Epic Meepo wrote: Mistah Green wrote: If I were running this encounter and it were 3.5 with a wizard 12 and 4 rogue 6s it would go something like this: In my experience, every member of a pre-buffed raiding party of 10th-level spellcasters with Spell Compendium spells would have blindsight, concealment, and a fly speed, rendering the rogues irrelevant.
At that point, the druid and animal companion flying-charge-pounce-kill rogues at a rate of two per round. The rest of the party spams a few spells to counteract or dispel everything the wizard has cast and will cast for the remainder of the encounter (since they don't have to divide their efforts between multiple spellcasting opponents). Then the druid and animal companion flying-charge-pounce-kill the no-longer-buffed wizard.
Sure, the party expends a few resources. And I'll concede that the wizard obviously costs the party several more spell slots/wand charges than the magus. But you're still not describing anything that I would consider to be a boss fight in a power-optimized game. For that, there would have to be multiple spellcasters working together, not just a magus or wizard with non-casting bodyguards. Short of that, it's just a speedbump. Don't misunderstand me. I never said non casters were a credible threat. Especially not ones about as strong as a theoretical cohort's cohort.
With that said a fly speed wouldn't help them inside, and blindsight wouldn't stop a grease powered SA. Concealment would still work though, as would just popping a mass resist acid to take their 4-24 down to 0-4. And if they showed up about oh... 1 level from now, we'd all have heavy fort.
As for expending resources, that is what encounters you walk away from tend to do. The more you use the harder it was. But it's not supposed to kill the whole party, just make them work for it.
The point I was trying to make is that the 3.5 Rogues could at least attempt to put up a fight before they all get knocked off the board with Glitterdust or something. The PF Rogue can't even make it that far.
Kurukami wrote: Agreed. If I were designing that to be an actual challenge? I'd absolutely throw in some golems. Not that they'd be tremendously effective against a pair of Spell Compendium wizards tossing orbs, but they'd definitely be moreso than a bunch of book-standard 6th level rogues. Golems are extremely weak against magic. Not that 6th level Rogues aren't, but we could blow through something like this about as easily as one, but for a lot more XP.
FatR wrote: Aelryinth wrote: Facing a party of all spellcasters? I'd just buy some Dust of Negation and pepper them. Too bad you can't, because one dose costs more than half of a 6th level NPC WBL. Besides, the only thing that an attempt at such a move can possibly accomplish is making players stop being laid-back and nice to their GM, by using essentially fighter adventuring tactics, except with bigger guns, and prompt them to be serious, starting from just using their spells to be stealthy and ambush everyone, who is not using magical detection 24/7.
That said, while your advice is worse than worthless, I somehow doubt that was an actual play example, rather than elaborate trolling attempt.
His advice is worse than useless. Even if the Druid nicely stood there in a 10 foot radius effect instead of taking a few steps back, and even if they were all able to hit him 16d6 is not going to kill him. Anti magic fields are the same as putting a big sign on that says 'Aim your Conjuration (creation) spells here.'
And we are playing nice with the DM. I called this mindless flash and slash a few times, and I meant it. So we're all practically optimized, using common sense tactics but none of us, including the DM is really pulling out the advanced stunts. We save those for our 3.5 game.
It looks like your DM just isn't challenging you. If you think that's a bad thing, I wouldn't blame Pathfinder. I'd blame the DM. Of course, plenty of folks like to play this game in a mindless hack-and-slash way. Maybe you're one of them.
In my opinion, those rogues should have been at least the party's level (if not greater) to present a threat. I don't care what the CR system says about a balanced encounter, a 10th-level party won't care about four 6th-level characters enough to give them a second glance.
Designing encounters is hard.
Lyrax wrote: It looks like your DM just isn't challenging you. If you think that's a bad thing, I wouldn't blame Pathfinder. I'd blame the DM. Of course, plenty of folks like to play this game in a mindless hack-and-slash way. Maybe you're one of them.
In my opinion, those rogues should have been at least the party's level (if not greater) to present a threat. I don't care what the CR system says about a balanced encounter, a 10th-level party won't care about four 6th-level characters enough to give them a second glance.
Designing encounters is hard.
Our DM originally picked up PF because he believed it was a new and improved 3.5 that fixed many of the balance flaws it had.
One of our players was very familiar with PF at the time but said nothing at first. I had no familiarity with it when I first started. And there were two other players that are no longer with us that could best be described as basket weavers.
So the Druid (the other player) was a Druid, I was just playing it like 3.5, and the other two (fighter and rogue, for what it's worth) were not even a factor in any tactical discussion.
Three sessions in the fighter and the rogue got booted for disrespecting everyone OOC. They were replaced by different players who are our Cleric and other Wizard.
Over time we all realized that not only had PF not fixed Linear Warriors Quadratic Wizards, they made it worse. The DM was considering calling the game off at this point because and I quote "The only reason I bought it is because I thought it leveled the playing field. It didn't, casters are stronger than ever before."
We all agreed with this assessment, and the only reason the game wasn't canceled outright in favor of running a 3.5 game is because someone pointed out that just running through and 'owning everything' (air quotes) wasn't a bad thing in limited doses and that we could leave the PF game up for that, while having our 3.5 game for serious play. The term flash and slash was also coined around this time.
So that's what we did. Just started treating PF is only a means of playing godmode casters, while our 3.5 game had significantly more balance to it as a result of free house rules.
Now with all that said he doesn't deliberately make encounters easy, it's just that PF makes casters so incredibly awesome nothing the opponent does really matters.
And this is just practical optimization. We could get mean about it, but there's no point as even playing normally it becomes mindless flash and slash, and PF cannot provide anything else more in depth than this.
Mistah Green wrote: Lyrax wrote: It looks like your DM just isn't challenging you. If you think that's a bad thing, I wouldn't blame Pathfinder. I'd blame the DM. Of course, plenty of folks like to play this game in a mindless hack-and-slash way. Maybe you're one of them.
In my opinion, those rogues should have been at least the party's level (if not greater) to present a threat. I don't care what the CR system says about a balanced encounter, a 10th-level party won't care about four 6th-level characters enough to give them a second glance.
Designing encounters is hard.
Our DM originally picked up PF because he believed it was a new and improved 3.5 that fixed many of the balance flaws it had.
One of our players was very familiar with PF at the time but said nothing at first. I had no familiarity with it when I first started. And there were two other players that are no longer with us that could best be described as basket weavers.
So the Druid (the other player) was a Druid, I was just playing it like 3.5, and the other two (fighter and rogue, for what it's worth) were not even a factor in any tactical discussion.
Three sessions in the fighter and the rogue got booted for disrespecting everyone OOC. They were replaced by different players who are our Cleric and other Wizard.
Over time we all realized that not only had PF not fixed Linear Warriors Quadratic Wizards, they made it worse. The DM was considering calling the game off at this point because and I quote "The only reason I bought it is because I thought it leveled the playing field. It didn't, casters are stronger than ever before."
We all agreed with this assessment, and the only reason the game wasn't canceled outright in favor of running a 3.5 game is because someone pointed out that just running through and 'owning everything' (air quotes) wasn't a bad thing in limited doses and that we could leave the PF game up for that, while having our 3.5 game for serious play. The term flash and slash was also coined around this time.
