Concentration gone the way of the dodo?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

251 to 300 of 319 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

It happens sometimes. The boards are in-house proprietary code, not "forums in a box" using the code a lot of forums use, so there's an occasional bug here and there.


houstonderek wrote:
It happens sometimes. The boards are in-house proprietary code, not "forums in a box" using the code a lot of forums use, so there's an occasional bug here and there.

Yeah, the blank page 6 was just driving my OCD nuts.


I must say, though, I prefer nonstandard boards systems.

Too much vBulletin and PHPBB makes the eyes bleed.


Jabor wrote:

I must say, though, I prefer nonstandard boards systems.

Too much vBulletin and PHPBB makes the eyes bleed.

Agreed, but there are some features I'd really like to have.

For instance, it would be extremely useful to be able to edit posts from previous sessions, so that you could use the first post or two in a thread to provide links to important points in the discussion, related material people have brought up, etc.


Brodiggan Gale wrote:


Same book here, and thanks, I was looking on pages 62 and 65, under Initiative and Spell Casting in Melee, and missed the speed factor section (for some reason when I saw Turning Undead, I thought it was the start of the next section, too much coffee, too little sleep.) This is why I asked what page and book, just in case I was just missing it, it's been years since I ran anything in 1st edition. No reason to be snarky (and apologies if I came across that way).

Ah, yeah, re-reading your post I can see where we're agreeing. I probably got a little bristly over 'misread the 1st edition rules' since we *play* with those first edition rules weekly. I've had several discussions on this board with people where they've quoted second edition rules as first, and argued with me when it's clear they hadn't read (much less played) first edition in over a decade.

The 'interruption period' is what AOO were designed to emulate. The fact that they are easily avoided was one of the big power boosts to wizards (along with the DA-DA-DUMMMM Concentration check lest we forget the thrust of this thread). That additional power was what required the nerfing of the spells. All this leads to 4th edition which is the problem. When every class works the same, does low damage, and has (literately) 3-5 times the hit points of any system it gets a little boring in play (IMHO)

I see several thing in your post that make it clear we're both talking about first. (Full awesome in surprise segments for the win!)

There was no intent to be snarky - well, maybe just a little. ;-p. I run a hackmaster game (which is a mishmash of 1e/2e) every week, and we use the initiative / speedfactor system lifted entire from the 1st edition DMG. I'm a fair bit familar with those rules and that section.

The 'heh. Now I've got you.' made me smile. :-)
-Campbell

[Edit: It's late and I can't seem to find any way to private /msg you. Brodiggan Gale, do we already know each other? There is a fair chance we do. How do we go about finding that out?]


Thurgon wrote:
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. I was tempted to remove the x2 to spell level, but figured the added feat still keeps it difficult but allows a determined caster to learn to do it more safely just never completely safely. I might add in a feat to counter the one that allows melee to follow the caster during his free 5 foot step, a bit of an arms race I know, but I want them to be able to do something if they are willing to devote themselves to it. Think of all the meta magic feats they are passing up to do this, I think it's somewhat balanced.

Why was he getting frustrated? yes the DC is a little higher but it does mean your not going to auto pass anymore, if you want him to auto pass just ignore the rule but be prepared to have spellcasters running rampant and your melee will be very frustrated.

If you spellcasters are in melee, ask yourself why? a good spell caster will do everything in his power to avoid that and the rest of the group should help to. This issue is far more than mechanics, its how the game is played. I used to group with a lad who though charging in with his wizard was a good idea, he didnt last...

As for concentation, yes its almost like having max skill, no you dont get the +3 but you do get you related stat (which is usually +3/+4 depending on your stats) and you dont have to stack Constution which concentration used dto go off of to get any other bonus.

I personally feel this is very fair, its really does urk me to see people houseruling the crap out of a brand new game because people are unflexible to new ideas.

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
AHA! Proof Jason only keeps us around to do his work for him!

And given the number of subscriptions you and I have, I'd say he keeps us around to help pay the bills.


houstonderek wrote:


Again, I assumed we were talking about a fighter and wizard dropped into an arena, both rounding a corner (a la the 1e DMG example), or maybe getting into a fight in a bar or something, not a wizard scrying and prepping.

I see. Then I agree, although even the 3.5 wizard doesn't have much of a chance when caught unprepared in a bar. I was still discussing this:

hogarth wrote:
I'll tell you what -- I'm willing to play out a battle, high-level AD&D fighter (with his 1st- and 2nd-level followers) vs. magic-user (with Enchant an Item, Contingency, Simulacrum, Animate Dead, Polymorph Other and Polymorph Any Object) any time. Sound fair? :-)
houstonderek wrote:
Yep, and there are just as many tedious ways for the fighter to win as well in 1e.

I missed the part where you started to agree with me. Never mind. :-)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Saint_Meerkat wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
AHA! Proof Jason only keeps us around to do his work for him!
And given the number of subscriptions you and I have, I'd say he keeps us around to help pay the bills.

I contribute to the Save the Designers fund monthly. They're endangered wildlife, you know.


Actually not so sure .. depending on levels of course ... I actually play-tested our 3.0 10th level sorcerer vs our 10th level fighter standing toe to toe ..GO! Sorcerer won the majority of the time. 3.5 may have changed this but it's still silly disbalanced.

hogarth wrote:
houstonderek wrote:


Again, I assumed we were talking about a fighter and wizard dropped into an arena, both rounding a corner (a la the 1e DMG example), or maybe getting into a fight in a bar or something, not a wizard scrying and prepping.

