Can you explain to me explicitly how it is that a caster should be expected to defeat an iron golem trivially at an appropriate CR? I'm not actively disagreeing, this just runs contrary to my experience. And I'm sorry if I am making you repeat yourself.
I mean, yes, there's always grease, and any good caster keeps grease prepared because it subverts SR, I get it — but you seem to be reaching a conclusion of "trivial" where I still see a chance for the enemy to make saves and cause serious problems. Do you know something I don't, is what I want to know?
I still don't see this as being trivial either. Sure, if the golem is tucked out of the way in a remote corner somewhere, maybe. Or if it's a random, wandering monster, ok.
But it is not difficult to imagine a situation in which the party must move within very close range of a golem's position to accomplish something (open a door, whatever). If the golem's creator wasn't a complete idiot, he/she might have some awareness of magical tactics. It's hard to imagine a caster powerful enough to create a golem not anticipating how easily it could be overcome by grease, etc., and trying to have some provision for the tactic.
These spells will give the party an advantage, but I can't see how a golem would be rendered useless or totally defeated by them in any well designed scenario.
Okay, I see.
But it is really a guardian monster, though — so anything that fails to remove it fails to defeat it.
Still your point is taken.
Okay, I see.
But it is really a guardian monster, though — so anything that fails to remove it fails to defeat it.
Still your point is taken.
Erm, if it's guarding something all you need to do is get past it, get what it's guarding, and get out.
Also, as an interesting point, one time a party of mine captured a golemn in a portable pit (magic item compendium I think) brought it home with us along with all the treasure, deprogrammed it, and sold it to the highest bidder.
I see where you guys are coming from - though I still don't think it has to be as easy as all that, particularly if the encounter is well designed.
My main objection was to the characterization of golems as essentially no more difficult than kobolds (paraphrasing...).
I see where you guys are coming from - though I still don't think it has to be as easy as all that, particularly if the encounter is well designed.My main objection was to the characterization of golems as essentially no more difficult than kobolds (paraphrasing...).
Somebody's going to argue with that...
Anyway, it just drives home the point that player expertise is a factor in encounter balance. I would argue that it is is a bigger factor for so-called higher-tier characters, since prepared spell selection counts for so much. This is one of the more promising potential uses for tier analysis, I think.
Folks like MiB are probably statistical outliers, as far as players go, who really get the most out of the wizard. I suspect if you took the mean average of player experience/investment, you would get very different results out of the same exact characters.
To my mind, expertise has always been the balancing element that was unaccounted for in much analysis, because the analysis was always being performed by expert players. It may well be that high tier classes are always the best able to solve problems when there is an expert player behind them, but I have seen with my own eyes how badly inexperienced players can suffer from an overabundance of choices.
Player expertise vs. class is a very important consideration for any GM, and thinking about it now it seems like Tiers are particularly well suited to that. Perhaps I'm converting after all.
I see where you guys are coming from - though I still don't think it has to be as easy as all that, particularly if the encounter is well designed.My main objection was to the characterization of golems as essentially no more difficult than kobolds (paraphrasing...).
Somebody's going to argue with that...
Anyway, it just drives home the point that player expertise is a factor in encounter balance. I would argue that it is is a bigger factor for so-called higher-tier characters, since prepared spell selection counts for so much. This is one of the more promising potential uses for tier analysis, I think.
Folks like MiB are probably statistical outliers, as far as players go, who really get the most out of the wizard. I suspect if you took the mean average of player experience/investment, you would get very different results out of the same exact characters.
To my mind, expertise has always been the balancing element that was unaccounted for in much analysis, because the analysis was always being performed by expert players. It may well be that high tier classes are always the best able to solve problems when there is an expert player behind them, but I have seen with my own eyes how badly inexperienced players can suffer from an overabundance of choices.
Player expertise vs. class is a very important consideration for any GM, and thinking about it now it seems like Tiers are particularly well suited to that. Perhaps I'm converting after all.
Arguing is fair enough :)
Though if golems have become so routine and easy based on *player* expertise, there are two problems. First, the players may be assuming knowledge that their characters wouldn't have (it's hard to separate, but still). Second, the DM may not be making enough of an effort to challenge them.
There was a fantastic post a while back with an unusual golem - gave even expert players fits, if I remember it right. I'll spend a few minutes now trying to find it...
ok, here is what I was thinking of (The Scarecrow - not the typical mindless golem, but if it appears to be.... evil laughter):
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/community/gaming/campaignJournals/aMad mansCoTAndBeyondCampaignJournal&page=2
If the analysis of the game assumes expert players with a brain-dead DM, then that's another reason for the analysis to be suspect, in my opinion.