So... I can think of dozens of ways to actually make that fight challenging, without changing the opponents at all. A couple of simple traps ahead of time, a secret door, some 1st level spells, and you could not have run through the rest of the dungeon like it wasn't there. This eliminates many of your round and minute/level buffs and greatly reduces your effectiveness. From there, you can design the encounter with the rogues to matter. Personally, I would have added a bard to the fight so they hit you more.
The biggest drawback to casters the GM is allowing you to completely ignore. Your limmitted resources are not an issue for you, which is a problem. The biggest ballancing factor for Pathfinder to casters was to the spells, but you are using the spell compendium, which has some truely insanely powered spells. Your GM is allowing you to go easymode with cannons, and you are wondering why the other classes can't pull their weight. The other classes have no issue keeping up in most games.
I'd say there were around a dozen traps that session. We zerged them all. It wasn't even a thing. Traps only bother you if you buy into that crap about needing a Rogue and move at a snail's pace through the dungeon (mansion), letting all your buffs expire.
Secret doors are obviously not foiled by 1st level spells... oh wait...
Which 1st level spells? Only good one here is Alarm. Magus can't cast that.
Bards got nerfed hard in PF. Our 3.5 game has someone with a Bard cohort simply for the disproportionately large bonus to make finishing off enemies faster. But PF? Too weak to care about.
Our 'limited resources' aren't a problem because encounters get resolved with 1 spell per person or less. Efficiency is good like that.
If we were not using Spell Compendium, every enemy encounter would have significantly lower saves. As long as any of us go first, we win on move 1. We actually asked for SC to be added because it nerfed us by slowing down save or loses a bit. If you think SC helps much on offense you haven't paid much attention to your core spells. Core is still god when it comes to caster offense. It just doesn't provide much defense. Go first or lose.
Lastly when I say the other classes can't pull their weight, I mean compared to the opposition.
When a problem comes up, at least one of us can do something about it. The Fighter's role in all this is to stand there stupidly and wait for someone to tell him exactly what to do, comb his hair, and pack his lunch for him.
Were there a Fighter in this party the best he could do was join the Druid in finishing off debilitated foes... except that's all he can do, and the Druid has many other talents.
Out of combat? Druid has Diplomacy, I think the Cleric has Diplomacy, we all have utility spells, Wizards have Knowledge skills...
Fighter has "Are there any girls there?"
Net contribution out of combat = 0. Net contribution in combat = minimal. Having a bunch of casters means we can get through encounters anyways, but we'd be dragging a piker through it. And let me tell you something. Pikers stop being funny very fast in a game where you're supposed to take opponents seriously. It's not like DDO where you take them anyways sometime just to laugh as they die to stupid stuff.
I removed an excessively antagonistic post.
Mistah Green wrote: With that said a fly speed wouldn't help them inside, and blindsight wouldn't stop a grease powered SA. Actually, the fly speed stops grease-powered sneak attacks, because you aren't touching the ground, and can therefore completely ignore the grease. It also improves speed and maneuverability, both of which can prove helpful in almost any terrain, outdoors and in.
Mistah Green wrote: The point I was trying to make is that the 3.5 Rogues could at least attempt to put up a fight before they all get knocked off the board with Glitterdust or something. The PF Rogue can't even make it that far. Then I'm afraid I don't understand how you're reaching that conclusion. You described tactics that could be used by rogues in both 3.5 and PF, and those tactics would be completely ineffective in both systems. If both 3.5 rogues and PF rogues are equally ineffective, then the PF rogues aren't nerfed at all, because their performance is identical to that of 3.5 rogues.
Mistah Green wrote: So that's what we did. Just started treating PF is only a means of playing godmode casters, while our 3.5 game had significantly more balance to it as a result of free house rules. So you're saying that 3.5 is more balanced than PF when you add house rules to make 3.5 more balanced without adding the same house rules to PF. That statement is trivial, in the mathematical sense of the word.
DM definitely isn't challenging your party.
Mistah Green wrote: I'd say there were around a dozen traps that session. We zerged them all. It wasn't even a thing. Traps only bother you if you buy into that crap about needing a Rogue and move at a snail's pace through the dungeon (mansion), letting all your buffs expire.
Secret doors are obviously not foiled by 1st level spells... oh wait...
Which 1st level spells? Only good one here is Alarm. Magus can't cast that.
Bards got nerfed hard in PF. Our 3.5 game has someone with a Bard cohort simply for the disproportionately large bonus to make finishing off enemies faster. But PF? Too weak to care about.
Our 'limited resources' aren't a problem because encounters get resolved with 1 spell per person or less. Efficiency is good like that.
If we were not using Spell Compendium, every enemy encounter would have significantly lower saves. As long as any of us go first, we win on move 1. We actually asked for SC to be added because it nerfed us by slowing down save or loses a bit. If you think SC helps much on offense you haven't paid much attention to your core spells. Core is still god when it comes to caster offense. It just doesn't provide much defense. Go first or lose.
Lastly when I say the other classes can't pull their weight, I mean compared to the opposition.
When a problem comes up, at least one of us can do something about it. The Fighter's role in all this is to stand there stupidly and wait for someone to tell him exactly what to do, comb his hair, and pack his lunch for him.
Were there a Fighter in this party the best he could do was join the Druid in finishing off debilitated foes... except that's all he can do, and the Druid has many other talents.
Out of combat? Druid has Diplomacy, I think the Cleric has Diplomacy, we all have utility spells, Wizards have Knowledge skills...
Fighter has "Are there any girls there?"
Net contribution out of combat = 0. Net contribution in combat = minimal. Having a bunch of casters means we can get through encounters anyways, but we'd be dragging...
Obscurring mist + a trashed room makes 1/4 move speed. Put multiple doors and a secret door so you have to search through it. You can dispell the mist, but now you just used a 3rd level spell to get rid of a 1st level, and still have to deal with the difficult terrain. Detect Secret doors has a durration of concentration and takes 3 rounds to identify the trigger mechanism, if you are looking at the right part of the room. 2 secret doors, and you may not have a second casting you need, and that is assuming you even think that there is a secret door. Alarm can be placed on a trap, so the bad guys know exactly when your coming. Its a dirt cheap trap that gets you no XP. All of these things combine to slow you down and make you waste resources before getting to the boss. Since your group is relying entirely on consumable resources, it adds up to be a significant power drain.
Epic Meepo wrote: Mistah Green wrote: With that said a fly speed wouldn't help them inside, and blindsight wouldn't stop a grease powered SA. Actually, the fly speed stops grease-powered sneak attacks, because you aren't touching the ground, and can therefore completely ignore the grease. It also improves speed and maneuverability, both of which can prove helpful in almost any terrain, outdoors and in. Ok, point taken. We still didn't have it active because we were inside.
Quote: Then I'm afraid I don't understand how you're reaching that conclusion. You described tactics that could be used by rogues in both 3.5 and PF, and those tactics would be completely ineffective in both systems. If both 3.5 rogues and PF rogues are equally ineffective, then the PF rogues aren't nerfed at all, because their performance is identical to that of 3.5 rogues. Quote: Creatures that do not move on their turn do not need to make this check and are not considered flat-footed. Between that and the flask nerf, no they can't. Not even to non fliers.
Quote: So you're saying that 3.5 is more balanced than PF when you add house rules to make 3.5 more balanced without adding the same house rules to PF. That statement is trivial, in the mathematical sense of the word. No, that is not what I am saying. While it is true that 3.5 is more balanced with the house rules we are using even straight RAW allows you to play a somewhat playable non caster in a variety of ways. You need a lot of books, and it's completely not worth the effort required but you can do it. Meanwhile there are a lot more things casters have to be afraid of. Dispel is a big one.
