The wands are cheap, costing pocket really for any party past about 5th level if not sooner if they're motivated to get one. The gp cost isn't the relevant resource.
The more important resource is time (2 rounds to discover and locate all SDs, plus an additional round to "closely examine" one SD, whether that requires physical proximity (a "close" examination) or simply focused attention (a "close" examination) is ambiguous).
Also, using DSD substantially slows down the movement of the party, unless they leave the detecting person behind, because each time you move, you reset your detection to round 1. To get any useful information you have to stay in one place and not move the area of effect. Also, you can only take single moves, since you're concentrating as a standard action, and in any round where you get the wand out to cast, or put it away (so you can get out something more useful while you're concentrating on the DSD effect) you only get a 5-foot step.
RESOURCE COST IN MONEY: Not relevant past the first few levels.
RESOURCE COST IN ACTIONS/TIME: Relevant in proportion to how many secret doors there are - if it's just one, not a big deal (though enough to give bad guys a few rounds of prep). If it's a bunch of them, it becomes a proportionally bigger annoyance/drain.
One solution to expedite the process if you're a caster (or a rogue with UMD) is just to carry a scroll of passwall, though it only works as long as you know for sure which direction the bad guys have gone. If you do, you bypass the whole mess and just HEY KOOL-AID! OH YEAAAAHHHH! right through the wall instead of their trap infested maze of secret doors.
Jason Nelson wrote: The wands are cheap, costing pocket really for any party past about 5th level if not sooner if they're motivated to get one. The gp cost isn't the relevant resource.
The more important resource is time (2 rounds to discover and locate all SDs, plus an additional round to "closely examine" one SD, whether that requires physical proximity (a "close" examination) or simply focused attention (a "close" examination) is ambiguous).
Also, using DSD substantially slows down the movement of the party, unless they leave the detecting person behind, because each time you move, you reset your detection to round 1. To get any useful information you have to stay in one place and not move the area of effect. Also, you can only take single moves, since you're concentrating as a standard action, and in any round where you get the wand out to cast, or put it away (so you can get out something more useful while you're concentrating on the DSD effect) you only get a 5-foot step.
RESOURCE COST IN MONEY: Not relevant past the first few levels.
RESOURCE COST IN ACTIONS/TIME: Relevant in proportion to how many secret doors there are - if it's just one, not a big deal (though enough to give bad guys a few rounds of prep). If it's a bunch of them, it becomes a proportionally bigger annoyance/drain.
One solution to expedite the process if you're a caster (or a rogue with UMD) is just to carry a scroll of passwall, though it only works as long as you know for sure which direction the bad guys have gone. If you do, you bypass the whole mess and just HEY KOOL-AID! OH YEAAAAHHHH! right through the wall instead of their trap infested maze of secret doors.
Or cast Blink. Non zero chance you take a trivial amount of damage, but you can also walk through as many walls as you can move through in 10 rounds.
The secret doors only slow you down if it's something you have to go through. Since it is a mansion and not a dungeon, it's going to be laid out as if people actually live there. And once you secure the place you can take your time to case it.
Kirth is right though. Low level challenges stop becoming relevant past low levels. Difference is while you can still use orcs at higher levels by raising their level, a higher level secret door is no different than a lower one to deal with.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
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.
Rogues still have uses for a decent while. Searching, scouting, trapfinding and trap bypassing are all nice things that a rogue brings to the table.
Mistah Green wrote:
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.
Oh I had assumed that there was a true seeing active.. either by spell or by bound planar critter with it.
But by misdirection I had more effective and mundane versions in mind.
Mistah Green wrote:
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...
I'd go with a rogue dual wielding a flame blade and a chill touch spell. Should be somewhat viable at your levels, though is tending to lose that. Throw in decent scouting, trapfinding and bypassing and it could work.
Mind you that your DM would have to throw in some traps that would be worth bypassing.
For a mansion I'd go with things along the lines of a greater dispel magic trap. For the mundane servants (if any) it doesn't matter if they trigger it, while those with active spells would be told to avoid it. It could be tied to things to alert someone to the incursion depending on where you wanted it, etc. Likewise in any scenario where getting detected early on would defeat the purpose (i.e. a rescue mission where they gak the hostage if the alarm goes up, etc).
There are ways to deter 'hey diddle diddle' from being the best choice for parties. But if you throw up low level roadblocks for a high level party you can't be disappointed when they simply step over them without even recognition that it was supposed to be a road block.
-James
james maissen wrote: Kirth Gersen wrote:
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.
Rogues still have uses for a decent while. Searching, scouting, trapfinding and trap bypassing are all nice things that a rogue brings to the table. Not really. Searching is too slow, trap bypassing is too slow and will probably fail, scouting just means they fight alone because stealth hasn't worked since 3rd edition and each new edition just breaks it in different ways.
Quote: Oh I had assumed that there was a true seeing active.. either by spell or by bound planar critter with it.
But by misdirection I had more effective and mundane versions in mind.
Mundanely disguise themselves as each other? Because that's what they were doing to make it unclear who the real target was. Just one problem with that. They won't be that good at it. Druid will just auto spot em.
Quote: I'd go with a rogue dual wielding a flame blade and a chill touch spell. Should be somewhat viable at your levels, though is tending to lose that. Throw in decent scouting, trapfinding and bypassing and it could work. And you get enemies reliably flat footed in which way? So far you've only covered the touch attack bit, if that's what Flame Blade does. You haven't covered the PTWF bit, and you haven't compensated for the Blink nerf. If you say 'flank or feint' return to the drawing board.
Quote: Mind you that your DM would have to throw in some traps that would be worth bypassing.
For a mansion I'd go with things along the lines of a greater dispel magic trap. For the mundane servants (if any) it doesn't matter if they trigger it, while those with active spells would be told to avoid it. It could be tied to things to alert someone to the incursion depending on where you wanted it, etc. Likewise in any scenario where getting detected early on would defeat the purpose (i.e. a rescue mission where they gak the hostage if the alarm goes up, etc).