The point is, that if an encounter is way too easy based on player knowledge, then the DM should make an effort to surprise the players :)
But that is certainly difficult to accommodate in an analysis of character classes...
Folks like MiB are probably statistical outliers, as far as players go, who really get the most out of the wizard. I suspect if you took the mean average of player experience/investment, you would get very different results out of the same exact characters.
Just to respond to this separately - I don't think many of the strategies proposed by MiB are so much "getting the most out of the wizard" as they reflect poor DMing if they work as advertised.
I'm not saying the DM has to screw over the players by fiat, or even go out of the way to do anything unusual, but just that the particular examples given seem to rely not only on golems that are more mindless than mindless, but also on the mindlessness of golem-creators who haven't given a single thought to the environment the golems are in or the tactics that might be used to defeat them.
Omitting such considerations from an analysis skews the analysis, and in this case makes the wizard seem more powerful than they might really be.
Now, MiB has a definite point that a wizard can cause problems for a golem with minimal expenditure of resources, and that it *might* be possible to avoid direct combat with a golem using tactics like these (which are smart after all, I don't mean to minimize the clever application of spells).
|
For the Golem - You could always have the golem holding the object that's being guarded :) (or have said object built into the golem).
I was a little disapointed to read you just don't use them MiB, I actually thought with your creative ability you'd have come up with some really good workaround for a golems limitations.
This is off topic but wanted to share here any way - Golems in my games work like robots or computers. The higher the CR of a golem the more complex the programming that can go into it during creation. It breaks from RAW a little in terms of the idea behind golems. However it means i still have some scary SOBs for use against players that aren't necessarily negated by simple first level spells. It also fits with teh "mindless" concept, since they're only following programming, not reasoing or remembering anything.
In terms of the "simple command from its owner" line in the pathfnder bestiary, that comes down to "Follow programme theta until my return". Now prgramme theta could have any number of options in it following a simple yes/no prgramming system.
Important to note, my players know this rule so they aren't upset when their illusions don't always work. They also understand that higher CR golems take higher level spells to work around. Illusions and clever spell use can still do it, but they have to think more about it.
Sorry for the thread jack.
Cheers
Given that, my parties were always reluctant to go face to face, and spellcasters were even less willing. In my case, I would expect spellcaster to try summons or employ different expandable resource before committing oneself to such rash action - BBEG waiting for you beyond Wall of Force should turn on all alarms.
Another thing (as per Pathfinder PRD): Breath weapons and spells cannot pass through a wall of force in either direction, although dimension door, teleport, and similar effects can bypass the barrier. It blocks ethereal creatures as well as material ones (though ethereal creatures can usually circumvent the wall by going around it, through material floors and ceilings). Gaze attacks can operate through a wall of force.
This...
Regarding refraction, it's possible the party wizard might notice something unusual. I didn't consider light refraction in this particular instance, though if a player had specifically asked whether their light seemed to look a little funny beyond the wall of force, I would certainly allow a Perception check.
Regarding summoning, you must have line of effect to the space you wish the summoned monster to arrive in, which wall of force blocks.
Regarding gaze attacks, most monsters that have them have DCs that this BBEG could reliably make the saves against.
You could tunnel/passwall/etc. into the chamber, but that would flood the outside corridor with acid.
I'm still curious to hear the advocates debunk my suggestion that Tiers might be well suited to analyzing player experience as it interacts with class. Just hanging that out there.
AMiB, you're making a type of argument that I take issue with — mainly presuming a wizard has a complete spell selection and perfect "intelligence" at spell prep time — and also that the golem is encountered when the wizard has all his spells, or otherwise assuming he has a large pile of gold to craft situational spells.
I'm not sniping you for making this case, but "trivial" is strong language. That's a number of ideal assumptions made in what seems to me like a vacuum situation.
Is it really that easy for people to have the right spells all of the time? I'm beginning to feel like a dunce, because in the context of a real campaign I just don't think I could make it work that well without cheating. This goes also for the low level splat spells vs. tarrasque situation. I think a lot of these problems vanish once you put them in the context of an actual, ongoing campaign with no GM "blind spots".
Can you expand a little on the above concept for me? (You know I'm keepin' On Topic baby)
I just wanted to point out that, often enough, the wizard DOES have enough gold to craft situational spells. Fightan types have to spend all their gold on magic items. Casting types, well, don't. They're much more able to buy - or make - conditional items or situational wands/scrolls.
I'm still curious to hear the advocates debunk my suggestion that Tiers might be well suited to analyzing player experience as it interacts with class. Just hanging that out there.