If we applied those same house rules to PF, we would literally not be playing PF as every part of it would be stripped out. Caster buffs and melee nerfs are the antithesis of balance in D&D after all.
Caineach wrote: Obscurring mist + a trashed room makes 1/4 move speed. Put multiple doors and a secret door so you have to search through it. You can dispell the mist, but now you just used a 3rd level spell to get rid of a 1st level, and still have to deal with the difficult terrain. Detect Secret doors has a durration of concentration and takes 3 rounds to identify the trigger mechanism, if you are looking at the right part of the room. 2 secret doors, and you may not have a second casting you need, and that is assuming you even think that there is a secret door. Well I tend to use wands for this kind of thing.
A full wand of secret doors is the same as a potion of fly. In otherwords if you are at the point where a potion of fly is reasonable to use in non-emergencies then burning through an entire wand of detect secret doors is not an issue. In fact its a job for a familiar if its built right for it.
As to mists I tend to go to gust of wind over dispel magic. Its useful enough to be worth a scroll at low to mid levels and a wand to staff at upper levels.
-James
WWWW wrote: F. Castor wrote: Lords of Madness, the Book of Aberrations. Page 214. Blah I don't know how many times I have read over that page and yet could not remember that that was there. Ah well not nearly as useful as I would have hoped due to the limited range and stationary nature of the effect. I was hoping for more of an inexpensive non scroll version of an antimagic ray.
Well thanks for the information anyway. It's a packet of dust.
Put it in an eggshell and throw it at the enemy.
Make a hollow bulb head and shoot it at them.
Have it in your off hand and break it on the chest of the spellcaster as a touch attack.
Or just have it hit the ceiling above them and sprinkle down and suppress all their spells just long enough...
After the Magus hits them with a one-off Maximized cone of cold and follows up with a Sudden QUickened Empowered Scorching Ray to whoever is hurt the most. All those spellcasters have sucky reflex saves, and they haven't bothered to heal any of their combat damage. Getting them in A-M shells and having them lose their con bonuses could kill them outright, too.
Flanking rogues with SA against low AC spellcasters inside A-M shells should be a fun fight.
Put A-M shells on yourself? Silly, silly. Ram it on the spellcasters and let them suck it up. They are the ones with no fighting backup when the spells go down. What was done was a bunch of elven rogues, a class known for cleverness, advised by someone with knowledge of magic, was totally and utterly unprepared to shut down spellcasters.
The gold issue is not an issue. Make it part of the magus' cash flow...it's certainly worth it. Enemies should be built based on nova premises and leveraging gold via consumables, anyways.
I agree the setup was poor. Ignoring traps should be a severe hindrance, but the DM let them do just that. It meant the traps were too weak.
==Aelryinth
Aelryinth wrote: WWWW wrote: F. Castor wrote: Lords of Madness, the Book of Aberrations. Page 214. Blah I don't know how many times I have read over that page and yet could not remember that that was there. Ah well not nearly as useful as I would have hoped due to the limited range and stationary nature of the effect. I was hoping for more of an inexpensive non scroll version of an antimagic ray.
Well thanks for the information anyway. It's a packet of dust.
Put it in an eggshell and throw it at the enemy.
Make a hollow bulb head and shoot it at them.
Have it in your off hand and break it on the chest of the spellcaster as a touch attack.
Or just have it hit the ceiling above them and sprinkle down and suppress all their spells just long enough...
After the Magus hits them with a one-off Maximized cone of cold and follows up with a Sudden QUickened Empowered Scorching Ray to whoever is hurt the most. All those spellcasters have sucky reflex saves, and they haven't bothered to heal any of their combat damage. Getting them in A-M shells and having them lose their con bonuses could kill them outright, too.
Flanking rogues with SA against low AC spellcasters inside A-M shells should be a fun fight.
Put A-M shells on yourself? Silly, silly. Ram it on the spellcasters and let them suck it up. They are the ones with no fighting backup when the spells go down. What was done was a bunch of elven rogues, a class known for cleverness, advised by someone with knowledge of magic, was totally and utterly unprepared to shut down spellcasters.
The gold issue is not an issue. Make it part of the magus' cash flow...it's certainly worth it. Enemies should be built based on nova premises and leveraging gold via consumables, anyways.
I agree the setup was poor. Ignoring traps should be a severe hindrance, but the DM let them do just that. It meant the traps were too weak.
==Aelryinth Yeah just making some stuff up is not really what I was going for.
Okay, there's one thing I'm a little confused about in this completely off-topic discussion: Mistah Green, is your group's judgement that PF made casters even stronger based on playing with the Spell Compendium? Because hell yeah, they sure would be. Have you tried pure, one-book PF at all?
tejón wrote: Okay, there's one thing I'm a little confused about in this completely off-topic discussion: Mistah Green, is your group's judgement that PF made casters even stronger based on playing with the Spell Compendium? Because hell yeah, they sure would be. Have you tried pure, one-book PF at all? Um, no. My group's judgment is that SC slowed us down a little. Which is what I said.
What I've also said several times is that play went like this:
Waltz through low save encounter after low save encounter. Doesn't matter what they can do, they have low init and low saves, so we win.
DM asks us what could he do to make enemies put up a fight. We suggested he include the SC and directed him to all the defensive spells.
He tries it out. Enemies don't go down like chumps so easily anymore.
I know you and others are desperately trying to find anything to blame but PF for the imbalance but there was such a long time where that's all we had that you really don't have a choice but to accept it is the problem. Just as we did. Core only means plenty of caster offense, not much caster defense, low melee offense, and low melee defense. PF has not changed this formula at all. If you want good defense vs anything or melee characters to do anything you need to go non core. But since we all are casters, this makes us progress slower, not faster.
Aelryinth is being ridiculous. He's making the Magus gain one more character level (at least) out of nowhere, he's probably flash freezing his own minions (not that it matters much, but still), and he's assuming we won't just walk 10 feet away from where the AMF was thrown. He also has to take multiple save or loses to reach that point. Worst 3,300 that Magus ever spent.
And even if his claims were true, which they are not 'fighting backup' would make no difference. They will just ignore the BSF, or casually disable him in the same way we casually disable encounters. He's not a factor in the discussion. But the -1 caster is, as it is one fewer save or suck caster to prevent it from getting to this point.
Oh and funny thing. The difference between Fighter HP and Wizard HP is 2/level. Except that Wizards are SAD and Fighters are MAD. So the Wizard takes a 16 no problem, but the Fighter can't really go over 14. That's one point covered. The other gets covered when you use your craft feats. Wizard gets +4 Con item, Fighter has to settle for +2 as he doesn't get a half priced lunch and needs more gear.
So much for the HP difference.
As for traps being too weak, they are. That's the whole point. Why would you waste buff time when the Rogue will fail anyways and they aren't a big deal?
On DDO we have a saying. "Only gimps fear traps."
In D&D, this still holds true. Especially in PF where traps were heavily nerfed in effect.
Let's have a look at some sample traps, sticking to those that would be appropriate for the inside of a mansion:
Summon Monster 6 (CR 7): A large elemental. CR 5. Yeah...
Hail of Arrows (CR 9): 6d6 damage on a 20 foot line. I am so scared.
Shocking Floor trap (CR 9): 4d6 electrical damage.
Chamber of Blades (CR 10): 3d8+3 damage.
