the spell.
So the simple resistance of the blade, or me getting bumped or jostled in the most small way is disruptive to this ritual and it fails.
If that's the way magic works in your gameworlds, then I guess so.
On the other hand, I view it as a primarily mental activity, and the somatic and verbal components of the spell merely serve as a focus for the mental component - it doesn't matter if they're a little off, as long as you still get the parts in your head right.
Why should I be able to summon eldritch and arcane energies while I'm actually being wounded by a sharp? I've *been* stabbed at my job, and trust me, I can't think of any real world activity I'd be able to continue doing without interruption,
So you couldn't, say, navigate a blade of your own around your opponent's guard to stab him back?
That's basically what my comment-in-jest was saying - if you're going to take that line, there's no reason for it to not also apply to sweaty men in tin cans bashing away at each other.
There's a reason the concentration DC is based on the damage you take - a papercut is comparatively easy to recover from, while someone running you through or hacking off your leg is going to be much more difficult.
I've *never* understood the reasoning that somehow they get to save a spell after they've been hit.It doesn't make sense that getting a little cut on the arm somehow causes all the magical energy to dissipate - if you can ignore the pain and keep the spell alive, you should be able to finish casting it just fine.
Arguing otherwise is like saying a fighter shouldn't be able to make an attack if he's hit by an AoO while moving into position.
Ok, so in order to summon magical energies, I have to with absolutely no error perform a particular motion with my body while I intone a sequence of sounds. Any deviation from this procedure wrecks the spell.
So the simple resistance of the blade, or me getting bumped or jostled in the most small way is disruptive to this ritual and it fails.
It *totally* makes sense that a cut no matter how small on your arm causes the magical energy to dissipate. Hell, a loud noise that causes a moments hesitation should cause you to lose the spell. We're talking about magic here, not chopping down foes, or driving a transport.
Why should I be able to summon eldritch and arcane energies while I'm actually being wounded by a sharp? I've *been* stabbed at my job, and trust me, I can't think of any real world activity I'd be able to continue doing without interruption, to say nothing of using my will to reign the very fundamental energies of the universe to accomplish my ends.
How do you get that doing that takes *less* concentration?
-Campbell
The simple answer to the question is because your not a hero =)
More complicated, is that theres a big difference between being stabbed willy nilly, and being in a life or death situation, where doing that action might be the difference between living long enough to ask the cleric for a healing spell, and taking a long dirt nap. Motivation *really* counts.
Also, everyone has a different tolerance to pain. Me, I've had stress fractured bones and didn't even realize it, although I wish I had, would have kept me from using those bones till they broke. My brother on the other hand, stubs his toe and can't walk for an hour.
And also, don't forget the HP system is an abstract. It takes into account a certain amount of experience (getting more out of the way of that sword before it disembowels you even though the guy is only in your peripheral vision), and heroic assumptions (your not playing a wimp, in theory anyway)
Which also I think why its ok for higher level casters to maek the DC's more often. Much like people get better at what they do in the real world, down to the point of being able to better, under worse conditions, characters get better at what they do.
One thing I've sometimes done for concentration checks is this.
If the damage done is less than 10% of your hitpoints, and it's also less than or equal to his WIS Modifier, then no concentration check is necessary.
So, a 1st level wizard has to do a concentration check everytime he gets hit (hp < 10). At third level, where he's got about 15 hitpoints, if he's hit for 1 hitpoint, and he has at least a 12 wisdom, no concentration check required at all (paper cut). At 10th level, where he's got 50 hitpoints, he can ignore up to 5 points of damage in one hit (assuming he's got a +5 WIS modifier). This was basically a way to cover the 'He barely scratched me, I gotta roll a check?' arguments.
Note that's all the damage he takes before he casts the spell, if he took 10 1 point hits, he has to do a concentration check. You can be nickle and dimed to death by pygmie ants.
It was that way back in first edition. Your players maybe shouldn't play wizards. Works in the DM's favor, no?
This isn't first edition. You might be right in that perhaps my players shouldn't be playing PATHFINDER. Saying my players shouldn't play wizards instead of me trying to find a compromise between a difficult roll and an impossible one is silly. Its a game. Games are meant to be fun. If my players can't have fun playing pathfinder then I'll find a system they CAN have fun in.