I see. Then I agree, although even the 3.5 wizard doesn't have much of a chance when caught unprepared in a bar. I was still discussing this:

hogarth wrote:
I'll tell you what -- I'm willing to play out a battle, high-level AD&D fighter (with his 1st- and 2nd-level followers) vs. magic-user (with Enchant an Item, Contingency, Simulacrum, Animate Dead, Polymorph Other and Polymorph Any Object) any time. Sound fair? :-)
houstonderek wrote:
Yep, and there are just as many tedious ways for the fighter to win as well in 1e.
I missed the part where you started to agree with me. Never mind. :-)


hogarth wrote:
I have the opposite point of view -- I suspect that your DM was being a softy if you were playing at high levels and wizards were regularly losing to fighters. (E.g. no precasting spells like Simulacrum, Polymorph Other, Contingency and Symbol of Stunning, no using cleverly worded Wishes or Limited Wishes, etc.)

Just to point out, you've left class features out, and are now arguing the case based on player skill -- which I agreed at the outset counted as much as class. Using your same logic, a semi-intelligent fighter would use his armies (one of his primary class features) to sack the wizard's stronghold first, making sure to kill the wizard's clones and destroy his magical lab, stores of components, and heavy "permanent" (non-"travelling") spellbooks -- as I believe happened a least once during the games that Gygax, Kuntz, et al. played. Assuming your DM tracks encumbrance and gold, that's a major loss to your spellcasting ability -- and after that, when you contingency teleport, you arrive in the midst of smoking rubble, surrounded by enemies whose every bowshot ruins your spells.


cpt_machine wrote:
I personally feel this is very fair, its really does urk me to see people houseruling the crap out of a brand new game because people are unflexible to new ideas.

It really irks me that I'm going to be houseruling the crap out of a brand new game, too. I don't remember doing the same to 3.5. But, then again, I'm pretty familiar with the game by this point, and I know what I'd like to see in my games a bit more.

And I use Concentration for more than casting defensively, so I have a legitimate reason to want to reinstate the options that skill presented. I'm irked that the pleas for bringing it back that occurred during the Alpha and Beta were completely ignored, without ever providing a reasonable logic.


cpt_machine wrote:
I personally feel this is very fair, its really does urk me to see people houseruling the crap out of a brand new game because people are unflexible to new ideas.

Personally, I'm houseruling the crap out of it because there aren't enough new ideas, and I already know how 3.0 and 3.5 work, but never mind that.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Using your same logic, a semi-intelligent fighter would use his armies (one of his primary class features) to sack the wizard's stronghold first, making sure to kill the wizard's clones and destroy his magical lab, stores of components, and heavy "permanent" (non-"travelling") spellbooks -- as I believe happened a least once during the games that Gygax, Kuntz, et al. played.

Again, I think you're greatly exaggerating the benefit of a few dozen 1st- and 2nd-level NPCs vs. the benefits of the spells Simulacrum, Animate Dead and Polymorph Other (to name a few good spells for creating flunkies, but also golem crafting, binding demons/devils, etc.).

I certainly agree that a smart fighter can beat a dumb wizard, but that principle applies in 3.5 as well. I freely admit that the 3.5 wizard is even more powerful than the 3.5 fighter, of course.

high-level AD&D wizard vs. AD&D fighter = Panzer tank vs. Polish cavalry
high-level 3.5 wizard vs. 3.5 fighter = F-22 Raptor vs. Polish cavalry


hogarth wrote:
I freely admit that the 3.5 wizard is even more powerful than the 3.5 fighter, of course.

Righto, which brings us to the main point. Evidently that state of affairs is considered both reasonable and proper by the majority on the Paizo boards -- which would account for the vast tide of anger at any perceived "nerf" to the full casting classes, the comments that the Book of Nine Swords was "broken" (I would personally maybe use "slightly silly" and "monstrously repetitive," myself, but hardly "broken"), etc.

As I believe you pointed out, any wizard smarter than a walnut will seldom, if ever, need to cast defensively; and as I've pointed out, casting defensively has become harder only for low-level casters; for high-level ones it's still a "gimme." What I think you and I can both agree on is the fact that Pathfinder's change in defensive casting hardly addresses the increasing caster vs. non-caster disparity as one levels up.

P.S. Loved your analogy, BTW. I'm trying to picture one of those cavalrymen leaping from his mount to the top of the tank, then dropping a grenade inside, while all his buddies get blown into kingdom come...


nexusphere wrote:

I see several thing in your post that make it clear we're both talking about first. (Full awesome in surprise segments for the win!)

There was no intent to be snarky - well, maybe just a little. ;-p. I run a hackmaster game (which is a mishmash of 1e/2e) every week, and we use the initiative / speedfactor system lifted entire from the 1st edition DMG. I'm a fair bit familar with those rules and that section.

Hah, if you're running Hackmaster I'll be more than a little surprised if we don't know each other, there can't be that many people that have played that in our area (ah the glorious inheritance tables, spelljacking, the long list of suggested "justifications" for any and all actions a knight might take... man I love that game.)

nexusphere wrote:

The 'heh. Now I've got you.' made me smile. :-)

-Campbell

Hah, glad to hear it.

nexusphere wrote:
Edit: It's late and I can't seem to find any way to private /msg you. Brodiggan Gale, do we already know each other? There is a fair chance we do. How do we go about finding that out?

Eh, not sure, I'm not seeing a way to send private messages on here either, so I guess I'll just take the plunge, you can email me at BrodigganGale <at> gmail.com (minus the usual antispambot formatting).

And uh, sorry for the threadjacking.


Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
tejón wrote:

What if the Concentration DC was 10 + (3 * spell level) ?

CL 1, SpLvl 1 - DC 13
Worst case: 11 Int, no CC: +1 to roll = succeed on 12.
Best case: 20 Int, Combat Casting: +10 to roll = succeed on 3.

