The point is you can be just as prepared as a wizard's backup scroll case with a decent UMD. Your not using them for combat. Your using them for all the abilities they claim wizards can pull out on the fly.
Except a Fighter needs a substantial investment (detracting from his primary job; UMD checks ain't easy) and fairly high level just to begin to use them to any real effect, and even then, those are his primary tool belt, to the Wizard's emergency tool belt. It's filling gaps versus building walls.
Do mind that to emulate a Wizard's preparedness with scrolls, a Fighter needs to be able to reliably use those scrolls in combat (otherwise, if there's plenty of time, the Wizard could just fill in a blank spell slot). Those scrolls are for things like an emergency, "Oh no, we're boned, we need to Teleport out of here or we're paste," or a, "Holy crap that zombie's big. Lemme pull out this Command Undead scroll and make it our loyal pet."
Also, mind that Fighters already have a lot they need to spend money on to begin with. Weapons, armor, standard AC boosters, multiple stat-ups. Meanwhile, a Wizard really doesn't need much. No weapons, no armor, only a few incidentals plus the cost of buying and scribing spells.
The Fighter with UMD still doesn't have the kind of disposable income that a Wizard has, and can't afford the binder full of spells except by sacrificing his primary duties.
Yeah, and they help out 0% if you needed another Haste because the first one got counterspelled.
Again you gripe about the hammer not turning the screw. Though do note, if the enemy's counterspelling, you've won since you have pretty much the most dangerous enemy there is wasting actions by readying that counterspell in the first place. Now pull out that wand of Obscuring Mist and block line-of-sight.
A binder full of situational and utility scrolls is great when you have the free cash and time and that exact spell already in your spellbook, all of which are uncontrolled variables. This goes back to "statistically significant".
Or when you're operating under standard design assumptions of, "You can actually buy stuff with your loot." There's a market for scrolls, y'know. And even without the scrolls, the Wizard still has many, many tricks usable many, many ways.
Invoking niche scenarios outside design parameters that counter a small aspect of the class as a whole and then declare that the entire method is invalid. That's what is known as 'absurd.'
THAT does not sound to be a formulaic analysis, or it is only in a tier-controlled equation. It's relevance to actual games is questionable. Is is known that magic powers of the opposition increase as the characters advance. In addition, many more challenging opponents have particular resistances to magic than to being beaten with a stick (spell immunities and SR come to mind).
Er... hit points, damage reduction, armor class, incorporealness. These are all resistances to being hit with a pointy stick. And while Fighters don't have attacks that ignore armor class, Wizards have many, many spells that ignore spell resistance/immunity (note that there is no such thing as spell immunity, only infinite spell resistance, which is bypassed by any and every spell that ignores spell resistance). And even then, SR high enough to matter and spell immunity aren't particularly common.
And it's not exactly a 50/50. After all, you need to leave some open spell slots, right? That makes it more of a 40/40/20. AND there is a limit the the # of spells a day you will have. It is not always possible or desirable to rest after an encounter or two.
This ain't encounter-or-two. Twelve spells spent in combat is a hard day's combat. Fights in D&D are decided in one to three rounds if the party knows what they're doing. A Wizard doesn't need to spend many combat spells.
A Fighter's hit points are the real finite resource.
Strengths and weakness every class has them. Fighters can't cast spells and wizards can't melee trolls...safely.
Why would the Wizard want to melee the troll in the first place when he can deal with him any number of other ways?
Spent a round to cast Fly and another to cast GrInvis? Fighterman with UMD casts GrInvis from a wand the proceeds to lay a beat-down. He then heals himself up with a CLW wand.
Rinse repeat, Fighterman can do this all day long. Care to calculate how many trolls come and go before the Wiz is out of spells vs Fighterman's wands?
And care to calculate how much money the Fighter's spending on those scrolls and wands? Or his success rate (a huge deal in-combat, particularly when using a seven-round spell)? Or how long it'll be before he totally shatters his expendables allotment and ends up permanently behind on gear, screwing himself?
The issue isn't how powerful Wizards are versus fighters. The issue is how versatile they are. The case has been made, repeatedly and eloquently.
Versatility is an element of power. If you want to talk versatility, then the tier system can be whittled down to breadth and magnitude of power. Versatility and brute force.
The tier 1 classes have both extreme breadth and extreme magnitude of power. A Wizard can do everything, frequently better that the classes that specialize in that thing. They may not be better than every class at absolutely everything in every situation in all conceivable ways, but they don't have to be. They can do so much so well that it ceases to matter.
The tier 5 classes tend to have a very narrow or even fairly useless range of abilities that they're, at best, okay at. The Healer can only heal, with a couple incidental utility abilities and a couple extra points to their healing spells. That's about it. But thing is, a wand of healing is pretty cheap, and healing's not very good in combat, so while a Healer can be decent to have around, they're just not not very useful. And Clerics pretty much heal better than they do anyways. So as a whole, the Healer class is mediocre at something that's at best marginally useful.
A roll of 9 is less than most wizards need to use their primary ability in combat. Sure wizards have I win buttons, the problem is half the time they are busted, and half of those they don't have what they need prepared.
Er... What? A Wizard's best spells don't even offer any sort of save. Touch spells tend to be very easy against appropriate targets (read: those with low touch AC). Weak saves tend to be weak. Fly and Stone Shape and company are foolproof.
Where are you getting this nine?
The Fighter alway has a strong, reliable button, and he can get some other buttons.
Except... it's not very strong, and it isn't very reliable. A Fighter can only push that button while he's still breathing, yet his only defenses are AC (unreliable) and hit points, which can run out within three rounds against a level-appropriate melee foe. And the Fighter lacks real defenses like Fly, Invisibility, Wall of Blah, things that offer protection that's actually difficult to bypass.
