On that note, what's up with all these trap-builders NOT protecting their trap nodes with magic aura. That's just plain dumb.
And the age old argument goes on and on. The game isn't about filling specific roles and min maxing them. Its about creating a character for yourself and how you as the player wish to play him. The game can just as easily be played if there is a mix-matched party or a a so called role (Striker healer etc...) is missing. If the group is innovative enough they can find a way around the problem. I have played in a party where it was just I the wizard/Rogue, a Rogue, and a wizard. We managed to survive in one of the most dangerous of environments the Underdark. True we were hard pressed for healing and a warrior would have come in handy, but we managed to get around the difficulties, and actually come out ahead on a lot of encounters. Anyway what Im trying to say is the game offers you options to create whatever type of character you see fit. Be he a sword and Shield Fighter, or an archer ranger
+1
Amen.
Most players and DMs have no problem stepping up to the plate and supplying that effort. But the question remains, why should they have to? Can the system be tweaked so that less correction is needed?
I don't put effort into scaling an adventure based on specific PC abilities, just the party's level. In fact, this is something I have almost never, ever done. If they don't have a character that can easily find traps, they're probably still going to come across traps. If they don't have a reasonable defense against flying enemies that night, I don't change the encounters.
My players are what you might call "Fing hard core". They don't ask to be coddled. In fact, they consider it a cheat if I do. If an encounter is too hard, they'll roll with the punches. If an encounter was very easy, I will lament my misfortune for a short time and move on.
My players are used to fighting against mixed parties of opponents. They would not dare to all roll Wizards or Clerics. That way lies madness and Total Party Kills.
They would not dare to all roll Wizards or Clerics. That way lies madness and Total Party Kills.
That depends on the party's level.
They would not dare to all roll Wizards or Clerics. That way lies madness and Total Party Kills.That depends on the party's level.
I suppose my experiences with starting everybody off at level 15 are limited. (Read: nonexistent... this doesn't sound very fun to me... how do you even get attached to your characters???) My PC groups have always been mixed, right to endgame. They seemed to do quite well. It works.
|
I mean, you're just saying you'll making things harder for those who don't conform to your idea for the sake of argument Loopy. Someone said it right; the debate is on "fix the game" vs "leave it in the hands of the GM". Those of us who can't be on regular schedules and play Living campaigns can't conform a world, and in any case it sucks to tell people they can't use their tricks. If you start doing level 9 traps (Wail of Banshee) on mid-level parties what happens when the rogue fails to find it anyway? They die. I don't disagree about the magic traps specifically being excluded from Detect Magic (specifically says in order to see them you need the rogue's skill; who are we to argue with that? It's a bit of a loophole, but it's my new argument for PFS players who claim radaring detect magic will stop magic trap finding. I REALLY wish Paizo would step in one day and specifically address whether DM hits Magic Traps/Invisibility, it's been a touchy subject in these forums).
Anyway, I don't think any party should be forced to conform. He is right, Black Tentacles mass-disrupt; so trippy guy looks dumb, generally speaking. There are few instances you can give where Big Dumb Fighter isn't just better off anyway; unless you just start randomly intensifying because they are trying to play good characters instead of "trippy guy".
I'm really fed up with all these posts saying this class sucks and that class ought to deal a lot more damage and the class over there needs a bag full of buffs to be on par with that class, and also this class is only good for that role.
I have been playing this game in its various incarnations for nearly 30 years, and everyone I played with chose their class for the flavor and the images and stories they were connecting it to, or because of their personal preferences, and not with the intent to max out the dps (a term that was, fortunately, unknown in those days) or to fill a certain role.
Nowadays? All classes must be in equilibrium, or else they are subpar. I don't get it. I know that the bard hits worse than the fighter, hides worse than the thief, and has worse spells than the wizard. So what? If I like the idea of playing a minstrel, I will do it anyway. If I can try to enthrall and charm the enemy warlord rather than hacking him to bits, then that's what Pen & Paper RPGs where meant to be. If you want swordfight after swordfight, play WoW instead.
I mean, you're just saying you'll making things harder for those who don't conform to your idea for the sake of argument Loopy. Someone said it right; the debate is on "fix the game" vs "leave it in the hands of the GM". Those of us who can't be on regular schedules and play Living campaigns can't conform a world, and in any case it sucks to tell people they can't use their tricks. If you start doing level 9 traps (Wail of Banshee) on mid-level parties what happens when the rogue fails to find it anyway? They die. I don't disagree about the magic traps specifically being excluded from Detect Magic (specifically says in order to see them you need the rogue's skill; who are we to argue with that? It's a bit of a loophole, but it's my new argument for PFS players who claim radaring detect magic will stop magic trap finding. I REALLY wish Paizo would step in one day and specifically address whether DM hits Magic Traps/Invisibility, it's been a touchy subject in these forums).
I'm not making anything harder for anyone. I write my adventures based on common sense following a storyline begun with a seed of story and manipulated by the actions of the players and the NPCs. This can be in the PCs favor, it might not be. If a goal would be protected with traps, then it will be. If not, then not.
I am a firm believer in organic adventure design.
Anyway, I don't think any party should be forced to conform. He is right, Black Tentacles mass-disrupt; so trippy guy looks dumb, generally speaking. There are few instances you can give where Big Dumb Fighter isn't just better off anyway; unless you just start randomly intensifying because they are trying to play good characters instead of "trippy guy".
Black Tentacles is a hell of a spell, but a Fighter it does not make. It'll probably work great against Kirth's party of wizards until they can manage to get grease or, at higher levels, teleport cast, but Black Tentacles guy is likely going to be turned to hamburger within 3 rounds.
