Whatever you do:
>Don't allow a ranged-touch specialist evoker with fire focus at your table armed with the Spell Compendium. Its simply wonky. The bloat of power there will be obvious and un-fun for the rest.
In short, I've removed Spell Compendium from play. (I used a story convention to do this, having the PCs travel to another world where those formulae of magic do not work.)
At what level is this happening? Because 3634567546785673445354 things are immune to fire right about the same level that you get access to Orb of Fire.
I wouldn't want that player at my table because I'd have to make sure I didn't ever tell him "Okay, you're sitting out this fight" because I wanted to run fire giants.
I know, right? It irritates the hell out of me that Flaming enchantment on weapons is a higher level than the other energy types to make, there are so many good fire spells in the game, and yet 90% of the monsters you fight are either highly resistant or flat out immune to fire. I've sacked entire character concepts because of this(at least "Pyromancer" sounded cool).
I know, right? It irritates the hell out of me that Flaming enchantment on weapons is a higher level than the other energy types to make, there are so many good fire spells in the game, and yet 90% of the monsters you fight are either highly resistant or flat out immune to fire. I've sacked entire character concepts because of this(at least "Pyromancer" sounded cool).
Sure, there are lots of things immune to fire. But the key issue is not the number of monsters immune to it, but how often you encounter them. I used to run an OA game in which probably 80% of all encounters were with leveled humanoids. Not a heck of a lot were resistant to energy. But if you're in a campaign against a diabolic invasion, you can expect pretty much all energy enhancements on weapons (and many spells) to be worth a lot less.
Unless the DM is running some kind of heavily themed campaign, if 90% of what you're running into is highly resistant, perhaps your DM isn't mixing up the encounters as much as he should.
1) One Quickened (with metamagic rod) and two with an 8th-level spell I don't remember the name of right now (from Spell Compendium or PHB2) that lets you cast a 7th-level spell and a 4th-level spell.
2) A high Charisma gives you quite a decent amount of bonus spells; everything was by the book. Since most encounters aren't designed for the monsters to withstand 100+ ranged damage per turn, encounters were usually over in 2-3 rounds.
I noticed this and had to comment...
I'll bet you never did the same combo back on the party did you? Most groups of PCs aren't designed to handle that sort of abuse every encounter either...
My point is that while there is certainly nothing wrong with a character being crafty and coming up with awesome spell combos (I encourage it my games, most certainly), there is something wrong with a PC consistently using that combo to upset the balance of the encounters and owning the battlefield. What were all the other PCs doing while this guy was laying waste to everything? Where was their spotlight?
Every person who games with me knows the Cardinal Rule: if you can do it, they can do it too. Rarely do I say 'no' to a player when they ask me "Hey, could I do this?" when the request is completely by the book. The game is meant to be fun and challenge the PCs. I'm supposed to be having as much fun as they are so when I start getting bored because they're wiping the floor with the same combos over and over and other players are just sitting there doodling on their notebook with their chin resting on their hands waiting to be useful... I then introduce them to the Cardinal Rule.
I've yet, to this day, met a single player who appreciates their own dirty tricks used against them. I've never herd a single player not complain when an enemy uses the same spell combo or feat combo that they've been using to dominate the battle. Nor do other party members appreciate their characters coming to harm because Johnny Sorcerer just had to be the center of attention... all night. 9 out of 10 players never plan to have to defend themselves from their own abilities, and in time the players will learn to keep their friends in check out of self preservation.
Over time they've learned that spell and ability combos are great and I welcome them, but I also do not want to see them as the only means by which a character can overcome an adversary. I expect variety, not endless repetition that steals the fun away from the other players.
And energy immunity/resistance in general is just such a crapshoot. Demons and devils get random elemental resistances universally, despite being heterogenous in pretty much every other way. Lots of high-level enemies have pretty arbitrary immunities that aren't obvious from their appearance; why are skeletons immune to cold?
Because their are dead and it's hard to freeze a corpse to death.
Unlike turning a corpse to ash with fire, aka cremation.
At least that's my guess.
The thing about the orb line of spells is how they make SR irrelevant.
The trade was supposed to be a ranged touch attack, you had a miss chance. I played a warmage several times and these orbs were my bread and butter.
But once we started to get to higher levels and had more than base books baddies, I had more and more issues using orb spells because the DM realized, and then utilized, a higher touch AC. It neutralized them quickly.
Since I asked this question on another thread about the Spell Compendium, I'll just repost it here.
Speaking of the Orb spells, would it be balanced for a Rogue/Sorcerer to take one of the Lesser Orb Of __ spells? I'm only asking because I want a spell I can sneak attack with that isn't a cantrip.
(Halfling Rogue taking a level of Sorcerer(Celestial) soon, if you're curious.)
EDIT: I need to stop having two posting panals open at the same time.
Anyway, since we're probably not getting to high levels in this decade and I'll be able to cast Invisibility on myself at that point, there probably won't be many problems. Thanks for the advice.
EDIT: I need to stop having two posting panals open at the same time.
Anyway, since we're probably not getting to high levels in this decade and I'll be able to cast Invisibility on myself at that point, there probably won't be many problems. Thanks for the advice.