It's funny that you mention a dispel trap, seeing as such a thing is not listed in the trap section, and Dispel being heavily nerfed is one of the biggest arguments that PF has buffed casters.
12th level Maguses can cast that spell?
As for hostage situations, that just further promotes the zerg run. You can't give enemies a turn, or you'll fail the quest. So you have to be quick and decisive.
Mistah Green wrote:
Not really. Searching is too slow, trap bypassing is too slow and will probably fail, scouting just means they fight alone because stealth hasn't worked since 3rd edition and each new edition just breaks it in different ways.
Your level is around what, 12th now? 10th? Any rogue should auto-find traps by then, and disable them to boot. Likewise scouting should work the preponderance of times.
I don't see your issues with them in this respect.
Mistah Green wrote:
Mundanely disguise themselves as each other? Because that's what they were doing to make it unclear who the real target was. Just one problem with that. They won't be that good at it. Druid will just auto spot em.
Nah, more like cause you to go towards one room as they sneak out the other. Possibly using those secret doors that your smash and grab doesn't want to waste the time to find even.
Meanwhile the important people have already left the building.
Mistah Green wrote:
And you get enemies reliably flat footed in which way? So far you've only covered the touch attack bit, if that's what Flame Blade does. You haven't covered the PTWF bit, and you haven't compensated for the Blink nerf. If you say 'flank or feint' return to the drawing board.
I would say flank.. cause it ain't hard. Depending upon what you have available to you other options can be taken, but they vary by target.
Mistah Green wrote:
It's funny that you mention a dispel trap, seeing as such a thing is not listed in the trap section, and Dispel being heavily nerfed is one of the biggest arguments that PF has buffed casters.
12th level Maguses can cast that spell?
I don't really care what a magus can or can't cast.
As to what happens to be on their list of sample traps, what's your point? Are you saying that your DM can't even make up that kinda trap? If so, I'd posit that your problem might not be system based..
-James
james maissen wrote: Mistah Green wrote:
Not really. Searching is too slow, trap bypassing is too slow and will probably fail, scouting just means they fight alone because stealth hasn't worked since 3rd edition and each new edition just breaks it in different ways.
Your level is around what, 12th now? 10th? Any rogue should auto-find traps by then, and disable them to boot. Likewise scouting should work the preponderance of times.
I don't see your issues with them in this respect. 10th. So you can hit DC 34 effortlessly, and not slow down the zerg train at all?
Stealth rules are flat out broken. You could have a stealth mod of +9 kajillion and you'd still fail way too often. Meanwhile scouting, even if it works means we're sitting here waiting. Respect the time limit.
Quote: I would say flank.. cause it ain't hard. Depending upon what you have available to you other options can be taken, but they vary by target. Then you go back to the drawing board. Flanking is too slow and risky.
The point is that they have some resources available to them and some that are not. The point is that Dispel is heavily nerfed. The point is that we've seen what happens when you just make stuff up, and it doesn't go well. Clearly, PF traps are intended to be nothing more than a very easy source of experience. Otherwise they would be considerably more dangerous.
If people want to construct straw man complaints about the Spell Compendium, they're not going to react well to other deviations from core either.
Mistah Green wrote:
Then you go back to the drawing board. Flanking is too slow and risky.
I'd like to hear why. Flanking can be done within a round, and any round in which the flanked creature moves too much, it denies itself its full-round actions. Additionally, if you are trying to flank against a large mob, it's the brute who should be in the middle of the mess. The sensitivities I see are, then, the following: Flanking casters, Flanking in mob battles. Everything else seems well within the acceptable range of practicalities and risks.
I typically make my traps much more dangerous than they would be in the core rules. Much, much more dangerous. They also make for great terrain in a boss fight. Got enemies immune to cold? Bring some cone of cold traps all around. Got some iron golems? Even the lowly burning hands trap can become dangerous, and fireball traps are awesome.
If a trap is on its own, with no support from monsters, NPC's, or anything, I don't think it's unreasonable to make a save-or-die or an auto-kill trap.
Mistah Green wrote:
10th. So you can hit DC 34 effortlessly, and not slow down the zerg train at all?
Of course, who couldn't?
Think about it. You should be able to hit +29 or 30 without much effort or investment.
Mistah Green wrote:
Stealth rules are flat out broken. You could have a stealth mod of +9 kajillion and you'd still fail way too often. Meanwhile scouting, even if it works means we're sitting here waiting. Respect the time limit.
Wow. Well scouting's not for every group, some can't handle it well.
I'm thinking that while you might have some experience with casters, you don't with rogues. At 10th level a rogue should still easily be viable for your group, though if your group is not used to one being played well and doesn't accommodate it then your millage will vary.
-James
Mistah Green wrote: It's funny that you mention a dispel trap, seeing as such a thing is not listed in the trap section... You're referring to the section whose list of traps is entitled, "Sample Traps," and begins with the text, "The following sample traps represent just some of the possibilities..." If you want to avoid looking misinformed, you need to read the heading and the description of a list before you draw any conclusions from that list.
I suggest your GM reread the entire Traps section, particularly the section entitled "Designing a Trap" and Table 13-4: CR Modifiers for Magic Traps. A greater dispel magic trap is CR 12 (single target) or 13 (area effect), a tough but not unreasonable trap for a 10th-level party.
Also CR 13: a forbiddance spell that hits everyone entering the area with a dispel magic effect each time they enter (in addition to blocking all planar travel, summoning, and teleportation). Hint: at higher levels, use forbiddance effects in pairs with interlocking areas of effect. That way, the entire lair is warded, but intruders are constantly having to exit one area and reenter the other.
james maissen wrote: Mistah Green wrote:
Stealth rules are flat out broken. You could have a stealth mod of +9 kajillion and you'd still fail way too often. Meanwhile scouting, even if it works means we're sitting here waiting. Respect the time limit.