Black Tentacles is a speed bump, not a Fighter.
stuff... Note: Shields are a trap. They increase your AC (making you less attractive a target), reduce your damage (making you less attractive a target), and inhibit controller-like actions (making you less attractive a target).Sorry BobChuck you were starting to lose me earlier but I stopped reading right there.
D&D and Pathfinder do have class roles, but to define them as rigidly as 4E did was an outgrowth of how some people started gaming in 3.x. Yes, adventuring has always been a Team Sport and every class has it's position on the field but the minute you start stripping away choices from players with jibba-jabba key phrases like "This option is a trap" you need to STOP.
A sword and board PC is as iconic as a wizard with a long beard or a pointy hat. Don't muddy the communal waters with your MMORPG style and call it gospel. I presently play a "tank" style character (ok he's more of a Tower) and yes I give up some other options to focus on defense but it in NO way makes my character less than any other. I am both as effective on the combat grid as I am off it, and not all of that comes from build alone.
The numbers don't say it all, don't always rely on statistics. Builds don't rule the day. Only the Dice gods choose who is Gloriously triumphant and who'll need a "healer" to pull their heads out of their chests!!!
--We will, we will VROCK YOU!
Amen to that! I hear constant gripes about how "sub-optimized" using a shield is. I am a huge fan of the sword-n-board, and have made great use of them. My Knight in the campaign I'm playing in is an absolute wall in combat; even when foes flank me they rarely hit me unless the DM rolls a 17 or higher.
When it comes down to it, all the char-op in the world doesn't make a character more fun to play. You can show me formulae inifinium how shields suck, but if I enjoy using them in game, then they serve their purpose.
Now, my beef with "party roles". In some cases, especially in the case of store-bought modules, the basic roles should be filled to some extent. But, these roles don't necessarily need to be filled by classes. In 3x, there are tons of ways a party without a healer can heal themselves(Healing Belts, Rangers/Paladins with cure wands, Factotums, etc), so the players still have the freedom to play what they choose. The "party role" stigma is something that has always been with RPGs, but the presence of it differs depending on the edition. I prefer 3.5, where yes, if you fill the roles properly, you'll be set for just about anything, but the system allows for enough flexibility that it is not necessary. I've played in groups of nothing but melee tough guys and one wizard, and we got by just fine.
I am currently running a Ravenloft campaign, and here's my player's classes:
Bard, Sorceror, Cleric, Dread Necromancer, Psion.
If this was 4e they'd be dead in the water. But, 3.5's flexibility allows me as a DM to tailor-fit the encounters to fit them better. I'm not worried about minions, controllers, defenders, etc. I'm not trying to roll up a party of monsters, I can simply put them up against what I feel they'd face given the situation. This is just an example of the necessity of party roles depending on the edition. Some people are all about the roles thing, and that's fine, but it's not for me. Basically, I'm a fan of flexibility and breathing room. I always encourage my players to play the character they want to, not necessarily what the "party needs". Forcing a player to play a cleric just because the party needs one is a quick way for them to lose interest.
Black Tentacles is a hell of a spell, but a Fighter it does not make. It'll probably work great against Kirth's party of wizards until they can manage to get grease or, at higher levels, teleport cast, but Black Tentacles guy is likely going to...
How are they casting spells with somantic components when caught in Black Tentacles?
The get out of grapple free spell is Dimension Door.
Just to relate personal experience: I played in a party that was 100% full casters (starting at level 1) through published adventures. Our DM had to nerf our experience to keep us lower level then intended by the module because we could defeat the challenges to easily. (This was 3.5) Party contained Wizard (summoner), Beguiler, Cleric.
How are they casting spells with somantic components when caught in Black Tentacles?
The get out of grapple free spell is Dimension Door.
Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that requires only one hand to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you.
The only spells you can cast while grappling or pinned are those without somatic components and whose material components (if any) you have in hand. Even so, you must make a concentration check (DC 10 + the grappler's CMB + the level of the spell you're casting) or lose the spell.
I have ruled that Rule #2 is in error. Although one might argue that the "one hand free" refers to the "material components (if any) you have in hand", I think that's kind of a stretch. As far as I know, there has never been an official answer to this on the boards, though I know it has been asked multiple times.
Just to relate personal experience: I played in a party that was 100% full casters (starting at level 1) through published adventures. Our DM had to nerf our experience to keep us lower level then intended by the module because we could defeat the challenges to easily. (This was 3.5) Party contained Wizard (summoner), Beguiler, Cleric.
I don't have a lot of experience with published adventures or entire parties of full casters so I can't really comment on that. My players never really tried to exploit 3.0 or 3.5 casters to perform alternate rolls and they aren't now in Pathfinder. As far as Pathfinder goes, I'm certain this is a good decision on their part. My players aren't exploiting a-holes.
|
|
Wizard can't even really be one-shotted too easily. With PF, the increase to a d6 and the 1 free hp per level, coupled with the almost-no-stat requirement (Con is your #2 or 3 stat) yields about 10 hp at first level and 8 each additional. That's not so far from the ftr at his 13 to start and 9 each additional.
While I am a firm believer in the new school fighter/pally (especially the latter; free heals = more hp, and amazing saves = no mid-level problems), mages are still often the game's trump.
The roles, I think, like some other folks, might have a great deal to do with the DM, actually. Every DM is different and the needs of a party under one DM might be different from another. Here's what I'd suggest in one of my games:
1. Annoying Melee A-hole with High AC: The more times you trip, grapple, disarm, or otherwise stop my lovingly-crafted NPCs from doing the job I designed them for, the more off-balance I get. I'll tend to send more opponents at said character so while a spellcasting class is ok with this, it's better off a Fighter.