That's not too long, just about a year! *grin*
I just wanted to note that Tome & Blood came out in 2001. This means that there are kids old enough to play D&D who are younger than the argument about the Orb spells.
Different orb spells, or so I thought. Looking at my ToB right now (good god I bought this thing when I was 15...) and the orb spells in it are all evocation and allow spell resistance.
Personally I've not had any problem with the vast majority of spell compendium spells at my table. The only one that was an issue at one point was ray of stupidity. Though if anyone wants it for my pathfinder game i'll likely give it the ray of enfeeblement nerf bat and through in a will save for half.
The real limiter on Ray of Enfeeblement isn't the save; it's that the spell can't lower the target's strength below 1. What makes Ray of Stupidity great is that it can sent enemies into a coma while bypassing all those hit points. Even with a save for half, you can still metamagic the crap out of rays of stupidity to break many enemies' brains with ease.
At what level is this happening? Because 3634567546785673445354 things are immune to fire right about the same level that you get access to Orb of Fire.
I wouldn't want that player at my table because I'd have to make sure I didn't ever tell him "Okay, you're sitting out this fight" because I wanted to run fire giants.
Searing Spell is your friend. *Has burned fire elementals to death before.*
My point is that while there is certainly nothing wrong with a character being crafty and coming up with awesome spell combos (I encourage it my games, most certainly), there is something wrong with a PC consistently using that combo to upset the balance of the encounters and owning the battlefield. What were all the other PCs doing while this guy was laying waste to everything? Where was their spotlight?
Um... chief, that combo still ain't stellar without some serious backing behind it. According to Are, it was dishing out 35d6 damage for four spell slots of varying levels. And just because one person is shining doesn't mean everyone else isn't.
The earliest this trick is even possible is level 16, since it uses an 8th-level spell, so the kinds of enemies we're talking about are on the order of mature dragons with hundreds of hit points. The biggest of giants are mooks. At this point, being able to deal about a hundred damage to a single target doesn't mean a whole lot. In fact, a successful empowered Disintegrate would deal a lot more damage from a single spell.
And you're ascribing spotlight-stealing habits that are completely irrelevant to the ultimate subject, and the logic is somewhat wonky in its focus. The Barbarian class is good for about one thing. Stabbing things to death. At level 1, the typical Barbarian stabs things to death. At level 20, she stabs bigger things to deathier death. It combines all its talents for the purpose of stabbing hard. When the Barbarian greets the vast majority of combat encounters with stabbing, that's not stealing spotlight, and anyone who gets annoyed that the Barbarian's killing everything is probably being petty. Unless it's the DM's fault for putting all the enemies in nice little low-HP, low-AC, Great-Cleave-friendly bundles.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Searing Spell is your friend. *Has burned fire elementals to death before.*Yah. When someone really wants to go fire specialized, I just give them that with no level adjustment and, like, full-round action to cast or something.
When I read that feat, I thought of Etrigan's appearance in Detective comics 601-603.
"Born in hate? Fear made to live?
Pfah! You're nothing, a man made shell!
If it's hate you want it's hate I'll give
All the hate in HELL!" *breathes fire, destorying the tupala*
And his line to Batman:
"I told you man to touch me not
Unless of course, you like it hot."
|
Every person who games with me knows the Cardinal Rule: if you can do it, they can do it too. Rarely do I say 'no' to a player when they ask me "Hey, could I do this?" when the request is completely by the book. The game is meant to be fun and challenge the PCs. I'm supposed to be having as much fun as they are so when I start getting bored because they're wiping the floor with the same combos over and over and other players are just sitting there doodling on their notebook with their chin resting on their hands waiting to be useful... I then introduce them to the Cardinal Rule.
Ditto. I like the way you roll.
My group, like most groups I like to think, has all sorts of personalities. Some players are really only familiar with the core books, aren't looking to change that, and having fun. A couple of the players really enjoy digging into 3.5 splatbooks to come up with new ideas. I don't want either type of player to feel put upon or disappointed that he/she can't play in his/her style. That said, it's the second group of players that tend to get surprised when the DM pulls a rabbit out of his hat with an evil grin.
The orbs are bad spells, for much the same reason Fireball is a bad spell. It's not a Wizard's job to do damage. It may be a secondary task at times, but rarely more on a well-played mage, simply because Wizards aren't very good at dealing damage. The Rogue can dish out gobs of damage with Sneak Attack all day. The Fighter can Power Attack until her hit points are all gone. The Druid is a bear-summoning bear with a bear companion. They are all better at dealing damage than the Wizard. And even when a Wizard does want to deal damage, summons are generally better at it.
The orbs are just so trivial as to be irrelevant. Just about all that can be said of 'em is that they work in an AMF, but that's a good thing.
I don't know what game you play, but I have been playing since 1st edition, and the magic users have always been relied on to do some significant damage. EVERY group I have played with, and being ex-military I have had very diverse gaming experiences, has relied on mages to do LOTS of damage with the boosting aspects being given to the clerics. Because of the military, I have had gaming members in my groups from at least 20 different states. So, I have had a fair sampling from around the country of how allot of groups can operate.
