Bruno Kristensen wrote: I think what a lot of people may fail to realize is that the archetypal wizards (Gandalf, Merlin, etc., I'm looking at you) are not more powerful because their "class" is innately more powerful, but because they are higher level characters. I think this is an extremely good point. Classic 'wizard' types (whether they accurately fit into the wizard class or another caster class) have been plying their trade for decades. On top of having more "class levels" they are also significantly more powerful because of their wisdom and cleverness. It's not that they're inherently all mighty, it's just that they are more knowledgable, have more tricks, and know precisely when to use those tricks to best effect.
kyrt-ryder wrote: Trust me, the high level game isn't even about damage. Sorcerers and Wizards aren't awesome because of damage (which the other characters are SUPPOSED to do better, especially when that's just about all they have to contribute) but because they win the fights.
Save or suck, save or lose, buffs, battlefield controls.
These are the things that make casters rule the battlefield.
I do have to disagree. Unless you are talking about ONLY save or die spells, you ALWAYS have to, at some point, do SOME damage to your opponent. Yes, battlefield control is good, as is debuffing, but that only allows YOUR team of damage dealers to do their job BETTER.
Despite many claims to the contrary, I have yet to see a module that can be taken down entirely by a wizard, mostly since modules require someone at some point to actually do some damage. You can out-spell puzzles, out-cast traps, and out-think kobold ambushes, but eventually you simply run out of options for running/distracting and get surrounded. When that happens, the Wiz dies or abandons the quest via teleport, and so fails to complete the module.
There are always going to be mobs of tough, resiliant minions to cleave through, and a Chain Lightning spell will do more to lower their survivability than all the Symbols of Pain you want to throw at them. Removing your opponents hp, at any level, is, has been, and will continue to be the best method of eliminating your opposition.
Mirror, Mirror wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote: Trust me, the high level game isn't even about damage. Sorcerers and Wizards aren't awesome because of damage (which the other characters are SUPPOSED to do better, especially when that's just about all they have to contribute) but because they win the fights.
Save or suck, save or lose, buffs, battlefield controls.
These are the things that make casters rule the battlefield.
I do have to disagree. Unless you are talking about ONLY save or die spells, you ALWAYS have to, at some point, do SOME damage to your opponent. Yes, battlefield control is good, as is debuffing, but that only allows YOUR team of damage dealers to do their job BETTER.
Despite many claims to the contrary, I have yet to see a module that can be taken down entirely by a wizard, mostly since modules require someone at some point to actually do some damage. You can out-spell puzzles, out-cast traps, and out-think kobold ambushes, but eventually you simply run out of options for running/distracting and get surrounded. When that happens, the Wiz dies or abandons the quest via teleport, and so fails to complete the module.
There are always going to be mobs of tough, resiliant minions to cleave through, and a Chain Lightning spell will do more to lower their survivability than all the Symbols of Pain you want to throw at them. Removing your opponents hp, at any level, is, has been, and will continue to be the best method of eliminating your opposition. Someone has to do damage but it doesnt have to be the wizard. If you're level 5 fighting a troll and round one you go first because you're a diviner and that's what you do, and you lead off with ray of exhaustion, he fails his save, and now cannot rend or full attack the fighter, the fighter and the cleric will thank you because your one spell saved him many many hps and save the cleric a lot of healing. Now that the thing is exhausted the wizard has given it -3 AC and can hit it a lot easier if he want to use a crossbow, or he could sit back and read a book and let the fighter kill things.
grasshopper_ea wrote: Someone has to do damage but it doesnt have to be the wizard. I know, but it needs to be said more that damage is NOT something that can be ignored. It still needs to be done by SOMEONE. Maybe not the Wiz, but then someone else...
And RoEx vs a troll is just asking for it. Fort save. Slow spell + rogue throwing a tanglefoot bag will practically make that troll stop dead...
grasshopper_ea wrote: Someone has to do damage but it doesnt have to be the wizard. If you're level 5 fighting a troll and round one you go first because you're a diviner and that's what you do, and you lead off with ray of exhaustion, he fails his save, and now cannot rend or full attack the fighter, the fighter and the cleric will thank you because your one spell saved him many many hps and save the cleric a lot of healing. Now that the thing is exhausted the wizard has given it -3 AC and can hit it a lot easier if he want to use a crossbow, or he could sit back and read a book and let the fighter kill things. Or his pet Bear/Dire bear/ Polar Bear/ Dire Polar Bear that he trained using handle animal that accompanies him on his quests to be his meatshield, and kill things, all for the low cost of plenty of fresh meat and a good backrub once in a while.
kyrt-ryder wrote: Or his pet Bear/Dire bear/ Polar Bear/ Dire Polar Bear that he trained using handle animal that accompanies him on his quests to be his meatshield, and kill things, all for the low cost of plenty of fresh meat and a good backrub once in a while. You're kidding, right? Dire Polar Bear? Nevermiond where the heck you even got that thing, How you trained it in the first place, where it sleeps at the inn, or how you convinced the DM to allow such blatent cheese, what are you going to do when someone casts Charm Monster? What is that Will save, again?