None of them are anything a few CLW charges can't fix.
Surely the higher level traps must do something that bothers us!
Cone of Cold trap (CR 11): 15d6, DC 17. One person takes 50, the others take 25. Not all that impressive. At least it means going from CLW charges to actual healing spells and effects.
Maximized Fireball trap (CR 13): 60 damage, DC 14. You might as well just say we all take 10 damage (passed save + fire resist 20). Not amused.
Harm trap (CR 14): Low accuracy means even as a touch attack it isn't likely to connect. If it does, 65 damage. Even if the target rolls a 1, they can't die from it.
Crushing stone trap (CR 15): 16d6 damage. Really guys?
Empowered Disintegrate trap (CR 16): If the target rolls a 1 they might actually die! ...But any other number leaves them mildly annoyed.
Somehow, the higher level traps are even weaker.
This is the reason why we quickly decided to make traps worth 0 XP. If they were worth even a fraction of what they should be for those CRs you'd skyrocket through the levels.
Not only that, but there's no rhyme or reason to trap's placement on the level spectrum at all. CR 18 'Deadly Spear Trap' which consists of a spear that does minor amounts of damage and applies a poison that a character anywhere near level 18 should be saving against on a 2 or better. They also nerfed the poison in question by making it go from 3d6 Con damage to 1d6 Con damage.
At least 3.5 traps had a few things that would give you pause, such as the CR 10 DC 23 AoE SoD trap. Of course a simple Silence spell foiled it, but still.
Mistah Green wrote: On DDO we have a saying. "Only gimps fear traps." Obviously somebody who hasn't played DDO in elite or epic or raids where traps one shot you and having a rogue critical fail a disable check means a party wipe....
Cold Napalm wrote: Mistah Green wrote: On DDO we have a saying. "Only gimps fear traps." Obviously somebody who hasn't played DDO in elite or epic or raids where traps one shot you and having a rogue critical fail a disable check means a party wipe.... Elite traps do around 300 damage. Even Wizards break 500 HP. You can also time your way through nearly every trap in the game so you don't get hit at all.
"Only gimps fear traps."
Epic traps used to be crazy (and people just rezzed through them or did not do those quests on epic, rather than bring along a character whose sole purpose is to disarm traps) but they get nerfed hard.
Raid traps are tame unless on elite. Then you stand in the right place (VoD) or fight in the right place (ToD).
Now Rogues are fine, but traps really aren't a thing.
But DDO traps are a side thing. The real point is that traps are so weak in PF that zerging through them is the optimal tactic.
The point of traps is that they alert the enemy to your location. You get to start the combat hurt, dispelled or the like. Moreover you get to fight two encounters instead of one at a time.
Now if it's mindless, set off, deal with, downtime heal then move on.. well then sure traps are worthless.
-James
Mistah Green wrote: Cold Napalm wrote: Mistah Green wrote: On DDO we have a saying. "Only gimps fear traps." Obviously somebody who hasn't played DDO in elite or epic or raids where traps one shot you and having a rogue critical fail a disable check means a party wipe.... Elite traps do around 300 damage. Even Wizards break 500 HP. You can also time your way through nearly every trap in the game so you don't get hit at all.
"Only gimps fear traps."
Epic traps used to be crazy (and people just rezzed through them or did not do those quests on epic, rather than bring along a character whose sole purpose is to disarm traps) but they get nerfed hard.
Raid traps are tame unless on elite. Then you stand in the right place (VoD) or fight in the right place (ToD).
Now Rogues are fine, but traps really aren't a thing.
But DDO traps are a side thing. The real point is that traps are so weak in PF that zerging through them is the optimal tactic. Umm what?!? Elite traps at level 10 do 300 damage (and I'm sorry but that IS death for pretty much all level 10 characters except maybe the warforge intimi tank). And you can no longer just bypass the traps in elite as the elite traps have randomized sequence and epics ones have unavoidable sequences. On hard or lower, yeah you can just watch the sequence and avoid the trap. And the whole res thing only works IF your cleric doesn't also bite it in the trap...which isn't quite likely. Yeah there are plenty of quests where you don't need a rogue...but there are plenty of quests that DO. Hey kinda like a PnP game. You can have quests where a trap monkey is optional or un-needed...and you can have one where it isn't. I'm sure there are plenty of published adventures where if you had no trap monkey and just blocked all the traps with your face, you'd die a horrible death...and not leave a pretty corpse at that.
Not sure if the Magus/12 gets level 5's, so sub in an acid fireball or something.
Readied actions trump initiative. IF the enemy knows you are coming, and better yet can observe you advance or track you, they should have readied actions for you when you charge in.
By making the dust burst ON YOU, they are centering the effect on the person and not the area. Add glue or a tanglefoot bag if you have to. Or it's Eberron...buy one-shot anti-magic shell devices.
And once you're in the AM shell, no con boosters. Effectively -20 hit points instantly. If the floor opens in a pit trap with spikes at the bottom after you're the center of an A-M shell, your casters are truly screwed if they get Direct Damage.
If spellcasting was so uber, all foes should be aware of it, there should be tons of defenses against it, and the best defense is Dispels and Anti-Magic Shells.
And if you are unable to move out of the Shells, you've a problem, too.
the setup was poor and the enemy didn't use any cunning. They basically stood up and got put down. With Dust of Negation, it would simplicity itself to take out your whole crew with the right tactics, due to your lack of fighting ability.
if magic is so god-almighty in your game, your opponents are absolutely stupid for not taking that into account. They lined up like chumps and died like them. Horrendously poor tactics.
==Aelryinth
Aelryinth wrote:
Readied actions trump initiative. IF the enemy knows you are coming, and better yet can observe you advance or track you, they should have readied actions for you when you charge in.
==Aelryinth
Can't ready outside of initiative.
That said they can surprise instead...
-James
Lyrax wrote: I have. And you know what? I found out something interesting. Well, I think it's interesting. It's that the people who are hardest on the magus are the ones who haven't seen it in actual play. They fancy themselves mathematicians, so they crunch some numbers and start criticizing from there.
It's the folks who actually have one in their party that aren't complaining (well, not much). Isn't that funny? Isn't that interesting? The very people who have any grounds for complaint at all are the ones who complain the least.
+1, bro.
Same thing as with the Summoner for the APG release: moan, whine, "IT'S TOO STRONG!". APG gets released and it's all "WHY ISN'T IT UP TO PAR WITH THE OTHER CLASSES?!"
Paizo knows what they're doing. The playtest is just for that: playtesting. If you haven't played it, don't give feedback.
EDIT: /threadjack
I have read through most of this thread and didn't see it anywhere, but has anyone considered having the Magus deal extra melee damage like a Rogue's sneak attack (only arcane energy or something)?
Alternatively he could deliver touch spells through his melee weapon as well.
Something like this might put him back on the front-line, and then you could retool his spell-list to a more utility/touch-attack/thing. Ranged spell attacks might be limited in this option as his "sneak-attack" damage could be used on artillery to some affect as well. He could have stuff like grease, and magic missile too, but it could be set up more as a melee spell-striker (slash arcane archer), with a sweet compliment of utilitarian extras (find traps, arcane lock, etc.)...
His Magus Arcana could be used to alter this baseline, or add focus to either his spell-casting side, or his melee side (player's choice).
-
I suggest this after a couple sessions with a Magus in the group, and noticing that integrating his spellcasting and melee was just a touch clumsy, and he kind of seems like he lacks the ability to be outstanding at either of his thangz'.