The tier system claim that because the wizard has more buttons, he is inately more powerful and disruptive to a game. The problem is that the unreliability of it is just too high for that to actually come up in most games IME.
It's not just about having more buttons. It's about tricks that actually work. And it's about having the right buttons. A Healer has lots of buttons, but they all pretty much suck. A Warmage has a lot of buttons, but they pretty much all do the same thing. A Wizard has the power to do pretty much anything.
OMG do we really have to go over how Fighters are free to use some of their general feats, heavystufflifting abilities, and much-improved-from-3.5 skill list to improve their out-of combat abilities if they want to again? Assuming, of course, the Fighter is well-played.
In other words, they're free to do Not Much, and do it moderately well.
I like. I knew a Scro Barb that cauterized both ends of a thigh piece and had a regenerating meal...Then chop up the arms, put them in a box, fly over the enemy castle, and drop the thousands of troll bits in the courtyard.
(Sorry - I know that doesn't work in Pathfinder, but it worked wonderfully in a 1e campaign once. We always kept some troll bits in something which was too small to allow full troll regen)
That reminds me of a lizard man we had in 2e and his "never ending" troll headcheese. He at lest always offed to share with the group
The Challenge WAS to rip the troll's arm off not MDK the poor troll.Yawn.
Fly.
Summon Monster V.
"RIP OFF THAT TROLL'S ARMS!"
Then chop up the arms, put them in a box, fly over the enemy castle, and drop the thousands of troll bits in the courtyard.
Watch and laugh.
(Sorry - I know that doesn't work in Pathfinder, but it worked wonderfully in a 1e campaign once. We always kept some troll bits in something which was too small to allow full troll regen)
I'd think the troll would just go back into its cave as it can't catch birds very well. A flying wizard would be just another bird to a troll.
Hold up.
Your argument is "If you don't do anything but fight, then fighters are super versatile! And even outside of fights, if you spend impossible to obtain amounts of gold, use a non-existent stat array which consists of all 18's, and stick all your skill points into UMD, which isn't a class skill, you can totally use scrolls and wands!"
Really?
That's what you're going to stick with?
|
And when that wand runs out?The point is you can be just as prepared as a wizard's backup scroll case with a decent UMD. Your not using them for combat. Your using them for all the abilities they claim wizards can pull out on the fly.
And the problem there is that the backup scroll case is only a part of what you rate the tier on. If you make a rogue build that takes advantage of UMD to have all that prepared, it still doesn't make it an equal tier with the wizard who has the gear the rogue has plus all the wizard benefits.
And if you spend more on that sidebar of UMD items, you're breaking from the tier anyway because the tier idea explicitly states it is based off of equally skilled players using equal resources. Rogues can't move up a tier by spending all their money on items to give them that tiers versatility because it isn't sustainable.
The issue isn't how powerful Wizards are versus fighters. The issue is how versatile they are. The case has been made, repeatedly and eloquently.Exactly! The Fighter is just as versatile as the Wizard!
No. This is a silly claim and you should feel bad for making it.
And when that wand runs out?The point is you can be just as prepared as a wizard's backup scroll case with a decent UMD. Your not using them for combat. Your using them for all the abilities they claim wizards can pull out on the fly.And the problem there is that the backup scroll case is only a part of what you rate the tier on. If you make a rogue build that takes advantage of UMD to have all that prepared, it still doesn't make it an equal tier with the wizard who has the gear the rogue has plus all the wizard benefits.
And if you spend more on that sidebar of UMD items, you're breaking from the tier anyway because the tier idea explicitly states it is based off of equally skilled players using equal resources. Rogues can't move up a tier by spending all their money on items to give them that tiers versatility because it isn't sustainable.
And none of this touches on yet another problem: martial characters like rogues and fighters are already spending all their money on tremendously expensive magic weapons and armor in order to stay viable in melee. Wizards don't need any of this stuff. They're free to spend all their easily-earned gold on wands, scrolls, staffs and other items that expand their versatility and obviate the need for the rest of the party's assistance.
Hardly. You need what you need when you need it. This is almost absurdly axiomatic. And if your allies are getting pwn'd and your spells are being countered by a specialist counterspelling sorcerer, yelling "Hey guys, we're winning!" doesn't help turn the battle.
Counterspelling is not an efficient tactic. If the opposing caster does not have the same spell ready he can't oppose it. I am sure the other caster is not going to be built with the hope that he has the same spells as the other caster. Edit: I changed the prior sentence so it is now readable
And how much did you buy? How long has it been since you re-filled? How much of your WBL did you spend on spells? What is the setting? Are the spells you want available for purchase?
The Tier assumes the default games. From there the DM would have to adjust things to fit the particular campaign. The tiers are not an end all be all. They assume certain things, the DM has to adjust from that point. Wizards get scribe scroll for free so if there are any spells left over he can now have them as extras for another day.
Invoking a purely theoretical model as being fully descriptive AND perscriptive of actual gaming is "absurd".
Read my statement about defaults being assumed, and adjusting for your game. It still applies.
"Aren't particularly common" at lower levels, you mean. At those levels where people complain fighters are worthless these things are more than common. And "immunity" is not just unbeatable SR. It's things like vermin being immune to mind-affecting spells. No SR there, just immunity.
Who said fighters were worthless?
Things are immune in one area normally have a real big weakness somewhere else. Now if the caster thought it was a good idea to prepare all his spells as mind affecting he needs to be sent back to D&D/PAthfinder 101.Most fights are 3 rounds or less. This has been stated on various post in various forums. If the fights are not the same in your then once again I say the DM has to adjust accordingly. The Tiers are not meant to be used without any thought on the DM's part.
|
|
And none of this touches on yet another problem: martial characters like rogues and fighters are already spending all their money on tremendously expensive magic weapons and armor in order to stay viable in melee.
Absolutely, I just didn't want to point that out too. Because I figured the response would be 'but using all those wands means I don't have to melee cause I'm just like a wizard!' Which isn't a good argument either.