2. Trapfinder: This is a must. Wail of the Banshee is a hell of a spell.
3. Knower & Doer: There should be someone who knows a lot of crap and also who can perform random tasks (and maybe add backup damage) while the rest of the party is in the thick of the fight. Having the ability to use cure wands is pretty much a must for this character.
4. The Spellcaster: Cleric, Wizard, whatever. Have one of these in order to fight other spellcasters and flying creatures more easily. Always be prepared to break mind-controlling spells on AMAHWHAC and, to some extent, the Trapfinder.
5. The One Who Does a Lot of Damage: This role will sometimes be carried out by one of the above roles, but not necessarily.
6. Talky Talky: You GOTTA have a talkie talkie. It can SAVE YOUR LIFE. Like TOWDALOD, Talky Talky is often performed by one of the above.
Let's look at these roles in high-level play:
1. A wizard or sorcerer with good defenses (displacement, etc.) and a black tentacles, mass hold person, or other lock-down spell will out-perform the fighter in this role -- especially if there are multiple opponents.
2. A wizard or sorcerer with a 0-level (at will) detect magic cantrip and dispel magic can do this more safely and more reliably than a rogue.
3. Wizards have high Int (LOTS of skills) and can use wands. Perfect!
4. Yep.
5. Yep -- by #4, in...
Yea... Um ok
1. Um... no, the wizard can never be the big stupid fighter. He can summon the big stupid figther, but is never as good as an actual fighter who can move and do things intelligently. Black tentacles, hold person, these are great spells. But they are battlefield control, they do not replace an actual guy there with something sharp getting in the bag guys way. One passed save and there is a big scary monster right up in the wizards face, eating him. Displacement is a good defence, but a single full attack from a dragon will still nearly kill him, displaced or not.
2. False, first of all, the whole detect magic thing to find traps, there are at least some dms (myself included) that will actively prevent this. We had a whole long conversation earlier about it i think in the thread about class tiers. But the fact is, mr wizard even if he finds the trap, still has to get past it. And he wont know how it works, just that its there.
3. While wizards can fill this role well, they are not the only way to fill it. Bards are better at it. A rogue can pull it off pretty well too.
4. Wizard cleric, we all seem to agree here, full of warm fuzzies.
5. Yea... no.... Even sorcerors are not particularly good at this, though they are better. Wizards have this whole problem with a limited amount of spells and all. Swords dont run out of uses per day. In a combat heavy day that makes a HUGE difference. That said at mid levels a single spell does not even come close to the damage output of a damage heavy melee guy, and is even lower compared to an archer. Especially if they are buffed by the caster (you know his actual job).
6. Sorcerors are good here, but not great. There are many different talking skills, not all of them are sorc class skills. A bluff, sense motive, diplomacy, a knowledge or two (to know whats going on). A sorceror will likely have one or two of those at max (he already needs spellcraft, and should probably have umd)
Black Tentacles is a hell of a spell, but a Fighter it does not make. It'll probably work great against Kirth's party of wizards until they can manage to get grease or, at higher levels, teleport cast, but Black Tentacles guy is likely going to...
How are they casting spells with somantic components when caught in Black Tentacles?
The get out of grapple free spell is Dimension Door.
Just to relate personal experience: I played in a party that was 100% full casters (starting at level 1) through published adventures. Our DM had to nerf our experience to keep us lower level then intended by the module because we could defeat the challenges to easily. (This was 3.5) Party contained Wizard (summoner), Beguiler, Cleric.
I dont think it had anything to do with your party makeup. I have found in general that published adventures fail to acount for a single caster let alone several well built ones. I have a dm who likes to run one and our group is pretty much all 'optimizers'. We tend to walk through any encounter he doesnt specifically modify to deal with us. If you are any indication I assume your party carefully considers their character choices, thus making fairly optimized characters?
That said, I assume the cleric was a battle cleric? I mean i find it hard to believe that the wizards summons were enough in themselves to handle the big stupid fighter role. You yourself call this option suboptimal in your guide. That said, the beasty probably had alot of buffs coming his way from that particular party (all 3 classes have access to excellent buff spells).
I played in a similar party in a 3.5 game. A druid, cleric, beguiler and a conjuration wizard (though he focused more on battlefield control then summons). The cleric and the druid were the frontliners, and with one level of beastmaster the druid's animal companion stayed relevant for much longer.
I'm really fed up with all these posts saying this class sucks and that class ought to deal a lot more damage and the class over there needs a bag full of buffs to be on par with that class, and also this class is only good for that role.
I have been playing this game in its various incarnations for nearly 30 years, and everyone I played with chose their class for the flavor and the images and stories they were connecting it to, or because of their personal preferences, and not with the intent to max out the dps (a term that was, fortunately, unknown in those days) or to fill a certain role.
Nowadays? All classes must be in equilibrium, or else they are subpar. I don't get it. I know that the bard hits worse than the fighter, hides worse than the thief, and has worse spells than the wizard. So what? If I like the idea of playing a minstrel, I will do it anyway. If I can try to enthrall and charm the enemy warlord rather than hacking him to bits, then that's what Pen & Paper RPGs where meant to be. If you want swordfight after swordfight, play WoW instead.
The argument most of the time is that a class can't do its job(role) well without help, or that the class has no job at all. I know its a party game, but as an example, a doctor should not need an engineer to give him a prosthetic eye with X-Ray vision to do his job.
Another argument is that eventually the character is not needed because anyone can do its job well enough. If X can do Y's job well enough, and also do other things then why stay with X.
There are class(es)* that do suck in my opinion unless the DM is nice to that class. That does not mean I don't like that class's idea, but it does mean I don't like the execution of that class. It is also because I may like the idea of a class, that I want it to improve. I don't want to shoot myself in the foot to play something I like.
