A good player is normally a good player. If he can dominate play with a wizard he can probably do so with a druid or sorcerer as well. The class is not so good that it takes "average" player to "super" player.No, but it is good enough to take a very good player to "everybody else who isn't a wizard watches them do the adventure."
Druid could definitely do that in 3.5; I'm not sure if it can anymore, and I'm not sure sorcerer ever could.
No it won't. Very good players will have the spells they don't normally use in scroll form so it really won't give them that much. My willingness to keep scrolls of rarely used spells has saved me many times. My players however refuse to listen to my advice. One day they will learn the hard way. The bond is really more effective if you are less of a skilled player since you are less likely to have the right spell prepped or on a scroll.
Random idea:
Circlet of Spellbreaking
Aura strong abjuration CL13
Slot headband; Price 100,000 gp; Weight —
Description
Three times a day the wearer may counter a spell as an immediate action, as if he were using dispel magic as a counterspell. The roll for this check is 1d20 + the circlet's caster level, against a DC of 11 + the target caster's level.
Due to feedback, any spells cast or spell-like abilities used by the wearer are countered by the circlet, just as if the circlet was being used against him.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, Quicken Spell, dispel magic; Cost 50,000 gp
|
A few things to consider
-Some powerful magics are important to maintain survival at high levels. Healing in particular is a magic you don't want to mess with too much unless you're willing to create an alternate healing mechanic. EVERYONE is dependent on healing magic to make it through what adventurers do.
Now that's out of the way.
Remember that this is an organic world that responds to the magics and people that exist in it.
Casters that use divination magic are getting messages from their gods, but other gods are doing the same with their champions and putting out counter intelligence at the same time. This is like one big spy game for the gods and their higher planar minions. If the players use divination all the time, drop some false leads in there or use it against them just as much. Pretty soon they'll be chewing through spell slots in a reactive way to protect against this, and now you are challenging your caster in new ways. Remember also, there is absolutely nothing wrong with high level divination type magic being answered with "Those guys are under the protection of evil deity X and we cannot penetrate their wards to find information for you without alerting deity X and his minions to our presence. You're on your own on this one bud".
Remember that alignments mean certain acts are evil. Summoning takes a creature and binds it against its will to fight, possibly to the death for the caster. Start enforcing alignments on players using this and make the NPC's in the world respond accordingly. Maybe all the NPC's start hating your caster for what they do. Now they can't buy spell ingredients or materials for creating magic items and have to scrounge for them themselves. While they may know what spell components they're after, unless they have some ranks in alchemy they have no idea how to prepare them properly. Now there's a whole new challenge for casters as they have to develop their caster in different directions just to keep their spell casting up, or find ways around this. This can be great for alignemnt driven cities. I good cities spell casters must register for and carry certificates proving they can't/won't summon creatures and may have spell books looked over etc. Without the charter, no casting and no access to magical equipment etc. In more lenient cities, this isn't an issue but then these cities might be more dangerous in nature. Now its a choice for our caster not based on what is best fo combat, but how he/she wants the world to respond to them.
The situation above can be used for spells that affect peoples free will as well. (Charms and compulsions)
Have the denizens of the planes from which the casters are summoning begin to act against overly abused summoning. That type of magic is bound to draw some unwanted attention. At some stage, when the caster summons a creature to fight for him, another high level beasty plane shifts to that location and has a "quiet chat" with the caster about the relative merits of doing this. Make your planar creatures reactive as well, rather than just tools to be thrown around.
Design baddies and their lairs with an understanding of high level magic. The unhallow/hallow effect is fantastic for this. Remember also that non caster bad guys can recieve magical effects as boons for performing duties for their gods (just like PCs can), or force other casters to do their bidding for them (either willingly or not). High level guys KNOW what magic is around and are just as capable of building defenses against it as the PC's are.
Attack in waves, from multple angles so casters have to consider where to cast and what to cast rather than just make it an obvious choice.