Mirror, Mirror wrote: grasshopper_ea wrote: Someone has to do damage but it doesnt have to be the wizard. I know, but it needs to be said more that damage is NOT something that can be ignored. It still needs to be done by SOMEONE. Maybe not the Wiz, but then someone else...
And RoEx vs a troll is just asking for it. Fort save. Slow spell + rogue throwing a tanglefoot bag will practically make that troll stop dead... You are correct. however the nice thing is if he saves he's fatigued. You hit him with another next round and he's exhausted no save. He's probably not going to rend first round unless the fighter is stupid and runs up and asks to be full attacked and gets initiative on the troll.
grasshopper_ea wrote: You are correct. however the nice thing is if he saves he's fatigued. You hit him with another next round and he's exhausted no save. He's probably not going to rend first round unless the fighter is stupid and runs up and asks to be full attacked and gets initiative on the troll. And an excellent spell when used with the old "Twin Spell" metamagic feat. Heck of a time talking the DM into allowing a MMRod of Twin spell, but that auto-exhaust after the second round was definitly worth it.
Mirror, Mirror wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote: Or his pet Bear/Dire bear/ Polar Bear/ Dire Polar Bear that he trained using handle animal that accompanies him on his quests to be his meatshield, and kill things, all for the low cost of plenty of fresh meat and a good backrub once in a while. You're kidding, right? Dire Polar Bear? Nevermiond where the heck you even got that thing, How you trained it in the first place, where it sleeps at the inn, or how you convinced the DM to allow such blatent cheese, what are you going to do when someone casts Charm Monster? What is that Will save, again? First off, if you have a minion, you want to equip it somewhat. The beast doesn't require nearly as much gear as a fighter, but an item boosting will saves (which costs 1/2 as much as the same item boosting all saves) goes a long way, as does an item of fast healing.
You got it, by being a wizard (elven is easiest, followed by dwarven, followed by Gnome, and then the rest) and doing what good wizards do, research. Track down a library, research the best large companion beasts, study how to train and handle animals, then hire an experienced trapper to help you trap a male and a female.
From there, you use handle animal to tame and train them, as the skill dictates (you ARE able to train formerly wild animals, given enough time and patience) You let them breed so you have baby companions to raise and train domestically, and you take one of the parents with you (likely the father to let the mother raise the children in your absense) on your adventure.
From there, if the father dies, use the mother, by the time he dies the young bears should be old enough to be left with a trustworthy caretaker without the mother. By the time she dies, they should be old enough to use on their own, but before you do so, you hire another trapper and gather a few more bears to use for mates, to avoid inbreeding (or minimize it at least)
The cycle continues, and actually made a pretty interesting story when I played it, an elf wizard with a love for bear-kind, tending to them, using them as his trusted companions, and taking on level appropriate challenges. I didn't need a party.
kyrt-ryder wrote: unbelievable story You ARE serious?! I would have to actually cast "Planar Ally" and bribe a succubus for my DM's personal use before he would even come close to allowing that. And you got someone to do that for you, huh?
I guess your Wiz didn't have too much actual adventuring to do, since he was able to set up a bear sanctuary/training school. I can see that for an NPC Wiz, but a PC is a bit of a stretch...
Mirror, Mirror wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote: unbelievable story You ARE serious?! I would have to actually cast "Planar Ally" and bribe a succubus for my DM's personal use before he would even come close to allowing that. And you got someone to do that for you, huh?
I guess your Wiz didn't have too much actual adventuring to do, since he was able to set up a bear sanctuary/training school. I can see that for an NPC Wiz, but a PC is a bit of a stretch... And the biggest reason your DM wouldn't let you do it, is that it would completely invalidate the Fighter in your party, he would feel completely worthless that an animal was doing his job, just as effectively as he was.
Mine let me because it was a solo campaign, no Fighter there to be made insignificant, and I refused to be pamperred and requested level appropriate challenges.
kyrt-ryder wrote: Mirror, Mirror wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote: unbelievable story You ARE serious?! I would have to actually cast "Planar Ally" and bribe a succubus for my DM's personal use before he would even come close to allowing that. And you got someone to do that for you, huh?
I guess your Wiz didn't have too much actual adventuring to do, since he was able to set up a bear sanctuary/training school. I can see that for an NPC Wiz, but a PC is a bit of a stretch... And the biggest reason your DM wouldn't let you do it, is that it would completely invalidate the Fighter in your party, he would feel completely worthless that an animal was doing his job, just as effectively as he was.
Mine let me because it was a solo campaign, no Fighter there to be made insignificant, and I refused to be pamperred and requested level appropriate challenges. In a solo campaign I could definately see it. Its not any more 'cheesy' then hiring a henchman. Though I probably would have required you to take the leadership feat for something like this.