Um... chief, that combo still ain't stellar without some serious backing behind it. According to Are, it was dishing out 35d6 damage for four spell slots of varying levels. And just because one person is shining doesn't mean everyone else isn't.The earliest this trick is even possible is level 16, since it uses an 8th-level spell, so the kinds of enemies we're talking about are on the order of mature dragons with hundreds of hit points. The biggest of giants...
Adding to your point, I don't see the point of building a character around a spell combo that is destroyed by the casting of a 2nd level spell.
I don't know what game you play, but I have been playing since 1st edition, and the magic users have always been relied on to do some significant damage. EVERY group I have played with, and being ex-military I have had very diverse gaming experiences, has relied on mages to do LOTS of damage with the boosting aspects being given to the clerics. Because of the military, I have had gaming members in my groups from at least 20 different states. So, I have had a fair sampling from around the country of how allot of groups can operate.
'Normal' and 'effective' are two wildly different things. Yes, it's normal for Wizards to rely on damage spells. Extremely normal, even. That doesn't mean it's any good.
And 1st edition is not Pathfinder. Experience with 1e has about as much to do with Pathfinder as experience with GURPS or Rolemaster. That which is a good idea in 1e may not be a good idea in Pathfinder. That which is a good idea in Shadowrun may not be a good idea in Blue Rose. And absolutely nothing is a good idea in Call of Cthulhu.
Mind that in AD&D, a hill giant had, what, forty hit points? A fireball or two from a seventh-level Wizard at 1d6 damage/level would indeed kill it in a couple shots. Now? 82 hit points, and it's a fairly petty threat to the 7th-level Wizard's party anyways. 1d6 damage/level just doesn't mean what it used to. Unless you really know how to squeeze out that damage, the job is more efficiently handled by the Barbarian, the Fighter, the Rogue, the Druid, the Cleric, the Ranger, heck, even the Bard.
'Normal' and 'effective' are two wildly different things. Yes, it's normal for Wizards to rely on damage spells. Extremely normal, even. That doesn't mean it's any good.
And 1st edition is not Pathfinder. Experience with 1e has about as much to do with Pathfinder as experience with GURPS or Rolemaster. That which is a good idea in 1e may not be a good idea in Pathfinder. That which is a good idea in Shadowrun may not be a good idea in Blue Rose. And absolutely nothing is a good idea in Call of Cthulhu.
Mind that in AD&D, a hill giant had, what, forty hit points? A fireball or two from a seventh-level Wizard at 1d6 damage/level would indeed kill it in a couple shots. Now? 82 hit points, and it's a fairly petty threat to the 7th-level Wizard's party anyways. 1d6 damage/level just doesn't mean what it used to. Unless you really know how to squeeze out that damage, the job is more efficiently handled by the Barbarian, the Fighter, the Rogue, the Druid, the Cleric, the Ranger, heck, even the Bard.
Never said 1e was Pathfinder, BUT you said that wizards were never meant to be dealing out damage. I refuted that. From the very beginning, the magic users were considered magical artillery. Pathfinder is still tied to it's roots there. Mages control the battles by containing, as well as providing 'fire support'. I find the wizard/sorcerer VERY effective. I find the summoners to VERY ineffective. ANY creature summoned is sub-par to anybody else in the party to doing any fighting. The summoners cant summon enough creatures. The most effective summons summon swarms. The animal companions have always been considered a hindrance. Pathfinder has helped, but the animal companion is still not the end all, be all, fighting protector. Fireball is VERY good at mass damage to enemy groups. If it doesn't kill the enemy, then it has weakened it to the point they are easy pickings for the rest of the party.
I agree that a pure 'battle mage' is not necessarily the best thing, but never imply that they are not effective. I have too much experience to argue the other way.
'Normal' and 'effective' are two wildly different things. Yes, it's normal for Wizards to rely on damage spells. Extremely normal, even. That doesn't mean it's any good.
And 1st edition is not Pathfinder. Experience with 1e has about as much to do with Pathfinder as experience with GURPS or Rolemaster. That which is a good idea in 1e may not be a good idea in Pathfinder. That which is a good idea in Shadowrun may not be a good idea in Blue Rose. And absolutely nothing is a good idea in Call of Cthulhu.
Mind that in AD&D, a hill giant had, what, forty hit points? A fireball or two from a seventh-level Wizard at 1d6 damage/level would indeed kill it in a couple shots. Now? 82 hit points, and it's a fairly petty threat to the 7th-level Wizard's party anyways. 1d6 damage/level just doesn't mean what it used to. Unless you really know how to squeeze out that damage, the job is more efficiently handled by the Barbarian, the Fighter, the Rogue, the Druid, the Cleric, the Ranger, heck, even the Bard.
Never said 1e was Pathfinder, BUT you said that wizards were never meant to be dealing out damage. I refuted that. From the very beginning, the magic users were considered magical artillery. Pathfinder is still tied to it's roots there. Mages control the battles by containing, as well as providing 'fire support'. I find the wizard/sorcerer VERY effective. I find the summoners to VERY ineffective. ANY creature summoned is sub-par to anybody else in the party to doing any fighting. The summoners cant summon enough creatures. The most effective summons summon swarms. The animal companions have always been considered a hindrance. Pathfinder has helped, but the animal companion is still not the end all, be all, fighting protector. Fireball is VERY good at mass damage to enemy groups. If it doesn't kill the enemy, then it has weakened it to the point they are easy pickings for the rest of the party.