CL 17, SpLvl 9 - DC 37
Worst case: 19 Int, no CC: +21 to roll = succeed on 16.
Best case: 30 Int, Combat Casting: +31 to roll = succeed on 6.

I like this idea. It makes life for low level casters and harder for high level ones. It is the sorcerer flinging weird spells that is going to break the game not the one using burning hands.


cpt_machine wrote:
Thurgon wrote:
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. I was tempted to remove the x2 to spell level, but figured the added feat still keeps it difficult but allows a determined caster to learn to do it more safely just never completely safely. I might add in a feat to counter the one that allows melee to follow the caster during his free 5 foot step, a bit of an arms race I know, but I want them to be able to do something if they are willing to devote themselves to it. Think of all the meta magic feats they are passing up to do this, I think it's somewhat balanced.

Why was he getting frustrated? yes the DC is a little higher but it does mean your not going to auto pass anymore, if you want him to auto pass just ignore the rule but be prepared to have spellcasters running rampant and your melee will be very frustrated.

If you spellcasters are in melee, ask yourself why? a good spell caster will do everything in his power to avoid that and the rest of the group should help to. This issue is far more than mechanics, its how the game is played. I used to group with a lad who though charging in with his wizard was a good idea, he didnt last...

Couple things. At levels 1-5 there is no auto pass even in the old method. But in this method it's down right hard to pass. When you need more to pass the check then to hit in melee that is an issue for a wizard and he has a bit of a right to be frustrated when his melee skills surpass his spell casting skills.

But the wizard while he was most concerned it was the cleric who really needed it most. The party is a Ranger, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue so the Cleric was the only one wearing even medium armor. He was the front line he had the best AC, at level 10 now the ranger has a better AC and is wearing medium armor made of mithril but at level 3 could not afford it. Still with a 4 man group the cleric is the other guy in the front, so he still can expect to need to cast in melee sometimes.

Not all spellcasters are wizards, Clerics, Bards and Druids all get armor, all have decent hit points both are often have either the best AC or second best in a 4 person group. Why should they not be up there in melee at least sometimes and then why should they not expect to be able to spend feats to get better at casting in those situations? Fighters can get better at stopping them, why shouldn't they be able to get better at doing it?


Thurgon wrote:
Couple things. At levels 1-5 there is no auto pass even in the old method. But in this method it's down right hard to pass. When you need more to pass the check then to hit in melee that is an issue for a wizard and he has a bit of a right to be frustrated when his melee skills surpass his spell casting skills.

This seems like a bit of an exaggeration, the DCs for casting 1st, 2nd and 3rd level spells are 17, 19, and 21, even with a middling casting stat (lets say 16/+3) that means with Combat Casting the average roll needed to cast a max level spell is only 8.5 (probably dropping another point or two by level 5, when headbands with +2 to the caster's casting stat start becoming available.)

Thurgon wrote:
But the wizard while he was most concerned it was the cleric who really needed it most. The party is a Ranger, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue so the Cleric was the only one wearing even medium armor. He was the front line he had the best AC, at level 10 now the ranger has a better AC and is wearing wearing medium armor made of mithril but at level 3 could not afford it. Still with a 4 man group the cleric is the other guy in the front, so he still can expect to need to cast in melee sometimes.

Clerics and Druids happen to have a spell list that lends itself to either pre-buffing or casting after combat, for this exact reason. Clerics and Druids can usually get by with casting in emergencies either with a 5 ft. step or just relying on their relatively high AC.

Thurgon wrote:

Not all spellcasters are wizards, Clerics, Bards and Druids all get armor, all have decent hit points both are often have either the best AC or second best in a 4 person group. Why should they not be up there in melee at least sometimes and then why should they not expect to be able to spend feats to get better at casting in those situations? Fighters can get better at stopping them, why shouldn't they be able to get better at doing it?

Well, Combat Casting is the exact mirror of Disruptive, so things are actually kind of balanced there, but I will admit, it would be nice to have more feats casters could take, if they wanted to try a melee hybrid gish sort of build. I'd rather see feats that add new options, than feats that just ramp up the concentration check though. The equivalent of Mobility for instance, but for casters, +4 AC when casting in melee, that sort of deal.


I could not bring myself to read the whole thread so let me present another solution for the group that feels that new concentration rules+new fighter feats are too much for casters.

Solution is called Acrobatics. Yes, you can max Acrobatics (and you should anyways, I always did max Tumble with my wizards in 3.5e) and tumble your way our of your opponents reach and out of his 5foot step feat.

You dex is low? Take Skill Focus:Acrobatics and get an item that gives +5 to Acrobatics. Problem solved.


Brodiggan Gale wrote:
Thurgon wrote:
Couple things. At levels 1-5 there is no auto pass even in the old method. But in this method it's down right hard to pass. When you need more to pass the check then to hit in melee that is an issue for a wizard and he has a bit of a right to be frustrated when his melee skills surpass his spell casting skills.

This seems like a bit of an exaggeration, the DCs for casting 1st, 2nd and 3rd level spells are 17, 19, and 21, even with a middling casting stat (lets say 16/+3) that means with Combat Casting the average roll needed to cast a max level spell is only 8.5 (probably dropping another point or two by level 5, when headbands with +2 to the caster's casting stat start becoming available.)

Needing a 9 compared to needing or even 8.5 means having a over 40% spell fail chance, that's pretty darn high. They likely can hit with a melee attack as often against the ACs they will be seeing. We aren't talking about the main villian usually for the wizard we are talking about the goblins and orcs who swarm over the group. If he actually gets caught in melee with the big bad well that's likely on him or his group. He has to expect to get hurt then, but when a stray goblin gets on him he shouldn't just fold at level 3 or become a melee combatant with spells like shocking grasp that are built for melee use.