Mirror, Mirror wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote: unbelievable story You ARE serious?! I would have to actually cast "Planar Ally" and bribe a succubus for my DM's personal use before he would even come close to allowing that. And you got someone to do that for you, huh?
I guess your Wiz didn't have too much actual adventuring to do, since he was able to set up a bear sanctuary/training school. I can see that for an NPC Wiz, but a PC is a bit of a stretch... Yes how dare a smart player use a core skill the way it was meant to be used for his own benefit. That's horrible.
Next thing you know people will be using Diplomacy to avoid physical confrontation or Bluff to convince the king you're on his side (while sleeping with his daughters).
meatrace wrote: Yes how dare a smart player use a core skill the way it was meant to be used for his own benefit. That's horrible.
Har, har. FYI, trying things is exactly what smart players do. However, controlling things is exactly what ALL DM's do. That's apparent all over these boards, where DM's are ruling against rule exploits.
And the Bear does not in any way replace the fighter. A hireling will always be better than a trained animal, unless you are catching and taming an animal well above your CR, which is an obvious rule exploit, and exactly the kind of thing most DM's wack with a nerf stick.
Otherwise, why ever fight anything? With the right combo of magic and money, just train an army of animals to clear out the dungeon/ruin/evil forest. That's obviously NOT what the game is supposed to be about. To suggest that it is, well, that's why I didn't take the original suggestion seriously.
I, personally, would allow it, but that bear would become the target of everything the BBEG could throw at it. All the while the Drow assassins are closing in on the Wiz...
Mirror, Mirror wrote: meatrace wrote: Yes how dare a smart player use a core skill the way it was meant to be used for his own benefit. That's horrible.
Har, har. FYI, trying things is exactly what smart players do. However, controlling things is exactly what ALL DM's do. That's apparent all over these boards, where DM's are ruling against rule exploits.
And the Bear does not in any way replace the fighter. A hireling will always be better than a trained animal, unless you are catching and taming an animal well above your CR, which is an obvious rule exploit, and exactly the kind of thing most DM's wack with a nerf stick.
Otherwise, why ever fight anything? With the right combo of magic and money, just train an army of animals to clear out the dungeon/ruin/evil forest. That's obviously NOT what the game is supposed to be about. To suggest that it is, well, that's why I didn't take the original suggestion seriously.
Couple of things. First, the wizard wasn't training an army of animals to clear out a dungeon and never fight anything. The bears were companions, friends, pets, using the pet rules.
Only one Bear came with me at a time, anything else would actually be rather stupid, because it requires an action to command them to do anything other than their instinctive combat response, so if I want it to target a specific creature other than what I've trained it to do I need to be able to make the command.
Secondly, lets take compare an 11th level Fighter, to a CR 11 Dire Polar Bear. For purpose of HP I'm going to use averages, and I'll assume a 16 con and 16 strength for the Fighter to start, and a +4 enhancement bonus on each, with strength going up 3 more from level ups. I'm also going to assume the Fighter puts his favored class points into HP) Also, the bear has toughness twice, so I'll replace the second toughnness with the Improved Toughness feat, from Libris Mortis (and recalculate the increased HP from the feats accordingly) and since Track is no longer a feat, I'll give it Weapon Focus Bite (for simplicity to make the attack bonus on bites and claws equal, though skill focus survival might be a better choice)
Also this was done in 3.5 so I have to warn you the Fighter will come out better than he would have back then.
For simplicity I'm using a two-handed Greatsword fighter, though if it's requested I can run a two-weapon fighter as well.
HP:
Fighter: 11d10+66 (average 125)
DPB: 18d8+147 (average 231)
Advantage= Dire Polar Bear
Attack Bonus:
Fighter = +22: 11(BAB)+6(str)+2(weapon training)+1(weapon focus)+2(weapon enhancement bonus)
DPB= +26: 13(BAB)+14(str)+1(weapon focus)-2 (huge)
Advantage= Dire Polar Bear
Damage:
Fighter = 2d6+2(weapon training)+2 (weapon spec)+2 (enhancement bonus)+9 (str)
DPB = 2d6+14 (each of two claws) and bite (3d8+14)
Advantage= Dire Polar Bear. the Fighter could come out ahead with power attack, but he'd be giving up even more on the attack bonus. Also, with the young bearlings I trained them to have power attack in place of the Endurence feat, though that one is very DM subjective.
Armor Class:
Fighter =25: 10+9(fullplate)+3(dex)+3(miscellanious feats and items)
DPB = 28: 10+9 (full plate barding)+11 (natural armor)-2 (huge)
Advantage=Dire Polar Bear, though the Fighter does have him beat for touch AC.