*to protect the guilty
My players aren't exploiting a-holes.
Why does it have to be an exploit? Maybe everyone just wants to play a caster, and nobody wants to switch out to something different. If they can make it work, good for them.
Why does it have to be an exploit? Maybe everyone just wants to play a caster, and nobody wants to switch out to something different. If they can make it work, good for them.
No, I'm all about that. If they want to play a group of new graduates from a spellcasting school, that'd be awesome. I was under the impression from the rest of the thread and from various other threads that it might be due to preconceived notions of balance issues vis a vis other classes.
And I shouldn't really have said that they aren't exploiters. Because they know better than to take a gang of wizards and expect to be able to get very far in the campaign with ease. So, in essence, by creating a balanced party, they are totally exploiting.
1. Um... no, the wizard can never be the big stupid fighter. He can summon the big stupid figther, but is never as good as an actual fighter who can move and do things intelligently. Black tentacles, hold person, these are great spells. But they are battlefield control, they do not replace an actual guy there with something sharp getting in the bag guys way. One passed save and there is a big scary monster right up in the wizards face, eating him. Displacement is a good defence, but a single full attack from a dragon will still nearly kill him, displaced or not.
2. False, first of all, the whole detect magic thing to find traps, there are at least some dms (myself included) that will actively prevent this. We had a whole long conversation earlier about it i think in the thread about class tiers. But the fact is, mr wizard even if he finds the trap, still has to get past it. And he wont know how it works, just that its there.
1. If you've houseruled in blocking abilities for melees, good for you! I have, too. Earlier, I made a strong point that most players can and do alter the rules to make the system less one-sided. But the rules as written have tripping on your turn, or an AoO. And that's pretty much it. A fighter can't "get in the bad guy's way" unless the DM breaks the rules as written to let him. Which I do -- but the point remains: why write them that way, forcing us to ignore, invent, and break rules on the fly -- consciously or unconsciously -- at all times?
2. Again, dispel magic works fine, by the rules as written. If you've houseruled that it doesn't work against magic traps -- good for you! I'd do the same thing. But that's us actively monkeying with the system to screw the casters -- with the rules as written, the casters don't have to "exploit" anything to be better than everyone else at everything at high levels. We don't want them to be, so we don't let them. But that leaves the same question unanswered: "why is the game written that way?"
------
In case I haven't hammered it enough, the point is that all classes work fine if and only if the players and DM make it that way by gentlemen's agreements and by housreuling the hell out of things. Case in point:
Not the hell in my dungeons they won't. I write my adventures based on commion sense...
Thanks for the vote of confidence! That's exactly my point -- things work quite well if we actively prevent the rules from working as written, and override them at every step of the way.
MY big issue is, why should we have to? Why isn't the system itself written the way we're all playing it? Why isn't it the designer's job to patch most of these loopholes, instead of it always being up to the DM and players?
1. Um... no, the wizard can never be the big stupid fighter. He can summon the big stupid figther, but is never as good as an actual fighter who can move and do things intelligently. Black tentacles, hold person, these are great spells. But they are battlefield control, they do not replace an actual guy there with something sharp getting in the bag guys way. One passed save and there is a big scary monster right up in the wizards face, eating him. Displacement is a good defence, but a single full attack from a dragon will still nearly kill him, displaced or not.
2. False, first of all, the whole detect magic thing to find traps, there are at least some dms (myself included) that will actively prevent this. We had a whole long conversation earlier about it i think in the thread about class tiers. But the fact is, mr wizard even if he finds the trap, still has to get past it. And he wont know how it works, just that its there.
1. If you've houseruled in blocking abilities for melees, good for you! I have, too. Earlier, I made a strong point that most players can and do alter the rules to make the system less one-sided. But the rules as written have tripping on your turn, or an AoO. And that's pretty much it. A fighter can't "get in the bad guy's way" unless the DM breaks the rules as written to let him. Which I do -- but the point remains: why write them that way, forcing us to ignore, invent, and break rules on the fly -- consciously or unconsciously -- at all times?
2. Again, dispel magic works fine, by the rules as written. If you've houseruled that it doesn't work against magic traps -- good for you! I'd do the same thing. But that's us actively monkeying with the system to screw the casters -- with the rules as written, the casters don't have to "exploit" anything to be better than everyone else at everything at high levels. We don't want them to be, so we don't let them. But that leaves the same question unanswered: "why is the game written that way?"...
Damnit, the one time i dont copy my post...sigh, let me try to reiterate.
Ok,
1. I have not houseruled blocking rule. My players do it quite simply be being IN THE WAY. Works just fine. And it works better then spells for the purpose because the frontliner will move intelligently to continue being in the way even if an enemy bypasses him. Spells dont do this. Summons dont do this. And if you really need someone good at this, enlarge person, standstill, thats 20ft wide space you are blocking there.
2. It does not require house rules, it requires dms thinking creatively. And if a group of dms here on this board are going to actively do something, it means its not crazy to say you still need a rogue looking for traps.
And I thought we were talking about party roles here? If you wanted a 'OMFG!!1? Casters are totally overpowered" thread, you should have made one. What does the fact that a caster being able to fill more then one role have to do with the role's neccessity in the first place?
Every class except the monk can fill one of my 4 roles effectively. They are all a part of the game. The argument of who is 'better' doesnt belong in this thread as you at least pretended to define it at the start.
You still need a big tough guy in the way, a arcane caster, and a divine caster, along with someone to handle skills. Now this could potentially be accomplished by just a battle cleric and a bard, but that has nothing to do with the roles themselves. Its just a matter of party makeup, something dms will always have to adapt to so long as some semblence of the game remains as it is.