I agree that a pure 'battle mage' is not necessarily the best thing,...
I believe she meant never in Pathfinder/3.5 since that is the system in question. Normally if the discussion is extended to another system that system will be clearly noted, the way you specifically called out 1st edition.
And you're ascribing spotlight-stealing habits that are completely irrelevant to the ultimate subject, and the logic is somewhat wonky in its focus. The Barbarian class is good for about one thing. Stabbing things to death. At level 1, the typical Barbarian stabs things to death. At level 20, she stabs bigger things to deathier death. It combines all its talents for the purpose of stabbing hard. When the Barbarian greets the vast majority of combat encounters with stabbing, that's not stealing spotlight, and anyone who gets annoyed that the Barbarian's killing everything is probably being petty. Unless it's the DM's fault for putting all the enemies in nice little low-HP, low-AC, Great-Cleave-friendly bundles.
Or the Barbarian is PC'd into Frenzied Berserker, in which case he's one shotting things with hundreds of HP. I stopped playing one (that I had no idea would be so effective) in a game because it wasn't fair to everyone else.
Wraithstrike: I'm sure there were many calls for this spell to be banned back in the day.
Never said 1e was Pathfinder, BUT you said that wizards were never meant to be dealing out damage. I refuted that. From the very beginning, the magic users were considered magical artillery. Pathfinder is still tied to it's roots there. Mages control the battles by containing, as well as providing 'fire support'. I find the wizard/sorcerer VERY effective. I find the summoners to VERY ineffective. ANY creature summoned is sub-par to anybody else in the party to doing any fighting. The summoners cant summon enough creatures. The most effective summons summon swarms. The animal companions have always been considered a hindrance. Pathfinder has helped, but the animal companion is still not the end all, be all, fighting protector. Fireball is VERY good at mass damage to enemy groups. If it doesn't kill the enemy, then it has weakened it to the point they are easy pickings for the rest of the party.
1e is and never was a part of 3.5 or Pathfinder, any more than True20 or Mutants and Mastermind is (and in fact, those two are more closely related to 3.5). 'The beginning' begins with the creation of 3.5/Pathfinder. What was intended in 1e has nothing to do with what was intended in 2e or Pathfinder or 4e or Victoriana or Anima. They're all different systems.
Also, intent means nothing. Mages were absolutely intended as blasters; that doesn't mean that they're good at it. Fighters were intended for melee in 3.5, but ultimately without splats, the best they could hope for at higher levels was to be a decent archer.
On the topic of summons, of course a summon is less effective than, say, the Fighter. If you could call out a full-on Fighter with an Xth-level spell, that would be utterly broken. However, a wolverine is still capable of being a powerful influence on the tide of battle standing next to a level five Fighter, particularly with smite and rage tacked on. The next round, that wolverine's still around and fighting, and you're free to cast another spell while it fights. And if someone's attacking your wolverine, you win; they're wasting actions attacking a spell slot instead of a person.
On the topic of Fireball? Mass groups that are harmed by Fireball tend to be mooks. A dozen orcs are not a threat to a level five party. Yes, area blasts are very good at mowing down lowly mooks, but lowly mooks aren't dangerous. At level 5, sure, eighteen orcs are technically a CR5 encounter, but they can be mowed down with trivial ease. Just let the Great Cleave Barbarian at 'em and she can probably solo the encounter as if it were nothing.
There are situations where blasting is useful, sure, but those situations are rather niche and often aren't even dangerous.
I agree that a pure 'battle mage' is not necessarily the best thing, but never imply that they are not effective. I have too much experience to argue the other way.
Remember, kids. "Personal experience means nothing."
Wraithstrike: I'm sure there were many calls for this spell to be banned back in the day.
Off-topic:The first time I heard of this spell some DM'd used it against a player who munchkined(according to the DM) his way to an AC of 50 by level 10. The player then proceeded to challenge a dragon(IIRC). I do know a dragon was involved. The player's character was dead shortly thereafter.
I am going to have to change my name.
Never said 1e was Pathfinder, BUT you said that wizards were never meant to be dealing out damage. I refuted that. From the very beginning, the magic users were considered magical artillery. Pathfinder is still tied to it's roots there. Mages control the battles by containing, as well as providing 'fire support'. I find the wizard/sorcerer VERY effective. I find the summoners to VERY ineffective. ANY creature summoned is sub-par to anybody else in the party to doing any fighting. The summoners cant summon enough creatures. The most effective summons summon swarms. The animal companions have always been considered a hindrance. Pathfinder has helped, but the animal companion is still not the end all, be all, fighting protector. Fireball is VERY good at mass damage to enemy groups. If it doesn't kill the enemy, then it has weakened it to the point they are easy pickings for the rest of the party.1e is and never was a part of 3.5 or Pathfinder, any more than True20 or Mutants and Mastermind is (and in fact, those two are more closely related to 3.5). 'The beginning' begins with the creation of 3.5/Pathfinder. What was intended in 1e has nothing to do with what was intended in 2e or Pathfinder or 4e or Victoriana or Anima. They're all different systems.