That being said, I'm not saying they don't like pathfinder. They do like most of it. I like most of it. I may even end up accepting the change and just drastically altering my own wizards tactics and suggesting the same change for my players.
Myself I would rather a wizard who was less afraid of casting spells in combat and just hoping he didn't take a lot of damage (considering he has about a third of the hit points of the usual front line defenders) than a rule that encourages a wizard to be invisible and flying and even more of a game breaker. One is fun, and a challenge in a fight. The other is annoying, and potentially an impossible opponent to defeat.
I like the extra danger to casters. None of this 5th level caster getting 8 ranks+ 2 Con+ Skill Focus 3= +13 for a DC 18 check. 5+(80%) success while in melee? That's silly for a standard caster. Even 75% is silly (and I've almost never seen a caster with a Con of less than 12)
I think we can find something in between an almost impossible roll, and an almost automatic success myself. Melee should have extra options to counter, or casters should have a harder time not both. If i stick with the new concentration rules i might just eliminate the disruptive feats. It'll take some experimentation.
I can't think of any real world activity I'd be able to continue doing without interruption, to say nothing of using my will to reign the very fundamental energies of the universe to accomplish my ends.
How do you get that doing that takes *less* concentration?
-Campbell
Then by your reasoning, ANY damage to ANY class should affect your actions. A fighter gets hit? penalty to attack. cleric gets hit? no healing that round. rogue gets hit? well there goes your sneak attack and probably a nice penalty to hit.
Sounds a little silly doesn't it? We're talking a game. not real life. If I wanted reality I doubt I'd be playing RPGs.
This discussion is stilted...
Casters aren't SUPPOSED to be able to cast in melee with fighters.... that's why they are casters and not soldiers. As it is I think the rules are still soft on casters.
Caster's ability to cast in combat should be dependent on the attack bonus (skill) of the guy who is trained to BE in melee standing in front him. Ignoring the fact that the guy in front of the caster is a 20th level raging barbarian with a crazy melee bonus is just silly. Casters get to be the hot shots in everything else (mass damage, save or die, massive utility, transportation, raising dead, etc). Let the melee characters rule melee ... it's the one thing they really get to do!!!
Grab yourself some tank soldiers to hide behind and destroy everyone from safety. It creates a nice synergy to a party as well... the caster owns the battle assuming the soldiers keep him safe. Soldiers depend on casters for everything outside melee just about...casters depend on soldiers to keep the bad guys out of their grill.
I tried it RAW, the casters in the party got frustrated. Added a feat that let them reroll a failed attempt. Neither caster was thrilled but are willing to give it another try.
This.
I'd also Like to highlight the 'the casters got frustrated' statement. Maybe they should stay out of combat and cast? It sounds like they are frustrated because they want to have their cake and eat it too (i.e. cast spells and not worry about getting hit.) *That* was the source of my comment about 'maybe they shouldn't play wizards.'
What would you do if a fighter complained that he wanted a long sword to have 10' reach? Or a Cleric complained he couldn't locate traps with his perception? Or Barbarian whined because he couldn't use a wand of magic missile?
I second the statement, why not just play the game as it is. If your wizard players don't want to play wizards, then go ahead and let them play fighters. If they do want to play wizards, why not let them go ahead and see how this rule affects their play?
|
|
This discussion is stilted...
Casters aren't SUPPOSED to be able to cast in melee with fighters.... that's why they are casters and not soldiers. As it is I think the rules are still soft on casters.
This I agree with. With the introduction of the battle map spell casters should have the old 1e "hit and spell gone" back. Moving badly pre-painted miniatures around a little 2D piece of grided plastic should allow the spell caster enough insight of where to stand and where not to stand. Melee type should be protecting casters, part of their job. Spell casting in melee should be almost impossible (i.e. your AC is the only hurdle to losing your spell). This would make more of cover and what-not during a fight.
This "concentration check" was the largest deviation from "D&D" I think that ever occured (pre-4e). It was just assumed in your AC while spell casting (with no DEX), in fact Gygax suggests use of wands if a mage finds themselves in the thick of it.