The Fighter's feats give him some fair tricks, but the bear way overpowers him in pure brutality. Heck the bear can even outperform combat maneuvers, because his CMB is so high. He can contentedly eat the AoO to grapple or trip or disarm or sunder and bash through the target's defenses.
Now obviously this isn't a perfect analasys, it incorporates bear feats (most of which aren't exactly optimized combat feats anyway though) and not fighter feats, but I hope it shows that you don't need to tame creatures way above your CR to have something that can easily take the Fighter's place.
(And by the level you'd be using one of these instead of a smaller bear you have teleport options and don't need him to be able to fit everywhere, just the places big enough to have brutes you need muscle against.)
Two more quick points.
An item of Reduce Animal doesn't cost all that much, and will get the DPB through the bulk of smaller spaces (and make it easier to teleport)
And
The Dire Polar Bear's will save is +12 before items, and a +4 will save booster only costs 8,000 gold (the only major expense on this bear aside from the maybe 4,000 gold barding), so that would be +16. I don't see an 11th level Fighter beating that lol.
meatrace wrote: So far as I can tell this debate seems to break down into "logic" vs. "balance", inasmuch as logic can be applied to a roleplaying game where i shoot fire from my fingertips that is.
Logically I would agree that a caster, by and large, should be a far FAR FAR more powerful character, at higher levels at least. When you have the power of the gods at your fingertips (or library as it may be) very little should be able to stop you.
Unfortunately this wouldn't be a whole lot of fun, for the caster OR his friends.
Balance is finding the point at which people still want to play casters because they are fun and useful, preferably equally across disparate levels and styles of play, while not obviating the need to have fighters, healers and the sundry other archetypes there are in this wonderful game we play.
I happen to favor the balanced approach rather than trying to think too hard about what gandalf/raistlin/zed/moiraine would/could do in the right situation. I think 3.P has gone a lot further than people are like to give credit for to close the gap between the magical and the martial.
However, that being said, when it comes to specific class balance I think fighter and paladin are perhaps too powerful compared to barbarian or ranger, classes that are largely playing the same role. I still fear that a well equipped and played fighter or paladin potentially make a caster obsolete, where I don't fear the reverse.
I would argue logic AND balance mean a caster would not have infinite power but controled levels.
Balance is agreed by most.
Logic: Like the pun pun threads.... once one person does it would they ever let another ? NO! So iff casters can scry and port and timestop and gate with impunity no PC WILL EVER GET THERE as they will be scry and died before they get over the HP limit of PW Kill (renamed PW euthanise future hassles).
Also lets not forget PCs exist in a world of GODS who have a vested interest in mortal affairs and like a celestial government tax and litigate, regulate and crush all things that upset the apple cart. There are more gods of theft, fighting and slaughter etc etc etc than magic so logically its likely that magic gods even if against regulation of their industry would be FORCED into regulation.
The world is bigger than bob warrior and jack wizard .. there were others before, and gods above !! Yet the logic mongers always forget these little inconviniences.
w0nkothesane wrote: Bruno Kristensen wrote: I think what a lot of people may fail to realize is that the archetypal wizards (Gandalf, Merlin, etc., I'm looking at you) are not more powerful because their "class" is innately more powerful, but because they are higher level characters. I think this is an extremely good point. Classic 'wizard' types (whether they accurately fit into the wizard class or another caster class) have been plying their trade for decades. On top of having more "class levels" they are also significantly more powerful because of their wisdom and cleverness. It's not that they're inherently all mighty, it's just that they are more knowledgable, have more tricks, and know precisely when to use those tricks to best effect. At the end of the day its a game of numbers. There are plenty of people who are richer after 5 years than family businesses that have been around a generation or 10 thru part luck and part idea. Int 30 is not creativity in the rules or in examples where all casters use the same OLD tricks.
There are far more warriors etc thus far greater chance one finds the perfect encounters and items to whip up to 30th level in under 5 years.
kyrt-ryder wrote: grasshopper_ea wrote: Someone has to do damage but it doesnt have to be the wizard. If you're level 5 fighting a troll and round one you go first because you're a diviner and that's what you do, and you lead off with ray of exhaustion, he fails his save, and now cannot rend or full attack the fighter, the fighter and the cleric will thank you because your one spell saved him many many hps and save the cleric a lot of healing. Now that the thing is exhausted the wizard has given it -3 AC and can hit it a lot easier if he want to use a crossbow, or he could sit back and read a book and let the fighter kill things. Or his pet Bear/Dire bear/ Polar Bear/ Dire Polar Bear that he trained using handle animal that accompanies him on his quests to be his meatshield, and kill things, all for the low cost of plenty of fresh meat and a good backrub once in a while. Probably about the same cost all up as a one level sorcerer dip, or a rogue with UMD, or a cleric with the magic domain bying those few broken spells the ever uncreative wizards use to 'make a difference' in item form.
kyrt-ryder wrote: Mirror, Mirror wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote: Or his pet Bear/Dire bear/ Polar Bear/ Dire Polar Bear that he trained using handle animal that accompanies him on his quests to be his meatshield, and kill things, all for the low cost of plenty of fresh meat and a good backrub once in a while. You're kidding, right? Dire Polar Bear? Nevermiond where the heck you even got that thing, How you trained it in the first place, where it sleeps at the inn, or how you convinced the DM to allow such blatent cheese, what are you going to do when someone casts Charm Monster? What is that Will save, again? First off, if you have a minion, you want to equip it somewhat. The beast doesn't require nearly as much gear as a fighter, but an item boosting will saves (which costs 1/2 as much as the same item boosting all saves) goes a long way, as does an item of fast healing.