Hardly. You need what you need when you need it. This is almost absurdly axiomatic. And if your allies are getting pwn'd and your spells are being countered by a specialist counterspelling sorcerer, yelling "Hey guys, we're winning!" doesn't help turn the battle.
You don't need to know what you need. You only need to have what you need. There are a lot of spells that are very nearly once-a-campaign spells that you're not likely to need more often than that, but that are tremendously useful that one time. Invest in a scroll of it once, on the cheap, and it's on hand on the off chance that you need it. It's about those probabilities you keep bringing up. It's about being able to make a good guess as to how likely any given spell or scroll is to come up over the course of a day and a campaign. That there will be some or even many, many misses doesn't matter so long as you get enough hits. But it's a safe bet that eventually, that scroll of Teleport is going to come in handy.
As for counterspelling? A spellcaster who's counterspelling isn't paralyzing the Rogue or dominating the Fighter or summoning bears or any number of meaningful and dangerous things. And, with counterspelling, the enemy mage must either know which spell you're casting and counter with the correct one or use Dispel Magic, which has a significant chance of not working at all. Or, since it's not hard to guess that someone's going to be counterspelling, you can pull out one of those scrolls or wands which can't be counterspelled, while the enemy loses their action outright.
A spellcaster is going to be a significant portion of the danger of an enemy force of an enemy force within the encounter. If they're not doing anything because they're readying actions to counterspell, you have the advantage. If you have a level 6 party against an encounter consisting of a level 6 sorcerer and a CR6 ogre Barbarian (a CR8 encounter, which isn't supposed to be easy), and the sorcerer's sitting there counterspelling the Wizard the whole time, that means the Wizard (a quarter of the party) is successfully negating half of the entire encounter. That's a Big Deal, and the Wizard is carrying more than her weight in that case.
And if there's a higher-level mage dedicating his actions to counterspelling the Wizard through Improved Counterspell, then the Wizard is single-handedly occupying a tremendously powerful and dangerous foe, one of a higher level than herself, and a tremendous threat of a CR beyond the party's level.
And how much did you buy? How long has it been since you re-filled? How much of your WBL did you spend on spells? What is the setting? Are the spells you want available for purchase?
Trivial detail. Particularly since a few low-level scrolls as an emergency backup tends to be cheap. And a minor aspect of the class as a whole.
Trivial detail, though you can generally just teleport back to town, or to an extraplanar metropolis. Part of the Wizard's power is her ability to break out of the parameters of many an adventure in that way
A significant sum, as all Wizards do.
The rules have pretty much everything available for purchase in a sufficiently large city, so yes, pretty much every spell is available for purchase if you have the money. And if you're cutting that out, you're passing a major houserule. The tier system assumes no houserules.
Also if you're making it specifically difficult to come across spells/scrolls (low-value magic items) without hindering the acquisition of magical arms and armor (high-value magic items), then you're passing a houserule that's specifically designed to beat the Wizard down while bringing up the melee types. That breaks the 'fair DM' assumption. And while that houserule is not necessarily a bad thing, it must be explicitly stated and acknowledged as such.
Meanwhile, if all magic items are so hard to come by, the muggles suffer even worse, because they're more dependent on them (though in a world without magic items, including scrolls, the Wizard ultimately loses out to the Sorcerer because the Sorcerer ends up with more spells known).
If you consider all these concerns "outside design parameters" then I just declare my win and go home. All these are real problems encountered in games, and to dismiss them is to place any analysis done thereafter in a purely theoretical realm, with no relevance to actual games. Invoking a purely theoretical model as being fully descriptive AND perscriptive of actual gaming is "absurd".
Removing the market entirely is such a tremendously massive houserule as to be absurd in an analysis of the standard game. Specifically making scrolls rare is a blatantly and unreasonably unfair comparison that expressly violates the 'fair DM' assumption. It outright breaks the rules. The tier system assumes the rules are being followed, which includes, "You can go shopping in cities." To then decree, "If the DM breaks the rules, the system doesn't hold, therefore the system is invalid, and some DMs break the rules, so DMs breaking rules is a valid concern," is just bizarre when talking about the rules system itself.
"Aren't particularly common" at lower levels, you mean. At those levels where people complain fighters are worthless these things are more than common. And "immunity" is not just unbeatable SR. It's things like vermin being immune to mind-affecting spells. No SR there, just immunity.
1) At higher levels, mages have far more SR-ignoring no-save spells floating around.
2) You don't use brainomancy on vermin. You use a spell that actually works. And there are a lot of spells that actually work against vermin.
Aren't you speaking from an experience/playtesting standpoint here? You mean, in YOUR experience, "fights in D&D are decided in one to three rounds". My fights last longer, in general. If a fight lasts LESS than 4 rounds, I think of it as too easy. But, as you most eloquently stated to Loopy a while back...oh, nevermind. ^__^
The system assumes skilled players playing tactically against dangerous foes. Those fights are decided (win or lose) within three rounds, because Pathfinder, like 3.5, is rocket tag. Whoever gets nailed with a rocket first is out of commission, and if your rockets haven't landed within the first three rounds, then odds are very good you've been hit with one.
Also, there's a stark difference between the fight being over and all enemies being dead.
So what weaknesses would you guys add to the Wizard class to make it more balanced with Fighters and Paladins if you were developers? That seems to be the only way to go, right? Punishing the "tier 1" classes?
|
Counterspelling is not an efficient tactic. If the opposing caster does not have the same spell ready he can't oppose it. I am sure not caster is going to be built with the hope that he the same spells as the other caster.
Funny. You simply assume that a wizard has the appropriate spells in spellbook/memorized whenever it helps the argument that the wizard is so much better that he makes the fighter completely obsolete. You say that a generalized list of spells would be what he always memorizes. So I say that it's probably a fair assumption that the wizard on the other side DOES have the appropriate spells memorized in order to counterspell whatever your wizard throws at his party.