S.
Moving badly pre-painted miniatures around a little 2D piece of grided plastic should allow the spell caster enough insight of where to stand and where not to stand.
What about moving badly self painted minis?
|
|
This whole line comes from me saying that the mechanics of Spellcraft - identifying spells as they're cast and learning new spells for your spellbook - should be rolled into the Knowledge skills. It has nothing to do with the Concentration checks.
I've always had a hard time justifying the differences between Knowledge (arcana) and Spellcraft. They just seem to overlap on every level that counts.
99% of the situations that would call for an Arcana check could be covered by another skill. Either someone's actually cast a spell (Spellcraft), it's a monstrous ability (Dungeoneering/Planes/etc), it's divine meddling (Religion), 'the stars are right' (Astronomy/Planes), or it's a Deus ex Machina/DM fiat/Handwavium effect the whole lynchpin of the plot, in which case, you're out of luck, because the DM wants you to go through the whole adventure, not sidestep half of it with a single skill roll.
This discussion is stilted...
Casters aren't SUPPOSED to be able to cast in melee with fighters.... that's why they are casters and not soldiers. As it is I think the rules are still soft on casters.
Caster's ability to cast in combat should be dependent on the attack bonus (skill) of the guy who is trained to BE in melee standing in front him. Ignoring the fact that the guy in front of the caster is a 20th level raging barbarian with a crazy melee bonus is just silly. Casters get to be the hot shots in everything else (mass damage, save or die, massive utility, transportation, raising dead, etc). Let the melee characters rule melee ... it's the one thing they really get to do!!!
Grab yourself some tank soldiers to hide behind and destroy everyone from safety. It creates a nice synergy to a party as well... the caster owns the battle assuming the soldiers keep him safe. Soldiers depend on casters for everything outside melee just about...casters depend on soldiers to keep the bad guys out of their grill.
I tried it RAW, the casters in the party got frustrated. Added a feat that let them reroll a failed attempt. Neither caster was thrilled but are willing to give it another try.This.
I'd also Like to highlight the 'the casters got frustrated' statement. Maybe they should stay out of combat and cast? /QUOTE]
I know there are touch spells in the game, but most of the people I have played with dont beleive in getting into melee range. Most of the time if a caster is in melee its because the fighter came to him, not because he came to the fighter.
The reason casters get to make concentration checks is because nobody is happy seeing their action wasted. As far as casters depending on soldier to keep enemies away that is only true to an extent at lower levels. If fighters had some of the 4th ed fighters abilities to control an enemy's movement, or if there was a way to make a lockdown fighter within the pathfinder rules that might be true. The enemy might have to use a few more squares to get around the fighter, but unless the area is small the fighter normally is not stopping anyone from getting to the caster.
PS: I am not promoting fourth edition.
PS2: There may be a way to make a lockdown fighter, but after my reading of the feats I dont see how to do it.
casters pay for casting in melee as is simply because they lack hit points to stay in the front lines. They don't have the AC either. I think this is payment enough. They won't survive more than a few rounds in toe to toe combat with a fighter and they shouldn't. doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to cast their spells.
If you go that a wizard shouldn't be able to cast because their threatened by combat, than any class should have their primary ability to fight affected by the fact that they have a threat in their face.
I will NOT be using the rules as written, it was tested rather thoroughly at game tonight. In one combat the party wizard got off a measly ONE spell in 5 rounds. Finally he resorted to fly and invisibility just to be able to be effective.
If a rule is made that makes a class subpar that it won't be used, its a bad rule. The rule might work for larger groups, but the AP's simply don't give you the luxury of being out of threatened range most of the time. If there was rules put into play that made fighters subpar unless they were using a sword and shield and penalized all other builds people would be raising hell. but because its a caster nerf everyone is okay with it.
This is okay with me, people are inclined to have their opinions. And its good to know that next time I have a question or seeking advice about caster problems to not come here unless I'm seeking a nerf.
If you go that a wizard shouldn't be able to cast because their threatened by combat, than any class should have their primary ability to fight affected by the fact that they have a threat in their face.