You got it, by being a wizard (elven is easiest, followed by dwarven, followed by Gnome, and then the rest) and doing what good wizards do, research. Track down a library, research the best large companion beasts, study how to train and handle animals, then hire an experienced trapper to help you trap a male and a female.
From there, you use handle animal to tame and train them, as the skill dictates (you ARE able to train formerly wild animals, given enough time and patience) You let them breed so you have baby companions to raise and train domestically, and you take one of the parents with you (likely the father to let the mother raise the children in your absense) on your adventure.
From there, if the father dies, use the mother, by the time he dies the young bears should be old enough to be left with a trustworthy caretaker without the mother. By the time she dies, they should be old enough to use on their own, but before you do so, you hire another trapper and gather a few more bears to use for mates, to avoid inbreeding (or minimize it at least)
The cycle continues, and actually made a pretty interesting story when I... By the time you train your first bear some fighter out there is likely 15th level.
Its like all the people in this world signed up to 40 different get rich quick schemes while doing a dead end support job.
Those that rush life in groups tend to do best.
I didn't do all the math, but how in the heavens does the dire bear gain EIGHT Hit dice in 4 hd advancement?
Xum wrote: I didn't do all the math, but how in the heavens does the dire bear gain EIGHT Hit dice in 4 hd advancement? It's not an advanced Huge Sized Polar Bear, it's a Dire Polar Bear, from page 115 of Frostburn, and the next step up from the Polar Bear (Though, am I the only one who finds it odd that a Dire Grizly bear is weaker than a natural Polar Bear???)
kyrt-ryder, I should point out that CR 11 fighter vs. CR 11 DPB is something of a false comparison since CR breaks down significantly when dealing with anything with class levels. People tend to forget that. How would an 18th level fighter compare with that 18 HD DPB? The fighter wins hands-down, of course. The better comparison, and the one I'd use as a DM, is between the DPB and other monsters. It takes summon nature's ally VIII to get CR 11-12 critters; even a 20th-level druid's animal companion doesn't have 18 HD. I can see where those kind of shenanigans could work in a solo campaign but a DM would have to be crazy sauce to let anybody below *at least* 15th level run around with an 18HD DPB meat shield in any kind of normal campaign.
That said it is pretty cool to have your own big freakin bear to eat badguys.
Charlie Bell wrote: kyrt-ryder, I should point out that CR 11 fighter vs. CR 11 DPB is something of a false comparison since CR breaks down significantly when dealing with anything with class levels. People tend to forget that. How would an 18th level fighter compare with that 18 HD DPB? The fighter wins hands-down, of course. The better comparison, and the one I'd use as a DM, is between the DPB and other monsters. It takes summon nature's ally VIII to get CR 11-12 critters; even a 20th-level druid's animal companion doesn't have 18 HD. I can see where those kind of shenanigans could work in a solo campaign but a DM would have to be crazy sauce to let anybody below *at least* 15th level run around with an 18HD DPB meat shield in any kind of normal campaign.
That said it is pretty cool to have your own big freakin bear to eat badguys.
Lol, the problem Charlie, is that the Fighter IS a CR 11 creature. The two should, by all rights, be roughly equal, but the bear wins out in every way.
If the fighter came out with a significantly higher AC we could excuse the HP difference, but as it stands, the Fighter doesn't stand up to the measure.
Now, if we go with CR = class levels minus 1 (I remember reading this somewhere, not sure where) then you'd be comparing the Bear to a level 12 Fighter, which would come out a little better.
And I couldn't agree with you more my friend, allowing this in a normal campaign would be terrible, because somebody playing the fighter would feel small in the pants and worthless. However it shows the point, the Fighter doesn't match his CR, and could be replaced fairly well.
The bear isn't 'perfect' because it's not as intelligent and has a somewhat limited scope of trainings and such, but the fact that a PC role could be replaced by the use of a single skill and an animal is pretty sad.
A level 11 fighter cannot be CR 11. A CR 11 is supposed to use up about 20% of a level 11 party's resources. A level 11 party is composed of 4 characters (generally a fighter, wizard, rogue and cleric) of level 11.
IF the level 11 fighter was the equal to a CR 11 challenge then it wouldn't be a challenge for a party of four characters.