I call an over 40% failure rate darn hard. I don't think that is exaggerationg at all.

Brodiggan Gale wrote:


Thurgon wrote:
But the wizard while he was most concerned it was the cleric who really needed it most. The party is a Ranger, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue so the Cleric was the only one wearing even medium armor. He was the front line he had the best AC, at level 10 now the ranger has a better AC and is wearing wearing medium armor made of mithril but at level 3 could not afford it. Still with a 4 man group the cleric is the other guy in the front, so he still can expect to need to cast in melee sometimes.

Clerics and Druids happen to have a spell list that lends itself to either pre-buffing or casting after combat, for this exact reason. Clerics and Druids can usually get by with casting in emergencies either with a 5 ft. step or just relying on their relatively high AC.

That AC is high enough to get missed usually by the scrub monsters but the big bads will smack them, and it's against the big bads they will usually be in a situation were they need to cast in melee. When they either need to heal themselves with their best cure spell or heal the main warrior.

A 5 foot step isn't a magic bullet either, it works sometimes but far from always. The cleric really felt the pain in the end of the 3rd and start of the 4th book in the RotRL books against the giants who have reach. Taking a 5 foot step does no good then and so he was forced to try to Combat Cast.

+4 to ac would only matter at the low levels, at the mid to high levels AC only really stops interitive attacks not oppertunity attacks.

Anyway all that said adding the reroll feat doesn't make it a give me, it just makes a more likely they can get the spell off. For low level casters say our 1-5 with a 40% plus failure chance it actually does more then another +4 would, for high level say levels 9-11 ish, it does a bit less, and for the extreme levels it makes very little difference at level 18+ it becomes a near give me anyway. What a reroll does as opposed to another +4 is not make the give me levels come any sooner then they should.


-Archangel- wrote:

I could not bring myself to read the whole thread so let me present another solution for the group that feels that new concentration rules+new fighter feats are too much for casters.

Solution is called Acrobatics. Yes, you can max Acrobatics (and you should anyways, I always did max Tumble with my wizards in 3.5e) and tumble your way our of your opponents reach and out of his 5foot step feat.

You dex is low? Take Skill Focus:Acrobatics and get an item that gives +5 to Acrobatics. Problem solved.

A cleric in even the thrice cursed medium armor with shield with his massive 2 skill points per level and a 2 feat tax already is somehow spending half his base skill points another feat and then hoping he tumbles out of reach to cast.

I'm sorry I don't think this is really a reasonable solution. I don't mean to make fun of it but can you see a line of metal armor and shield wearing clerics tumbling around training to cast in combat.


Thurgon wrote:

Needing a 9 compared to needing or even 8.5 means having a over 40% spell fail chance, that's pretty darn high. They likely can hit with a melee attack as often against the ACs they will be seeing. We aren't talking about the main villian usually for the wizard we are talking about the goblins and orcs who swarm over the group. If he actually gets caught in melee with the big bad well that's likely on him or his group. He has to expect to get hurt then, but when a stray goblin gets on him he shouldn't just fold at level 3 or become a melee combatant with spells like shocking grasp that are built for melee use.

I call an over 40% failure rate darn hard. I don't think that is exaggerationg at all.

Oh I wasn't saying it wasn't hard, I was saying that claiming they would have an easier time hitting in melee was the bit that was an exaggeration.

Just to double check the numbers on this, I took a quick look through all the classic CR 1/2 - 3 creatures (Bugbears, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Kobolds, Ogres, and Orcs) and they pretty much all average out at 15 or 16 AC.

The low BAB casters, at level 2 (considerably higher than the average CR of the monsters we're talking about, but you do run into them in groups), would need an 8 on the die to cast defensively (possibly lower if their dedicated casting stat is an 18 or 20). They'd presumably have a lower strength, but possibly a decent dexterity, to be fair, I'll assume their dex mod is the same +3 I used for the casting defensively example and they have Weapon Finesse (not as likely, but oh well). Even with a masterwork/+1 weapon, they still only have a +5 to hit, meaning they need a 10 or 11 to hit in melee, and that's assuming they've spent feats on it. If they used that feat for something more useful long term, they'd more likely need between a 12 and a 14 on the die.

Clerics and Druids aren't much better off, except that they're more likely to have a decent strength, and thus don't need weapon finesse, regardless, they end up at the same 10 or 11 to hit in melee, compared to an 8 (or less) to cast defensively.

By comparison, a straight fighter, with weapon focus, a masterwork weapon, and a 16 strength (the same as the example casters casting stat, to keep it fair) is only going to have a +7 to hit at that level. At a +7 to hit, the fighter will also need an 8 or better on the die to deal any damage, and unlike a caster, who can use their spells without a concentration check most of the time, the fighter has to make that 8 or better on every single attack.

I'm not saying things are grand as they are, I think honestly the concentration checks are a little too hard at low levels, and a lot too easy later on, I'm just pointing out some flaws in the argument you made that hitting in melee would be easier than casting defensively.


Brodiggan Gale wrote:
Thurgon wrote:

Needing a 9 compared to needing or even 8.5 means having a over 40% spell fail chance, that's pretty darn high. They likely can hit with a melee attack as often against the ACs they will be seeing. We aren't talking about the main villian usually for the wizard we are talking about the goblins and orcs who swarm over the group. If he actually gets caught in melee with the big bad well that's likely on him or his group. He has to expect to get hurt then, but when a stray goblin gets on him he shouldn't just fold at level 3 or become a melee combatant with spells like shocking grasp that are built for melee use.