Explain? I am thinking you are saying player experience is just as important as the tier analysis. If that is what you are saying we agreed to that a long time ago. We have never said use the tier analysis alone.
Low tier characters don't get as much better when you apply greater amounts of skill, while higher-tier characters do. More on this later.
Interesting observation! By "skill" do you mean "player expertise"?
Interesting observation! By "skill" do you mean "player expertise"?Yes.
Hmm. Already it sounds very plausible - I'm curious to see how you nail it down, and if anyone disagrees.
I don't derive much fun from criticizing the design of the game — it is what it is, and it "works" because myself and others have fun playing. So a lot of what you just said, AMiB, is in one ear and out the other for me. Not wrong, I just don't care. Spilt milk, and whatnot.
However I am very interested by what you said about player expertise and Tiers interacting. For me, this must be the single most relevant concept yet touched upon in this thread.
I will agree with you provocatively then, and say that this expertise-tier interaction is actually a good game design for an RPG. I have always lauded non-4e D&D as the only game system that it is truly fun to play a wizard in, because to play one effectively, you must pore over arcane tomes. You, as a player must invest the time to learning a backwards set of rules driven by exception and legacy and not much common sense. It's magic! And the system doesn't restrict you in this endeavor: that arcane power is there for the taking. A smart player can get more out of it. I really like that!
That said, Tiers might be very useful for a GM — especially one with limited expertise of his own — for predicting the resulting power level from expertise-class interactions. This of all things jives well will my personal experience. I'm never dealing with a wizard who has remotely the expertise of some of the forumites here.
So yes, we both agree it is there. I happen to think it is a good thing. And it is also the most useful application of "Tiers" for me as a GM, since expertise interactions with class is something I have often wished there was a clearer explanation for.
That's right, I formally capitulate that there may be an excellent use for Tier analysis. I still have serious problems with the way it is applied by many people, and with ambiguities in it's declaration of purpose. But hey, this thing, right here, I think, could be useful to consider.
More effective as a group in achieving their goals. When playing a campaign/module, would a group be better of with 4x or 5x a tier 1 class, or a more even distribution of classes (ie: cleric, wizard, rogue, fighter the so called-classic group).I'm curious, would the advocates of the tiers feel a party is more effective with say 4 wizards or 4 clerics compared to a group with a broader range of classes/tiers (say fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard or similar)?More effective at... ? As far down as tier 4, even low-tiers will get to shine sometimes. The problem is not that the low tiers are useless, but that there is a gross imbalance in the ability to solve challenges.
My prediction would be that a group of 1st level tier 1s would have to play with exceptional caution to make it to 2nd level. Once they hit about 5th level, a group of tier 1s (provided a cleric or other healer was among them) could do quite well for the rest of the campaign.
|
My prediction would be that a group of 1st level tier 1s would have to play with exceptional caution to make it to 2nd level. Once they hit about 5th level, a group of tier 1s (provided a cleric or other healer was among them) could do quite well for the rest of the campaign.
Most clearly the case for a group of 4 wizards, although if using non-core stuff (like the Unearthed Arcana Necromancer variant that comes with a free skeleton pet), things get easier.
A group of 4 clerics (preferably with an interesting mix of domains) or 4 druids (with at least a couple of animal companions) is just gravy. A group of 4 Pathfinder paladins could be pretty darn scary, I suspect. I've played in a group of mostly barbarian females named Q'Lys (we did have a cleric, but we were charging and raging the whole time, and she never got off a single cure spell, because she was always running to keep up) during a dungeon delve at GenCon, and I suspect that if there was some sort of Rage power that allowed fast healing or a surge of healing, they could probably function on their own as well.
My prediction would be that a group of 1st level tier 1s would have to play with exceptional caution to make it to 2nd level. Once they hit about 5th level, a group of tier 1s (provided a cleric or other healer was among them) could do quite well for the rest of the campaign.More effective as a group in achieving their goals. When playing a campaign/module, would a group be better of with 4x or 5x a tier 1 class, or a more even distribution of classes (ie: cleric, wizard, rogue, fighter the so called-classic group).I'm curious, would the advocates of the tiers feel a party is more effective with say 4 wizards or 4 clerics compared to a group with a broader range of classes/tiers (say fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard or similar)?More effective at... ? As far down as tier 4, even low-tiers will get to shine sometimes. The problem is not that the low tiers are useless, but that there is a gross imbalance in the ability to solve challenges.