Abraham spalding wrote: A level 11 fighter cannot be CR 11. A CR 11 is supposed to use up about 20% of a level 11 party's resources. A level 11 party is composed of 4 characters (generally a fighter, wizard, rogue and cleric) of level 11.
IF the level 11 fighter was the equal to a CR 11 challenge then it wouldn't be a challenge for a party of four characters.
By that math, it looks to me like the Fighter would be about CR 11 then, because the Fighter is 25% of the party.
If a party (4* the power of a single fighter) engages a fighter (25% of a party) then it should lose somewhere between 20 and 30% of their resources.
Oddly enough, I agree with you on the spell nerf. Save or Dies should be save or dies. Now, maybe they should grant a bonus on the save to the target, or defenses against them should be common or some such, but whatever the case, Finger of Death just isn't Finger of Death if the target is still on it's feat kicking ass and taking names after failing the save.
insaneogeddon wrote: At the end of the day its a game of numbers. There are plenty of people who are richer after 5 years than family businesses that have been around a generation or 10 thru part luck and part idea. Int 30 is not creativity in the rules or in examples where all casters use the same OLD tricks.
There are far more warriors etc thus far greater chance one finds the perfect encounters and items to whip up to 30th level in under 5 years.
Yes, but the argument was that wizards in literature were always more powerful than fighters, etc., and that is because they've mostly been around longer, not because a wizard level x is automatically ten times better than a warrior level x.
Well, at first I wasn't going to respond at all, due to the 'not feeding trolls' theory, but then I noticed the thread got jacked into some actually interesting conversations.
Personally, I think there are situations where arcanists do better over others, and likewise the reverse. Just to throw in a quote from literature:
"No matter how subtle/powerful the wizard, a knife between the shoulderblades will really cramp his style."
I removed a post. Please don't try to evade the profanity filter.
I don't think that wizards, even limited to core, suck by any stretch of the imagination. That said, I can sort of see the OP point, namely that there aren't really any core feats for spellcasters unless they want to be metamagic junkies. I would have loved to have seen, for example, some of the archmage arcana turned into high level arcane feats.
Peter Stewart wrote: I don't think that wizards, even limited to core, suck by any stretch of the imagination. That said, I can sort of see the OP point, namely that there aren't really any core feats for spellcasters unless they want to be metamagic junkies. I would have loved to have seen, for example, some of the archmage arcana turned into high level arcane feats. I would agree with you there. In fact, some really powerful feats that cost a spell level/day to keep around would be kinda nice.
That way, a Wiz or Sor could either cast all those spells, or use them to power some kind of feats.
kyrt-ryder wrote: Lol, the problem Charlie, is that the Fighter IS a CR 11 creature. The point I was trying to make here is that monsters are assigned CR arbitrarily, based on a play-test involving a party of 4 PCs with the 4 major "food groups." In other words, there's no solid mathematical basis for CR. I remember reading in an interview with some WotC 3.5 designer that in 3.5, CRs for dragons were skewed about 2 low since in playtesting, the PCs frequently knew that they were going in to a dragon fight and prepared accordingly, thus reducing the challenge. If, say, an adult red dragon were encountered randomly, the CR could justifiably be about 2 higher. The point being that CR isn't hard-and-fast, it's fuzzy and arbitrary, and even though a 11th level fighter is supposedly CR 11 it doesn't play out that way, as you note. An 11th level NPC wizard may challenge the "classic 4" party more or less than an 11th level NPC fighter, but probably not as much as nearly any CR 11 monster. IIRC there's some interesting discussion in the 3.5 MM, maybe in the FAQ, about CR vs. levels vs. ECL that's relevant here.
kyrt-ryder wrote: Now, if we go with CR = class levels minus 1 (I remember reading this somewhere, not sure where) then you'd be comparing the Bear to a level 12 Fighter, which would come out a little better. IIRC that's a PFRPG rule that for NPCs with heroic class levels only, CR = class levels-1. That's still a pretty arbitrary benchmark. There has to be SOMETHING in place to determine NPC CR, but even so it's far from perfect. For most classes I'd guess "actual" (since it's arbitrary and experiential) CR against the "classic 4" party would be 60-80% of class levels. This isn't to say that fighters are balanced vs. wizards or whatever, only that CR isn't a good measure of comparison one-on-one.
Charlie Bell wrote:
IIRC that's a PFRPG rule that for NPCs with heroic class levels only, CR = class levels-1. That's still a pretty arbitrary benchmark. There has to be SOMETHING in place to determine NPC CR, but even so it's far from perfect. For most classes I'd guess "actual" (since it's arbitrary and experiential) CR against the "classic 4" party would be 60-80% of class levels. This isn't to say that fighters are balanced vs. wizards or whatever, only that CR isn't a good measure of comparison one-on-one. Round the Dicefreaks parts we've been using CR for NPCs as Level -1 per 5 levels. Thus a 15th level NPC wizard is probably about CR 12, as is a 15th level NPC fighter, while a 20th level NPC is probably about CR 16.