Wow. Well scouting's not for every group, some can't handle it well. Concur with the broken stealth rules, because of how skills themselves work. If a natural 20 is automatic success -- well, say 20 people wearing earplugs and blindfolds are passed out drunk in the center football stadium. If Batman the Ninja is invisible and wearing 3e boots of elvenkind and tries to peek in on them through a secret spyhole at the edge of the stands, simple probability assigns a nearly 75% chance that he'll get caught -- whereupon they wake each other up and start chasing him and setting off alarms. That's not a good system.
Unless the DM ALWAYS uses a single Peception roll for each entire group, Stealth is a more or less guaranteed failure from the get-go. But if he does that, then he prevents all but one of the PCs from rolling their own skill checks, which can get mighty annoying to most players. It's a no-win scenario.
Luckily, by the rules, skills do not have automatic successes or failures. Apparently, however, the most common houserule is to add them.
Epic Meepo wrote: Also CR 13: a forbiddance spell that hits everyone entering the area with a dispel magic effect each time they enter (in addition to blocking all planar travel, summoning, and teleportation). Hint: at higher levels, use forbiddance effects in pairs with interlocking areas of effect. That way, the entire lair is warded, but intruders are constantly having to exit one area and reenter the other. Combine this with Guards and Wards for a really fun time! And you can easily get Guards and Wards cast on your own home without much trouble. It's not expensive, and it doesn't hit friendlies.
Cartigan wrote: Luckily, by the rules, skills do not have automatic successes or failures. Apparently, however, the most common houserule is to add them. That was certainly true in 3.5e
3.5e SRD, Skill Checks wrote: "Unlike with attack rolls and saving throws, a natural roll of 20 on the d20 is not an automatic success, and a natural roll of 1 is not an automatic failure." I don't see that text in the Pathfinder PRD, however. Following your lead, I'd like to assume the omission was unintentional, rather than a repealing of the 3.5 edition rule.
Kirth Gersen wrote: Cartigan wrote: Luckily, by the rules, skills do not have automatic successes or failures. Apparently, however, the most common houserule is to add them. That was certainly true in 3.5e
3.5e SRD, Skill Checks wrote: "Unlike with attack rolls and saving throws, a natural roll of 20 on the d20 is not an automatic success, and a natural roll of 1 is not an automatic failure." I don't see that text in the Pathfinder PRD, however. Following your lead, I'd like to assume the omission was unintentional, rather than a repealing of the 3.5 edition rule. under "Combat"
Automatic Misses and Hits: A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss. A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit. A natural 20 is also a threat—a possible critical hit (see the attack action).
A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on a saving throw is always a failure (and may cause damage to exposed items; see Items Surviving after a Saving Throw). A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a success.
Since only attack rolls and saving throws have an auto success/failure clause, only attack rolls and saving throws fail or succeed automatically.
Kirth Gersen wrote: Cartigan wrote: Luckily, by the rules, skills do not have automatic successes or failures. Apparently, however, the most common houserule is to add them. That was certainly true in 3.5e
3.5e SRD, Skill Checks wrote: "Unlike with attack rolls and saving throws, a natural roll of 20 on the d20 is not an automatic success, and a natural roll of 1 is not an automatic failure." I don't see that text in the Pathfinder PRD, however. Following your lead, I'd like to assume the omission was unintentional, rather than a repealing of the 3.5 edition rule. Hopefully, they overlooked adding it to the skills section because having automatic failures for skills precludes taking 10.
Synapse wrote: Since only attack rolls and saving throws have an auto success/failure clause, only attack rolls and saving throws fail or succeed automatically. Bear with me, I'm relatively new to a unified d20 mechanic (switched over from 1e and Victory Games during the waning days of Dungeon in print, and I still have to translate in my head), but since the selling point of d20 is the unified mechanic... wouldn't it make sense to specifically spell in the skills rules out how skill checks differ from the other d20 checks? 3.5 did that, which made sense. PF does not, and, yeah, it makes sense that a 0 isn't an auto-success, but was the 1 sentence spelling that out such a bad thing that it had to be deleted?
Kirth Gersen wrote: Synapse wrote: Since only attack rolls and saving throws have an auto success/failure clause, only attack rolls and saving throws fail or succeed automatically. Bear with me, I'm relatively new to a unified d20 mechanic (switched over from 1e and Victory Games during the waning days of Dungeon in print, and I still have to translate in my head), but since the selling point of d20 is the unified mechanic... wouldn't it make sense to specifically spell in the skills rules out how skill checks differ from the other d20 checks? 3.5 did that, which made sense. PF does not, and, yeah, it makes sense that a 0 isn't an auto-success, but was the 1 sentence spelling that out such a bad thing that it had to be deleted? It already is. Skill checks are "Roll a D20. Add skill ranks, ability modifier. If you equal or beat the DC you succeeded. There may be other things that increase your value in this roll".
That explanation, on its own, is enough since nowhere in the game it is stated that "natural 20s are universal wins". All nat20=win clauses are shown and described as specific.
Synapse wrote: Mistah Green wrote:
Then you go back to the drawing board. Flanking is too slow and risky.
I'd like to hear why. Flanking can be done within a round, and any round in which the flanked creature moves too much, it denies itself its full-round actions. Additionally, if you are trying to flank against a large mob, it's the brute who should be in the middle of the mess. The sensitivities I see are, then, the following: Flanking casters, Flanking in mob battles. Everything else seems well within the acceptable range of practicalities and risks. For the exact reason you state. You deny yourself a full round action, but do not deny the same to your enemy. You move up, attack once, and get full attacked.
Mistah Green wrote: For the exact reason you state. You deny yourself a full round action, but do not deny the same to your enemy. You move up, attack once, and get full attacked. This would be mitigated somewhat if TWF provided attacks in pairs: i.e., one primary weapon attack and one off-hand attack as a standard action (wasn't there a 3.5 feat that did that? Anyway, it would be a band-aid from 8th to 14th level) -- or, better yet, if PCs could mix movement and attacks rather than being forced to do one or the other.
I'm not able to process all the trickle-down effects at once, but would it break the game in some way if everyone could take a move action and a full attack in the same round?
Mistah Green wrote: Synapse wrote: Mistah Green wrote:
Then you go back to the drawing board. Flanking is too slow and risky.