Also, intent means nothing. Mages were absolutely intended as blasters; that doesn't mean that they're good at it. Fighters were intended for melee in 3.5, but ultimately without splats, the best they could hope for at higher levels was to be a decent archer.
On the topic of summons, of course a summon is less effective than, say, the Fighter. If you could call out a full-on Fighter with an Xth-level spell, that would be utterly broken. However, a wolverine is still capable of being a powerful influence on the tide of battle standing next to a level five Fighter, particularly with smite and rage tacked on. The next round, that wolverine's still around and fighting, and you're free to cast another spell...
Actually, Jason & team would argue that 1e is part of Pathfinder. The game has evolved from the same roots. Also, kiddies is a rather insulting term to use. Experience means ALLOT. You quote experience as part of your argument for summoners. Well kiddies, experience apparently means nothing for YOUR argument. To tell the truth, I havent EVER seen any arguments, except from you, to support summoners as any kind of effective build for any spell caster. Not saying it can't be fun to play. Certainly fills a theme. I hope you enjoy it
Now back to my experience. FIRST, I NEVER said anything about 1e as the rule of thumb. What I said was that the mages were always conceived as blaster. THAT goes back beyond 1e. BTW, look at the editions. 1e, then 2e, then 3e, then 3.5e, then (3.5e THRIVES) Pathfinder. THAT makes 1e part of Pathfinder. All that aside, my references were discussing the history of the mage. I have most of my pure gaming experience in 3e & 3.5e. Had more time to play/DM. Your example about buffing the piddly wolverine. Why waste the spell to summon it, when you could have just buffed the fighter? Then you would have had another spell to blast something. I know lower levels that you can't blast much, but also the mage is wasted summoning the wolverine. Better off with a druid. Even buffed, I find all of the summoned creatures highly ineffective. By the time you buffed them, the fight is over. Now you have wasted spells on a creature that has nothing to fight. You may have a different experience, but apparently that means nothing.
My point is, enjoy your game, but don't go insulting somebody else for having a different experience than you. I was pointing out that by design, the mages are meant to be primarily blasters, but you said otherwise in your original statement. I just pointed out that the original statement is in fact wrong. Gary Gygax created the magic user to be a magical artillery piece in a tactical war game. Thru the editions, which includes ODD thru Pathfinder, the class has kept the same basic premise. If you had said that the mage has evolved to not be an effective blaster, I wouldn't agree, but I would have used a different argument. Might not even bothered to post, because that is an OPINION statement, based on 'experience'. I posted because you made a flawed FACTUAL statement, based on HISTORY. The history is that the mage WAS meant to be a damage dealer. Effective or not, he was MEANT to be. That makes your original statement I refuted WRONG.
On the topic of Fireball? Mass groups that are harmed by Fireball tend to be mooks. A dozen orcs are not a threat to a level five party. Yes, area blasts are very good at mowing down lowly mooks, but lowly mooks aren't dangerous. At level 5, sure, eighteen orcs are technically a CR5 encounter, but they can be mowed down with trivial ease. Just let the Great Cleave Barbarian at 'em and she can probably solo the encounter as if it were nothing.
There are situations where blasting is useful, sure, but those situations are rather niche and often aren't even dangerous.
I'm going to assume you haven't played a variety of classic modules like the G series. Fireballs (and other area-damage spells) have proven quite useful in modules like that where there are many opponents but they're all relatively mundane in their defenses. The artillery softens up the giants and the fighters cleave their way through them. High giant hit points otherwise make cleaving a much more rare prospect.
Used to be a time when tribes of giants weren't considered niche situations.
Actually, Jason & team would argue that 1e is part of Pathfinder. The game has evolved from the same roots. Also, kiddies is a rather insulting term to use. Experience means ALLOT. You quote experience as part of your argument for summoners. Well kiddies, experience apparently means nothing for YOUR argument.
I was addressing the kids watching from home, chief. You are neither a plural nor the kids watching from home.
However, everyone knows the old adage, "Correlation does not imply causation," and it's true. Oh, so true. Correlation does suggest the possibility of causation, it does make it a wise idea to go in an assess any causal relationships that may be involved, but it does not imply causation.
Likewise, "Personal experience means nothing." It can suggest many things that bear further inspection, but those experiences themselves signify nothing. They need extensive analysis and dissection and comparison to the system in case your group has some unwitting houserules in order to mean anything.
I do not cite experience. I cite analysis. Put standard summons in level-appropriate encounters (at CR to CR+4) and they can indeed contribute, keeping in mind what a contribution is; if the biggest, toughest enemy on the field ends up killing the summon in a single full attack, that was a significant contribution because it got the biggest, toughest enemy on the field to waste its attack on an expendable summon while everyone else nails it for a round.
To tell the truth, I havent EVER seen any arguments, except from you, to support summoners as any kind of effective build for any spell caster. Not saying it can't be fun to play. Certainly fills a theme. I hope you enjoy it
Er... how active are you in the community? 'Cuz the power, versatility, and utility of summons are a fairly common topic. Like, say, from the resident authority on Wizards.