The "sneak attack" option seems to me less clumsy as he doesn't really have to ever worry about that cast defensively roll (unless he wanted to cast an actual spell in melee), and it sidesteps the fact that the current Magus basically can take an attack (standard action), and use his off-hand attack to cast a spell (usually another, standard action), which seems to violate some fundamental design philosophy to me, (I know this is a full-round action for the Magus, but take into consideration how this will interact with feats like two-weapon fighting, and similar advancements - it's just so precariously balanced that it seems open for abuse).
Anyhoo - just some brainstorming alternatives. Feel free to critique. After all that's what we're here for.
Mistah Green wrote: The point I was trying to make is that the 3.5 Rogues could at least attempt to put up a fight before they all get knocked off the board with Glitterdust or something. The PF Rogue can't even make it that far. I'm unclear on why, precisely, you feel that the PF rogue is less effective than the 3.5 rogue. It has the same basic abilities, plus rogue talents and a host of other little bonuses -- not to mention a larger HD. It also still has UMD, so your earlier comment about them being unable to use grease wands is inaccurate.
Kurukami wrote: Agreed. If I were designing that to be an actual challenge? I'd absolutely throw in some golems. Not that they'd be tremendously effective against a pair of Spell Compendium wizards tossing orbs, but they'd definitely be moreso than a bunch of book-standard 6th level rogues.
Mistah Green wrote: Golems are extremely weak against conjuration magic. Not that 6th level Rogues aren't, but we could blow through something like this about as easily as one, but for a lot more XP.
Fixed that sentence for you. Given that golems are basically immune to everything but conjuration magic, and that only because the Spell Compendium conjuration spells are broken as hell and erase the divide between evocation and conjuration, golems aren't particularly weak against magic.
Also, your assertion that using the SC spells "slowed you down" is patently ridiculous. No SC? No superior resistance, no-save-no-spell-resist orbs, no screw-you-it's-sonic blasts, no acid synergies with secondary effects. If you have specifics you'd care to mention, rather than generalities and boasts about how PF-core is quicker and more powerful than using the SC spells, I'd be most intrigued to hear them. You can't claim that X (using core-only) is greater than X + Y (core plus SC), given that your opponent (the aforementioned core-only playtest magus) was comparatively underoptimized.
Basically, in the end? Your DM was playing something as a big boss that was underfunded and PF-core only, while your four casters were using the full flower of overpowered 3.5 spellcraft. Make your party all PF-core only, and get a DM who can actually prep a challenging threat, and then rerun the encounter. I suspect it'd be a lot closer. This isn't to say that the magus as currently written isn't underpowered, comparatively, but it's also focusing on the fact that high-level 3.5-era casters, with access to the full power of the Spell Compendium and all other associated wonkiness, are substantially overpowered by comparison with opponents supposedly in their CR range.
Kurukami wrote: Mistah Green wrote: The point I was trying to make is that the 3.5 Rogues could at least attempt to put up a fight before they all get knocked off the board with Glitterdust or something. The PF Rogue can't even make it that far. I'm unclear on why, precisely, you feel that the PF rogue is less effective than the 3.5 rogue. It has the same basic abilities, plus rogue talents and a host of other little bonuses -- not to mention a larger HD. It also still has UMD, so your earlier comment about them being unable to use grease wands is inaccurate. I've already explained this many times, in great detail. Go back and read the posts where I did.
Quote: Fixed that sentence for you. Given that golems are basically immune to everything but conjuration magic, and that only because the Spell Compendium conjuration spells are broken as hell and erase the divide between evocation and conjuration, golems aren't particularly weak against magic. Not just Conjuration. Anything that is SR: No and is not stopped by construct immunities. Web, Silent Image... Then you look at their save line and see a bunch of single digit numbers. Even the CR 13 golem has 6/5/6 or so.
Quote: Also, your assertion that using the SC spells "slowed you down" is patently ridiculous. No SC? No superior resistance, no-save-no-spell-resist orbs, no screw-you-it's-sonic blasts, no acid synergies with secondary effects. If you have specifics you'd care to mention, rather than generalities and boasts about how PF-core is quicker and more powerful than using the SC spells, I'd be most intrigued to hear them. You can't claim that X (using core-only) is greater than X + Y (core plus SC), given that your opponent (the aforementioned core-only playtest magus) was comparatively underoptimized. No superior resistance means no enemies with +6 saves. Enemies having +6 saves does tend to slow you down. Level 10 characters cannot cast 6th level spells.
Orbs are direct damage, and not a factor.
Sonic damage is direct damage, and is not a factor.
Acid synergies is again, direct damage.
These are all fine ways to waste your turn (except for the Orbs, which are good for one shotting any fool stupid enough to use an AMF) but in no way add to the power of a character.
This is again something I've explained many times, and that it does not take much brain power to understand. Save or lose spam vs low saves = quick win. Save or lose spam vs higher saves = slower win.
The Magus is weak because it cannot get those spells. It's not as if the entry says they can use any spell on the Wizard or Sorcerer list, giving them Greater Resistance once they can cast 4th level spells.
Using core only, we have plenty of offense (save or loses) and enemies can't get much defense (poor WBL, no good spell buffs).
Quote: Basically, in the end? Your DM was playing something as a big boss that was underfunded and PF-core only, while your four casters were using the full flower of overpowered 3.5 spellcraft. Make your party all PF-core only, and get a DM who can actually prep a challenging threat, and then rerun the encounter. I suspect it'd be a lot closer. This isn't to say that the magus as currently written isn't underpowered, comparatively, but it's also focusing on the fact that high-level 3.5-era casters, with access to the full power of the Spell Compendium and all other associated wonkiness, are substantially overpowered by comparison with opponents supposedly in their CR range. Or you can accept that your precious PF is not nearly as balanced as you think it is, which is why you are so quick to deflect the blame anywhere else. I got over it, the rest of my group got over it, you can get over it too.
But fine, I'll humor you. No SC means we have lower saves. He cast a Black Tentacles. It makes no difference. No SC means we don't all have Fire resist 20. He cast a Black Tentacles. It makes no difference. And that's about all the difference it makes. None.
You want him to use a different spell? Fine, pick one. It won't do anything we care about, as I already checked the entire Magus list to see if there was anything he could have done that would have made him a credible threat before posting. It had nothing to do with any failing on the part of the DM, you're just looking for someone to attack.
Now, if he were a 12th level Wizard he'd have Superior Resistance. Suddenly those save or loses are fizzling on a 2 or better, or close to it. Not so easy to take out anymore. And he has up to 6th level spells, giving him access to all manner of combos that could pose a threat to even all caster parties (and completely destroy non casters).
Fair warning though. If your future posts indicate you aren't reading and understanding mine, you will be ignored in the future.
Mistah Green wrote: Fair warning though. If your future posts indicate you aren't reading and understanding mine, you will be ignored in the future. I don't get it. Is this a threat, or is this a promise? Intended as some kind of ridiculously ego-centric "punishment" or is it a reward?
Lyrax wrote: Mistah Green wrote: Fair warning though. If your future posts indicate you aren't reading and understanding mine, you will be ignored in the future. I don't get it. Is this a threat, or is this a promise? Intended as some kind of ridiculously ego-centric "punishment" or is it a reward? I find that people who throw out such ultimatiums really fail to see how insignifcant they really are and how much the rest of would not care if they did such actions.
edit: Also everyone would see that doing so is of course a sign of defeat.