Finally, remember these caster types are after a fun game too.I don't think going out of your way to nerf or ruin there plans is actually very fair, but occasionally throwing them a curveball that makes sense within your game world will make them think more about how they play, and that is really the challenge these guys are after.
Cheers
Casters can deal with this easily (energy reistance spells!), non-casters can't.
Possible hindrances:1) Constant ongoing low-level damage environment with regenerating or damage resistant guards.
Did I say it had to be elemental or energy damage? Regardless that could be up to 5 spells devoted to task, almost the whole complement of 2nd level spells. Fire, Cold, Acid, Electricity, Sonic. Part of a challenge is forcing the party to expend resources.
Casters can deal with this easily (flying, need only line of effect to kill stuff), non-casters can't.
2) Tumbler rooms that constantly shake with violent or extremely violent motion. High mobility agile guards or monsters.
Perhaps not the best but as was pointed out there are casters like clerics who cannot deal with it easily without assistance from another caster. Unfortunately DCironlich put it better as this falls more under heading of changing environments.
on-casters can't
That's not really the point. The point is to shut down optimized casters not balance an encounter for a whole party normal assumption party.
And there are a lot more of suggestions in this thread, that can be answered in the same way. Because, indeed, practically any dangerous situation the DM can invent to challenge optimized casters (short of covering everything in anti-magic fields of arbitrary size), will be far harder to overcome for non-casters, and therefore only workable against a full-caster parry
Again part of the challenge to the optimized casters is forcing them to devote their resources in prescribe ways. Even in non-full caster parties these situations force the caster to spend rescues to help his party overcome the obstacles as well. Otherwise he leaves his non-caster buddies in the dust and goes on alone to try and solo whatever else is in store for him.
|
Keep in mind the Arcane casters weaknesses. Specifically:
- Relatively low armor
- Low fort and reflex saves
- Low hit points
- Casting provokes AOO
- Hit and run tactics can burn spells.
- For wizards, arcane bond can be exploited as a weakness
- Spell immunity and spell resistance, particularly if they don't make the knowledge rolls to realize what they are fighting, can lead to wasting a spell, and more importantly a round.
- Dispel magic.
I have a high level monk I think of as a caster killer. Between spell resistance, all high saves, high touch ac, fast movement, abundant step and of course the fort save based Quivering Palm/stunning fist...he does alright against casters.
Casters can be awesome, and the are also vulnerable and likely the first targets by opponents with any intelligence (maybe second after the cleric, depending). Yes you can get things to counter many of the above weaknesses. But other classes can also buy things. And you could be killed/surrounded before you can do anything depending on where you roll in initiative.
I once was the most dangerous character in a party with nothing but a completely mundane stick and a very convincing tone.Wizard's first rule!
The best spells are the one that don't need magic.
Some strange coloured dust, some words in a strange language "I cast a Truth Ward on you, if you don't tell us the truth, [insert evil threat]"If it's only a commoner/guard etc. this works very well (If you don't have a RAW DM...)
Try to avoid campaigns that lurch from one combat scene to the next, with very little travel/exploration/interaction with the environment/etc. in between fights.
If you let the party to get to "the room with the monsters" right away, of course the spellcasters are going to be at full power. Have the party spend the night worrying about being magically-spied upon, or in forest that sickens people who aren't magically warded in some way. Let the spellcasters burn a few flying spells getting everyone across a deep gorge. Make the monster's lair impossible to find without some divination. Infest the forest with low-level invisibile creatures that like to harass travellers, so someone in the party needs some sort of detection spell up at all times.
If you run your campaigns like this consistently, the spellcasters are going to memorize more utility spells, and will have fewer spells left to cast when the fights break out. Not only that, but your spellcasters are actually going to enjoy being the person who comes through for the party in these non-combat situations. You've decreased their combat effectiveness by giving them something fun to do with their spells, instead of setting up encounters where their spells don't work. A win for you and for the spellcasters.
|
|
The best spells are the one that don't need magic.