Most other classes can't use the majority of their class abilities from 400 ft. + 40 ft/level away.
Most other classes can't disable an opponent without once rolling against their AC.
Most other classes don't have class abilities that let them fly, teleport, become ethereal/astral/incorporeal etc.
Most other classes don't have so many ways they can avoid melee combat entirely, while still being able to use their class abilities to full effect.
If you go that a wizard shouldn't be able to cast because their threatened by combat, than any class should have their primary ability to fight affected by the fact that they have a threat in their face.Most other classes can't use the majority of their class abilities from 400 ft. + 40 ft/level away.
Most other classes can't disable an opponent without once rolling against their AC.
Most other classes don't have class abilities that let them fly, teleport, become ethereal/astral/incorporeal etc.
Most other classes don't have so many ways they can avoid melee combat entirely, while still being able to use their class abilities to full effect.
EVERY class has at least one or two incredible abilities that make them extremely good. Nearly every wizard spell that can disable the target has a saving throw and very few of them are a difficult DC. At higher levels a fighter can do that now too, stunning critical. yes, you have to roll against an AC, but if you compare numbers of BAB vs spell DC, the numbers are pretty comparable.
Fly, teleport, and the various projections are useful yes, but only one of them is likely to be used in combat.
There really is no way to balance the casters, other than by redoing all the spells so casters dont rule. Then you can go back and do the cast on defensive thing. If you make them auto fail in melee or even out of melee due to damage the class is not fun anymore. I think the current concentration rules work pretty well, because it gives them a chance to fail, but does not make it impossible to cast the spell.
Nearly every wizard spell that can disable the target has a saving throw and very few of them are a difficult DC.
Except that opponents only have one AC, and they have 3 saves, and a prepared wizard can usually cast against the least favorable of their saves. Even against opponents with overwhelmingly good saves (such as dragons) casters still have the option of casting ranged touch attack spells (which typically have no save whatsoever).
Fly, teleport, and the various projections are useful yes, but only one of them is likely to be used in combat.
If your casters aren't using the full variety of avoidance/control spells available to them to control the battlefield appropriately.. well.. you just found your problem right there.
This is okay with me, people are inclined to have their opinions. And its good to know that next time I have a question or seeking advice about caster problems to not come here unless I'm seeking a nerf.
No offense, but it didn't exactly seem like you came here asking a question in the first place. You had a position, and stuck to it doggedly, which is fine, it's your game to run, but if you were looking for input and wanting the opinions of others.. well.. you got it, it just wasn't always in agreement with yours. I do hope you don't feel like you can't ask questions of people here, this sort of discussion can be heated, but it's a good discussion to have (for both sides).
(For what it's worth, while I do think concentration needed the DCs adjusted to account for the threatening opponents BAB, I would rather have seen it expanded to cover more non-caster situations than removed entirely.)
casters pay for casting in melee as is simply because they lack hit points to stay in the front lines. They don't have the AC either. I think this is payment enough. They won't survive more than a few rounds in toe to toe combat with a fighter and they shouldn't. doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to cast their spells.
If you go that a wizard shouldn't be able to cast because their threatened by combat, than any class should have their primary ability to fight affected by the fact that they have a threat in their face.
I will NOT be using the rules as written, it was tested rather thoroughly at game tonight. In one combat the party wizard got off a measly ONE spell in 5 rounds. Finally he resorted to fly and invisibility just to be able to be effective.
If a rule is made that makes a class subpar that it won't be used, its a bad rule. The rule might work for larger groups, but the AP's simply don't give you the luxury of being out of threatened range most of the time. If there was rules put into play that made fighters subpar unless they were using a sword and shield and penalized all other builds people would be raising hell. but because its a caster nerf everyone is okay with it.
This is okay with me, people are inclined to have their opinions. And its good to know that next time I have a question or seeking advice about caster problems to not come here unless I'm seeking a nerf.
Speaking as a player who has played a spellcaster in every edition oof the game except 4th...
