|
I'm just going to put this out there. A lot of people like to use the idea of a wizard in an anti-magic field as an example of when casters lose to warriors. This needs to stop.
If you have to remove an entire class feature to make your argument work, you have failed.
We don't accept 'cut the fighter's arm off and the wizard can punch him to death', why should we accept 'take away the wizards spells and the fighter can stabinate him'?
I don't care if AMF kills wizards. I don't care what BS pre-preparations you made to keep him in there. I don't care if the wizard can still Batman his way out of it.
The argument proves nothing except 'if I make you defenseless I win'.
|
When a wizard attacks a Fighter, is he using spells with Fort saves? Against the high Dex Rogue is he using touch attacks? Probably not, he is using spells that get around the targets natural defenses. How is that different than dropping said Wizzy into an AMF? It's a valid tactic, and an effective one.
While I somewhat agree with you - AMF is an exception and not really worth considering by itself that way - the point isn't usually that "wizards suck in AMF, so fighter is better" but that casters, and especially arcane casters, are more vulnerable than fighters. A single spell that has an area and no save, no SR, or anything like that can neutralize a high-level wizard in 6 seconds. You can't really do that with the fighter types.
And of course there's more to it than just the AMF - You can cause damage to him to stop his spells, you can't cause damage to a fighter to stop his attacks (unless the damage drops him). You can steal his spellbook and he's far worse of than a fighter who has his sword stolen. You can kill his familiar or destroy or steal his bonded object. And so on, and so on.
Antimagic Fields have been a staple of the game for a long time. In both published and homebrew campaigns i have played in they have come up relatively often in high level play. So why exactly is this an invalid example of a caster's weakness in a given situation. People bring up all the time that a melee based fighting type has a problem with an especially mobile enemy (flying burrowing etc). Why shouldnt AMF also be an example?
I'm with TOZ on this one. It takes little creativity and effort to create an extreme scenario that will result in one type of character being able to slaughter another, and little more for someone else to pick that scenario apart.
I think the reason some people go there so often is the dominant tendency on these boards for some people to take the line that arcane spellcasters are absolutely superior to all other classes.
My own take is that this is a pretty silly argument as it is all situational. All of the classes (even the much abused monk and bard) have situations in which they will excel above all other classes. And all of them have situations in which they will pretty much suck.
I do think that spellchuckers have a tendency to grow more powerful in relation to other classes as levels rise, but that's about as far as I'll go.
I'm with TOZ on this one. It takes little creativity and effort to create an extreme scenario that will result in one type of character being able to slaughter another, and little more for someone else to pick that scenario apart.
I think the reason some people go there so often is the dominant tendency on these boards for some people to take the line that arcane spellcasters are absolutely superior to all other classes.
My own take is that this is a pretty silly argument as it is all situational. All of the classes (even the much abused monk and bard) have situations in which they will excel above all other classes. And all of them have situations in which they will pretty much suck.
I do think that spellchuckers have a tendency to grow more powerful in relation to other classes as levels rise, but that's about as far as I'll go.
Certainly its situational, but in a world where big bads are quite aware of that rise in power you speak of, dont you think they would actively seak out a way to neutralize that power? Thats always been the crux of it. Its a fairly simple thing to get a hold of. Its just a spell, and while it's situational, intelligent enemies have an interest in creating that situation and at high levels have the meants to do it.
I am reminded of the OOTS comic where V fights the dragon on that island. Here an intelligent enemy with access to spells has a very good reason to use an antimagic field. With one spell the dragon, though reducing some of it's power has compeltely eliminated one character from the combat, and weakened the others (when their magic goodies go poof while in the field). Most of the high level dragons i have faced have used this tactic, and they arent the only enemy it makes sense for. And that is just using the spell and not putting it in a trap, or other item of some kind.
[
Certainly its situational, but in a world where big bads are quite aware of that rise in power you speak of, dont you think they would actively seak out a way to neutralize that power? Thats always been the crux of it. Its a fairly simple thing to get a hold of. Its just a spell, and while it's situational, intelligent enemies have an interest in creating that situation and at high levels have the meants to do it.I am reminded of the OOTS comic where V fights the dragon on that island. Here an intelligent enemy with access to spells has a very good reason to use an antimagic field. With one spell the dragon, though reducing some of it's power has compeltely eliminated one character from the combat, and weakened the others (when their magic goodies go poof while in the field). Most of the high level dragons i have faced have used this tactic, and they arent the only enemy it makes sense for. And that is just using the spell and not putting it in a trap, or other item of some kind.