While all the casters are busy negating each others effectiveness and general usefulness, the battle will be decided by the guys who only do one thing, and do it rather poorly...the guys who swing big sharp sticks of metal at each other.
So what weaknesses would you guys add to the Wizard class to make it more balanced with Fighters and Paladins if you were developers? That seems to be the only way to go, right? Punishing the "tier 1" classes?
There is no need to weaken the wizard. I don't think the classes even need to be balanced against each other. They(any class) just need to do their job well. Now if the class has no particular job(bard) then it should reasonably well at a number of things, and able to excel* in at least 1 or 2 things if it focuses on those things.
*Do well, but not necessarily compete with the class made for that job.
So what weaknesses would you guys add to the Wizard class to make it more balanced with Fighters and Paladins if you were developers? That seems to be the only way to go, right? Punishing the "tier 1" classes?There is no need to weaken the wizard. I don't think the classes even need to be balanced against each other. They(any class) just need to do their job well. Now if the class has no particular job(bard) then it should reasonably well at a number of things, and able to excel* in at least 1 or 2 things if it focuses on those things.
*Do well, but not necessarily compete with the class made for that job.
So how would you boost the Fighter then, for example? Give him a higher damage output?
I hear arguing all the time about the difference in these tiers, but I haven't seen many folks trying to solve the supposed problem.
Hold up.
Your argument is "If you don't do anything but fight, then fighters are super versatile! And even outside of fights, if you spend impossible to obtain amounts of gold, use a non-existent stat array which consists of all 18's, and stick all your skill points into UMD, which isn't a class skill, you can totally use scrolls and wands!"
Really?
That's what you're going to stick with?
No, my argument is not that. You are insinuating that I said that the Fighter is as good as utility as a Wizard. I did no such thing. You think the Fighter needs to apply unrealistic ability scores to have utility. You are very wrong.
And none of this touches on yet another problem: martial characters like rogues and fighters are already spending all their money on tremendously expensive magic weapons and armor in order to stay viable in melee. Wizards don't need any of this stuff. They're free to spend all their easily-earned gold on wands, scrolls, staffs and other items that expand their versatility and obviate the need for the rest of the party's assistance.
You don't need to spend a ton of money to have a useful array of wands and/or scrolls at your disposal to give you the extra edge you need. A few tricks up your sleeve is all you need.
And none of this touches on yet another problem: martial characters like rogues and fighters are already spending all their money on tremendously expensive magic weapons and armor in order to stay viable in melee.Absolutely, I just didn't want to point that out too. Because I figured the response would be 'but using all those wands means I don't have to melee cause I'm just like a wizard!' Which isn't a good argument either.
Nope. The UMD argument cropped up because someone challenged that there was no mechanic that allowed Fighters to be able to have spells. I refuted that point.
So what weaknesses would you guys add to the Wizard class to make it more balanced with Fighters and Paladins if you were developers? That seems to be the only way to go, right? Punishing the "tier 1" classes?
I don't think the Wizard needs to be rebalanced. It's fine as-is. It has low hit points and pretty sucky saves. Most of its more powerful buff spells are rounds per level and require casting during or right before a fight. Their most harmful spells are either super high level or give the target(s) one or more save. It has to prepare all its buffs and offensive spells AND prepare its utility spells with forethought most of the time. This is an extremely limiting factor especially when "waiting around in the dungeon until we can prepare different spells" is not an option.
No. This is a silly claim and you should feel bad for making it.The issue isn't how powerful Wizards are versus fighters. The issue is how versatile they are. The case has been made, repeatedly and eloquently.Exactly! The Fighter is just as versatile as the Wizard!
I'm sorry you feel that way.
The Fighter, in my opinion, is as versatile as a Wizard. It's easy to look at the Wizard spell list and say "WOW! That's a lot of different thing a Wizard can do!" In the end, he has to have them either prepared or he has to have some kind of magic item to do it. A Wizard can act in most encounters. He'll usually have some kind of option. So will the Fighter. It may not be as exciting or flashy as what the Wizard does, to be sure. Sometimes the Wizard is better (especially in non-combat encounters after level 3 or so) and sometimes the Fighter shines (such as being able to perform very well in just about every single combat encounter you can think of).
A party with a Fighter and a Wizard in it is FAR more amazing that a party with two of one.
That is how the game was designed to be and it works.
Counterspelling is not an efficient tactic. If the opposing caster does not have the same spell ready he can't oppose it. I am sure not caster is going to be built with the hope that he the same spells as the other caster.Funny. You simply assume that a wizard has the appropriate spells in spellbook/memorized whenever it helps the argument that the wizard is so much better that he makes the fighter completely obsolete. You say that a generalized list of spells would be what he always memorizes. So I say that it's probably a fair assumption that the wizard on the other side DOES have the appropriate spells memorized in order to counterspell whatever your wizard throws at his party.
While all the casters are busy negating each others effectiveness and general usefulness, the battle will be decided by the guys who only do one thing, and do it rather poorly...the guys who swing big sharp sticks of metal at each other.
When did I say a fighter was obsolete? I may have said at higher levels a fighter is not need, but those are not the same arguments.
In order to counterspell you need the same exact spells. There are many spells that have similar affects so counterspelling is not an option, not in the sense we are debating anyway, and VV listed ways to get around the counterspell.
I thought you could use Dispel Magic to counterspell any spell...
So what weaknesses would you guys add to the Wizard class to make it more balanced with Fighters and Paladins if you were developers? That seems to be the only way to go, right? Punishing the "tier 1" classes?There is no need to weaken the wizard. I don't think the classes even need to be balanced against each other. They(any class) just need to do their job well. Now if the class has no particular job(bard) then it should reasonably well at a number of things, and able to excel* in at least 1 or 2 things if it focuses on those things.