Some strange coloured dust, some words in a strange language "I cast a Truth Ward on you, if you don't tell us the truth, [insert evil threat]"If it's only a commoner/guard etc. this works very well (If you don't have a RAW DM...)
And if you do... make sure you have a decent Intimidate check.
|
|
And if you do... make sure you have a decent Intimidate check.The best spells are the one that don't need magic.
Some strange coloured dust, some words in a strange language "I cast a Truth Ward on you, if you don't tell us the truth, [insert evil threat]"If it's only a commoner/guard etc. this works very well (If you don't have a RAW DM...)
Charisma-based casting...
"I may not know that many spells, but I sure look like I do! In fact, I know every spell. Ever."bluff from the lvl 10 sorcerer with skill focus
sense motive from the untrained average-wis wizard (+20 circumstance modifier for unbelievability)
Oh! Look who bought it. Now give me all your stuff.
|
|
And if you do... make sure you have a decent Intimidate check.The best spells are the one that don't need magic.
Some strange coloured dust, some words in a strange language "I cast a Truth Ward on you, if you don't tell us the truth, [insert evil threat]"If it's only a commoner/guard etc. this works very well (If you don't have a RAW DM...)
Charisma-based casting...
"I may not know that many spells, but I sure look like I do! In fact, I know every spell. Ever."
1d20+26 bluff from the lvl 10 sorcerer with skill focus
1d20+20 sense motive from the untrained average-wis wizard (+20 circumstance modifier for unbelievability)
Oh! Look who bought it. Now give me all your stuff.
At best, the bluff is only going to give him a bonus on his intimidate, and why would a Wizard give all his stuff to a sorceror just because the sorceror knows lots of spells? For all you know, the wizard might take this as a challenge and then call for a duel of magic to prove which is the strongest caster.
|
|
Well I usually just assume that if a character takes bluff, they take intimidate. After all, if you're out to lie, cheat and steal your way into the world, you may as well be scary enough to hold onto your misbegotten gains as well.
Also, the example was intentionally stupid :P
Lastly: It wasn't "a lot" of spells. It was every spell. Ever. And since sorcerers can cast any spell they know at any time... it's a good indication that whatever spell the wizard has, the sorcerer will have the perfect counter. At least, in their mind.
|
I don't know what alternative dimension these games happen in, but my PFS experience has never shown casters overshadowing the world. Maybe it's because PFS ends at 12, or maybe because these "spell optimizations OMG casters are yeh broken" writers don't ever play (ever notice they never show the caster with a party?), but generally casters do what they do; control and disrupt the bad guys while melée wade in. Usually they have worse AC/saves than surrounding party. They do have the SAD advantage, letting them be more optimal with one stat + a little Dex/Con. But I've found the wizard arguments silly, and maybe everyone I've ever played with plays them wrong, but I've never been in their shadows.
I will say the rogue and monk do tend to be as bad (or worse) than advertised, but I've generally found Divines and "double classes" to be top tier (especially Druids and summoners with their 2 jobs 1 guy value) followed by Pallys (at higher level) or Fighters (at lower) THEN wizards and then most others. This is despite seeing caster math on 9 billion threads. Have many seriously felt wizards are the be-alls at their table in PFS? Not 3.5, PFS.
|
|
All right, time to call shenanigans. 17/10/14? Where'd that come from?
6 2 2 base. Halfling with all 3 save feat and a +3 cloak of protection is 12/8/8, at this point you need 20 wis, 14 dex, and a 24 con. On an int caster.
Now it was viable in 3.5, where properly picked presitiges could result in said saves and a full caster. 3.5 wizards DID dominate. Pathfinder? Again, I've seen people paper it a million times, it never seems to happen. Maybe the players i've played with suck, or maybe it's the simple prejudice that gms tend to target them (as they are squishy and have poor saves).
So again I ask... did you truly feel the caster was dominating a table you were at?
|
|
All right, time to call shenanigans. 17/10/14? Where'd that come from?
6 2 2 base. Halfling with all 3 save feat and a +3 cloak of protection is 12/8/8, at this point you need 20 wis, 14 dex, and a 24 con. On an int caster.