We've found the formula works fairly well.
Given the limited actions that they can take in one turn the idea that a single 10th level character, who is likely woefully under equipped compared to even a single PC, is a meaningful threat to a 10th level party is laughable under all but the most favorable scenarios for the NPC, as is the idea that they would expend 20% of their resources.
Posts have been removed. Do not advocate piracy on our messageboards.
Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber
I find it strange in a post about arcane casters you show us an exploit that can be used by anyone.
I applaud the use of pets by the wizard in your example but it could have been done just as easily by the rogue or ranger. Even a fighter could do it if had an Int over 8.
Although I really like the planar ally spell idea to have a succubus companion. That beats the hell {pun intended} out of using feats for a lousy quasit.
dulsin wrote: I find it strange in a post about arcane casters you show us an exploit that can be used by anyone.
I applaud the use of pets by the wizard in your example but it could have been done just as easily by the rogue or ranger. Even a fighter could do it if had an Int over 8.
Although I really like the planar ally spell idea to have a succubus companion. That beats the hell {pun intended} out of using feats for a lousy quasit.
Anyone 'can' do it, but anybody but an arcane caster (particularly a Wizard, a Sorcerer 'might' pull it off, but not nearly as well) wouldn't have the versatility and raw power to support it.
In that example, the Wizard is winning the game in place of a 4 man party, he's doing everything that needs doing, barring the muscle.
The point I was illustrating, is that the Melee classes aren't as significant to the game as they should be, and that the Fighter in particular can't do his job equally to a creature of his CR.
If you had a Rogue, or Ranger or any other class doing that, they wouldn't be able to handle level appropriate challenges that a party of 4 should be handling, because they don't have the magical might.
The bear in the example ISN'T the focal point, the Wizard is. He's just the muscle, the meathead to deal the requisite damage while the Wizard 'wins D&D'
Bah, if the game were right, the bards specialising in being creepy jesters would be the most powerful class by far.
And guys without supernatural powers but with too much gear for their level, and an animal fetish, would always lose!
Yes, that should be. I shall pipe about it in the ears of Azathoth henceforth.
KaeYoss wrote: Bah, if the game were right, the bards specialising in being creepy jesters would be the most powerful class by far.
And guys without supernatural powers but with too much gear for their level, and an animal fetish, would always lose!
Yes, that should be. I shall pipe about it in the ears of Azathoth henceforth.
I concur. Characters ranging from bards specializing in beeing creepy jesters, to the lowly fighter, to the blind monk, all should be among the most powerful class, alongside the wizard and his ilk.
(translation, they all should be roughly equally powerful, in their own way lol)
Talek & Luna wrote: insaneogeddon wrote: For people who think any particular thing should be infinitely better be they elf or caster lovers or want to be napoleon, drizzt or god. We have a class for them..... 1st level commoner belonging to the great world power organisation 'the asylum'. I disagree. Classes should be better at different power levels. Saying that a 20th level fighter should be equal to a 20th level wizard is amusing at best. That is like saying a 20th level wookie should be equal to a 20th level jedi. Sorry but I felt Luke was far superior to Chewbacca in Return of the Jedi. Oh come on! Perfect class balance worked so well for 4E!!!
To the OP: Wizard versatility isn't a matter of feat options, or class options. A wizard's power is in their spells.
Some spells got nerfed in Pathfinder, but the Wizard likely still reigns the top of the pyramid in Pathfinder, there are simply too many things that spells can do.
kyrt-ryder wrote: dulsin wrote: I find it strange in a post about arcane casters you show us an exploit that can be used by anyone.
I applaud the use of pets by the wizard in your example but it could have been done just as easily by the rogue or ranger. Even a fighter could do it if had an Int over 8.
Although I really like the planar ally spell idea to have a succubus companion. That beats the hell {pun intended} out of using feats for a lousy quasit.
Anyone 'can' do it, but anybody but an arcane caster (particularly a Wizard, a Sorcerer 'might' pull it off, but not nearly as well) wouldn't have the versatility and raw power to support it.
In that example, the Wizard is winning the game in place of a 4 man party, he's doing everything that needs doing, barring the muscle.
The point I was illustrating, is that the Melee classes aren't as significant to the game as they should be, and that the Fighter in particular can't do his job equally to a creature of his CR.
If you had a Rogue, or Ranger or any other class doing that, they wouldn't be able to handle level appropriate challenges that a party of 4 should be handling, because they don't have the magical might.
The bear in the example ISN'T the focal point, the Wizard is. He's just the muscle, the meathead to deal the requisite damage while the Wizard 'wins D&D' how does the bear protect the wizard from multiple opponents and snipers? The wizards' downside is low AC and low HP as well as low BAB. Touch attacks help, but the wizard doesn't 'win d&d', he is however an integral part of his group and a vallued companion.