*Do well, but not necessarily compete with the class made for that job.
So how would you boost the Fighter then, for example? Give him a higher damage output?
I hear arguing all the time about the difference in these tiers, but I haven't seen many folks trying to solve the supposed problem.
I think the best way to eliminate a lot of the kvetching is for Paizo to do two things:
1) Create an Arcane Warrior base class which combines spellcasting with martial abilities. There are already several posts on this subject.
2) Create a Spellhunter Prestige Class with Detect Magic like a Paladin's Detect Evil and give this class good antimagic abilities such as a spell reflection ability possibly tied to their shield and/or 2 handed weapon. I'd like to see a spell level destruction ability, possibly tied to critical hits or simply damage replacement such as reducing your attack damage by 5 to destroy 1 spell level and 1 more spell level per 2 damage reduced. Perhaps some extraordinary abilities that tie in with fighty skills like a more powerful Demoralize or very high and/or long jumps. I wouldn't like this class to be like the 3.0 class that hated magic, just a class that is skilled at fighting it.
This would leave the basic Fighter intact while giving some folks the choices they want their martial characters to have.
So what weaknesses would you guys add to the Wizard class to make it more balanced with Fighters and Paladins if you were developers? That seems to be the only way to go, right? Punishing the "tier 1" classes?There is no need to weaken the wizard. I don't think the classes even need to be balanced against each other. They(any class) just need to do their job well. Now if the class has no particular job(bard) then it should reasonably well at a number of things, and able to excel* in at least 1 or 2 things if it focuses on those things.
*Do well, but not necessarily compete with the class made for that job.
So how would you boost the Fighter then, for example? Give him a higher damage output?
I hear arguing all the time about the difference in these tiers, but I haven't seen many folks trying to solve the supposed problem.
The fighter does more than enough damage. Giving him more of what he already has solves nothing. I would boost his int to 4. I would make him better against will saves. As I said in another post if a fighter is between my and the wizard I will simply suggest/charm/dominate him out of the way. If I can't make him attack the party I can probably at least get him to leave the fight. There are other fighter improvements I would make too, not to bring him up a tier, but because I think it should have certain things.
I don't there is a big problem. Most DM's compensate for any variance in power level through various means. The important thing to remember is that it is a team game, and everyone has their goal. The tier thing is just to let DM's know at level X the wizard/caster can negate the encounter/event a lot easier than the other classes can, so the DM should plan accourdingly. There were 3.5 classes that never should be seen at the table IMHO, the healer and Samuari(complete warrior) come to mind, but pathfinder has made the classes well enough that most of them will do ok.
I thought you could use Dispel Magic to counterspell any spell...
Nope. If that was the case nobody would bother with readying an action for counterspells.
The effect of a spell with an instantaneous duration can't be dispelled, because the magical effect is already over before the dispel magic can take effect.
I thought you could use Dispel Magic to counterspell any spell...Nope. If that was the case nobody would bother with readying an action for counterspells.
The effect of a spell with an instantaneous duration can't be dispelled, because the magical effect is already over before the dispel magic can take effect.
Err, you might want to read the last paragraph of dispel magic. It can be used to counterspell in place of needing to use the same spell, but you have to make a caster level check to succeed.
So what weaknesses would you guys add to the Wizard class to make it more balanced with Fighters and Paladins if you were developers? That seems to be the only way to go, right? Punishing the "tier 1" classes?
The fundamental problem with the tier 1 classes is their unlimited or nigh-unlimited spell selection. Taking the Wizard, Druid, and Cleric in a direction more akin to the Sorcerer, Favored Soul, or Oracle would work wonders. Give them limited spells known, so that they actually have to make meaningful choices.
Forcing the spontaneous divine caster variant onto Clerics and Druids, while giving the Wizard casting in the same manner as the Sorcerer casting from intelligence instead of charisma should suffice. Perhaps some fiddling to allow the Wizard more spells known but less spells per day, while still having a limit on spells known, can suffice.
So long as they get all spells automatically or almost automatically, they can't be fixed, particularly as more and more material comes out that grants them more power rather than simply more options that they must make real sacrifices to get their hands on.
Funny. You simply assume that a wizard has the appropriate spells in spellbook/memorized whenever it helps the argument that the wizard is so much better that he makes the fighter completely obsolete. You say that a generalized list of spells would be what he always memorizes. So I say that it's probably a fair assumption that the wizard on the other side DOES have the appropriate spells memorized in order to counterspell whatever your wizard throws at his party.
Even a general list has discrepancies. Also, an enemy mage is liable to be lower level than the party, meaning she can't have the party Wizard's best spells at all.
While all the casters are busy negating each others effectiveness and general usefulness, the battle will be decided by the guys who only do one thing, and do it rather poorly...the guys who swing big sharp sticks of metal at each other.
Or by the Cleric, or by the Druid, since counterspelling only counters one person at a time, and both Cleric and Druids are quite capable combatants. Counterspelling the Druid is particularly fun, since it means the mage gets to be eaten by your pet bear.
So how would you boost the Fighter then, for example? Give him a higher damage output?
To do this, you need a bottle of white-out, a pen, and a copy of Tome of Battle. White out every instance of the word 'Warblade' and replace it with 'Fighter.' Done.
The thing about the Fighter is, it's fundamentally rooted in the wargame legacy where warriors were lowly footpads to send in mass, while casters were leader units with awesome powers. As the game advanced, the notion that there's no such thing as a mighty warrior persisted within the mechanics. Fighters ultimately don't grow. The class hardly gains any meaningful tricks, save what comes from items. At level 20, they're using the same full attack, charge, bull's rush, disarm, et cetera, with only minor add-ons and bigger numbers, while Wizards have advanced from making people taller to turning burritos into Chippendale dancers.