I'd like to hear why. Flanking can be done within a round, and any round in which the flanked creature moves too much, it denies itself its full-round actions. Additionally, if you are trying to flank against a large mob, it's the brute who should be in the middle of the mess. The sensitivities I see are, then, the following: Flanking casters, Flanking in mob battles. Everything else seems well within the acceptable range of practicalities and risks. For the exact reason you state. You deny yourself a full round action, but do not deny the same to your enemy. You move up, attack once, and get full attacked. That goes both ways, and once you are already flanking, the creature cannot avoid the flanking reliably without denying its own full attack. Most things that help you resist a full attack can already be done at first round, even if it is just "let the big dumb fighter take it"
james maissen wrote: Mistah Green wrote:
10th. So you can hit DC 34 effortlessly, and not slow down the zerg train at all?
Of course, who couldn't?
Think about it. You should be able to hit +29 or 30 without much effort or investment.
Mistah Green wrote:
Stealth rules are flat out broken. You could have a stealth mod of +9 kajillion and you'd still fail way too often. Meanwhile scouting, even if it works means we're sitting here waiting. Respect the time limit.
Wow. Well scouting's not for every group, some can't handle it well.
I'm thinking that while you might have some experience with casters, you don't with rogues. At 10th level a rogue should still easily be viable for your group, though if your group is not used to one being played well and doesn't accommodate it then your millage will vary.
-James 10 ranks + 3 trained + what accounts for the other 16 or 17 points?
Doesn't matter what group it is. When it has a long list of conditions that amount to 'you automatically fail regardless of the actual dice roll' you just say screw it, tie your party together and cast Mass Invis and Silence if you want to be sneaky (the Silence is on a coin, so you can easily break LoE to cast if need be).
And no, they wouldn't in PF. In 3.5 sure, but that's because they still have the things that make them good there.
Kirth Gersen wrote: Mistah Green wrote: For the exact reason you state. You deny yourself a full round action, but do not deny the same to your enemy. You move up, attack once, and get full attacked. This would be mitigated somewhat if TWF provided attacks in pairs: i.e., one primary weapon attack and one off-hand attack as a standard action (wasn't there a 3.5 feat that did that? Anyway, it would be a band-aid from 8th to 14th level) -- or, better yet, if PCs could mix movement and attacks rather than being forced to do one or the other.
I'm not able to process all the trickle-down effects at once, but would it break the game in some way if everyone could take a move action and a full attack in the same round? There's still a massive difference between 2 and 6. The blink tactic is used because it gets you going on round 1.
I think there was such a feat, though it was probably someone's houserules.
And to answer your question, it wouldn't. Every viable melee goes for pounce for this reason. All of the spellcasters can move without losing the bulk of their effectiveness. Why not melees also?
And by round 2 the fight is either over or half over. At this point it no longer matters, and you've cut your already barely relevant DPS by at least half trying. More, if you got full attacked and died.
Mistah Green wrote: james maissen wrote: Mistah Green wrote:
10th. So you can hit DC 34 effortlessly, and not slow down the zerg train at all?
Of course, who couldn't?
Think about it. You should be able to hit +29 or 30 without much effort or investment.
Mistah Green wrote:
Stealth rules are flat out broken. You could have a stealth mod of +9 kajillion and you'd still fail way too often. Meanwhile scouting, even if it works means we're sitting here waiting. Respect the time limit.
Wow. Well scouting's not for every group, some can't handle it well.
I'm thinking that while you might have some experience with casters, you don't with rogues. At 10th level a rogue should still easily be viable for your group, though if your group is not used to one being played well and doesn't accommodate it then your millage will vary.
-James 10 ranks + 3 trained + what accounts for the other 16 or 17 points?
Stat + items.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quote: And by round 2 the fight is either over or half over. At this point it no longer matters, and you've cut your already barely relevant DPS by at least half trying. More, if you got full attacked and died. As a DM: If my party can finish any encounter that was designed specifically to challenge them in 1-3 rounds, I have not done my job.
As as player: If my DM has made an encounter that was designed to challenge us but we killed it in 1-2 rounds, either we are way overpowered or he totally misjudged our power.
all of this is moot when talking about non-challenging encounters, and when nat-20s show up.
thus far as a DM; 2 different parties, levels 1-15 on first and 1-5 thus far on the second, I have not had a battle that was meant to challenge them last less than 5 rounds, and that was at level 4 against a goblin king (4 rounds).
dusparr wrote: As a DM: If my party can finish any encounter that was designed specifically to challenge them in 1-3 rounds, I have not done my job. Speed of combat resolution, IRL, is a function of skill/power, not of parity of sides. Two untrained slobs can slug at each other all day and not have a clear winner. Two world-class operatives with lifelong Krav Maga or Hapkido immersion, surprising each other in an alley, will result in one dead person inside of a few seconds.
From my limited experience in editions later than 1st, it still works that way to some extent in D&D 3.X as well, because of the way the really good offenses (save or die DCs) outstrip defenses (resistances and immunity) in the core rules. 1st level characters with BAB +1 and no magic, with heavy armor and shields, can swing at each other, missing every shot, nearly forever. A group of 15th level characters encountering formidable opposition will pull out the stops, use encounter-ending abilities, and combat will be over in 2 rounds.
Cold Napalm wrote: Mistah Green wrote: james maissen wrote: Mistah Green wrote:
10th. So you can hit DC 34 effortlessly, and not slow down the zerg train at all?
Of course, who couldn't?
Think about it. You should be able to hit +29 or 30 without much effort or investment.
Mistah Green wrote:
Stealth rules are flat out broken. You could have a stealth mod of +9 kajillion and you'd still fail way too often. Meanwhile scouting, even if it works means we're sitting here waiting. Respect the time limit.
Wow. Well scouting's not for every group, some can't handle it well.
I'm thinking that while you might have some experience with casters, you don't with rogues. At 10th level a rogue should still easily be viable for your group, though if your group is not used to one being played well and doesn't accommodate it then your millage will vary.
-James 10 ranks + 3 trained + what accounts for the other 16 or 17 points?