Austin Morgan wrote: Same thing as with the Summoner for the APG release: moan, whine, "IT'S TOO STRONG!". APG gets released and it's all "WHY ISN'T IT UP TO PAR WITH THE OTHER CLASSES?!"
Paizo knows what they're doing. The playtest is just for that: playtesting. If you haven't played it, don't give feedback.
Since when is two failures a success?
A Man In Black wrote: Austin Morgan wrote: Same thing as with the Summoner for the APG release: moan, whine, "IT'S TOO STRONG!". APG gets released and it's all "WHY ISN'T IT UP TO PAR WITH THE OTHER CLASSES?!"
Paizo knows what they're doing. The playtest is just for that: playtesting. If you haven't played it, don't give feedback.
Since when is two failures a success? When trolling is selectively permitted.
Mistah Green wrote: Kurukami wrote: Mistah Green wrote: The point I was trying to make is that the 3.5 Rogues could at least attempt to put up a fight before they all get knocked off the board with Glitterdust or something. The PF Rogue can't even make it that far. I'm unclear on why, precisely, you feel that the PF rogue is less effective than the 3.5 rogue. It has the same basic abilities, plus rogue talents and a host of other little bonuses -- not to mention a larger HD. It also still has UMD, so your earlier comment about them being unable to use grease wands is inaccurate. I've already explained this many times, in great detail. Go back and read the posts where I did. No, you never have. I've read this entire thread, and all you do is claim that PF rogues don't have the same advantages as 3.5 rogues -- like, for example, not being able to use wands of grease. Having compared the two side by side, that's obviously untrue.
Quote: Quote: Fixed that sentence for you. Given that golems are basically immune to everything but conjuration magic, and that only because the Spell Compendium conjuration spells are broken as hell and erase the divide between evocation and conjuration, golems aren't particularly weak against magic. Not just Conjuration. Anything that is SR: No and is not stopped by construct immunities. Web, Silent Image... Then you look at their save line and see a bunch of single digit numbers. Even the CR 13 golem has 6/5/6 or so.
Name some wizard or cleric spells which are SR: No that aren't conjuration. Oh, that's right, they pretty much all are. Golems are immune to illusions, so silent image is similarly useless, as are all mind-affecting or illusory spells which aren't defensive in nature. Web is effectively useless against an appropriate-CR golem, given its Strength and the fact that it only delays the golem rather than actually defeating it.
Proffer some examples that are SR: No and would actually do something to permanently stop a golem or similar construct and I might believe you're more than a blowhard.
Quote: No superior resistance means no enemies with +6 saves. Enemies having +6 saves does tend to slow you down. Level 10 characters cannot cast 6th level spells. And neither your magus big bad nor your 6th level rogues could either, so your earlier claim of having wizards, clerics, or druids with saves that fail Reflex DC's of 21 on a 4 or less is farcical.
Direct damage is what is needed to permanently down opponents, given that you can't really debuff every opponent to death. Deep slumber will stop at most one of the opponents you describe; hold person acts similarly. Quite simply, I don't buy that your claims stand up, particularly lacking the concrete details and stats you consistently refuse to provide. Post your character and your party's characters in full -- something which you've yet to do, beyond generalities of "10th level, two wizards, a cleric, and a druid with an animal companion" -- and I might consider you remotely believable.
Until that point, all your pontificating is so much broken wind.
Trolling removed.
Kurukami wrote: Mistah Green wrote: Kurukami wrote: Mistah Green wrote: The point I was trying to make is that the 3.5 Rogues could at least attempt to put up a fight before they all get knocked off the board with Glitterdust or something. The PF Rogue can't even make it that far. I'm unclear on why, precisely, you feel that the PF rogue is less effective than the 3.5 rogue. It has the same basic abilities, plus rogue talents and a host of other little bonuses -- not to mention a larger HD. It also still has UMD, so your earlier comment about them being unable to use grease wands is inaccurate. I've already explained this many times, in great detail. Go back and read the posts where I did. No, you never have. I've read this entire thread, and all you do is claim that PF rogues don't have the same advantages as 3.5 rogues -- like, for example, not being able to use wands of grease. Having compared the two side by side, that's obviously untrue. Yes, I did explain several times that grease no longer works that way. I even linked the specific part of the spell that explains this. Go read your spell description, and enjoy your stealth nerf.
Quote: And neither your magus big bad nor your 6th level rogues could either, so your earlier claim of having wizards, clerics, or druids with saves that fail Reflex DC's of 21 on a 4 or less is farcical. He was originally a Wizard. He became a Wizard because I asked the DM to try it out. Something I have also said many times. Try to keep up.
Most of the serious opponents we face are likewise capable of casting Greater or Superior Resistance by virtue of their class and level. The rest are mooks. That's fine for the Rogues, it's not fine for the Magus.
As for damage, once you get them debilitated slitting their throat is a formality. If that's all you can provide, you're not worth a slot. Druids have plenty more to offer. Most of the HP damage types do not.
And the 4 or less comment was about Fortitude. You know, a save that actually matters. Try to keep up.
I would consider posting the details if most people around here had a clue when it comes to game mechanics and their meaning. However with a few exceptions they don't, and the evidence of this is everywhere including in this very thread. So riddle me this: Why would I write all that out just to get the ever so intelligent and useful replies of blaming the DM that the system only promotes mindless flash and slash or some variation of screw the rules, I got money?
Mistah Green wrote: Trolling removed.
-----
Yes, I did explain several times that grease no longer works that way. I even linked the specific part of the spell that explains this. Go read your spell description, and enjoy your stealth nerf.
He was originally a Wizard. He became a Wizard because I asked the DM to try it out. Something I have also said many times. Try to keep up.
------
And the 4 or less comment was about Fortitude. You know, a save that actually matters. Try to keep up.
I would consider posting the details if most people around here had a clue when it comes to game mechanics and their meaning. However with a few exceptions they don't, and the evidence of this is everywhere including in this very thread.
You will discover that your answers will be read more carefully, replied more kindly and paid more attention in the manner they deserve (i.e.: constructive replies) if you shift to a friendlier attitude. If it pisses you off that people disagree with you, just keep with the arguments and counterarguments, avoiding stuff like what I bolded there. Even if they do keep going "no your not" on you.
The alternative is what you are doing, which is guaranteed not to change. Don't make that future carpal tunnel syndrome go to waste :D
Synapse wrote: Mistah Green wrote: Trolling removed.
-----
Yes, I did explain several times that grease no longer works that way. I even linked the specific part of the spell that explains this. Go read your spell description, and enjoy your stealth nerf.
He was originally a Wizard. He became a Wizard because I asked the DM to try it out. Something I have also said many times. Try to keep up.
------
And the 4 or less comment was about Fortitude. You know, a save that actually matters. Try to keep up.
I would consider posting the details if most people around here had a clue when it comes to game mechanics and their meaning. However with a few exceptions they don't, and the evidence of this is everywhere including in this very thread.
You will discover that your answers will be read more carefully, replied more kindly and paid more attention in the manner they deserve (i.e.: constructive replies) if you shift to a friendlier attitude. If it pisses you off that people disagree with you, just keep with the arguments and counterarguments, avoiding stuff like what I bolded there. Even if they do keep going "no your not" on you.
The alternative is what you are doing, which is guaranteed not to change. Don't make that future carpal tunnel syndrome go to waste :D You will discover that I did start off being a lot nicer. You will also discover this made no actual difference both in the content of the responses or the tones. In either case I was saying something that person did not like, leading to them going to any length to attempt to dismiss my words.