Now it was viable in 3.5, where properly picked presitiges could result in said saves and a full caster. 3.5 wizards DID dominate. Pathfinder? Again, I've seen people paper it a million times, it never seems to happen. Maybe the players i've played with suck, or maybe it's the simple prejudice that gms tend to target them (as they are squishy and have poor saves).
So again I ask... did you truly feel the caster was dominating a table you were at?
Cloaks are cheap. I presume it's possible to get a +5 cloak in PFS? Level 10 is certainly not a stretch for having one if so.
7 3 3 (you had the base wrong), +5/5/5 (12/8/8) +halfling luck(13/9/9) + stats of 18 wis, 12 dex, 20 con (easy with stat items) (17/10/14)Note that if you build them right you can avoid saving throw spells and not need much int, meaning he could have made his points stretch by putting only ~14-16 into int. Dumping str and cha you'd get to 28 points. A 16 costs 10, so you could have 16 con (+4 item to get to 20), 11 dex (use halfling bonus to get to +1), 16 wis(+2 item), 15 int (can still cast all your spells at 10th level even without level-up points, which presumably went here for 17).
Try to avoid campaigns that lurch from one combat scene to the next, with very little travel/exploration/interaction with the environment/etc. in between fights.
If you let the party to get to "the room with the monsters" right away, of course the spellcasters are going to be at full power. Have the party spend the night worrying about being magically-spied upon, or in forest that sickens people who aren't magically warded in some way. Let the spellcasters burn a few flying spells getting everyone across a deep gorge. Make the monster's lair impossible to find without some divination. Infest the forest with low-level invisibile creatures that like to harass travellers, so someone in the party needs some sort of detection spell up at all times.
If you run your campaigns like this consistently, the spellcasters are going to memorize more utility spells, and will have fewer spells left to cast when the fights break out. Not only that, but your spellcasters are actually going to enjoy being the person who comes through for the party in these non-combat situations. You've decreased their combat effectiveness by giving them something fun to do with their spells, instead of setting up encounters where their spells don't work. A win for you and for the spellcasters.
+1 for this!
|
|
+1 for this!Try to avoid campaigns that lurch from one combat scene to the next, with very little travel/exploration/interaction with the environment/etc. in between fights.
If you let the party to get to "the room with the monsters" right away, of course the spellcasters are going to be at full power. Have the party spend the night worrying about being magically-spied upon, or in forest that sickens people who aren't magically warded in some way. Let the spellcasters burn a few flying spells getting everyone across a deep gorge. Make the monster's lair impossible to find without some divination. Infest the forest with low-level invisibile creatures that like to harass travellers, so someone in the party needs some sort of detection spell up at all times.
If you run your campaigns like this consistently, the spellcasters are going to memorize more utility spells, and will have fewer spells left to cast when the fights break out. Not only that, but your spellcasters are actually going to enjoy being the person who comes through for the party in these non-combat situations. You've decreased their combat effectiveness by giving them something fun to do with their spells, instead of setting up encounters where their spells don't work. A win for you and for the spellcasters.
+1 for this as well. Just yesterday I was playing a wizard and started running out of spells (in a spell point system, no less) and was suddenly not so awesome as I had to start being very conservative with my spells.
|
|
If you're having to fiat, you're already losing. My argument comes that you don't have to worry.
First, the +5 cloaks being "easy to come by". Again, I play PFS, so anything over 12K needs to be found in a dungeon, but even before that our GMs weren't in the habit of making +5 cloaks buyable in town, and you need a minimum caster level to craft them (assuming that crafting is allowed, which admittingly my GMs never have allowed for; but they usually use PFS rules).
Even if it is allowed, 14 int? No saves? Yes I know the optimized spells aren't save spells; but remove those that have save partials and what do you have? A few solid rays, Black Tentacles, and otherwise you're a party buffer. So again, calling shinanigans on the "good save" wizard that makes the Paladins / Druids / Clerics / Fighters look "stupid".