I call an over 40% failure rate darn hard. I don't think that is exaggerationg at all.

Oh I wasn't saying it wasn't hard, I was saying that claiming they would have an easier time hitting in melee was the bit that was an exaggeration.

Just to double check the numbers on this, I took a quick look through all the classic CR 1/2 - 3 creatures (Bugbears, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Kobolds, Ogres, and Orcs) and they pretty much all average out at 15 or 16 AC.

The low BAB casters, at level 2 (considerably higher than the average CR of the monsters we're talking about, but you do run into them in groups), would need an 8 on the die to cast defensively (possibly lower if their dedicated casting stat is an 18 or 20). They'd presumably have a lower strength, but possibly a decent dexterity, to be fair, I'll assume their dex mod is the same +3 I used for the casting defensively example and they have Weapon Finesse (not as likely, but oh well). Even with a masterwork/+1 weapon, they still only have a +5 to hit, meaning they need a 10 or 11 to hit in melee, and that's assuming they've spent feats on it. If they used that feat for something more useful long term, they'd more likely need between a 12 and a 14 on the die.

But they need to spend a feat to be better at casting then in melee. That's kind of silly to me, that a caster is better in melee then at casting unless he spends a feat.

The situation that came up was this. A level 3 wizard (halfling) with a 16 dex and a 15 int and a masterworked dagger attacked by a pair of goblins with ACs of 14 or so. His DC roll for a level 2 spell was 19 he had +9 on the roll, his roll to hit the goblins was 14 he had +3 on the roll base with a slight move +5 for flanking. Same basic roll but he needed a feat to be as good at casting as he was in melee.

Make that same wizard take weapon finesse and he would have a clearly better chance in melee then at casting.

An Elf would also likely have a decent dex, actually most wizards types would have an ok dex. I really wasn't thinking clerics/druids in this situation because of their type of class they should sometimes be in situations were melee is the better option.


Thurgon wrote:
Make that same wizard take weapon finesse and he would have a clearly better chance in melee then at casting.

The results of a spell can be an awful lot more impressive than the effects of an attack. A dagger hit from a 1st level halfling wizard deals 1d3 damage, with maybe a crit for up to 6 points. A color spray by the same guy can render three orcs hors de combat.


Thurgon wrote:
But they need to spend a feat to be better at casting then in melee. That's kind of silly to me, that a caster is better in melee then at casting unless he spends a feat.

Only at very low levels, which is what I meant when I said that personally, I think it's a bit too hard right now, at those levels, and way too easy later on.

Thurgon wrote:
The situation that came up was this. A level 3 wizard (halfling) with a 16 dex and a 15 int and a masterworked dagger attacked by a pair of goblins with ACs of 14 or so. His DC roll for a level 2 spell was 19 he had +9 on the roll, his roll to hit the goblins was 14 he had +3 on the roll base with a slight move +5 for flanking. Same basic roll but he needed a feat to be as good at casting as he was in melee.

A couple things to point out here, first, 15 int for a Wizard is painfully low. Clerics and Druids often go with a 14 or 15 in Wisdom because so many of their spells are helpful or buffs, making high save DC's less of an issue. Clerics and druids also have to think about physical stats and alternate party roles. Wizards and Sorcerers on the other hand are faaarrr more focused, and starting with anything less than a 16 in your primary casting stat is shooting yourself in the foot.

Second, the bonus from flanking is a big part of why, in this particular edge case, the wizard had a slightly higher chance of hitting in melee, but flanking is highly situational, and there are far more common situations that result in a wizard having no need to make a concentration check whatsoever, making including flanking in the discussion a bit misleading.

Again, it might be worth comparing this to a fighter of the same level, with similar stats.

A 3rd level fighter, with a 15 strength, a masterwork weapon and weapon focus, would have a +7 to hit, against a gobbo (AC 15 unless they changed it) would need an 8 or better, exactly the same roll the caster would need to cast a 1st level spell.

For a 2nd level spell, the better comparison might be with the fighter using power attack, considering the greater effect of 2nd level spells.

In that case, the fighter would need a 9 to hit, and the caster would need a 10 to cast, again, pretty close to the same odds. (And the fighter is going to need to make that roll no matter what, while the caster can frequently avoid it)


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Thurgon wrote:
Make that same wizard take weapon finesse and he would have a clearly better chance in melee then at casting.
The results of a spell can be an awful lot more impressive than the effects of an attack. A dagger hit from a 1st level halfling wizard deals 1d3 damage, with maybe a crit for up to 6 points. A color spray by the same guy can render three orcs hors de combat.

True, no arguements there. Which if I recall was the spell he had on tap for the little gobblins anyway. He tried it failed and was very disappointed.


Brodiggan Gale wrote:
Thurgon wrote:
But they need to spend a feat to be better at casting then in melee. That's kind of silly to me, that a caster is better in melee then at casting unless he spends a feat.

Only at very low levels, which is what I meant when I said that personally, I think it's a bit too hard right now, at those levels, and way too easy later on.

Thurgon wrote:
The situation that came up was this. A level 3 wizard (halfling) with a 16 dex and a 15 int and a masterworked dagger attacked by a pair of goblins with ACs of 14 or so. His DC roll for a level 2 spell was 19 he had +9 on the roll, his roll to hit the goblins was 14 he had +3 on the roll base with a slight move +5 for flanking. Same basic roll but he needed a feat to be as good at casting as he was in melee.

A couple things to point out here, first, 15 int for a Wizard is painfully low. Clerics and Druids often go with a 14 or 15 in Wisdom because so many of their spells are helpful or buffs, making high save DC's less of an issue. Clerics and druids also have to think about physical stats and alternate party roles. Wizards and Sorcerers on the other hand are faaarrr more focused, and starting with anything less than a 16 in your primary casting stat is shooting yourself in the foot.