It does not require house rules, it requires dms thinking creatively.
And I thought we were talking about party roles here? If you wanted a 'OMFG!!1? Casters are totally overpowered" thread, you should have made one. What does the fact that a caster being able to fill more then one role have to do with the role's neccessity in the first place?
"Thinking creatively" seems to be your codespeak for "houserule on the fly without writing it down," so we're still in agreement. If your fighters can move to intecept people walking around them, when it's not their turn -- mine can, too -- than you're houseruling that in, as I do; for some insane reason, it's not something that the rules strictly allow them.
And I'm talking about party roles. I'm talking about the game being written to respect those roles, vs. being geared so that one or two classes able to do them all. Because if they can, why have a class-based system?
|
1. Um... no, the wizard can never be the big stupid fighter. He can summon the big stupid figther, but is never as good as an actual fighter who can move and do things intelligently. Black tentacles, hold person, these are great spells. But they are battlefield control, they do not replace an actual guy there with something sharp getting in the bag guys way. One passed save and there is a big scary monster right up in the wizards face, eating him. Displacement is a good defence, but a single full attack from a dragon will still nearly kill him, displaced or not.
2. False, first of all, the whole detect magic thing to find traps, there are at least some dms (myself included) that will actively prevent this. We had a whole long conversation earlier about it i think in the thread about class tiers. But the fact is, mr wizard even if he finds the trap, still has to get past it. And he wont know how it works, just that its there.
1. If you've houseruled in blocking abilities for melees, good for you! I have, too. Earlier, I made a strong point that most players can and do alter the rules to make the system less one-sided. But the rules as written have tripping on your turn, or an AoO. And that's pretty much it. A fighter can't "get in the bad guy's way" unless the DM breaks the rules as written to let him. Which I do -- but the point remains: why write them that way, forcing us to ignore, invent, and break rules on the fly -- consciously or unconsciously -- at all times?
2. Again, dispel magic works fine, by the rules as written. If you've houseruled that it doesn't work against magic traps -- good for you! I'd do the same thing. But that's us actively monkeying with the system to screw the casters -- with the rules as written, the casters don't have to "exploit" anything to be better than everyone else at everything at high levels. We don't want them to be, so we don't let them. But that leaves the same question unanswered: "why is the game written that way?"...
...what the heck?
1) Blocking Rules? What the heck are blocking rules? Where are these encounters taking place?
In the typical canned adventure scenario, most fights take place in narrow, enclosed areas - sewers, 20'20 dungeon rooms with 5' doorways, etc.
Tank stands in the narrow hallway or one square in front of the door. Monster CANNOT move through him according to RAW. Has to make a non-trivial acrobatics check or use the overrun maneuver. Passage blocked, no houserule required.
Sure, an animal companion or summoned 'tank' can do the same, but with half the damage, lower defenses, and a third of the hit points, he's not going to last.
2) Again, what the heck? contact poison on door handle, DC 22 perception check. Or alarm spell, DC 15 perception check, that triggers "rocks fall everyone dies", DC 30 perception check to notice, triggered if the alarm goes off or is dispelled. Rogue has to find secondary mechanical trap and prevent it from triggering. These are standard issue traps for 10-15th level play. Wizard will not find. Below that, counting on just one dispel magic to negate a trap is dangerous, and expecting to use 2-3 on every single trap in the entire dungeon is rather time-consuming (or costly, if you are carting around 50 scrolls of dispel magic).
Tank stands in the narrow hallway or one square in front of the door. Monster CANNOT move through him according to RAW. Has to make a non-trivial acrobatics check or use the overrun maneuver.
Sorry, Chuck, thought I was being clear that we're talking high-level play, at which point brute enemies' overruns are nigh-irresistable, and non-brutes like demons can just teleport past you.
At low levels, all roles have their place, and all classes fill unique roles. The game works well until you get to high level, and then it breaks down without DM intervention -- precisely because the designers don't look closely at high-level play, because everyone keeps saying "it's fine."
|
|
Tank stands in the narrow hallway or one square in front of the door. Monster CANNOT move through him according to RAW. Has to make a non-trivial acrobatics check or use the overrun maneuver.Sorry, Chuck, thought I was being clear that we're talking high-level play, at which point brute enemies' overruns are nigh-irresistable, and non-brutes like demons can just teleport past you.
At low levels, all roles have their place, and all classes fill unique roles. The game works well until you get to high level, and then it breaks down without DM intervention -- precisely because the designers don't look closely at high-level play, because everyone keeps saying "it's fine."
Ah, ok. Pathfinder as a system breaks by 18th level. There is no point is talking about balance between classes at the level cap or for epic level play. I thought everyone knew that.
The entire POINT of high level play is that everything you do is absurd. Look at Fighterman the Archery Fighter, who can beat a freaking BALOR before it has a chance to run away, if he gets initiative.
It's still much batter than it was in 3.5, where things went wonky at tenth level.
There is no point is talking about balance between classes at the level cap or for epic level play. I thought everyone knew that.
You and I sure agree there, but not everyone does.
It's still much batter than it was in 3.5, where things went wonky at tenth level.
It is indeed a bit better, but I'm finding things like the new casting defensively rules are still absurdly tilted in the casters' favor at high levels -- it's an auto-success maybe 3 or so levels later than it was before (they could have just as easily set the DC as the threatener's CMD, for example, and then it would scale at all levels...). Stuff like that. It just seems like, if they were going to expand the playable levels a bit, they could have just as easily bitten the bullet and expanded them to 20th. Dunno.
It does not require house rules, it requires dms thinking creatively.