It's like the pounce argument, everyone on paper says Pounce is "the bomb". My experience has been there is always difficult terrain / some random party member in the way, or they get the jump, and it ceases to be relevant. Similarly, guidebooks say I (who usually play divines, or Summoener/Bards, which admittingly are technically casters as well) should be in a mage's shadow. I never have been. I never play the mages because I'm not a fan of low hp / no good saves, and divines / mixers simply fit my play style more. So what am I missing here?
Similarly, guidebooks say I (who usually play divines, or Summoener/Bards, which admittingly are technically casters as well) should be in a mage's shadow.
Generally, Cleric/Druid/Wizard are considered the "good"/"caster" classes, so, assuming Cleric/Druid are what you mean by divines, no, you shouldn't be in the Wizard's shadow.
(Although I think Wizard has pulled a bit ahead of the other two in PF, it's not by much.)
It's like the pounce argument, everyone on paper says Pounce is "the bomb". My experience has been there is always difficult terrain / some random party member in the way, or they get the jump, and it ceases to be relevant. Similarly, guidebooks say I (who usually play divines, or Summoener/Bards, which admittingly are technically casters as well) should be in a mage's shadow. I never have been. I never play the mages because I'm not a fan of low hp / no good saves, and divines / mixers simply fit my play style more. So what am I missing here?
You're not missing anything. One of the great aspects of PnP games is that they can be played in any number of different styles. Some emphasize one aspect, some another. You're just in a conversation with some people (one in particular) who insist that "their way" is the only way.
In their game, combat lasts two rounds. Period. If that's not the case in your game, then you are doing it wrong.
In their game, SoS spells are the only spells worth having. If that's not the case in your game, then you are doing it wrong.
In their game, casters are the only characters that matter. If that's not the case in your game, then you are doing it wrong.
In their game, wizards spend points on Int and Con. And never anything else. Ever. If that's not the case in your game, then you are doing it wrong.
Just play your game. You'll never convince them.
I don't know what alternative dimension these games happen in, but my PFS experience has never shown casters overshadowing the world. Maybe it's because PFS ends at 12, or maybe because these "spell optimizations OMG casters are yeh broken" writers don't ever play (ever notice they never show the caster with a party?), but generally casters do what they do; control and disrupt the bad guys while melée wade in. Usually they have worse AC/saves than surrounding party. They do have the SAD advantage, letting them be more optimal with one stat + a little Dex/Con. But I've found the wizard arguments silly, and maybe everyone I've ever played with plays them wrong, but I've never been in their shadows.
I will say the rogue and monk do tend to be as bad (or worse) than advertised, but I've generally found Divines and "double classes" to be top tier (especially Druids and summoners with their 2 jobs 1 guy value) followed by Pallys (at higher level) or Fighters (at lower) THEN wizards and then most others. This is despite seeing caster math on 9 billion threads. Have many seriously felt wizards are the be-alls at their table in PFS? Not 3.5, PFS.
The way a person plays a class, and the way the class can be played are two entirely different things. Most of us are decent people, and respect other people's time in the spotlight. I am not saying a caster can always hog the spotlight, but they can take up a lot more of it than the other players like.
PS: I am not saying you are not a decent person, if you make powerful casters.
The problem I'm seeing with many of the suggestions on this thread is that it assumes that the disparity between casters and full BAB classes is a problem that lies on the casters end of things. It doesn't.
So what's the problem then?
The problem is the same as it was in 3.x. Feats and abilities for full BAB classes don't scale with level. Giving all characters more feats doesn't mean that all classes become more powerful equally. In fact this change greatly favors casters as their feats already scale to level. Metamagic feats can be applied to higher level spells or even grouped up onto a single spell. Every time you gain a new spell level you gain new options with your metamagic feats. Item Creation feats work similarly. The higher your caster level the better items you can make. This does nothing to fix the balance. Sure many of the fighter type classes got a bunch of new nifty things to make them more attractive but so did the caster classes. And for some reason most of the caster classes new goodies scaled with level and the non-caster classes new things did not. This has got to stop.