Stat + items. And precisely which stat and which items do so at level 10? If your answer involves having to set most of your wealth on fire to afford it, or severely gimping the important aspects of your Rogue to obtain it then we're back to zerging it.
As for your slow combats, so everyone at the table is goofing off? The enemies, for not killing someone in two rounds and the players for not killing everyone in two rounds?
I suppose if you're constantly fudging and goofing around then things get slow. But when people play at all seriously, things go real quick.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote: dusparr wrote: As a DM: If my party can finish any encounter that was designed specifically to challenge them in 1-3 rounds, I have not done my job. Speed of combat resolution, IRL, is a function of skill/power, not of parity of sides. Two untrained slobs can slug at each other all day and not have a clear winner. Two world-class operatives with lifelong Krav Maga or Hapkido immersion, surprising each other in an alley, will result in one dead person inside of a few seconds.
And 4 people vs 4+ people ends in 6 seconds... When? (Aside from the mexican standoff, that is not a "challenging" encounter, but a roleplay)
Kirth Gersen wrote: dusparr wrote: As a DM: If my party can finish any encounter that was designed specifically to challenge them in 1-3 rounds, I have not done my job. Speed of combat resolution, IRL, is a function of skill/power, not of parity of sides. Two untrained slobs can slug at each other all day and not have a clear winner. Two world-class operatives with lifelong Krav Maga or Hapkido immersion, surprising each other in an alley, will result in one dead person inside of a few seconds.
From my limited experience in editions later than 1st, it still works that way to some extent in D&D 3.X as well, because of the way the really good offenses (save or die DCs) outstrip defenses (resistances and immunity) in the core rules. 1st level characters with BAB +1 and no magic, with heavy armor and shields, can swing at each other, missing every shot, nearly forever. A group of 15th level characters encountering formidable opposition will pull out the stops, use encounter-ending abilities, and combat will be over in 2 rounds. Ugh, forum problems.
In short, that's not it.
Melee starts with low accuracy but high damage relative to enemy HP and ends up hitting all the time but barring heavy optimization you need many hits to matter (aka kill something).
The chance of making saves for enemies actually increases over time for some enemy types and decreases for others. So while you can mow down non caster NPCs with Glitterdust or some other throwaway will spell even at high levels, the stuff you actually care about will become more resistant over time. Combat still lasts about the same length though due to no save spells and combos that lower saves.
The resistance and immunity bit you're misquoting. For PCs, you're unlikely to get much better than a 50% success rate at most in core. Not good when one failed save = die. Non core improves this, along with expanding the limited array of immunities. It also helps humanoid NPCs and spellcasting monsters become more resilient. Combat will still be quick through, 2 rounds or less.
keep in mind that what they did is played caster rocket tag. They concentrated 4 save or loses on the Magus character, who failed at least one of them, and was suddenly ineffective. THe DM's mindset was on "I need to buff saves so he survives" rather then "I need tactics so those spells don't work."
The rogues, for some reason, couldn't contribute at all to helping shut down the casters, either by knowing they were coming and having readied actions to disrupt, or by having anti-magical things available to punish those dependent on spells.
I'd also like to note that a Passwall on a typical board and paneling house is useless, as it has to go through 2 surfaces (two pieces of paneling separated by airspace). Blink could get into all sorts of interesting problems...but any lair imaginable should be defended by dimensional-barring magic if at all possible. That teleport-delay spell would be hilarious against a blinking rogue...he blinks out, reappears 3 rounds later...
Move and getting attacks is a whole nother problem with the game. At the very least, Vital Strike should be INTEGRAL to all melee classes...but as someone else pointed out, damage should be fixed, not by weapon type, although it does reward a big weapon.
==Aelryinth
The biggest problem I've had with the Magus so far (as a DM) is that I can't get anyone interested in playing a Magus. The responses I got when I showed my players the play test download were generally something to the effect of, "Why would I do that when I can play an Eldritch Knight?"
Meanwhile, two of my players are bugging me to let them do Artificer conversions....
Sieglord wrote: The biggest problem I've had with the Magus so far (as a DM) is that I can't get anyone interested in playing a Magus. The responses I got when I showed my players the play test download were generally something to the effect of, "Why would I do that when I can play an Eldritch Knight?"
Meanwhile, two of my players are bugging me to let them do Artificer conversions....
I'm kind of in the same boat, except it is not just my players. I've found I'm just not interested in the Magus either. I brought it to the table and no one wanted to play it. I created an NPC with the class, but it didn't grab my interest enough to keep it in play.
Maybe I'm kind of done with new classes for a bit. After the APG playtest and release I just don't care about seeing new classes.
Now new setting material, that's a different story. I can't get enough of that, for now.
Just out of curiosity, can Paizo convert and re-release all of the class builds and races that were published in Dragon while they did the magazine or are those WotC property? There were several in those mags that were really good and would probably work well in Golarion.
Just curious.
Capt. D wrote:
Just out of curiosity, can Paizo convert and re-release all of the class builds and races that were published in Dragon while they did the magazine or are those WotC property? There were several in those mags that were really good and would probably work well in Golarion.
Just curious.
Nope, WOTC own it all. Paizo can't use any of it.
dusparr wrote:
As a DM: If my party can finish any encounter that was designed specifically to challenge them in 1-3 rounds, I have not done my job.
As as player: If my DM has made an encounter that was designed to challenge us but we killed it in 1-2 rounds, either we are way overpowered or he totally misjudged our power.
all of this is moot when talking about non-challenging encounters, and when nat-20s show up.
thus far as a DM; 2 different parties, levels 1-15 on first and 1-5 thus far on the second, I have not had a battle that was meant to challenge them last less than 5 rounds, and that was at level 4 against a goblin king (4 rounds).
I run almost exclusively published adventures. Without extreme deviations from enemy stats, but with enemy tactics other than default. The average combat length against fairly unoptimized parties was 2-3 rounds. I can remeber only one combat that dragged on for more than 4 rounds and did not include multiple waves of evemies. And there the party was nearly screwed, and avoided a TPK mostly by one PC making two saves at 25% probability in a row.