If they're all wizards, sure. But clerics start with just as much armor and only a little less health then fighters do, and only get better and better then fighters as they go on - they flat out start good. Druids get an animal companion at level one that can, right from the start, be better then a rogue at harrying enemies - and again, only gets better.
The border between mediums of different density (such as liquid and gas) is rather distinct (unless, of course, you houserule this as possible result of Wall of Force). Not to mention that things like hair, clothes and other loose object tend to float. These would be telltale signs, and woe to a GM who would attempt to avoid mentioning stuff like that - it would be tantamount to describing a charging knight and conveniently omitting knight's armor.
I did specify that BBEG was careful not to wear anything that gives away the fact that he is in liquid. At any rate, some illusion magic could make the trick more convincing. (Of course, the wizard could be wearing a robe of eyes, or have arcane sight going . . .)
Summons work fine on the caster's side of the wall. Since BBEG is sitting on the other side, you have all the time in the world (i.e. a minute) to prepare.Soften Earth and Stone (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/softenEarthAndStone.html#soften- earth-and-stone), also usable by Earth Mephit.
Check ceiling differences between chamber and corridor. Use the spell to create a makeshift gutter.So, one carefully cast 2nd level spell or carefully directed 4th level summon monster to open the way to chamber (above the Wall of Force), and then we can use all the Water Elementals we can muster.
I must admit, the earth mephit creating a gutter is a good solution to letting out some of the acid (if we assume the party IS aware of the acid), but I don't think water elementals are immune to acid damage, are they? At any rate, if BBEG sees that summoned monsters are dismantling his acid tank, he could disintegrate the wall of force, emptying acid all at once onto the party and their summoned critters.
Regarding gaze attacks - rule of natural one. So, unless BBEGs likes to take chances, he is not going to be looking at you (well, of course, he can have a mirror).
This is not much...
5% chance? I think I take that chance of getting into an accident every time I drive in my town (it's a popular place for old people to retire) :P
I still think it stands as a fairly good wizard trap, but I never said it was 100% foolproof, and I'm sure there are multiple ways for a thoughtful player to bypass the trap.
Ug, I'm about ready for an off topic acid bath myself.
Ug, I'm about ready for an off topic acid bath myself.
LOL, c'mon! We could talk about my acid trap for months to come! J/K. I promise not to beat the dead horse anymore.
I find the idea that the 'tier' system is combined with player experitise to be very in line with my experience. I think there is a multiplicative interaction there. A High Expertise character playing a tier 2, 3 or even 4 character could easily be more powerful then a Mid to Low expertise character playing a tier 1 class. For instance, I had a friend who built a heck of a 3.5 reach/melee fighter by combining things like stand still, some stances from ToB that made 5ft steps provoke attacks of opportunity and made it impossible to cast defensively in his threatened space. Add to that a guisarme, a solid ability to trip, and having a magic item that could make him enlarged (in addition to the casters actually enlarging him) he rules the battle field. In that same party there was a cleric played by a low expertise player that really didnt take advantage of many of the clerics strengths. So in that case at least the expertise/Tier interaction was pretty clear.
I also think that there is an exponential growth of 'reward' for the high tier classes when expertise is applied. Most Tier 1 classes played by low expertise players will seem fairly impotent. Poor spell choice, or a lack of understanding on how to apply their abilities can lead to very little return for the player. Those low expertise players are likely better off in tier 2-3 classes that yield far better results for them.
The mid-range expertise players will likely get a good return for playing a tier 1 character and slightly less proportional gain from playing a lower tier class.
The high expertise player will get rediculous returns from a tier 1 class, and get much smaller returns for a lower tier class. That player put alot of knowledge of the game into making that fighter dominant. If that same effort/expertise were applied to a wizard (which he has done) the character would have been rather godlike.
Can we take the acid discussion to a different thread? It's far past being relevant here, it's turning into a "Haha, but the villain would have been prepared for that eventuality!", and I really don't want this to turn into the last thread, which degenerated into a discussion of whether SOSL sucks as a GM or not.
[Pokes dead horse with stick one more time]
Okay, I'm done.
Investing in properly arranged Planar Ally seems like a...
I expected some sparring, and you spar well, sir! Regardless of what would happen, it is clear that we should detract from the original topic no further, so on with the tiers.
Regards, MJ
There's nothing wrong with a game focused on high-tier characters. The problem is once you set the power level at the pure spellcaster level (generally tiers 1-3), then players who choose classes that do not reward player expertise end up playing BMX Bandit at best and contribute nothing at all at worst.
I'm all for a 3e that rewards all players the way a wizard is rewarded, but it's not the 3e we have, unfortunately.
BMX Bandit in the hands of a high-tier player...