Paizo made an effort to fix the barbarian, bard, fighter, ranger, and monk. They made an effort...I commend them for that at least. But lets face it DR 5/- at 20th level is a joke, trap sense is ok when it actually comes into play (it doesn't), and mighty rage is an insulting +1 to hit and damage AT 20TH LEVEL!! Let's not forget that most of the rage powers become obsolete over time and there isn't a single rage power or feat appropriate for an 11th level or higher character.
Seriously, its not just the casters that are using spells like plane shift, anti-magic field, disintegrate, chain lightning, harm, heal, and greater command. Go look at the bestiary and see how many CR 9 to 13 monsters are throwing around 4th through 6th level spells like they were cake. The game is supposed to have 6th level spells at 11th level. The problem is there is nothing of equal value for the BAB classes. Need proof? I challenge you to find a single feat or ability that a BAB class can pick up at 11th or 12th level that's as good as Greater Command. You can try 13th and 14th if you want to. Go on, I'll wait...find one? I didn't think so. And Greater Command is only a 5th level spell. Think about that. At 14th level you still don't have anything that compares to what the cleric got 5 levels earlier. And you never will.
So what needs to be done?
Let me be clear about this. IF YOU WANT TO BALANCE THE NON-CASTERS AND THE CASTERS YOU HAVE TO MAKE ALL FEATS SCALE. Got that? Metamagic and Item Creation feats scale to caster level and now all other feats need to be similarly upgraded. Feats could probably just scale with level and that would be fine but I think it would be a much more flavorful and more ultimately more balanced choice to have Combat Feats scale to something that favors those fighter types. BAB. Not all feats need to scale with BAB (see: skill focus) however Combat Feats do. These feats were made for them and they need to favor those classes that can make the most of them. Allow poor and average BAB classes to get them too but simply at reduced effectiveness.
The dodge feat grants +1 dodge bonus to AC and is fine and dandy for a 1st level character but by 9th level its lost its luster. I hope your DM allows you to retrain that. But if you got an additional +1 dodge bonus to AC per 6 points of BAB you would now have a feat that at 20th level would grant poor BAB classes +2 ac, average BAB classes +3, and full BAB classes would gain +4. Not bad.
Lets take a deeper look at Critical Focus. It has a +9 BAB prerequisite which seems a bit high to me since, after all, that's the level that the wizard gets 5th level spells so first lets drop that to +4 BAB. That's the same level a wizard is casting scorching ray and web and next level he's gonna start fireballing and in comparison your ability still falls a bit short. Let's fix that. Now Critical Focus comes bundled with one of the critical effect feats. Except they aren't feats anymore, instead they are just options when you choose critical focus. But that still is kinda weak sauce in comparison. After all a scorching ray and fireball scale to level. Scorching Ray has 3 rays for 12d6 by 11th level, making sure the spell stays relevant until the point you are casting much higher level spells and he can control when to use it. Critical Focus doesn't scale and you have to crit to use it (and Imp. Critical is still a ways off) which makes its use limited. So lets say that for every three points of BAB after 4th level (7th, 10th, 13th, and 16th) he gains an additional critical effect. It should look something like this.
Critical Focus
You are trained in the art of causing pain.
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +4.
Benefit: You receive a +4 circumstance bonus on attack rolls made to confirm critical hits. In addition you may choose one of the following effects and apply them to your critical hits. Exhausting and Stunning may not be chosen until you meet the prerequisite for those effects. (for now lets just say the effects remain unchanged from the feats though I think a few of them should scale too)
Bleeding
Blinding
Crippling
Deafening
Sickening
Staggering
Stunning (requires staggering)
Tiring
Exhausting (requires tiring)
When your BAB reaches +7 and every three points of BAB thereafter you gain an additional critical effect that you may apply to your critical hits. You may only apply one effect at a time however unless you have the critical mastery feat.