You will also discover people tend not to have infinite patience, and when told in a passive aggressive manner to screw you enough times they are likely to start returning the hostility.
In addition you will discover that I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. What I do have a problem with is people being wrong. Notice the difference between subjectivity and objectivity. Not to mention people talking as if they have not read anything I've said, and asking the same questions I have already answered. Repeatedly.
In short you will discover I already tried what you recommend, found it to be completely ineffective, and opted for an alternative strategy that I also expect to be completely ineffective but will sure make me feel a lot better about the constant barrage of hostility. Lastly, you will discover that I don't expect anything to be anything other than completely ineffective when dealing with most of the people here. I assure you, my displays of annoyance are quite deliberate.
Is it not written:
"We gotta work on yo' people skills."
Oh, I don't expect anyone to have infinite patience... but it does burn any further chance to show your points if you taint your image. Personally, I saw some gems in what you said once I was able to filter away the snarky remarks, passive-aggressive comments and the like. I generally also give up if I grow tired of being the saint of the discussion, there's better stuff to do with my time than trying to "outtroll" people in the Internet. Best of luck to those who remain, and try not to be eaten by grues.
Synapse wrote: Oh, I don't expect anyone to have infinite patience... but it does burn any further chance to show your points if you taint your image. Personally, I saw some gems in what you said once I was able to filter away the snarky remarks, passive-aggressive comments and the like. I generally also give up if I grow tired of being the saint of the discussion, there's better stuff to do with my time than trying to "outtroll" people in the Internet. Best of luck to those who remain, and try not to be eaten by grues. You will learn that after your niceness is responded to with passive aggressive trolling long enough, that you will lose any interest in maintaining some 'image' on the internet. Indeed, if you are accused of being a troll enough times, they might just be right. Or you could simply stop caring, which is what I did.
Mistah Green wrote: Synapse wrote: Oh, I don't expect anyone to have infinite patience... but it does burn any further chance to show your points if you taint your image. Personally, I saw some gems in what you said once I was able to filter away the snarky remarks, passive-aggressive comments and the like. I generally also give up if I grow tired of being the saint of the discussion, there's better stuff to do with my time than trying to "outtroll" people in the Internet. Best of luck to those who remain, and try not to be eaten by grues. You will learn that after your niceness is responded to with passive aggressive trolling long enough, that you will lose any interest in maintaining some 'image' on the internet. Indeed, if you are accused of being a troll enough times, they might just be right. Or you could simply stop caring, which is what I did. Someone needs a hug, and or a kitten.
ciretose wrote: Mistah Green wrote: Synapse wrote: Oh, I don't expect anyone to have infinite patience... but it does burn any further chance to show your points if you taint your image. Personally, I saw some gems in what you said once I was able to filter away the snarky remarks, passive-aggressive comments and the like. I generally also give up if I grow tired of being the saint of the discussion, there's better stuff to do with my time than trying to "outtroll" people in the Internet. Best of luck to those who remain, and try not to be eaten by grues. You will learn that after your niceness is responded to with passive aggressive trolling long enough, that you will lose any interest in maintaining some 'image' on the internet. Indeed, if you are accused of being a troll enough times, they might just be right. Or you could simply stop caring, which is what I did. Someone needs a hug, and or a kitten. I'm a dog person.
james maissen wrote: Caineach wrote: Obscurring mist + a trashed room makes 1/4 move speed. Put multiple doors and a secret door so you have to search through it. You can dispell the mist, but now you just used a 3rd level spell to get rid of a 1st level, and still have to deal with the difficult terrain. Detect Secret doors has a durration of concentration and takes 3 rounds to identify the trigger mechanism, if you are looking at the right part of the room. 2 secret doors, and you may not have a second casting you need, and that is assuming you even think that there is a secret door. Well I tend to use wands for this kind of thing.
A full wand of secret doors is the same as a potion of fly. In otherwords if you are at the point where a potion of fly is reasonable to use in non-emergencies then burning through an entire wand of detect secret doors is not an issue. In fact its a job for a familiar if its built right for it.
As to mists I tend to go to gust of wind over dispel magic. Its useful enough to be worth a scroll at low to mid levels and a wand to staff at upper levels.
-James And nothing you said negates any of my claims. All of these things were designed to slow the players and make them use resources, not stop them. In this case, the players are prebuffing with 1 round and minute/lvl spells before storming into the dungeon, and still have them when they get to the BBEG. There are so many ways to delay the players so that their buffs run out ahead of time that all I can fathom is that the GM isn't trying.
Mistah Green wrote: ciretose wrote: Mistah Green wrote: Synapse wrote: Oh, I don't expect anyone to have infinite patience... but it does burn any further chance to show your points if you taint your image. Personally, I saw some gems in what you said once I was able to filter away the snarky remarks, passive-aggressive comments and the like. I generally also give up if I grow tired of being the saint of the discussion, there's better stuff to do with my time than trying to "outtroll" people in the Internet. Best of luck to those who remain, and try not to be eaten by grues. You will learn that after your niceness is responded to with passive aggressive trolling long enough, that you will lose any interest in maintaining some 'image' on the internet. Indeed, if you are accused of being a troll enough times, they might just be right. Or you could simply stop caring, which is what I did. Someone needs a hug, and or a kitten. I'm a dog person. Which is why your being given a kitten...please keep up :P .
Caineach wrote: And nothing you said negates any of my claims. All of these things were designed to slow the players and make them use resources, not stop them. While I agree with your thoughts, the examples you are giving shouldn't really accomplish that. The delay is minimal as is the amount of resources consumed.
-James
james maissen wrote: Caineach wrote: And nothing you said negates any of my claims. All of these things were designed to slow the players and make them use resources, not stop them. While I agree with your thoughts, the examples you are giving shouldn't really accomplish that. The delay is minimal as is the amount of resources consumed.
-James Not really. If you only have 10 rounds of a spell, or 20 with extend, spending at least 3 to find and open a secret door is significant, and that is assuming it takes 0 rounds to trigger the opening mechanism and you know where to start looking. It could easily be designed to take 5-10 rounds to open the secret door, and if you have a bunch of them, some of which are trivial like a broom closet, you can easily get rid of all of their prebuffs. With a fog, you are spending at least 1 round dispelling it, and possibly 1 round readying actions to deal with what you cannot see. Gust of wind can have plenty of negative consequences indoors, like scrambling papers that the PCs care about, or shifting the debre in the room, hiding any key more. And before you tell me you just get a wand of knock, I will point out that a default knock wand only has a +14 to pick a lock, and the DC for an average lock is 25, giving you less than a 50% chance of success, and a supperior is 40, where you only have a 20%. This is assuming there is only 1 locking mechanism too. Sure, you can blow through charges, but each one takes time, and you will need to eventually buy a new wand.
Caineach wrote: Not really. If you only have 10 rounds of a spell, or 20 with extend, spending at least 3 to find and open a secret door is significant, and that is assuming it takes 0 rounds to trigger the opening mechanism and you know where to start looking. I'm sorry I thought we were talking about needing a rogue for things, etc.
Now round per level buffs are indeed subject to delaying tactics, but minute per level buffs are far more resilient.
I do agree with you that there are things that can be done to challenge the party more, and a fixed group can fall into this kind of thing. However secret doors, difficult terrain and obscuring mist don't really cut it for a party of this level.