FatR wrote: dusparr wrote:
As a DM: If my party can finish any encounter that was designed specifically to challenge them in 1-3 rounds, I have not done my job.
As as player: If my DM has made an encounter that was designed to challenge us but we killed it in 1-2 rounds, either we are way overpowered or he totally misjudged our power.
all of this is moot when talking about non-challenging encounters, and when nat-20s show up.
thus far as a DM; 2 different parties, levels 1-15 on first and 1-5 thus far on the second, I have not had a battle that was meant to challenge them last less than 5 rounds, and that was at level 4 against a goblin king (4 rounds).
I run almost exclusively published adventures. Without extreme deviations from enemy stats, but with enemy tactics other than default. The average combat length against fairly unoptimized parties was 2-3 rounds. I can remeber only one combat that dragged on for more than 4 rounds and did not include multiple waves of evemies. And there the party was nearly screwed, and avoided a TPK mostly by one PC making two saves at 25% probability in a row.
This. And while Aelryinth is still playing the screw the rules, I got money card and insisting you can ready actions outside of initiative he did remind me of something.
Melee is incredibly easy to shut down. You'd have to be actively trying not to. A mere 2 1st level spells will increase the physical defense of most monsters by 8. There is no parallel when it comes to magic defense. Even the 6th level, non core superior resistance is only +6. And this isn't counting all the indirect screw you measures such as not standing still to shut down full attacks, the grocery list of things that block charges, miss chances, invis, decoys...
Even if melee and spells started off equal, the trivial ease by which the former can be made a non factor by anyone who cares would still be enough to shut down melee. In a way it's kind of fortunate for them most people have no reason to care, otherwise a ticket to the bench is only 75 gold away.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mistah Green wrote:
Over time we all realized that not only had PF not fixed Linear Warriors Quadratic Wizards, they made it worse.
You might have had an argument if you were actually playing a Pathfinder game. But you weren't. You were playing a composite game loaded with unbalanced splat from WOTC.
WOTC's splat material was bad enough with the comparatively sucky base classes from 3.5. Combine it however with the souped up base abilities from Pathfinder and it's a time bomb in the making, as almost all of WOTC's splat was caster oriented. Pathfinder nerfed it's base magic in favor of souping up base classes, but putting in almost anything from the Compendiums and Splats not only negates the changes in Pathfinder it sets you back because of the base improvements to caster abilities and HD.
Yes you probably don't want to part with your ton of WOTC books and that's a valid desire. In such a case, you're probably better off swearing off Pathfinder completely. However having played both, I'm more than happy to consign MY ton of 3.5 splat books to the dustbin.
If you want to give Pathfinder a fair assessment, try playing it pure with none of that 3.5 baggage.
Mistah Green wrote: [...]
10 ranks + 3 trained + what accounts for the other 16 or 17 points?
[...]
Stealth skill breakdown for stealthy Rogue:
Skill ranks: +10
Class skill: +3
Dexterity 22: +6 (assuming 20 with +2 Dex item)
Skill focus (Stealth): +6 (bonus goes up with 10 ranks or more)
Cloak of Elvenkind: +5 (2500 GP)
Stealth total: +30
For bonus kicks, select Rogue Talent: Skill Mastery, to be always take 10.
Regards,
Ruemere
ruemere wrote: Mistah Green wrote: [...]
10 ranks + 3 trained + what accounts for the other 16 or 17 points?
[...]
Stealth skill breakdown for stealthy Rogue:
Skill ranks: +10
Class skill: +3
Dexterity 22: +6 (assuming 20 with +2 Dex item)
Skill focus (Stealth): +6 (bonus goes up with 10 ranks or more)
Cloak of Elvenkind: +5 (2500 GP)
Stealth total: +30
Regards,
Ruemere
We were talking about trap skills.
Stealth could be +9 kajillion and you'd still be spotted due to all the auto lose conditions.
Minus Cloak of Elvenkind then.
Autolose conditions do the same for Rogues which dead magic conditions do for casters - make other classes useful.
If your GM goes out of his way to include such conditions, it means that the problem lies beyond the system.
Just like with that Magus sample encounter you provided - as per your GM and your accounts, the game was deliberately skewed to handicap the NPC.
Regards,
Ruemere
ruemere wrote: Minus Cloak of Elvenkind then.
Autolose conditions do the same for Rogues which dead magic conditions do for casters - make other classes useful.
If your GM goes out of his way to include such conditions, it means that the problem lies beyond the system.
Just like with that Magus sample encounter you provided - as per your GM and your accounts, the game was deliberately skewed to handicap the NPC.
Regards,
Ruemere
So 25? Which isn't that high, despite setting a feat on fire, and having an unusually high Dex given that finesse is a trap and flasks don't work?
Auto lose conditions for Rogues are things like 'bright light' and 'nothing to hide behind' - things that come up all the time without even trying. There is absolutely no comparison between this and something that only exists by fiat and whose only effect is 'fine, we don't adventure there'.
Now explain why you say the game was deliberately skewed to handicap the PC.
Mistah Green wrote:
We were talking about trap skills.
Stealth could be +9 kajillion and you'd still be spotted due to all the auto lose conditions.