Second, the bonus from flanking is a big part of why, in this particular edge case, the wizard had a slightly higher chance of hitting in melee, but flanking is highly situational, and there are far more common situations that result in a wizard having no need to make a concentration check whatsoever, making including flanking in the discussion a bit misleading.

Again, it might be worth comparing this to a fighter of the same level, with similar stats.

A 3rd level fighter, with a 15 strength, a masterwork weapon and weapon focus, would have a +7 to hit, against a gobbo (AC 15 unless they changed it) would need an 8 or better, exactly the same roll the caster would need to cast a 1st level spell.

For a 2nd level spell, the better comparison...

In a 15 point buy system a 15 int isn't bad for a halfling wizard.

Also comparing to a fighter well the baddies don't get a save against the effect of being hit from a sword. Even if the wizard casts successfulling in melee the gobos still get saves.


Thurgon wrote:
In a 15 point buy system a 15 int isn't bad for a halfling wizard.

Oh? Were I playing a 15 point buy wizard (halfling or otherwise) I'd strongly consider the following stat array 7 Str, 14 Dex, 14 Con, 18 Int, 7 Wis, 7 Cha, with Halfling racial mods, that changes to 5 Str, 16 Dex, 14 Con, 18 Int, 7 wis, 9 Cha. Sure Charisma, Wisdom, and Strength are all quite low, but hey, you're a wizard so who cares.

Charisma? Diplomacy is what people without fireballs use. (so need to use this as a signature... maybe change it to charm person.. meh, fireball is better)
Low wisdom may mean your will save is mediocre starting out, but you're still doing as well as the fighter and your will save is going to improve much more rapidly than his (plus no one ever thinks to try using a will save on the caster, they just assume you're going to make it).
As for Strength, Swords are something people without fireballs use.

I'd consider going somewhere other than halfling as well, elf, human, half-elf, gnome, even half-orc would all be better for the potential Intelligence bump, but I'll allow some personal preference in that area.

If you're dead set on having a more balanced stat array, you can manage a 17 int with the following, 10 Str, 13 Dex, 13 Con, 8 Wis, 8 Charisma. Fewer penalties, considerably higher Strength, and only 1 point of intelligence lost.

So, to sum things up, you've been arguing that a badly-deoptimized wizard is going to have a somewhat tough time making checks to cast defensively. Well.. yeah. And a Dwarven rogue with a low dex in medium armor has a tough time making stealth checks.. doesn't mean stealth is unfairly hard.

Thurgon wrote:
Also comparing to a fighter well the baddies don't get a save against the effect of being hit from a sword. Even if the wizard casts successfulling in melee the gobos still get saves.

True enough (usually at least), which is why I'm still leaning towards casting defensively being slightly too hard at low levels, I was just illustrating that it's not so far out of line with the failure chances on other class' abilities, just a bit. It's worth pointing out that the effect of a sword is usually far less deadly than the effect of a spell as well, but I'm not the first to bring up that point so I won't belabor it.


Brodiggan Gale wrote:
Thurgon wrote:
In a 15 point buy system a 15 int isn't bad for a halfling wizard.

Oh? Were I playing a 15 point buy wizard (halfling or otherwise) I'd strongly consider the following stat array 7 Str, 14 Dex, 14 Con, 18 Int, 7 Wis, 7 Cha, with Halfling racial mods, that changes to 5 Str, 16 Dex, 14 Con, 18 Int, 7 wis, 9 Cha. Sure Charisma, Wisdom, and Strength are all quite low, but hey, you're a wizard so who cares.

Charisma? Diplomacy is what people without fireballs use. (so need to use this as a signature... maybe change it to charm person.. meh, fireball is better)
Low wisdom may mean your will save is mediocre starting out, but you're still doing as well as the fighter and your will save is going to improve much more rapidly than his (plus no one ever thinks to try using a will save on the caster, they just assume you're going to make it).
As for Strength, Swords are something people without fireballs use.

I'd consider going somewhere other than halfling as well, elf, human, half-elf, gnome, even half-orc would all be better for the potential Intelligence bump, but I'll allow some personal preference in that area.

If you're dead set on having a more balanced stat array, you can manage a 17 int with the following, 10 Str, 13 Dex, 13 Con, 8 Wis, 8 Charisma. Fewer penalties, considerably higher Strength, and only 1 point of intelligence lost.

So, to sum things up, you've been arguing that a badly-deoptimized wizard is going to have a somewhat tough time making checks to cast defensively. Well.. yeah. And a Dwarven rogue with a low dex in medium armor has a tough time making stealth checks.. doesn't mean stealth is unfairly hard.

Str 10, Dex 16, Con 13, Int 15, Wis 10, cha 10 isn't a totally optimal build but it isn't a fall down failure of a build either. However no buying a stat below 8(before racial mods) is our general rule. So he couldn't drop Cha below 10 anyway.

If pathfinder requires optimized builds I must of missed the memo, the game seems pretty friendly to "fun" and functional builds for the most part actually. If you see the game as so inflexible that all builds must be optimal to be discussed then I think we have a different view of the game. I don't see any problem with a halfling being any class he wants, its sometimes fun when they end up going in a direction that isn't optimal and is a bit unexpected.


Thurgon wrote:

Str 10, Dex 16, Con 13, Int 15, Wis 10, cha 10 isn't a totally optimal build but it isn't a fall down failure of a build either. However no buying a stat below 8(before racial mods) is our general rule. So he couldn't drop Cha below 10 anyway.