Yep. Loved that strip and seeing V get his come-uppance after being such a jerk for so long. Only points I would make is that AMF is only available at fairly high levels, and if it becomes a frequent tactic high-level spellcasters will draw on their considerable resources to counter. That's part of the beauty of the game, IMHO, for every tactic someone will eventually find a counter. Nothing reigns supreme forever.
I used the same concept in GURPS in regards to low, or no mana zones, which is the equivalent of anti-magic field. You could almost guarantee this would be found in maximum security dungeons (for a lack of a better term) or used by nobles to protect certain areas. It always made the magic users second guess themselves when going into a well informed and highly fortified area or structure. There was no more I will just cast a spell to get out of any situation.
As to anti-magic field argument, you may just have to concede that point, as it is not worth arguing. But it is a very specific set of circumstances that is not easy to maintain.
|
|
Note to self: post disclaimer of 'This is not a gameworld discussion'.
I don't care if AMF kills wizards. I don't care what BS pre-preparations you made to keep him in there. I don't care if the wizard can still Batman his way out of it.
The argument proves nothing except 'if I make you defenseless I win'.
We don't accept 'cut the fighter's arm off and the wizard can punch him to death', why should we accept 'take away the wizards spells and the fighter can stabinate him'?
For some reason, I really want to see this...A bullying fighter has been picking on an enemy wizard his whole life. Suddenly he loses an arm, a leg or something that serious affects his combat effectiveness in the middle of battle. The wizard takes off his pointy hat, puts down his staff and spellbook, and advances on the crippled fighter whilst cracking his knuckles, muttering "I'm going to enjoy this..."
There are spell that remove a fighters ability to fight. Hold person does exactly that. Sure Hold offers a save but AMF just requires a wizard to make a single move action to leave the area.
|
|
There are spell that remove a fighters ability to fight. Hold person does exactly that. Sure Hold offers a save but AMF just requires a wizard to make a single move action to leave the area.
*facepalm*
I don't care about the spell in game. I care about people using it in rules arguments.
If you have to remove an entire class feature to make your argument work, you have failed.
Oh fine, I'll bite.
What arguments are these, more specifically?
I have seen people (I have in fact been people) who mention the spell, normally in response to a lengthy argument about various, specific spells which are "win buttons" for wizards. For example, someone might say something generally along the lines of, "Only arcane casters can cast overland flight, which gives them the best mobility, and therefore they have a win button no one else has."
And someone might reply something along the lines of, "If you're talking about specific, circumstantial spells that are "win-buttons," then antimagic field is the biggest win-button of them all."
The argument that I recall observing isn't that the antimagic field spell makes wizards suck as a class. The argument is that arguing about the strength of a class according to specific, very circumstantial spells results is fundamentally flawed--by using a specific, very circumstantial spell as an example.
And if that general concept in fact what you are truly getting at, then I agree.
However, I'm not going to say antimagic field isn't a weakness for arcane casters, because it is. BUT at the same time, of course it should go without saying that is not the only one, and it is one very specific one against a lot of very powerful strengths, etc. etc. etc. and that one circumstance does not make it better or worse than any other class--and the same applies to various other circumstances people like to apply to show that their least favorite class is "weak" as well.
I see what TOZ is saying (I hate perceived "I win" buttons in arguments)... though I do have to say this.
Against a lot of monsters, AMF makes any class suck, not just Wizards. Take away a Fighter's magical gear and that monster with DR/magic that would have been a breeze before has just become a whole lot tougher.
Plus, you know... I like making my mages elves so they still have Longswords and Longbows to fall back on should they be denied access to their spells. It's not as good as a Fighter's ability, but it's better than helpless.
I'm just going to put this out there. A lot of people like to use the idea of a wizard in an anti-magic field as an example of when casters lose to warriors. This needs to stop.…
Threads like this need to stop. They're so ridiculous.
And you posting in them is just the cure. :P
Hey, if it's never said, it'll never be addressed ;P
I'm just going to put this out there. A lot of people like to use the idea of a wizard in an anti-magic field as an example of when casters lose to warriors. This needs to stop.
If you have to remove an entire class feature to make your argument work, you have failed.
We don't accept 'cut the fighter's arm off and the wizard can punch him to death', why should we accept 'take away the wizards spells and the fighter can stabinate him'?
I don't care if AMF kills wizards. I don't care what BS pre-preparations you made to keep him in there. I don't care if the wizard can still Batman his way out of it.
The argument proves nothing except 'if I make you defenseless I win'.