Elven Rogue, 10th Level
25-point buy
Str 12 (2 points)
Dex 18+2 (17 points)
Con 16-2 (10 points)
Int 8+2 (-2 points)
Wis 12 (2 point)
Chr 7 (-4 points)
Items (62,000 gp wealth by level)
Goggles of Minute Seeing (2,500) +5 competence to disable device
Eyes of the Eagle (2,500) +5 competence to perception
Belt of Phyiscal Might (Dex/Con) +2 (10,000)
Headband of Inspired Wisdom +2 (4,000)
Masterwork Thieves Tools (100) +2 Circumstance Bonus to Disable Device
4th and 8th level stat boosts: Dexterity (22 base)
Dexterity 24 (+7), Wis 14 (+2)
10th level rogue Trapfinding (Class feature): +5 untyped bonus to Perception and Disable Device
Elf: Keen Senses (+2 Perception Bonus, untyped)
Feats:
Deft Hands (+4 untyped bonus to disable device)
Alertness (+4 untyped bonus to Perception)
Talents:
Trapspotter: free Perception check when within 10' of a trap (DM rolls)
Skill Mastery (Perception, Disable Device, other): may always take 10 on these skills, even when normally prevented from doing so
Skills:
Perception (10 ranks) +3 class skill
Disable Device (10 ranks) +3 class skill
So, if I'm doing my math right we've got a perception check of
10 (ranks) +3 (trained) +2 (race) + 5 (class feature) +5 (magic item) +4 (feat) + 2 (stat): +31 that you can always take 10 on for a +41 when *walking past a trap and not looking for it*. If the rogue is looking, they get a second check at +42, as I'm certain someone will cast guidance on them.
Then, if a trap is found, the disable Device roll is:
10 (ranks) +3 (trained) +2 (tools) + 5 (class feature) +5 (magic item) +4 (feat) + 7 (stat): a +36 that you can also always take 10 on, for a +47 when guidance is cast on you.
This isn't counting skill focus, which would raise those by +2 (if they replaced deft hands/alertness) or +6 (if they were in addition to deft hands/alertness).
Ok. Now demonstrate how quickly you can disarm the trap, and demonstrate, using the other 42,900 of your wealth and your other resources that you did not use for traps how you will contribute to combat keeping in mind PTWF is out, flasks are out, and blink is out.
Mistah Green wrote: Ok. Now demonstrate how quickly you can disarm the trap, and demonstrate, using the other 42,900 of your wealth and your other resources that you did not use for traps how you will contribute to combat keeping in mind PTWF is out, flasks are out, and blink is out. Sure.
The three full-casters Save-or-Suck the bad guys, you CdG them.
As to how quickly you disarm the trap, well, Quick Disable means 'twice as fast as normal', but that's dependent on the trap, isn't it?
More seriously, with your three other feats, I'd take Combat expertise, improved feint. With talents I'd take finesse rogue. I'd probably take Two-weapon fighting anyway. Outside of surprise rounds and flanking, I'd feint to get my +5d6 sneak attacks in.
As for the wealth, Celestial Armor and a +3 weapon for my primary hand. +1 weapon for off-hand is fine, if I even have one.
If HP-damage combat isn't suitable for the party build-up, then that money would go towards items to use with UMD, which would be my third 'always take 10' skill.
Mistah Green wrote: Ok. Now demonstrate how quickly you can disarm the trap, and demonstrate, using the other 42,900 of your wealth and your other resources that you did not use for traps how you will contribute to combat keeping in mind PTWF is out, flasks are out, and blink is out. Rather than asking others to do the work for you, why don't you do it yourself? I have trouble believing that you couldn't do it.
Yet you seemed to have problems figuring out those basic bonuses (for which he did an overkill/investment) so he was trying to help you out. Now you look like you were trolling it instead.
Which is it?
Sorry, but a rogue can factor into things here. At much higher levels they will have more of a problem, but not here. Now he might not factor in well to the way that you, your group and your DM play. Fine so be it.
However not everyone plays that way, or gets to get away with playing that way.
-James
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sieglord wrote: The biggest problem I've had with the Magus so far (as a DM) is that I can't get anyone interested in playing a Magus. The responses I got when I showed my players the play test download were generally something to the effect of, "Why would I do that when I can play an Eldritch Knight?"
Meanwhile, two of my players are bugging me to let them do Artificer conversions....
I personally prefer the Eldritch Knight to the Magus, but that's because I prefer the greater shortcomings so that I can be a full wizard when I want to be one. I don't consider the Magus an inferior road, just not my particular cup of tea. I am going to try one in PFS the first chance I get to start another character.
Also despite the vocality of it's proponents, not everyone is that all-fired up to play a "gish" character. The Magus is a compromise between two disparate roads and that compromise and synthesis comes at prices not everyone may want to pay.
There's a good Artificer class here you might want to check out.
Marshall Jansen wrote: Mistah Green wrote: Ok. Now demonstrate how quickly you can disarm the trap, and demonstrate, using the other 42,900 of your wealth and your other resources that you did not use for traps how you will contribute to combat keeping in mind PTWF is out, flasks are out, and blink is out. Sure.
The three full-casters Save-or-Suck the bad guys, you CdG them.
As to how quickly you disarm the trap, well, Quick Disable means 'twice as fast as normal', but that's dependent on the trap, isn't it?
More seriously, with your three other feats, I'd take Combat expertise, improved feint. With talents I'd take finesse rogue. I'd probably take Two-weapon fighting anyway. Outside of surprise rounds and flanking, I'd feint to get my +5d6 sneak attacks in.
As for the wealth, Celestial Armor and a +3 weapon for my primary hand. +1 weapon for off-hand is fine, if I even have one.
If HP-damage combat isn't suitable for the party build-up, then that money would go towards items to use with UMD, which would be my third 'always take 10' skill. Ok. Round 1 you move up to the enemy. Round 2 you kill one. Maybe. Still rather slow.
Twice as fast is something, but that's still buff rounds ticking. Respect the time limit.
Going the feint route gives you about 20-25 damage a round... maybe. Yeah, he's not pulling his weight. You had a good start though.
I don't have my books in front of me, so what is Celestial Armor supposed to add and how much does it cost?
Because you're down to 22,250ish - whatever the armor costs and you have no saves items and only a Con of 16.
james maissen wrote: Mistah Green wrote: Ok. Now demonstrate how quickly you can disarm the trap, and demonstrate, using the other 42,900 of your wealth and your other resources that you did not use for traps how you will contribute to combat keeping in mind PTWF is out, flasks are out, and blink is out. Rather than asking others to do the work for you, why don't you do it yourself? I have trouble believing that you couldn't do it.
Yet you seemed to have problems figuring out those basic bonuses (for which he did an overkill/investment) so he was trying to help you out. Now you look like you were trolling it instead.
Which is it?