And I thought we were talking about party roles here? If you wanted a 'OMFG!!1? Casters are totally overpowered" thread, you should have made one. What does the fact that a caster being able to fill more then one role have to do with the role's neccessity in the first place?
"Thinking creatively" seems to be your codespeak for "houserule on the fly without writing it down," so we're still in agreement. If your fighters can move to intecept people walking around them, when it's not their turn -- mine can, too -- than you're houseruling that in, as I do; for some insane reason, it's not something that the rules strictly allow them.
And I'm talking about party roles. I'm talking about the game being written to respect those roles, vs. being geared so that one or two classes able to do them all. Because if they can, why have a class-based system?
No thinking creatively means if I am worried about a caster detecting magic on a trap I put the trap on the other side of a doorway (behind a wall so that it is blocked by enough material). The walk into room, trap activates an wazam detect magic didnt do squat. Thin sheets of lead also work great for this. Do I houserule on the fly sometimes? Sure, i think most dms do. There are always situations that the rules dont account for, there is no perfect ruleset. The flying bullrush thing that came up in another thread was a great example of this. I would have houseruled that on the fly.
As for fighters moving when its not their turn? No, I dont do that, not sure where you got that from. I am talking literally about being physically in the way. And while brutes and teleports are tough to deal with they are not impossible. It requires buffing from the arcane caster (you know the other one of those 4 roles i was talking about). And there are also ways to stop teleportation with magic. So basically the caster and the fighter need to work together here. Weird right?
Now, if you wanted to specifically talk about high level play, thats a whole differnt can of worms. I agree the system gets kind of crazy at high levels. And while pathfinder extended the sweet spot (one interesting way was the increase in expected wealth by level, which greatly helps gear dependent classes like the fighter/barbarian/etc) it still breaks down eventually. But that doesnt mean the system doenst work at low and midrange levels.
And again, just because one class can do more then one thing doesnt make the others irrelavent if they can still do that thing. If you really wanted to talk about who is better at what, then you approached it completely the wrong way. If you wanted to talk about high level play only, again you should have approached it differently. Next time say what you mean at the beggining of a thread instead of 2 days later.
Let's look at these roles in high-level play
.
There is no point is talking about balance between classes at the level cap or for epic level play. I thought everyone knew that.You and I sure agree there, but not everyone does.
It's still much batter than it was in 3.5, where things went wonky at tenth level.It is indeed a bit better, but I'm finding things like the new casting defensively rules are still absurdly tilted in the casters' favor at high levels -- it's an auto-success maybe 3 or so levels later than it was before (they could have just as easily set the DC as the threatener's CMD, for example, and then it would scale at all levels...). Stuff like that. It just seems like, if they were going to expand the playable levels a bit, they could have just as easily bitten the bullet and expanded them to 20th. Dunno.
It is tilted in favor of casters how exactly? Does the fighter have to worry about provoking attacks of opportunity in melee when he swings his sword? Does a paladin provoke when he calls down a smite? No. A caster has to invest additional resources for that autosuccess just to be able to use his primary ability in a dangerous situation. To make it any harder would mean that at low levels it would be near impossible, and at high levels it would be a % chance of death if something gets close. I tell you what, if power attack provokes an attack of opportunity you can make both defensive actions as hard as you like. Deal?
It does however seem more and more to me that you just have a bone to pick with casters and their capabilites. So is it just that you wish to discuss what role non-casters play in a party and how we can enhance that role? If so lets talk about that, but lets be straight with what we want to accomplish with a conversation, rather then thinly veiled pot shots at one set of classes you dont like.
Let's look at these roles in high-level play.
I missed that, my apologies. I do think however that is a different discussion though dont you? High level play is practically a differnt game once you get paster 14-16.
So, by the system of roles you've assigned, a party of wizards and sorcerers fills all six roles. And that to me is a SYSTEM problem, not a DM problem.
Maybe I'm missing something here. Why is this a problem? The whole point is to have options and accommodate drastically different styles of play. If that's the case then, this SHOULD be an option, especially at high level play. Even if it's not the best one.
It seems You are taking the discussion of "Party Roles" into the realm of class balance. These are separate discussions and covered by a myriad of other threads.
On the Topic of party roles:
Roles are jobs within parties that are needed for the party to be effective. However fine you want to break down the roles (the OP was fine for me, personally), your party will end up filling these core needs. Pigeon holing classes starts to limit character ideas and concepts and for me that's always bad.
I tell you what, if power attack provokes an attack of opportunity you can make both defensive actions as hard as you like.
(Chuckles) Sure! As soon as the fighter can take a full move and then two full attacks in the same round (caster moves, casts, casts quickened spell).
Seriously, though, any discussion of party roles needs the high-level balance issues brought up. If a party of all casters blowing through dungeons is OK, then the warrior classes should be revised so that an all-warrior party is also viable at high level. Otherwise we have multiple roles at the start, and then two roles later on: "can do everything" vs. "can't."
|
|
Aha, I understand the argument now.
If a 20th level wizard + cleric + Druid can rolfstomp everything in sight, a 20th level fighter + rogue + barbarian should be able to as well. Makes sense.
I think we agree that, generally speaking, this hold true at, say, 15th level, but not once 9th level spells become available. Is this correct?
Aha, I understand the argument now. If a 20th level wizard + cleric + Druid can rolfstomp everything in sight, a 20th level fighter + rogue + barbarian should be able to as well. I think we agree that, generally speaking, this hold true at, say, 15th level, but not once 9th level spells become available. Is this correct?