Now back to my experience. FIRST, I NEVER said anything about 1e as the rule of thumb. What I said was that the mages were always conceived as blaster. THAT goes back beyond 1e. BTW, look at the editions. 1e, then 2e, then 3e, then 3.5e, then (3.5e THRIVES) Pathfinder. THAT makes 1e part of Pathfinder. All that aside, my references were discussing the history of the mage.
Yes, mages have history across many systems, and in many systems mages are traditionally blasters. In fact, in Ragnarok Online, they are very good blasters, as they can be in Mutants and Masterminds, and many subspecies of mythology. But tradition has no bearing on the state of things in the system itself. Whether or not Wizards were intended to be blasters has no bearing on whether or not blasting is actually a worthwhile application of a Wizard's time and spell slots.
Your example about buffing the piddly wolverine. Why waste the spell to summon it, when you could have just buffed the fighter? Then you would have had another spell to blast something.
1) I never advised buffing a wolverine. Wasting actions buffing a summon is generally a Bad Idea unless you can buff your friends at the same time.
2) Buffing the Fighter is a useful and viable option, far more useful than blasting. In fact, on average, a Haste or Bull's Strength (before strength-boosting items come into play) will do far more damage than your latest blast, and oftentimes even prevent damage from happening outright.
3) That spell slot spent blasting is a spell slot spent to maybe deal as much damage as your friends for a round, which they can do for many, many rounds, rather than doing things that only a mage can do, like calling walls from oblivion to block off that path baddies are coming from.
My point is, enjoy your game, but don't go insulting somebody else for having a different experience than you. I was pointing out that by design, the mages are meant to be primarily blasters, but you said otherwise in your original statement. I just pointed out that the original statement is in fact wrong. Gary Gygax created the magic user to be a magical artillery piece in a tactical war game. Thru the editions, which includes ODD thru Pathfinder, the class has kept the same basic premise. If you had said that the mage has evolved to not be an effective blaster, I wouldn't agree, but I would have used a different argument. Might not even bothered to post, because that is an OPINION statement, based on 'experience'. I posted because you made a flawed FACTUAL statement, based on HISTORY. The history is that the mage WAS meant to be a damage dealer. Effective or not, he was MEANT to be. That makes your original statement I refuted WRONG.
I said no such thing. In fact, I quite explicitly stated the exact opposite in the very post you quoted.
I said it isn't the Wizard's job to do damage. That's wildly different from intent. Wizards are intended to be blasters, a task they do well. They are spectacular at battlefield control, utility, buffing, debuffing, and utility. The Wizard's job is to do the things they do well that no one else can do. The Wizard is usually the least efficient damage-dealer in the party, therefore the Wizard's time and energy are best spent on things other than dealing damage.
And what Gary Gygax intended has nothing to do with Pathfinder as a system. Only as a historical novelty. That the Wizard is a bad blaster means that the Wizard's job is something other than blasting; like battlefield control. In the original wargame, yes, the mage was a cannon. In 3.5 and Pathfinder, the mage is not a cannon. The mage is a Swiss army knife.
My statement stands in its entirety, and your 'history' is utterly fallacious and irrelevant, as we are not talking about the wargames of yore or 1e or any of the works of Gary Gygax, we're talking about Pathfinder, a ruleset that exists unto itself and of which 1e is not a part.
I'm going to assume you haven't played a variety of classic modules like the G series. Fireballs (and other area-damage spells) have proven quite useful in modules like that where there are many opponents but they're all relatively mundane in their defenses. The artillery softens up the giants and the fighters cleave their way through them. High giant hit points otherwise make cleaving a much more rare prospect.
Used to be a time when tribes of giants weren't considered niche situations.
Actually, a tribe of giants is precisely the sort of situation where it's highly inefficient to chuck fireballs. After all, they have a lot of hit points. Multiple giants are better dealt with by Grease, Glitterdust, Confusion, Wall of Blah, Control Plants, Silent Image, Slow.
As you go up in level, even mooks are going to top a hundred hit points. As those HP totals soar, spells that can take enemies out of the fight without hit point damage (Glitterdust, Deep Slumber) or keep doing damage over multiple rounds while soaking up the enemies' attention (summons) become infinitely more valuable than X damage right now that won't slow them down.
And hit point damage isn't a hindrance until you hit zero hit points. A monster with one hit point can hurt you just as badly as one with a thousand. If your party deals 100 damage to a creature that has 101 hit points, it doles a hundred percent of its damage output next round. If your party deals 70 damage, and throws in a spell that prevents the monster from attacking next round, when the party deals another 70 damage, you win without a scratch. That's the nature of damage and control in 3.5. And Wizards are the ones with all the best control abilities.
Every person who games with me knows the Cardinal Rule: if you can do it, they can do it too. Rarely do I say 'no' to a player when they ask me "Hey, could I do this?" when the request is completely by the book. The game is meant to be fun and challenge the PCs. I'm supposed to be having as much fun as they are so when I start getting bored because they're wiping the floor with the same combos over and over and other players are just sitting there doodling on their notebook with their chin resting on their hands waiting to be useful... I then introduce them to the Cardinal Rule.
Ditto. I like the way you roll.