What recent thread sparked your motivation to go after the anti magic area argument, just curious.
the wizards are lucky that anti magic field is one of thier only weakensses. there are so many ways to completely shut off a rogue's sneak attack. a lot more ways than there are to shut off a spellcaster.
i don't get why a wizard, the most powerful class in the game is merely only shut off completely by a single situational spell while a rogue, who is much lower in tier can get thier core ability cut off in a lot more methods. lets have somebody list the many more ways you can cut off a rogues sneak attack. any volunteers?
Yeah, well if my rouge catches your <insert class here> asleep, then he'll kill him with, like, one hit dood! So like I soooooo win the interwebz!
I follow what TOZ is saying, and it.
i dislike how martial classes can't get nice things. why else do i like tome of battle? martial classes lack options. said martial classes have only 2 options, deal massive DPR or Fail to contribute to the combat. almost all of a rogue's DPR comes from a source that is to easy to remove from the equation. a wizard merely has to move to escape his one weakness, the anti magic field. but it isn't so easy to escape any of the nearly endless amount of ways to negate sneak attack.
|
|
i dislike how martial classes can't get nice things. why else do i like tome of battle? martial classes lack options. said martial classes have only 2 options, deal massive DPR or Fail to contribute to the combat. almost all of a rogue's DPR comes from a source that is to easy to remove from the equation. a wizard merely has to move to escape his one weakness, the anti magic field. but it isn't so easy to escape any of the nearly endless amount of ways to negate sneak attack.Yeah, well if my rouge catches your <insert class here> asleep, then he'll kill him with, like, one hit dood! So like I soooooo win the interwebz!
I follow what TOZ is saying, and it.
I think martial classes do fine, but our play style may be different than yours. I feel they did a pretty good job of balancing the classes, but I will agree that at higher levels a wizard/caster can easily sway the tide of any battle.
My rouge comment was pointing out the silliness of some of the ClassX is the suxors, or ClassY is totally overpowered arguments we see way to many of around here.
Rogues aren't meant to be massive DPR monsters except when their tricky ways permit them to set up sneak attacks. Sure, many monster types are immune, but many are not. More importantly, they do the scouting, the trapspotting / disarming, they likely work out the more obscure magical items and puzzles the group finds (UMD = awesome skill), they're backup spellcasters and healers and fighters in combat (Fighter: well guys, the cleric is dying, and no one has the Heal skill. And he's at -12. Give up and go home? Rogue: Or I could just activate this Cure Serious Wounds wand I found in his pocket. *CSW* welcome back Cleric! Cleric: Oh, I'm ok! But I seem to be missing a few wands...)
Fighters fail to contribute to anything besides combat. He SHOULD outshine the Rogue in combat. But a smart Fighter will move to help the Rogue flank. More than any other class, rogues benefit from teamwork.
"How do I do my sneak attack damage? oh noes!"
Actually attack from surprise (can do it twice with a decent initiative, once in surprise round once (as a full attack!) while target is still flat-footed in the first round of combat); flank with anything that threatens the target (hey wizard, do you need your cat for a minute? Can you have him set me up a flank? BOOM +10d6!); Make use of feinting / the Improved Flank feat; have the Wizard throw a spell that sets up sneak attack (Hold Person and Deep Slumber come to mind, but there are lots of situations in which you can sneak attack thanks to conditions caused by spells)...
almost my entire weekly game is combat. i'm not even the dm. our scenarios consist of fighting, looting, preparing for the next fight and getting to the next fight. my views of class power level may be a little messed up brcause of it.
Against a lot of monsters, AMF makes any class suck, not just Wizards. Take away a Fighter's magical gear and that monster with DR/magic that would have been a breeze before has just become a whole lot tougher.
Very much this. Dragons with antimagic field win against every class. No one can compete with a high-age-category dragon's physical attacks, speed, and defenses without magic. Hell, they can just grapple one target at a time and full attack them to death from 1000 feet in the air.
|
|
Or just drop them. 100d6 is pretty impressive.Against a lot of monsters, AMF makes any class suck, not just Wizards. Take away a Fighter's magical gear and that monster with DR/magic that would have been a breeze before has just become a whole lot tougher.Very much this. Dragons with antimagic field win against every class. No one can compete with a high-age-category dragon's physical attacks, speed, and defenses without magic. Hell, they can just grapple one target at a time and full attack them to death from 1000 feet in the air.
Max 20d6 for falling but sure... it'd be more humiliating to just keep dropping them to death. then just taking the opportunity to full attack them.