If pathfinder requires optimized builds I must of missed the memo, the game seems pretty friendly to "fun" and functional builds for the most part actually. If you see the game as so inflexible that all builds must be optimal to be discussed then I think we have a different view of the game. I don't see any problem with a halfling being any class he wants, its sometimes fun when they end up going in a direction that isn't optimal and is a bit unexpected.

Those stats aren't horrible true, and I'm definitely not trying to say you should have to have an optimized build to have fun in Pathfinder. What I am saying is that if you're arguing that a particular aspect of the game is unfairly hard for certain classes, you probably shouldn't use a character with less than optimal stats, a less than optimal race, in a less than optimal situation as your example.

(In fact, since the minimum starting Intelligence needed to still get 9th level spells on time just using stat bumps from levelling is 15, it would be hard to have a more de-optimized setup for this particular argument)

That character might be a ton of fun to play 90% of the time, but you put him in a bad spot that works exactly against the weaknesses in his build, and yeah, it's going to be frustrating. Frustrating in the same way other "just for fun" builds in other classes have to deal with frustration using some of their abilities.

(And for the record, I actually like playing these sorts of just for fun builds exactly because it forces you to play carefully and think outside the box. I'm a huge fan of halfling barbarians, gnome clerics, dwarven mages, anything less than perfect and a bit of a surprise to people. If you don't believe me, check out the post I made yesterday on the barbarian archetypes thread.)

Scarab Sages

Kirth Gersen wrote:
hogarth wrote:
I freely admit that the 3.5 wizard is even more powerful than the 3.5 fighter, of course.
Righto, which brings us to the main point. Evidently that state of affairs is considered both reasonable and proper by the majority on the Paizo boards -- which would account for the vast tide of anger at any perceived "nerf" to the full casting classes, the comments that the Book of Nine Swords was "broken" (I would personally maybe use "slightly silly" and "monstrously repetitive," myself, but hardly "broken"), etc.

You know I'm sick to death of agreeing with you? ;)

Of course, when I tell people they can't use Psionics or Bo9S at my table because it "doesn't fit" they usually want some kind of thesis-level mathematical argument, which misses the point entirely.


Jal Dorak wrote:
Of course, when I tell people they can't use Psionics or Bo9S at my table because it "doesn't fit" they usually want some kind of thesis-level mathematical argument, which misses the point entirely.

Be thankful; it's much worse when you have a group so docile that they don't question you on anything. You can tell some people that fighters, wizards, clerics, and rogues are all to be replaced by the bard, and they all nod, glassy-eyed, and say, "OK, yessir, you're the DM, sounds fine!"

Scarab Sages

A healthy amount of skepticism is always a good thing. Have you actually had a group like that? I think the last time I had a table like that was when both my younger brothers started their first game. "You're a fighter, you're a cleric."

In some ways I miss that. I hate it when players nitpick a small error on the part of the DM because they remembered it and are therefore better than you. After they get my "Do you know how much information I manage?" tirade, I usually set-up a game for them to run.

Ugh. Rant over.


Disciple of Sakura wrote:
cpt_machine wrote:
I personally feel this is very fair, its really does urk me to see people houseruling the crap out of a brand new game because people are unflexible to new ideas.

It really irks me that I'm going to be houseruling the crap out of a brand new game, too. I don't remember doing the same to 3.5. But, then again, I'm pretty familiar with the game by this point, and I know what I'd like to see in my games a bit more.

And I use Concentration for more than casting defensively, so I have a legitimate reason to want to reinstate the options that skill presented. I'm irked that the pleas for bringing it back that occurred during the Alpha and Beta were completely ignored, without ever providing a reasonable logic.

The logic was that by and large the majority of players only used it for casting defensively (or manifesting defensively in psionics). Outside of that, psionics had one specific use that could easily be combined into autohypnosis.

Book of 9 Swords, not being OGL and one of the books most often banned from a number of people's games, was not a major consideration. There were also I believe a few other uses for the skill that rarely came up and few bothered with them when they did.

You used the skill more than most and have a legitimate reason to reinstate it. It's a choice between that or finding a mechanic (another skill, class level, character level, something else) to replace it.

Don't forget the most important rule as stated by Jason: "It's your game"

Do what you have to do to make the game work for you.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
hogarth wrote:
I freely admit that the [high-level] 3.5 wizard is even more powerful than the 3.5 fighter, of course.
Righto, which brings us to the main point. Evidently that state of affairs is considered both reasonable and proper by the majority on the Paizo boards[.]

Right, but that brings me to my main point, which is that it has never been any other way, in any edition of D&D that I'm aware of (although I may make an exception for 4e; I don't know much about it).

That doesn't mean that "high level wizard >> high level fighter" is a sacred cow, but changing that paradigm would be fairly radical; if you kill too many sacred cows, you might end up with something like 4e (which grognards usually dislike for it's "non-D&D-ness").


hogarth wrote:
That doesn't mean that "high level wizard >> high level fighter" is a sacred cow, but changing that paradigm would be fairly radical; if you kill too many sacred cows, you might end up with something like 4e (which grognards usually dislike for it's "non-D&D-ness").

I've long been an iconoclast. And I like a good steak. Line 'em up!

(That's somewhat tongue-in-cheek; for the most part, I actually like my gaming to model the same novels that Gygax cites as his major influences -- and in most of those sources, wizards do not auto-win).

Scarab Sages

Kirth Gersen wrote:
hogarth wrote:
That doesn't mean that "high level wizard >> high level fighter" is a sacred cow, but changing that paradigm would be fairly radical; if you kill too many sacred cows, you might end up with something like 4e (which grognards usually dislike for it's "non-D&D-ness").

I've long been an iconoclast. And I like a good steak. Line 'em up!