Exactly right! And I think your level estimate is probably pretty close, with the nerfs of some of the "poster child" problem spells like wind walk and find the path. 15th is still about the breaking point for Pathfinder -- which is indeed better than 11th, but I'd've liked to have seen it pushed to 20th at least.
Aha, I understand the argument now.
If a 20th level wizard + cleric + Druid can rolfstomp everything in sight, a 20th level fighter + rogue + barbarian should be able to as well. Makes sense.
I think we agree that, generally speaking, this hold true at, say, 15th level, but not once 9th level spells become available. Is this correct?
I think after 15th level, success becomes highly situational. It's tough to argue one way or another and quantify with numbers.
Read: after 15th level, initiative becomes a very important stat.
|
|
I dislike this post greatly
man you are right... games like 4E and WoW requieres roles... wich is akin to just rolling dice and flat characters... for me and many other that is pretty distasteful... that is one of the reasons I stayed with 3.5... I am not interested in playing a rol... but a character, that is one of the reasons we have discourgaed the use of Pathfidner in our table... unfortunately Pathfinder embraces 4E idea of roles (just check the clerics, fighters, etc) which was unfortunate for our group (and still deeply saddens me)
and yes I know Blizzard's distaste of intelligent and unusual tactics, unfortunately part of is deeply ingrained in 4E (which my GM prefer only because of Ritual being real and cool magic) and in certain level on Pathfinder's mechanics.
That is why this kind of system nerf character classes with each new edition... and why they need to offer new classes to fill in the niches or spaces that otherwise the core classes could fill... but after the nerfing they would suffer by trying.
again it deeply saddens me that slowly roleplaying games are becoming a little more than enhanced table top games.
usually i would say that if I wanted to play a role instead of a character i will play WoW... but since i re-joined a few days ago (want to see the world before it ends, if i can i want to kill Arthas and i am a achievement junking... damn Microsoft for that) I would feel like an hypocrite... lets see how long i can play that thing... specially when Age of Conan tryial is free from now unto the end of the world... and we recently discovered Eclipse Phase, which for what I have read has heritage from both Traveler and Alternity, both quite free systems that let you create the characgter you feel comfortable with... my kind of game.
I tell you what, if power attack provokes an attack of opportunity you can make both defensive actions as hard as you like.(Chuckles) Sure! As soon as the fighter can take a full move and then two full attacks in the same round (caster moves, casts, casts quickened spell).
Seriously, though, any discussion of party roles needs the high-level balance issues brought up. If a party of all casters blowing through dungeons is OK, then the warrior classes should be revised so that an all-warrior party is also viable at high level. Otherwise we have multiple roles at the start, and then two roles later on: "can do everything" vs. "can't."
Ok so I am not going to argue the casting defensively rules with you as I am extremely doubtful we will see Eye to Eye. And this is not the place. Lets instead look at high level play and Roles.
My believe is there are 4 roles even at high level play. Like I've said, front line guy (tough, hits things, takes damage), arcane caster (to deal with things like flight, provide buffs, debuffs, battlefield control etc(, divine caster (provides buffs, heals, removes nasty effects like ability damage, minde effects, diseases etc), and skill monkey who hopefully adds something to combat.
Now, I agree that a caster can fill more of these rolls especially at high level. A buffed cleric or druid can be your front line guy, or he can be your divine caster (obviously). But he cant really do them both at the same time. If he devotes alot of his higher level spells to being a CodZilla, then chances are he wont have as much around to deal with status effects (poisons, disease ability). He can do some of both, but he wont be as effective is there were 2 characters doing one role each.
The wizard too can fill more then one roll. Most skills can be covered by spells at a higher level. Who needs gather info when you have Locate X or scrying spells right? But if he loads down with that, when the fight comes around he is less likely to have some crucial stuff like dimensional anchor or true seeing, or important buffs for the rest of the party. If he tried to do it all he will blow his whole selection of spells by mid morning. In a system designed for some RP and 4 encounters per day, that is a big no-no. So it seems so me there is still a need for a different character filling each of my 4 roles.
Ok so now here comes the important part. Do the non casters fit in. Is it possible for a rogue, barbarian, or fighter to still fit in? I think so with a certain condition. They need help from the 2 casters. See part of my view of those 2 roles is the casters need to be there to help the other party members do their job. So no the fighter cannot singlehandedly stop the teleporting outsider. But if the wizard puts up dimensional anchor, then the fighter (preferably buffed and having magic items to cover his deficiencies) becomes relevant again. The rogue on the other hand stays relevant in his role as skill monkey the whole time. A caster cannot afford to use that much of his spellcasting on managing the skillmonkey duties, and really should be using them when the challenge is too great for the skillmonkey. Rogue having trouble with a trap, only then do you disjunction it.
If your argument is casters are more versatile then martial guys. I agree. If your argument is that warrior types need help at higher levels. I agree. If your argument is that casters can fill 2 or 3 of the basic roles, where most non-casters can only fill one, once again I agree.
But it does not reduce the roles to 2, since even if a caster can do anything, he cant do everything (in the same day) even at high levels. And it is a better use of his resources to help his ally succeed then to just take everything on all by himself.
As for redesigning the martial classes, that was tried, its called Tome of Battle and it got more negative press and rotten tomatoes hurled at it then you can shake a very large point stick at. It would appear that those who like martial classes like them because they are not like magic. I am not certain you can make them as 'good' without making them 'like magic', so long as you dont make magic not like magic (see 4th edition [and no this is not a shot against 4th edition, i just feel they completely changed the feel of magic, and took the magicy parts out of combat with greatly reduced use, not bad, but very different]).
If your argument is casters are more versatile then martial guys. I agree. If your argument is that warrior types need help at higher levels. I agree. If your argument is that casters can fill 2 or 3 of the basic roles, where most non-casters can only fill one, once again I agree.