-James
james maissen wrote: However secret doors, difficult terrain and obscuring mist don't really cut it for a party of this level.
-James
And this is where we disagree. I have watched level 15 groups stumble on precisely these types of minor annoyances. They didn't want to use high power expendable resources, so they just took the time to do it at no resource cost. They never really leave the game. If you force the players to spend a minute to 3 on each room, their 10 minute buffs start to go away. This group has already invested resources, so they will likely be unwilling to take the time, so they will spend even more so that old ones do not go to waste. Resource draining is one of the strongest ways to deal with casters.
james maissen wrote: Caineach wrote: Not really. If you only have 10 rounds of a spell, or 20 with extend, spending at least 3 to find and open a secret door is significant, and that is assuming it takes 0 rounds to trigger the opening mechanism and you know where to start looking. I'm sorry I thought we were talking about needing a rogue for things, etc.
Now round per level buffs are indeed subject to delaying tactics, but minute per level buffs are far more resilient.
I do agree with you that there are things that can be done to challenge the party more, and a fixed group can fall into this kind of thing. However secret doors, difficult terrain and obscuring mist don't really cut it for a party of this level.
-James This. You have 100 rounds. You cover 60 feet in one. Combats last two rounds, at most because this is D&D, and that's how things work here. Unless you pull a Richie Rich, securing the mansion will not take that long. And the longer you take, the more enemies get to buff and prepare so it's in your best interest not to wait up (a Rogue would be considerably slower).
Most importantly though because it is a mansion, people live here. It's going to be designed accordingly.
So that means:
There are many of spare rounds.
Respect the time limit.
Edit: A level 15 party can tip the bar wench with a Wand of Detect Secret Doors. That's not a high level resource, and if they're being foiled that badly by level 1 stuff then they are clearly doing it wrong, and will learn the error of their ways the moment they encounter something level appropriate. This in no way justifies slow motion searching as a party slot.
Caineach wrote: james maissen wrote: However secret doors, difficult terrain and obscuring mist don't really cut it for a party of this level.
-James
And this is where we disagree. I have watched level 15 groups stumble on precisely these types of minor annoyances. They didn't want to use high power expendable resources, so they just took the time to do it at no resource cost. They never really leave the game. If you force the players to spend a minute to 3 on each room, their 10 minute buffs start to go away. This group has already invested resources, so they will likely be unwilling to take the time, so they will spend even more so that old ones do not go to waste. Resource draining is one of the strongest ways to deal with casters. Again I agree with the sentiment but not the delivery.
Many groups have players of a certain level but play as if they were in a different level game. Many DMs fall into this as well.
I'm sorry but a 750gp wand is not resource draining and if they believe that it is while letting buffs expire is not, then its an issue with the group.
That said, you could indeed have ways of delaying such a group. Misdirection is your friend here. At higher levels knowledge is a great deal of power. Likewise you could have a rogue be useful in such a group, as such knowledge runs both ways.
-James
james maissen wrote: Caineach wrote: james maissen wrote: However secret doors, difficult terrain and obscuring mist don't really cut it for a party of this level.
-James
And this is where we disagree. I have watched level 15 groups stumble on precisely these types of minor annoyances. They didn't want to use high power expendable resources, so they just took the time to do it at no resource cost. They never really leave the game. If you force the players to spend a minute to 3 on each room, their 10 minute buffs start to go away. This group has already invested resources, so they will likely be unwilling to take the time, so they will spend even more so that old ones do not go to waste. Resource draining is one of the strongest ways to deal with casters. Again I agree with the sentiment but not the delivery.
Many groups have players of a certain level but play as if they were in a different level game. Many DMs fall into this as well.
I'm sorry but a 750gp wand is not resource draining and if they believe that it is while letting buffs expire is not, then its an issue with the group.
That said, you could indeed have ways of delaying such a group. Misdirection is your friend here. At higher levels knowledge is a great deal of power. Likewise you could have a rogue be useful in such a group, as such knowledge runs both ways.
-James Detect secret doors is not the resource in that case, it is the time it takes for the 3+ rounds to find the secret door and its mechanisms, and then the multiple rounds required to trigger those mechanisms. And not every group goes into every encounter with a bunch of completely charged wands. If you don't have that wand, and many groups wont, you will likely only have a couple castings, in which case it is a limmitted resource. If you don't have any castings of it, and need to use something more powrful like your arcane bond or limmitted wish, that is more the high powered cost I was refering to.
james maissen wrote: Caineach wrote: james maissen wrote: However secret doors, difficult terrain and obscuring mist don't really cut it for a party of this level.
-James
And this is where we disagree. I have watched level 15 groups stumble on precisely these types of minor annoyances. They didn't want to use high power expendable resources, so they just took the time to do it at no resource cost. They never really leave the game. If you force the players to spend a minute to 3 on each room, their 10 minute buffs start to go away. This group has already invested resources, so they will likely be unwilling to take the time, so they will spend even more so that old ones do not go to waste. Resource draining is one of the strongest ways to deal with casters. Again I agree with the sentiment but not the delivery.
Many groups have players of a certain level but play as if they were in a different level game. Many DMs fall into this as well.
I'm sorry but a 750gp wand is not resource draining and if they believe that it is while letting buffs expire is not, then its an issue with the group.
That said, you could indeed have ways of delaying such a group. Misdirection is your friend here. At higher levels knowledge is a great deal of power. Likewise you could have a rogue be useful in such a group, as such knowledge runs both ways.
-James Now is a good time to point out that there was misdirection at work, it was just ineffective. Remember, the 10 minute buff you're discussing is True Seeing. You know, that thing that foils illusion based misdirection.
A wand of detect secret doors is less of a resource than a potion of fly. You use a potion and that's it. 5 minutes and done. If you're not zerging that's one fight. The wand has 50 charges, that will last a lot longer.
A 3.5 Rogue might still be useful in such a group, as at level 10 he will have PTWF with flasks and a ring of blinking. Of course without any of those things he's not viable, and PF nerfs all of them.
Caineach wrote: If you don't have that wand, and many groups won't... A wand like that is their bread and butter, unless someone lost a coin toss and got stuck playing a high-Perception elf for the free "spidey-sense." If you want to make secret doors matter more (or any other environmental/exploration challenge for that matter), the only real way to do it is to (a) blatantly cheese things ("all dungeons are covered in antimagic zones") to screw the casters, or else (b) eliminate spells that step on other classes' toes (like detect secret doors), to screw the casters.
In other words, very low-level spells, that present approximately zero resource drain, quickly eliminate any incentive to have an elf or a rogue in the group, and also render the environment nothing more than pretty scenery with no real effect on the party. That's just how the core rules are set up.
Kirth Gersen wrote: Caineach wrote: If you don't have that wand, and many groups won't... A wand like that is their bread and butter, unless someone lost a coin toss and got stuck playing a high-Perception elf for the free "spidey-sense." If you want to make secret doors matter more (or any other environmental/exploration challenge for that matter), the only real way to do it is to (a) blatantly cheese things ("all dungeons are covered in antimagic zones") to screw the casters, or else (b) eliminate spells that step on other classes' toes (like detect secret doors), to screw the casters.
In other words, very low-level spells, that present approximately zero resource drain, quickly eliminate any incentive to have an elf or a rogue in the group, and also render the environment nothing more than pretty scenery with no real effect on the party. That's just how the core rules are set up. Or use lead paint.
|