A word on monks and barbarians
In order for the monk to gain the full benefit of these feats like it should it needs to be changed to a full BAB class (something it should have gotten anyway). There is no need to change the flurry progression just his BAB. Seriously he's a monk give him full BAB already. I mean, come on, its not like its gonna make him GOOD or anything.
Of course theres still one problem with this solution. It HEAVILY favors fighters over other full BAB classes. But that is a simple fix to. All you have to do is what should have been done in the first place. Make the Rage Powers scale like spells do. The Low-light Vision rage power should just eventually become dark vision at around 8th level. Hell it wouldn't be broken at all for it to upgrade to 60 ft darkvision at 8th, and then 60 ft blindsense at 12th, and then to freaking True Seeing while raging at 16th (could probably go lower). The Cleric got True Seeing at 9th level and at 16th level the 250 gp cost is laughable anyway so just hand wave it and say he doesn't need to pay. Now Low-Light Vision (which probably needs to be renamed. Rage Goggles?!?) is actually balanced, interesting, and relevant. And it will remain relevant your entire career.
If anyone is interested just let me know and I'll start a thread with some more examples.
|
|
I mean, the answer to why others see this and I don't may come in Treat's words. My play ends at 12, and is mostly in the single digits, so I may not get to see the difference as much. I agree with scaling things better; heck barbarians are actually solid for a few levels, but their slow or not scaling abilities put them behind quickly. Scaling of feats is actually something 4th edition got right.
To direct answer the question, battles where the party is ambushed/surrounded will be much more difficult for casters, basically if opponent can get on them before spells go off the melée types will need to save the day.
|
|
Green, I have to question under what circumstances you play. The reason I bring it up is you ares pretty clearly a sampling of "why aren't you a caster", a logic I've found was very true in 3.5 and not at all in PFS.
In PFS ranged attackers do massive damage, and fighters can swing harder than any class can dream. And in as much as "AC is an ineffective defense", this really holds true in the double-digits; low levels it is legitimately the best way to keep hp around. And Pally's, with all defenses superior, can take down BBEGs like no others.
So to reiterate, I feel like all of these caster threads are based on "theorycraftets" (who look on paper and decide "spells = options = better"), or those who play 3.5 primarily. I ask if I am wrong here; I have gotten tired of fighting this thread over and over again by those who just want to repeat this without the play experience to back it.
Note that Magnificent Mansion is a huge risk; if the enemy knows you're inside, almost any enemy at that level can frakk you over bigtime.
If the party is all casters, all members fly all the time by the level you can cast it. Heck, even a mixed party will fly all the time, one way or another, if the adventure gives the a reason to. So good luck finding the entrance somewhere in the cloud layer.
How so? Wands of CLW are dirt cheap and can be used by most of the classes with minimal investment (UMD ranks or having on spell list),
The fact that you are stealing casters' trick aside, unless all encounters are straightforward melee brutes, non-casters do need something to hurt ranged enemies, something to hurt swarms, means to remove common debiliating conditions, and possibly even in-combat healing - in the abscence of casters, all of this eats into their budget, instead of recoverable resources. And once you get to about level 6-7, in PF maybe a couple of levels higher, you also need to debuff straightforward melee enemies before closing, otherwise they'll have too high chance of killing you to sustain the campaign.
Now there is a virtue in an argument, that having a single physical attacker in the party is beneficial in terms of combat endurance, but an all-physical party is penaltized by endurance runs, because stealing casters' tricks, necessary to survive in DnD, costs them money.
Wait, what? In what way do they generally have inferior mobility and little chance of retreat? Most higher outsiders have either a great flight speed and/or teleport or the like, most higher dragons can teleport, as can the linnorms.
First this basically means that your counter to casters still is casters, and second, by the time everything can teleport, casters generally kill things on a single failed save or successful ranged touch attack, while buffs last for the entire adventuring day. In fact, the last time I cralwed an endurance dungeon as a wizard, nearly all of the buffs I used lasted the entire adventuring day as early as 6th level, simply because we searched cleared areas for loot only after deciding we don't want to press forward anymore. So, skirmishing does not really work. Getting three consecutive rounds of combat and three rounds five minutes apart will not produce serious difference.