Tome of Battle changes this paradigm by embracing the fact that high-level characters are supposed to be awesome, and that folks who can tapdance on molten lava and walk away with petty wounds that heal within a week without permanent harm are beyond the ken of ordinary mortals. It accepts that a guy with a sword who's supposed to be, by defined parameters of the game, as powerful as a Balor isn't merely militiaman Bob anymore, that he's a superhuman badass capable of spectacular things.
Tome of Battle actually gives melee meaningful powers and options that scale with level. At level one? You can get a meaty to-hit bonus against one enemy, at the cost of screwing your AC against everyone else. Not big, but a handy option. At level 15? Whirlwind Attack twice, with a +4 bonus to hit. Level 20? +100 damage on a single attack.
I thought you could use Dispel Magic to counterspell any spell...
It can, but you have to make a dispel check to counterspell with it. So now half the enemy threat is wasting their actions to maybe negate a quarter of the party. In which case, the party comes out way ahead for the bargain.
Hey, the healer was a great DMPC. Couldn't do anything in combat but was there to save the lives of PCs who couldn't save themselves. :P
This is what I use it for a lot, when my players ask for one. They're the perfect DMPC class, really. NPC class power that can genuinely help the party in a convenient but not world-shaking way that doesn't steal the limelight. Assuming, of course, that no one wants the healer role; I've had DMs that force a healer on us after my Artificer, the Bard, and the Paladin all work together to make sure we have the healing power we need to go on.
Nope. If that was the case nobody would bother with readying an action for counterspells.
The effect of a spell with an instantaneous duration can't be dispelled, because the magical effect is already over before the dispel magic can take effect.
You may want to brush up on the counterspelling rules before you embarrass yourself, chief.
Nope. If that was the case nobody would bother with readying an action for counterspells.
The effect of a spell with an instantaneous duration can't be dispelled, because the magical effect is already over before the dispel magic can take effect.
You can still counterspell with dispel magic, but you have to ready an action to do so:
Counterspell: When dispel magic is used in this way, the spell targets a spellcaster and is cast as a counterspell. Unlike a true counterspell, however, dispel magic may not work; you must make a dispel check to counter the other spellcaster's spell.
Err, you might want to read the last paragraph of dispel magic. It can be used to counterspell in place of needing to use the same spell, but you have to make a caster level check to succeed.I thought you could use Dispel Magic to counterspell any spell...Nope. If that was the case nobody would bother with readying an action for counterspells.
The effect of a spell with an instantaneous duration can't be dispelled, because the magical effect is already over before the dispel magic can take effect.
I read the last part, but the part I posted is also taken from the spell entry. I remember the instantaneous thing from 3.5.
|
|
This is what I use it for a lot, when my players ask for one. They're the perfect DMPC class, really. NPC class power that can genuinely help the party in a convenient but not world-shaking way that doesn't steal the limelight.
Except when fighting undead at certain points. Heal is a pretty decent attack then. But that's about it.
I actually considered trying a gestalt healer/monk, to see if that made a playable class. It seems closer to the idea of a monk I had from FFTactics.
You may want to brush up on the counterspelling rules before you embarrass yourself, chief.
My point that you can not counter spell any spell stands. The first bolded sentence along with the others proves it, even if I quoted the wrong part originally.
Edit: changed dispel to counter spell
Dispel Magic from the PRD
You can use dispel magic to end one ongoing spell that has been cast on a creature or object, to temporarily suppress the magical abilities of a magic item, or to counter another spellcaster's spell. A dispelled spell ends as if its duration had expired. Some spells, as detailed in their descriptions, can't be defeated by dispel magic. Dispel magic can dispel (but not counter) spell-like effects just as it does spells. The effect of a spell with an instantaneous duration can't be dispelled, because the magical effect is already over before the dispel magic can take effect.
You choose to use dispel magic in one of two ways: a targeted dispel or a counterspell.
Targeted Dispel: One object, creature, or spell is the target of the dispel magic spell. You make one dispel check (1d20 + your caster level) and compare that to the spell with highest caster level (DC = 11 + the spell's caster level). If successful, that spell ends. If not, compare the same result to the spell with the next highest caster level. Repeat this process until you have dispelled one spell affecting the target, or you have failed to dispel every spell.
For example, a 7th-level caster casts dispel magic, targeting a creature affected by stoneskin (caster level 12th) and fly (caster level 6th). The caster level check results in a 19. This check is not high enough to end the stoneskin (which would have required a 23 or higher), but it is high enough to end the fly (which only required a 17). Had the dispel check resulted in a 23 or higher, the stoneskin would have been dispelled, leaving the fly intact. Had the dispel check been a 16 or less, no spells would have been affected.
You can also use a targeted dispel to specifically end one spell affecting the target or one spell affecting an area (such as a wall of fire). You must name the specific spell effect to be targeted in this way. If your caster level check is equal to or higher than the DC of that spell, it ends. No other spells or effects on the target are dispelled if your check is not high enough to end the targeted effect.
If you target an object or creature that is the effect of an ongoing spell (such as a monster summoned by summon monster), you make a dispel check to end the spell that conjured the object or creature.
If the object that you target is a magic item, you make a dispel check against the item's caster level (DC = 11 + the item's caster level). If you succeed, all the item's magical properties are suppressed for 1d4 rounds, after which the item recovers its magical properties. A suppressed item becomes nonmagical for the duration of the effect. An interdimensional opening (such as a bag of holding) is temporarily closed. A magic item's physical properties are unchanged: A suppressed magic sword is still a sword (a masterwork sword, in fact). Artifacts and deities are unaffected by mortal magic such as this.
You automatically succeed on your dispel check against any spell that you cast yourself.