Yes to all of the above!
I am not certain you can make them as 'good' without making them 'like magic'
Dunno. I'm trying like hell, though. In my houserules, warriors can block, can move and attack, can act pre-emptively, can expand their threat range, can learn to anticipate blinks and displacement through tactical reasoning, can shoot down flying targets with bows, etc. It doesn't make them magic; it just makes them able to do their job at higher levels than they currently are able to.
If your argument is casters are more versatile then martial guys. I agree. If your argument is that warrior types need help at higher levels. I agree. If your argument is that casters can fill 2 or 3 of the basic roles, where most non-casters can only fill one, once again I agree.Yes to all of the above!
I am not certain you can make them as 'good' without making them 'like magic'Dunno. I'm trying like hell, though. In my houserules, warriors can block, can move and attack, can act pre-emptively, can expand their threat range, can learn to anticipate blinks and displacement through tactical reasoning, can shoot down flying targets with bows, etc. It doesn't make them magic; it just makes them able to do their job at higher levels than they currently are able to.
Obviously all those things can be done with the assistance of magic (true seeing for instance to eliminate displacement). So I think my thoughts on teamwork still hold true. I believe the game was designed with that idea in mind, would you agree? Do you think the 4 roles hold true as I describe them?
Mind you I wouldnt mind a feat or two that helps you shoot down a flyer, as the fly check for taking damage becomes autosuccess after a certain point. I just think you stretch the suspension of disbalief when you start doing things like letting them act out of turn without some kind of 'magicy' fluff behind it.
I think it all comes back to some of the dnd origins. After I read the Dying Earth I understood (i liked it by the way). Magicians had only to threaten magic and everyone surrendered, and non-casters were reliant on magic items to not be useless (but with the right items could be awesome). That heritage has trickled through, and I am not sure how you can untrickle it without losing that image of magic and magic items especially. Since if you make a non-caster equalt to a caster without all those toys, what happens when he gets them? It gets messy, but I wish you luck in trying to sort it out in a satisfactory way.
I think it all comes back to some of the dnd origins. After I read the Dying Earth I understood (i liked it by the way). Magicians had only to threaten magic and everyone surrendered, and non-casters were reliant on magic items to not be useless (but with the right items could be awesome). That heritage has trickled through, and I am not sure how you can untrickle it without losing that image of magic and magic items especially.
Dunno -- but Vance's magicians had only like 4 spells per day, max, and were just as susceptable as anyone else to being ambushed or blind-sided. Elric could summon insect plagues to win his fights for him -- but only if no one was currently engaging him in melee; if they did, he needed that sword. Holger the Dane was immune to Morgan Le Fey's spells unless he let his guard down. And god help any of the Conan wizards who tried casting spells in combat -- they got their heads lopped off. 1e D&D followed that to some extent, with sharply limited spells known and per day, no scroll mass-production, and auto-disruption of casters in combat. 3.0 broke the "origins" completely by removing essentially all of the casters' limitations.
On the other side of the coin, you have the One Power in Wheel of time. It's not only used in combat but pretty much no one can resist it who can't use the One Power. Except Mat Cauthorn, of course, who has that crazy, Aes Sedai-enraging amulet of his. Of course, that doesn't stop them from hurling objects at him.
On the other side of the coin, you have the One Power in Wheel of time. It's not only used in combat but pretty much no one can resist it who can't use the One Power. Except Mat Cauthorn, of course, who has that crazy, Aes Sedai-enraging amulet of his. Of course, that doesn't stop them from hurling objects at him.
I have no idea what any of that means. We've been talking about sources that Gygax cites as having influenced the early design of the game.
I think it all comes back to some of the dnd origins. After I read the Dying Earth I understood (i liked it by the way). Magicians had only to threaten magic and everyone surrendered, and non-casters were reliant on magic items to not be useless (but with the right items could be awesome). That heritage has trickled through, and I am not sure how you can untrickle it without losing that image of magic and magic items especially.Dunno -- but Vance's magicians had only like 4 spells per day, max, and were just as susceptable as anyone else to being ambushed or blind-sided. Elric could summon insect plagues to win his fights for him -- but only if no one was currently engaging him in melee; if they did, he needed that sword. Holger the Dane was immune to Morgan Le Fey's spells unless he let his guard down. And god help any of the Conan wizards who tried casting spells in combat -- they got their heads lopped off. 1e D&D followed that to some extent, with sharply limited spells known and per day, no scroll mass-production, and auto-disruption of casters in combat. 3.0 broke the "origins" completely by removing essentially all of the casters' limitations.
And those 4 spells per day (more for more powerful magicians) were basically auto win buttons, no save, no attack roll, i won, que theme music. And if i remember correctly older editions were alot like this. Wizards just walked behind the party and just decided to blow their win button now and again. I am not certain because my pre-3.0 experience is pretty limited.
Now that said, I think the 3.0 changes were a good idea. A wizard should be able to be a wizard all day long, rather then just a wizard 3-5 rounds a day. That just isnt fun. Certainly pathfinder agrees with giving casters more longevity. They also hit some of the more rediculous spells with the nerf bat over the years. (Haste comes to mind 3.0-3.5, and ray of enfeeblement 3.5-3.P). And the auto disruption is pretty rediculous, in a contained space (you know dungeon) its pretty much a death sentance for a wizard. Especially at low levels were wizards are still weak compared to martial characters.
I think things are much better then they were prior, classes are at least closer, like you said the 'sweet spot' has been extended. I do not think the removal of those limitations or scroll creation were mistakes. They made casters alot more fun to play. Its not perfect yet but I do think its getting better in many areas.