Treantmonk wrote: To the OP: Wizard versatility isn't a matter of feat options, or class options. A wizard's power is in their spells.
Some spells got nerfed in Pathfinder, but the Wizard likely still reigns the top of the pyramid in Pathfinder, there are simply too many things that spells can do.
+1
I wish it had been put so succinctly right away, it might have taken a bit of heat out of the threat.
grasshopper_ea wrote:
how does the bear protect the wizard from multiple opponents and snipers? The wizards' downside is low AC and low HP as well as low BAB. Touch attacks help, but the wizard doesn't 'win d&d', he is however an integral part of his group and a vallued companion.
The wizard doesn't need protection at the levels in question. He has Blink, Displacement, Darkness, Mirror Image, Invisibility, Greater Invisibility, Fly, Protection From Arrows, Fogs, Walls, Summons, the list goes on and on. This is good news for the wizard in question, because at these levels meat shields like the polar bear or the fighter are incapable of providing any protection, as you have pointed out.
As for BAB, as you said, touch attacks help. They especially help because touch AC never really goes up for monsters. In fact, because high CR monsters get bigger and have lower DEX, touch AC goes DOWN. A CR 26 Red Great Wyrm has a touch AC of 2. There are, in fact, no monsters with a CR between 15 and 30 with a touch AC higher than 18. A halfling wizard with 14+2 starting Dex and +6 Dex gloves has a +17 bonus on touch attacks at level 20.
PJFrost wrote: grasshopper_ea wrote:
how does the bear protect the wizard from multiple opponents and snipers? The wizards' downside is low AC and low HP as well as low BAB. Touch attacks help, but the wizard doesn't 'win d&d', he is however an integral part of his group and a vallued companion.
The wizard doesn't need protection at the levels in question. He has Blink, Displacement, Darkness, Mirror Image, Invisibility, Greater Invisibility, Fly, Protection From Arrows, Fogs, Walls, Summons, the list goes on and on. This is good news for the wizard in question, because at these levels meat shields like the polar bear or the fighter are incapable of providing any protection, as you have pointed out.
Don't. Please don't go down this route of "the wizard can cast A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J spell to be invincible". It's worse than theoretical optimization. The ability to do something and the ability to do something in theory are not the same thing. Most of those spells have minute durations or less. You cannot keep them active at all times, and cannot always decide the circumstances under which you enter combat. Any number of things can control as much, you can get ambushed, you can walk into NPCs you care about getting attacked, and you can be in the last fight at the end of a long day without an opportunity to retreat.
Further you cannot have them all the defensive buffs you noted prepared and still maintain the other diversity that wizard lovers love to rant about.
Under the right (rare) circumstances a single wizard can dominate a fight of equal CR on his own, but the vast majority of the time the game doesn't play out in that manner. To pretend that it does, and to play the game as a wargame in which you have no attachments to NPCs and only ever take the most cost effective and paranoid options regardless of PC flavor.
If all you want to do is use abilities in a vacuum against enemies without regard to flavor, npc interaction, or other factors that make D&D/Pathfinder an RPG instead of a wargame then might I suggest a wargame for you?
Peter Stewart
I maybe am the one who misread PJFrost's post, but I don't think he's suggesting what you are implying.
Sounds like he's pointing out how Battlefield Controls and protection spells, properly placed and cast in combat or before, as the case may be, are the best defense a wizard has - especially in the situations where he can't rely on the fighter to protect him.
How's that "Theoretical optimization"? Sounds just like playing tactically smart to me.
Wizards NEED to do this, relying exclusively on the rest of the party to ensure you are never in a position to be attacked will lead to a dead wizard everytime.
Treantmonk wrote: Peter Stewart
I maybe am the one who misread PJFrost's post, but I don't think he's suggesting what you are implying.
Sounds like he's pointing out how Battlefield Controls and protection spells, properly placed and cast in combat or before, as the case may be, are the best defense a wizard has - especially in the situations where he can't rely on the fighter to protect him.
How's that "Theoretical optimization"? Sounds just like playing tactically smart to me.
Wizards NEED to do this, relying exclusively on the rest of the party to ensure you are never in a position to be attacked will lead to a dead wizard everytime.
I didn't say it was theoretical optimization, I said it was worse, mostly because people with a brain in their head realize that theoretical optimization is garbage, but someone might actually read his post and take it at face value. Suggesting that the wizard should have a buff or two active or should be shaping the battlefield in ways that protect them is fine and accurate. Going through a laundry list of "wizard's don't need front line protectors because of A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I (ad nauseum)" isn't.
While the fighter/cleric/rogue can't always protect the wizard and he should have plans in place to deal with such contingencies, saying that the wizard doesn't need them is inaccurate. Against the majority of the monsters in the monster manual the first and best defense is the party fighter/barbarian/paladin.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