(That's somewhat tongue-in-cheek; for the most part, I actually like my gaming to model the same novels that Gygax cites as his major influences -- and in most of those sources, wizards do not auto-win).

Most haughty wizards deserve a Conan-style comeuppance.

Liberty's Edge

-Archangel- wrote:

I could not bring myself to read the whole thread so let me present another solution for the group that feels that new concentration rules+new fighter feats are too much for casters.

Solution is called Acrobatics. Yes, you can max Acrobatics (and you should anyways, I always did max Tumble with my wizards in 3.5e) and tumble your way our of your opponents reach and out of his 5foot step feat.

You dex is low? Take Skill Focus:Acrobatics and get an item that gives +5 to Acrobatics. Problem solved.

This is actually the hardest thing for me to swallow in 3x. The acrobatic wizard. Screw somatic components, no precise movement needed here, no need to vocalize my spell exactly, I'm a Flying Wallenda Wizard! I don't even like the 30' move before or after casting, as it suggests "New, Improved, Powerful Magic! Shaking the foundations of reality now only takes a second!"

Sorry, but it is one of the things that really messes with my verisimilitude...


As long as you only need to move your arms (and there's nothing to suggest this is not the case), your legs could dash every which way or even dance a can-can and you can get a spell off just fine.

Of similar difficulty to simultaneously rubbing your stomach and patting your head, but still possible.

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
... Book of Nine Swords was "broken" (I would personally maybe use "goofy as hell" and "seriously, if I wanted this, I'd play 4e" myself, but hardly "broken"), etc.

That's how I'd say it.

Scarab Sages

houstonderek wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
... Book of Nine Swords was "broken" (I would personally maybe use "goofy as hell" and "seriously, if I wanted this, I'd play 4e" myself, but hardly "broken"), etc.
That's how I'd say it.

What is this new habit of rewording peoples' posts? Did I miss something in the last 4 months? (Not that I disagree, by the way. "Goofy" is a perfect word.)

As to your earlier concept of flippy-rolly-mages (can we go back to calling arcane spellcasters mages, please?) when I did that to one of my own characters, I shook my head and thought "That is patently ridiculous."

And that's coming from someone who played a 50ft. fast archer who would walk past running opponents and shoot them from the front...

Seriously though, the dive/duck/dip/dive/dodge/cast spells nonsense is just that. Hitting something with a sword is one thing. Stopping time itself and having seconds left over to root through your backpack for lunch is another.


houstonderek wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
... Book of Nine Swords was "broken" (I would personally maybe use "goofy as hell" and "seriously, if I wanted this, I'd play 4e" myself, but hardly "broken"), etc.
That's how I'd say it.

See, I really love Tome of Battle. I think it brings a lot of stuff to the table that makes it fun to be a meleer again - your attacks are more cinematic and fun to visualize, and you can do more since most are standard actions, so you're not forced to just 5' and full attack. If 4.0 had been more like Tome of Battle, I might have actually liked it more. But they got rid of much of the stuff I liked about ToB when they finally went to the new edition, and much of the game suffered for it, IMHO. I like 3.5, but that doesn't mean I don't like my warriors to be able to do more. I mean, to each his or her own, obviously, but the Tome is my second favorite non-core book, right after the XPH.


Disciple of Sakura wrote:
your attacks are more cinematic and fun to visualize

Warning! Derek hates the term "cinematic" with regards to gaming with an unbridled fury... and I personally find it somewhat annoying in its lack of meaning: do you mean cinema like old Errol Flynn movies? Or like "300"? A Bugs Bunny cartoon?

As to "fun to visualize," after about the fifth maneuver that starts with "you jump way high up in the air and..." I got tired of visualizing the super-Manga-jump attacks, and wanted to go out and burn every copy of "The Matrix" for good measure.

But for people who like that sort of thing, I'll be the first to admit that Bo9S an outstanding resource, and certainly not "broken" in the least. And, personally, I really like the crusader's delayed damage/furious strike mechanic.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Disciple of Sakura wrote:
your attacks are more cinematic and fun to visualize

Warning! Derek hates the term "cinematic" with regards to gaming with an unbridled fury... and I personally find it somewhat annoying in its lack of meaning: do you mean cinema like old Errol Flynn movies? Or like "300"? A Bugs Bunny cartoon?

As to "fun to visualize," after about the fifth maneuver that starts with "you jump way high up in the air and..." I got tired of visualizing the super-Manga-jump attacks, and wanted to go out and burn every copy of "The Matrix" for good measure.

But for people who like that sort of thing, I'll be the first to admit that Bo9S an outstanding resource, and certainly not "broken" in the least. And, personally, I really like the crusader's delayed damage/furious strike mechanic.

I mostly agrew ith Kirth (at least on Bo9S, its very anime).

On the other hand, I've toyed around with the idea of giving the fighter (and by extension, the other melee classes, somehow *grin*) something to do besides the usual "I move and attack" or "I take a 5 foot step and full attack" with the occassional feat use thrown in for grins.

And while Bo9S has some nice mechanical stuff in it, I don't think its over the top anime style is really the way I'd go, but thats because anime style attacks don't fit into what I see as DnD...and anyway, theres other systems out there that do much better at anime style fantasy (like blocking a nuclear bomb blast...with your cesti)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I can haz fullblade Warblade, Kirth? ;P

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
I can haz fullblade Warblade, Kirth? ;P

Don't make me come up there (after you get back)...

;)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
houstonderek wrote:

Don't make me come up there (after you get back)...

;)

Hey, at least the Warblade doesn't have wuxia powers, just different damage types. :P

251 to 300 of 319 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Concentration gone the way of the dodo? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.