Counterspell: When dispel magic is used in this way, the spell targets a spellcaster and is cast as a counterspell. Unlike a true counterspell, however, dispel magic may not work; you must make a dispel check to counter the other spellcaster's spell.
|
|
Simply put, get rid of the scribing option. Wizards already get a good number of spells in their spellbook simply from leveling up, and there is a feat (Collegic Wizard, from complete Arcane) that can be taken to double it if the PC really wants more spells known.
I'm not sure what you mean kyrt, no scrolls? Kind of a fantasy staple. I could see maybe not being able to cast from them, or having them burn a spell slot or something. But outright not being able to create them? Seems like it would break immersion for me.
Stuff about tome of battleI couldn't agree more, which is why in my games I've given Fighter full initiator level for everything except Shadow Hand, Devoted Spirit, and Desert Wind, and cut away the limits for taking the Martial Maneuver/Stance feats (and declared them combat feats incase they aren't, I haven't actually checked that point in a while)
I realize now what I am up against and concede this battle. I can't hope to change your minds or make my point any better than I already have. I'll just leave with this final emoticon:
O_o
|
So he could cast the spell from the scroll, but not prepare it? And if he casts it, he's lost it. So he would have to choose that spell at level up to be able to prepare it? Interesting.
Well, keep in mind that the mage in AD&D could only know a certain number of spells in his lifetime. The reasoning is that a mortal being can only handle so much magical knowledge before his mind just can't learn new ones.
3/3.5 changed this by giving the total known spells limitation to sorcerers, but not really giving the wizard a weakness.
One of the problems the tier system shows is that the gap in power between spellcasters and non-spellcasters increased. WotC toned down certain spells, but pretty much every spellcasting mechanic got buffed, or new nerfs on attacking helped spellcasting.
|
|
I realize now what I am up against and concede this battle. I can't hope to change your minds or make my point any better than I already have. I'll just leave with this final emoticon:
O_o
You're not 'up against' anything Loopy. If you think this is an 'us vs them' thing, a 'battle' with winners and losers, then I am sorry. But yes, hoping to change someones mind online is a bad proposition. So is posting what you like or dislike and expecting everyone to pat you on the back and agree.
Well, keep in mind that the mage in AD&D could only know a certain number of spells in his lifetime. The reasoning is that a mortal being can only handle so much magical knowledge before his mind just can't learn new ones.
I actually do like that flavor. I may have to make a note and try that sometime in the future.
|
|
Stuff about tome of battleI couldn't agree more, which is why in my games I've given Fighter full initiator level for everything except Shadow Hand, Devoted Spirit, and Desert Wind, and cut away the limits for taking the Martial Maneuver/Stance feats (and declared them combat feats incase they aren't, I haven't actually checked that point in a while)
I realize now what I am up against and concede this battle. I can't hope to change your minds or make my point any better than I already have. I'll just leave with this final emoticon:
O_o
There are certain things fighters just can't do, and ToB addresses these things. Be a martyr or whatever else you want to do to make a point, but it doesn't change the fact the ToB helps close the gap of power between the tier 1s and the lower tiers, and therefore making a better balanced game in general. A DM wouldn't have to create new ways to nerf wizards, either consciously or subconsciously.
My DM balances out wizards by having encounters be about 6-10 a day, and we're always outnumbered 3-1, and then uses storyline "triggers" that would enable a "cut scene" to enable the story. Though I enjoy the game, it's become somewhat of a joke that we need to figure out a puzzle within the encounter to complete/end it. With a more balanced game, he wouldn't have to resort to these things.
Stuff about tome of battleI couldn't agree more, which is why in my games I've given Fighter full initiator level for everything except Shadow Hand, Devoted Spirit, and Desert Wind, and cut away the limits for taking the Martial Maneuver/Stance feats (and declared them combat feats incase they aren't, I haven't actually checked that point in a while)
I realize now what I am up against and concede this battle. I can't hope to change your minds or make my point any better than I already have. I'll just leave with this final emoticon:
O_o
There are certain things fighters just can't do, and ToB addresses these things. Be a martyr or whatever else you want to do to make a point, but it doesn't change the fact the ToB helps close the gap of power between the tier 1s and the lower tiers, and therefore making a better balanced game in general. A DM wouldn't have to create new ways to nerf wizards, either consciously or subconsciously.
My DM balances out wizards by having encounters be about 6-10 a day, and we're always outnumbered 3-1, and then uses storyline "triggers" that would enable a "cut scene" to enable the story. Though I enjoy the game, it's become somewhat of a joke that we need to figure out a puzzle within the encounter to complete/end it. With a more balanced game, he wouldn't have to resort to these things.
Why don't the casters just use scrolls/wands so they are not pressed for spells?
Well, keep in mind that the mage in AD&D could only know a certain number of spells in his lifetime. The reasoning is that a mortal being can only handle so much magical knowledge before his mind just can't learn new ones.
I remember that from baldurs gate(IIRC). There was a trick that you could use get more spells. You would raise you intelligence with fox's cunning(IIRC) which would allow you to learn more spells, and when the intelligence dropped back to normal you keep the extra spells. The game only checks to see if you qualify for the spells at the time you try to memorize the spell.
|
|
Wraithstrike's anecdote makes me wonder, if we use the 'wizards only learn spells at level up' rule, should new spells learned be 2+Int mod to account for the fact they aren't learning spells inbetween level ups? This would scale somewhat so wizards do get more at higher levels. The question is, how many is too many?
|
|
Why don't the casters just use scrolls/wands so they are not pressed for spells?
Stuff about tome of battleI couldn't agree more, which is why in my games I've given Fighter full initiator level for everything except Shadow Hand, Devoted Spirit, and Desert Wind, and cut away the limits for taking the Martial Maneuver/Stance feats (and declared them combat feats incase they aren't, I haven't actually checked that point in a while)
I realize now what I am up against and concede this battle. I can't hope to change your minds or make my point any better than I already have. I'll just leave with this final emoticon:
O_o
There are certain things fighters just can't do, and ToB addresses these things. Be a martyr or whatever else you want to do to make a point, but it doesn't change the fact the ToB helps close the gap of power between the tier 1s and the lower tiers, and therefore making a better balanced game in general. A DM wouldn't have to create new ways to nerf wizards, either consciously or subconsciously.