Your wizard might need to learn to play like a wizard. Touch spells are great...for backups or "oh damn" situations. Especially at low levels, when he can't compete with melee classes (even the rogue) in AC without using a pretty large portion of his spell capability on AC. Melee every once in a while is fine, at later levels, but by then between magic items/magic spells the AC isn't as bad of an issue, and the check isn't anywhere near as hard to make. If your wizard is dead set on being a melee wizard...point him in the direction of Eldritch Knight, it works wonders for that.
Just a thought. I love wizards as a class...I also accept that playing a wizard has certain hazards, and getting womped on or shut down in melee is one of them.
<snip>
I will NOT be using the rules as written, it was tested rather thoroughly at game tonight. In one combat the party wizard got off a measly ONE spell in 5 rounds. Finally he resorted to fly and invisibility just to be able to be effective.
<snip>
Sorry, you just lost your own argument right there. The wizard used tactical sense and got the h*** out of combat. Then he was effective.
Obviously you (and your players) want your wizard to be a front line fighter. That is not the class, not it's purpose.
casters pay for casting in melee as is simply because they lack hit points to stay in the front lines. They don't have the AC either. I think this is payment enough. They won't survive more than a few rounds in toe to toe combat with a fighter and they shouldn't. doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to cast their spells.
If you go that a wizard shouldn't be able to cast because their threatened by combat, than any class should have their primary ability to fight affected by the fact that they have a threat in their face.
I will NOT be using the rules as written, it was tested rather thoroughly at game tonight. In one combat the party wizard got off a measly ONE spell in 5 rounds. Finally he resorted to fly and invisibility just to be able to be effective.
If a rule is made that makes a class subpar that it won't be used, its a bad rule. The rule might work for larger groups, but the AP's simply don't give you the luxury of being out of threatened range most of the time. If there was rules put into play that made fighters subpar unless they were using a sword and shield and penalized all other builds people would be raising hell. but because its a caster nerf everyone is okay with it.
This is okay with me, people are inclined to have their opinions. And its good to know that next time I have a question or seeking advice about caster problems to not come here unless I'm seeking a nerf.
I have no idea how he got only one spell off, but I would not write off a rule due to bad dice rolls. That would be like saying the scythe is broken because a player got lucky and a 4 or 5 crits while power attacking. Sometimes the dice gods love us, and sometimes they dont.
Why was the wizard in melee? I know everyone has their own play style but going from a d4 to a d6 is not an invitation to sit in the front row.
Wow, it's amazing that casters somehow managed to dominate quite a bit of the time way back in the dark ages (OD&D/AD&D) when a sneeze could make them lose a spell.
I guess it's another one of those "old school/new school" things...
Well, admittedly I never actively played in those days. I played in a couple 1e games but at that time I was just learning and was a lowly fighter :)
Guess compared to olden days the wizard has it good, but just because my toyota is better than the model T my great great whatever had doesn't mean it can't use some work :)
|
|
<snip>
I will NOT be using the rules as written, it was tested rather thoroughly at game tonight. In one combat the party wizard got off a measly ONE spell in 5 rounds. Finally he resorted to fly and invisibility just to be able to be effective.
<snip>
Sorry, you just lost your own argument right there. The wizard used tactical sense and got the h*** out of combat. Then he was effective.
Obviously you (and your players) want your wizard to be a front line fighter. That is not the class, not it's purpose.
+1.
FLY and INVISIBILITY EXIST so wizards can survive combat. Which means, after five rounds, the player actually started acting like a wizard!
OMG!
;)
|
|
Wow, it's amazing that casters somehow managed to dominate quite a bit of the time way back in the dark ages (OD&D/AD&D) when a sneeze could make them lose a spell.
I guess it's another one of those "old school/new school" things...
Well, admittedly I never actively played in those days. I played in a couple 1e games but at that time I was just learning and was a lowly fighter :)
Guess compared to olden days the wizard has it good, but just because my toyota is better than the model T my great great whatever had doesn't mean it can't use some work :)
Bad analogy. It's more like AD&D = Boss 302 Mustang in cherry condition, has it's warts, doesn't handle well, and guzzles gas, but, damn it's sexy, and 3x = boring old 2005 Corolla that runs great, gets wonderful mileage, and bores the hell out of you ;)
Sorry, you just lost your own argument right there. The wizard used tactical sense and got the h*** out of combat. Then he was effective.