My group, like most groups I like to think, has all sorts of personalities. Some players are really only familiar with the core books, aren't looking to change that, and having fun. A couple of the players really enjoy digging into 3.5 splatbooks to come up with new ideas. I don't want either type of player to feel put upon or disappointed that he/she can't play in his/her style. That said, it's the second group of players that tend to get surprised when the DM pulls a rabbit out of his hat with an evil grin.
I appreciate the nod.
And yeah, that second group of players... their look of surprise is one the reasons I love this job so much sometimes. :)
Actually, a tribe of giants is precisely the sort of situation where it's highly inefficient to chuck fireballs. After all, they have a lot of hit points. Multiple giants are better dealt with by Grease, Glitterdust, Confusion, Wall of Blah, Control Plants, Silent Image, Slow.
Most of these have area of effect limitations or issues with unreliability. Glitterdust's small spread may net you 2 giants to affect, probably only has about a 50% chance of affecting them, and then if it does, it nets the giant a 50% miss chance. The hp damage may not kill or immediately hinder, but it will shorten the time they can stand on the battlefield. That's the calculus a spell caster needs to make - spells that risk no effect or ones that soften.
Control spells can be very useful, there's no doubt about it (sleet storm has been a favorite of the warmage in my SCAP game) but the ability of artillery to soften advancing enemies should not be underestimated. The sorcerer playing in the G modules has been leaving giants significantly weakened as they approach the fighters.
It's a shame he doesn't leave them helpless for the fighters.
Not really if it's a question of leaving some of them helpless and others unaffected vs all of them wounded.
I think it's important to note that in D&D (always) a wounded monster fights exactly the same as a non-wounded one. The Hill Giant with 1 HP has the same attack as one with full HP.
When it comes to reducing those HP though, the Wizard just isn't your best bet. Against a single target, Wizards will have fun doing sustained damage at a rate that compares at all with an equivalent level fighter, and with the buff to archery in Pathfinder, the range doesn't mean anything either.
Orb spells don't shift that balance. Not even close.
If you want to play a single target archer - you are best to pick another class besides Wizard. If casting spells is important to you, check out what a Bard/Arcane Archer can do. Not as impressive offensively as a Straight martial class, but better than a Wizard blaster.
Most of these have area of effect limitations or issues with unreliability. Glitterdust's small spread may net you 2 giants to affect, probably only has about a 50% chance of affecting them, and then if it does, it nets the giant a 50% miss chance. The hp damage may not kill or immediately hinder, but it will shorten the time they can stand on the battlefield. That's the calculus a spell caster needs to make - spells that risk no effect or ones that soften.
Hill giants have a will save of +3. If you have any Wizard at all, a DC17 (65%) against Glitterdust is low-end. At a level where you're actually likely to face multiple hill giants, DC21 (85%) is easily attainable. Going much beyond level 7 or 8, you're liable to stop relying on spells that offer a save as your bread and butter.
That 50% miss chance isn't the only effect of blindness. There's also the fact that the giant is, y'know, blind. The 50% is if it can find someone to hit in the first place. Even in a straight fight, if the Fighter just attacks the giant and takes a 5' step in an arbitrary direction, that giant is down to a one-in-ten chance of hitting.
What's more, so long as the blindness persists, that giant is subject to sneak attacks a-plenty. Sneak attacks that do more damage than the mage would.
Control spells can be very useful, there's no doubt about it (sleet storm has been a favorite of the warmage in my SCAP game) but the ability of artillery to soften advancing enemies should not be underestimated. The sorcerer playing in the G modules has been leaving giants significantly weakened as they approach the fighters.
But the very problem is that a Fireball doesn't weaken the giants. It damages the giants, sure, but damage doesn't hinder; they're still fighting at full strength. Slow weakens the giants. Fear weakens giants. Sleet Storm removes them from the fight outright for a few rounds.
Damage spells may have their place, but a giant tribe is not one of them. There is too much else that needs doing and too many other things you could accomplish with those higher-level spell slots (where the not-yet-obsolete blasts lie). Leave the damage in this case to the folks who do it well, and spend those spell slots to buy the more efficient damage-dealers time to actually deal their more efficient damage.
Not really if it's a question of leaving some of them helpless and others unaffected vs all of them wounded.
If you leave all of them wounded, the front line is going up against giants at 100% damage output. Melee typically can't survive but 1-3 rounds against the full damage output of a level-appropriate encounter. If you can adjust the situation so they're fighting one or two of those five giants one at a time, sometimes blind, sometimes slowed, they're only eating 20-40% of enemy damage output at any given time, which actually allows them to survive long enough to kill people.
And the wounds aren't even very significant. 24 damage at level 7. Against a 85-HP monsters, that's a bite to be sure, but it's definitely not putting 'em on their last legs and isn't anywhere near the kind of hurt the rest of the party could throw out there by not being dead.
1) One Quickened (with metamagic rod) and two with an 8th-level spell I don't remember the name of right now (from Spell Compendium or PHB2) that lets you cast a 7th-level spell and a 4th-level spell.
2) A high Charisma gives you quite a decent amount of bonus spells; everything was by the book. Since most encounters aren't designed for the monsters to withstand 100+ ranged damage per turn, encounters were usually over in 2-3 rounds.