In some cases, I agree. It's usually easier for a caster to notice betrayers. "truthfinding spells" isn't just for starters, it's what they have
Huh? How about, I don't know, mindscrewing people? Reading thoughts? Divinations? Once a caster party gets sufficiently paranoid and stops playing nice, there is no way to sneak a traitor in their midst, unless he's a better caster than them (and even then, that's quite hard) and can just beat them up.
Most spells need both line of sight and effect, don't know what that has to do with it though. However, someone who want to make a tumbler room (in-game; I'm talking about the one who's building his stronghold) would surely outfit it with strong winds. I mean, Fly is a 3rd level spell and the obvious solution to it, so having strong winds (easy to do via magical means, sometimes easy and sometimes hard via mundane ones) is obvious. Or a low ceiling.
The tumbler room (that is not obvious as such) as a whole cannot really be done without magic, and I don't know how you intend to get strong winds in a mundane way. Stealing casters' tricks again can hinder casters, all right... never contested that.
And casters are hurt by it FAR more than others. If a fighter swings a sword during violent motion, he swings his sword.
Uh, a fighter is completely screwed in this situation. He doesn't have mobility skills, his reflex save sucks, and he needs to get into melee to contribute. He can't detect the trap beforehand, too.
Mistah Green, can you please assume a more saner position? I understand that you need your dose of lulz, but defending the points that are obviously not true, such as PF melees not being able to match melee monsters number-wise below at least level 11 - here I assume that a monster is taking straight out of Bestiary, as is usually the case - or archer fighters not being able to produce acceptable DPS (damage olympics disproved this long ago), or AC becoming irrelevant before at least two-digit levels, is disingenious and hurts the position of people who are honestly arguing for the better game balance. Physical combatants suck not because they lack numbers, although this can easily happen too, they suck because they lack options, particularly options necessary for a high-level game.
5: 5 foot step. Doesn't matter if they've closed or not. If that isn't good enough defensive cast.
It's not hard to make that problematic, even in the core rules. If it's not, your GM is softballing you.
But I concede that a decently played caster should rarely get into that position in the first place.
|
Typing DPS gets the point across faster than DPR, the same three letters, no more difficult to type and far more relevant in a round-based game?
And no, I think most people look at DPS and still think Damage-Per-Second initially before thinking damage output. If your going to use acronyms at all use the correct ones. Yes, DPS gets the point across still but it is irritating.
That's why I added the bit about defensive casting in case he's smart enough to give every single melee enemy reach + adjacent. Which he should be, but probably isn't.
Now give all those guys Disruptive and you've got the start of something.
|
|
Lastly, the circumstances I play in are 'actual D&D'. Where intelligent enemies are intelligent and will use the resources available to them intelligently. In actual D&D the DM rolls a 13 and asks if a 57 hits your level 16 party. If you're optimized you'll even be able to say no... but probably not. In actual D&D you can expect enemies to ruthlessly attack known casters, especially high level ones and your only options to stay safe are your own and those of other casters. 5 foot squares of difficult terrain (aka, Fighters) do nothing.
I guess we're doing it wrong. Anyone want my RPG books, might as well give it up...
|
|
I guess we're doing it wrong. Anyone want my RPG books, might as well give it up...
Lastly, the circumstances I play in are 'actual D&D'. Where intelligent enemies are intelligent and will use the resources available to them intelligently. In actual D&D the DM rolls a 13 and asks if a 57 hits your level 16 party. If you're optimized you'll even be able to say no... but probably not. In actual D&D you can expect enemies to ruthlessly attack known casters, especially high level ones and your only options to stay safe are your own and those of other casters. 5 foot squares of difficult terrain (aka, Fighters) do nothing.
Yup. Your playing a role-playing game wrong. Please subscribe to the gospel of Mistah Green for how the game should really be played.