Obviously you (and your players) want your wizard to be a front line fighter. That is not the class, not it's purpose.
and why should I have to spend 2-4 rounds before i can do anything to contribute? name any other class that is required to sit on thier A** for half the fight before they can participate? This leads to two problems. The character is ineffectual for most of the fight, and then the character isn't much use if theres a second fight later on. So to use your perspective the wizard is a one trick pony.
Bad analogy. It's more like AD&D = Boss 302 Mustang in cherry condition, has it's warts, doesn't handle well, and guzzles gas, but, damn it's sexy, and 3x = boring old 2005 Corolla that runs great, gets wonderful mileage, and bores the hell out of you ;)
I stand corrected sir! Obviously I'm not a car buff, which is probably why my local mechanic LOVES when I pull in the shop lol
Wow, it's amazing that casters somehow managed to dominate quite a bit of the time way back in the dark ages (OD&D/AD&D) when a sneeze could make them lose a spell.
I guess it's another one of those "old school/new school" things...
The second wizard I ever played (third character I ever played) didn't have a spellbook till 3rd level. Back in 1e, even a 1st level wizards spellbook was worth a chunk of change, so me and my friend (who played a fighter) played a couple guys from the same village. I sold my spellbook for him some good armor and us some good weapons (well, I picked up a hefty supply of daggers and darts more precisly for me), and simply hid behind him tossing darts and daggers all over.
And even after we found one, most of the spellcasting I did for the first 7 or 8 levels of my career was to support what the party did, not offense. Things started to change after that, but doesn't it always? =)
So yeah, I suppose old school/new school might be a way to describe it.
Why was the wizard in melee? I know everyone has their own play style but going from a d4 to a d6 is not an invitation to sit in the front row.
Small area, numerous opponents. even with only 3 players wasn't a whole lot of area for him to go even if he'd not wanted to be in melee. Without the changes to concentration he'd have been effective for those 5 rounds doing damage while the fighter got the bad guys off his back. as it was he sat there TAKING damage and having to have the cleric heal him 3 times until he finally managed to get his spell off. If i hadn't let him at least retain his spells he would have been hosed.
and why should I have to spend 2-4 rounds before i can do anything to contribute? name any other class that is required to sit on thier A** for half the fight before they can participate? This leads to two problems. The character is ineffectual for most of the fight, and then the character isn't much use if theres a second fight later on. So to use your perspective the wizard is a one trick pony.
Sorry, you just lost your own argument right there. The wizard used tactical sense and got the h*** out of combat. Then he was effective.
Obviously you (and your players) want your wizard to be a front line fighter. That is not the class, not it's purpose.
Nobody said the wizard has to sit on his hands buffing for 3 or 4 rounds, fly, invis, gaseous form, mirror image, etc. are all escape spells.
Most casters (that I've played with) keep a few of those in reserve, just in case they are unexpectedly dumped in melee, but they lead off with either damaging spells (which is so-so, evocation probably needs a bit of a buff, but that's another subject) or with control/disable spells (glitterdust, slow, bestow curse, the various fog spells, etc.)
Properly played, those control effects are absolutely devastating. Glitterdust particularly was almost an I win button at low levels.
and why should I have to spend 2-4 rounds before i can do anything to contribute? name any other class that is required to sit on thier A** for half the fight before they can participate? This leads to two problems. The character is ineffectual for most of the fight, and then the character isn't much use if theres a second fight later on. So to use your perspective the wizard is a one trick pony.
Sorry, you just lost your own argument right there. The wizard used tactical sense and got the h*** out of combat. Then he was effective.
Obviously you (and your players) want your wizard to be a front line fighter. That is not the class, not it's purpose.
I'm sorry.
Have you even LOOKED at the wizard spell list?
Please, count up, in the first 5 spell levels how many touch combat spells there are. Please do.
Then grab a calculator if you need to, and count up all the spells that do damage from outside melee range.
Then, go re-evaluate the bolded part of your statement.
If theres still confusion on your part about where the wizards place in combat is, let me know.