I noticed this and had to comment...
I'll bet you never did the same combo back on the party did you? Most groups of PCs aren't designed to handle that sort of abuse every encounter either...
My point is that while there is certainly nothing wrong with a character being crafty and coming up with awesome spell combos (I encourage it my games, most certainly), there is something wrong with a PC consistently using that combo to upset the balance of the encounters and owning the battlefield. What were all the other PCs doing while this guy was laying waste to everything? Where was their spotlight?
Every person who games with me knows the Cardinal Rule: if you can do it, they can do it too. Rarely do I say 'no' to a player when they ask me "Hey, could I do this?" when the request is completely by the book. The game is meant to be fun and challenge the PCs. I'm supposed to be having as much fun as they are so when I start getting bored because they're wiping the floor with the same combos over and over and other players are just sitting there doodling on their notebook with their chin resting on their hands waiting to be useful... I then introduce them to the Cardinal Rule.
I've yet, to this day, met a single player who appreciates their own dirty tricks used against them. I've never herd a single player not complain when an enemy uses the same spell combo or feat combo that they've been using to dominate the battle. Nor do other party members appreciate their characters coming to harm because Johnny Sorcerer just had to be the center of...
+1
I also generally allow all material in my games and tell my players "anything you can do, I can do better". It tends to make them think twice about being too crazy with stuff. It all helps that I own more books than my players combined. :)
|
But the very problem is that a Fireball doesn't weaken the giants. It damages the giants, sure, but damage doesn't hinder; they're still fighting at full strength. Slow weakens the giants. Fear weakens giants. Sleet Storm removes them from the fight outright for a few rounds.
Not picking on you Viletta, you were just a handy quote to address something that has been bugging me in a number of replies.
Damage does hinder.
Any creature that has had half of its HPs removed in a single magical attack, and has seen the same done to its companions is going to pursue different battle tactics to a healthy one and will also be looking for a way to escape the combat.
If people despair of using damage causing spells because their GMs unrealistically play monsters as fighting to the death each and every time, then it isn't the spells that are the problem but the GMs.
Just a side note that's in no way intended to be inflammatory... Why does everything have to be about maximizing utility and number crunching? I much prefer to play a Wizard conceptually. Some of my Wizards will see blasting as an enjoyable aspect of spellcasting and will do it all the time, but some of my Wizards will prefer non damaging effects. This isn't an MMO. There's absolutely nothing inherently wrong with not optimizing your character, but the time and time again on these boards the attitude seems to be "wizards can't out dps other classes so don't bother with blasting. For max effect do this". Now I realize that many of you are simply presenting an option for others to use or not use, but please don't think poorly of anyone who chooses not to optimize their "builds" in favor of concept. Personally, I love blasting. I absolutely can't get enough of bending reality to my character's (usually an evoker) whim and fwakooming the crap out of some hapless random encounter monster. That said, sometimes I'll play a Sorcerer or Wizard who favors other schools (Illusion can be fun). It's all about choice... but saying things like "blasting is bad" can give the wrong impression to newer players to D&D. Let em do what they want and don't deride them for those choices.
Again, not meant to be inflammatory... just my PoV.
Just a side note that's in no way intended to be inflammatory... Why does everything have to be about maximizing utility and number crunching?Because people were saying that the blast spells from Spell Compendium were overpowered. If there's a plainly stronger option in core, then the blast spells are not overpowered.
I agree wholly with you there. I just take objection to the "blasting is bad" consensus that I keep hearing (not just in this thread).
I agree wholly with you there. I just take objection to the "blasting is bad" consensus that I keep hearing (not just in this thread).
As Man in Black has already stated, "Bad" can have more than one context.
In this case, by "Bad" we mean, "Not the Wizards most powerful option"
Particularly in replying to, "OMG - don't allow Orbs, they are broken in power!!! If your Wizard gets access to Orbs - there goes your game balance!"
Particularly in replying to, "OMG - don't allow Orbs, they are broken in power!!! If your Wizard gets access to Orbs - there goes your game balance!"
I still think they're bad in the hands of a wizard. Wizards get plenty of area control spells, as you all keep pointing out, and save-or-sit spells that usually have to contend with spell resistance. The orb spells belong on lists for spellcasters that rely on blasting and lack save-or-sit spells... mainly the warmage. Giving them to wizards is bad balance because it widens their choices of SR-beating penetrating spells - and SR is supposed to be a method of making spell-casting less reliable for those wizards.
I still think they're bad in the hands of a wizard. Wizards get plenty of area control spells, as you all keep pointing out, and save-or-sit spells that usually have to contend with spell resistance. The orb spells belong on lists for spellcasters that rely on blasting and lack save-or-sit spells... mainly the warmage. Giving them to wizards is bad balance because it widens their choices of SR-beating penetrating spells - and SR is supposed to be a method of making spell-casting less reliable for those wizards.
Particularly in replying to, "OMG - don't allow Orbs, they are broken in power!!! If your Wizard gets access to Orbs - there goes your game balance!"
If a wizard waste a spell slot on an orb spell then you as a DM have just won* most likely. He could have hasted the party, or any other number of things that will end up doing more damage than the orb spell.
*come out ahead, not killed the party