Sorry, but a rogue can factor into things here. At much higher levels they will have more of a problem, but not here. Now he might not factor in well to the way that you, your group and your DM play. Fine so be it.
However not everyone plays that way, or gets to get away with playing that way.
-James Because I don't have my books in front of me and I'm not the one claiming non casters are viable, so the burden of proof is on him to demonstrate they are. Specifically that a Rogue is, despite everything that made Rogues good being stripped away.
As it was he got off to a good start but it quickly fell short. That's an improvement at least.
As for talk of 'playing that way' or not, Pathfinder is Caster Edition. Groups are either going to consist of people who have not realized this or that have. The ones that haven't figured it out yet will still try stuff like this, but that doesn't mean it will work. And people gain knowledge over time. Barring things like amnesia, they don't lose it. Thus the chance of any given group figuring out they are doing it wrong approaches 1. You have a problem with that, take it up with the guys who designed the rules.
Mistah Green wrote:
Ok. Round 1 you move up to the enemy. Round 2 you kill one. Maybe. Still rather slow.
Twice as fast is something, but that's still buff rounds ticking. Respect the time limit.
Going the feint route gives you about 20-25 damage a round... maybe. Yeah, he's not pulling his weight. You had a good start though.
I don't have my books in front of me, so what is Celestial Armor supposed to add and how much does it cost?
Because you're down to 22,250ish - whatever the armor costs and you have no saves items and only a Con of 16.
Celestial armor is +3 chain with minute armor penalties that lets you use up to +8 dex to AC and fly.
In a real optimized game, I'd push for almost all of my items to be half-cost by buddying up with the casters and get them to make them.
The reason I'm iffy on TWF is that since I can't guarantee a flanker, a spell to deny dex, or for every round to be a surprise/flat-footed round, I'll be using move actions to feint. With a combat partner, full-attack TWF flanks are significantly better.
But again, in an all-caster party that doesn't bother with doing HP damage to enemies, I'd seriously go the UMD route with my own save or sucks, ignore AC and weapon, and spend wealth on resistance and wands. I'd also ignore the 12 str and push that into Charisma, get a headband of chr/wis, and pile on the party face skills.
Marshall Jansen wrote: Mistah Green wrote:
Ok. Round 1 you move up to the enemy. Round 2 you kill one. Maybe. Still rather slow.
Twice as fast is something, but that's still buff rounds ticking. Respect the time limit.
Going the feint route gives you about 20-25 damage a round... maybe. Yeah, he's not pulling his weight. You had a good start though.
I don't have my books in front of me, so what is Celestial Armor supposed to add and how much does it cost?
Because you're down to 22,250ish - whatever the armor costs and you have no saves items and only a Con of 16.
Celestial armor is +3 chain with minute armor penalties that lets you use up to +8 dex to AC and fly. Medium armor? Or did you mean a chain shirt?
Quote: In a real optimized game, I'd push for almost all of my items to be half-cost by buddying up with the casters and get them to make them. Not a bad idea, and certainly one we use in our 3.5 games where crafting is actually weaker. However it still brings us back to the question of what is your character doing to justify other characters sitting down and doing nothing but helping them for a few weeks. This would be an easy question to answer for a 3.5 Rogue, but the PF Rogue is screwed by no fault of the player.
Quote: The reason I'm iffy on TWF is that since I can't guarantee a flanker, a spell to deny dex, or for every round to be a surprise/flat-footed round, I'll be using move actions to feint. With a combat partner, full-attack TWF flanks are significantly better. Flanking really isn't much better than feinting. You're still only attacking once on round one, and putting yourself in full attack range. As such neither of these are viable at this level.
The spell to deny dex is the biggest problem, as PF nerfs means Grease doesn't work if the enemy doesn't want it to and Blink doesn't either.
Quote: But again, in an all-caster party that doesn't bother with doing HP damage to enemies, I'd seriously go the UMD route with my own save or sucks, ignore AC and weapon, and spend wealth on resistance and wands. I'd also ignore the 12 str and push that into Charisma, get a headband of chr/wis, and pile on the party face skills. Doesn't bother doing HP damage to enemies except to finish off debilitated foes. Which is a formality. If it were all a character could do they'd be no better than a minion.
What would you be UMDing? Wands have a low DC. Scrolls have a high cost. And the Druid is already a face.
Mistah Green wrote: Marshall Jansen wrote: Mistah Green wrote: Ok. Now demonstrate how quickly you can disarm the trap, and demonstrate, using the other 42,900 of your wealth and your other resources that you did not use for traps how you will contribute to combat keeping in mind PTWF is out, flasks are out, and blink is out. Sure.
The three full-casters Save-or-Suck the bad guys, you CdG them.
As to how quickly you disarm the trap, well, Quick Disable means 'twice as fast as normal', but that's dependent on the trap, isn't it?
More seriously, with your three other feats, I'd take Combat expertise, improved feint. With talents I'd take finesse rogue. I'd probably take Two-weapon fighting anyway. Outside of surprise rounds and flanking, I'd feint to get my +5d6 sneak attacks in.
As for the wealth, Celestial Armor and a +3 weapon for my primary hand. +1 weapon for off-hand is fine, if I even have one.
If HP-damage combat isn't suitable for the party build-up, then that money would go towards items to use with UMD, which would be my third 'always take 10' skill. Ok. Round 1 you move up to the enemy. Round 2 you kill one. Maybe. Still rather slow.
Twice as fast is something, but that's still buff rounds ticking. Respect the time limit.
Going the feint route gives you about 20-25 damage a round... maybe. Yeah, he's not pulling his weight. You had a good start though.
I don't have my books in front of me, so what is Celestial Armor supposed to add and how much does it cost?
Because you're down to 22,250ish - whatever the armor costs and you have no saves items and only a Con of 16. As opposed to 4 casters casting hold person with a 25% success rate. Opponent then spends his round to make a new save, with a 75% success rate. Therefore with this method, you only have a 68% chance that he will even be affected, and only a 24% chance that he is stunned for more than a round, which you need in order to coupe de grae him.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