My DM balances out wizards by having encounters be about 6-10 a day, and we're always outnumbered 3-1, and then uses storyline "triggers" that would enable a "cut scene" to enable the story. Though I enjoy the game, it's become somewhat of a joke that we need to figure out a puzzle within the encounter to complete/end it. With a more balanced game, he wouldn't have to resort to these things.
Prices of magic items are 10x what is in the books. Also, we basically never get downtime. When we do, it takes a while to craft the weapons/armor that I don't see it again for another like 4 levels because of the length of the adventures. I'm a level 12 paladin with no magic armor, but tons of offensive options, though all of +1 variety, and customized DM rewards. For example, my paladin can call upon his god and gain +10 to my Strength for 1 minute per day. I've also gotten lots of STR boosting equipment that are unnamed bonuses for the obvious reasons that they stack. Being a level 12 paladin, I'm also the primary healer (fun, I know), assuming I don't get KOed within 3-4 rounds. Also, once in negative HP, we have a house rule that forces full bed rest in order to heal past 1 HP.
Yeah I know it sounds dumb, but everybody has their game they are used to in one form or another. The lack of healers is not a trait of the game, but instead interesting choices, and it's kinda amusing how we got to that point.
My other game with a totally different group and DM is run strictly by the book, and unfortunately, the tier system clearly shows in that one. Casters are clearly more powerful, and due to party deaths + resurrection costs, we're all fairly poor and can't afford anything. The game is fun, but the challenges are far more deadly since the DM is playing by the book, unlike my first DM, who uses those "triggers" to keep us alive and the plot running.
And example of the trigger is if we're fighting cultists. The head guy is laughing and saying semi-obvious things of "my altar is granting me power!". The DM then makes it clear by allowing that head guy to do insane physical or magic damage, and it drives us players to figure out the best way of staying alive to destroy that altar. The DM is a very good weaver of stories, so we enjoy the game.
/rant
As I said, I enjoy both games, even if there are frustating elements. But just because I enjoy the games, it doesn't mean there aren't problems with the system and/or balance within the classes. And in the end, in order to enjoy my games further, I want the games to be more balanced so the DM doesn't have to do it himself.
I actually considered trying a gestalt healer/monk, to see if that made a playable class. It seems closer to the idea of a monk I had from FFTactics.
Next to non-gestalt characters, that may hold its own considerably better, though you'd still end up dumping charisma. Maybe toss in Intuitive Attack to make wisdom primary, while maintaining so-so melee and skills?
(And on another note, in almost all the games I've ever run or played, enemy mages are typically of HIGHER level than the party, especially 2 levels higher to ensure access to one higher spell level, though I acknowledge my experiences may not reflect the general tendency)
I already covered that. An enemy mage two levels higher than the party is a CR X+2 encounter, meaning if that very high-level mage is wasting actions to counterspell one member of the party while leaving everyone else free reign, then the Wizard is singlehandedly negating a CR X+2 encounter, leaving everyone else free to manage without that tremendously powerful intervention. Yes, the CR X+2 mage may be keeping the Wizard down, but the enemy is bringing the full attention of a CR X+2 mage to do it (and the Wizard can still just bring out some wands and scrolls).
Wraithstrike's anecdote makes me wonder, if we use the 'wizards only learn spells at level up' rule, should new spells learned be 2+Int mod to account for the fact they aren't learning spells inbetween level ups? This would scale somewhat so wizards do get more at higher levels. The question is, how many is too many?
Personally, I wouldn't bother with such things. I'd be rid of the damnable spell preparation mechanic entirely, and then work off of the spontaneous casting base. And then implement spell points. And then just make the entire casting system work like psionics since that one runs so much more smoothly.
Going to reply to you point by point VV, rather than try to cut that open and reply to pieces directly.
Perhaps some fiddling to allow the Wizard more spells known but less spells per day, while still having a limit on spells known, can suffice.
Simply put, get rid of the scribing option. Wizards already get a good number of spells in their spellbook simply from leveling up, and there is a feat (Collegic Wizard, from complete Arcane) that can be taken to double it if the PC really wants more spells known.
Even a general list has discrepancies. Also, an enemy mage is liable to be lower level than the party, meaning she can't have the party Wizard's best spells at all.
Erm... for one it can be done with dispel magic, and a divine caster could easily have the caster level advantage via beads of kharma.
(And on another note, in almost all the games I've ever run or played, enemy mages are typically of HIGHER level than the party, especially 2 levels higher to ensure access to one higher spell level, though I acknowledge my experiences may not reflect the general tendency)
Stuff about tome of battle
I couldn't agree more, which is why in my games I've given Fighter full initiator level for everything except Shadow Hand, Devoted Spirit, and Desert Wind, and cut away the limits for taking the Martial Maneuver/Stance feats (and declared them combat feats incase they aren't, I haven't actually checked that point in a while)
Kyrt, you could also just make it so that people have to actually go out of their way to find different spell scrolls. Magemart is a common problem. Sure scrolls are available in every town by RAW, but the GMs specifically get to decide which spells, and if the wizard has them already, its his problem. It makes sense that horrible world breaking spells are guarded secrets.
VV, just because you get to buy stuff, it doesn't mean you can find what you are looking for. Not every mage gets to have every spell at their disposal. Thats a GM call.
As for the ToB making the fighter the equivalent of the mage, please no. It actually doesn't let the fighter do much more than fight, as it currently can do. It just gets some different options on how to do 1 thing. Thats like saying a mage can only memorize evocation spells. It adds some flavor, a lot of complexity, and not much of an overall benefit.