|
I would immediately walk from such a game, on the grounds that you (Stefan) are a bad DM.
I don't remember if trip is limited by size. If it actually is, then that's a fair call. But if this is an instance of "I don't like it, so it doesn't happen?"
As it turns out it is limited by size. That aside I think you are a little judgmental and unfair given you don't know me from mud. My DMing seems fine and has been for many years.
The issues are with how 3e+ requires you to play, as you reiterate repeatedly, a certain way (e.g. 400+ DPR or you're dead weight). Perhaps you are right, perhaps I am a bad 3e+ DM, however, I'm not sure I can get offended over being a bad 3e+ DM if I use your posts as a guideline for what 3e+ is and how it should be played.
Regards,
S.
|
|
You could have just as easily done the same thing with the 3.5 character. There is no reason why you have to sacrifice the narrative for the mechanics.
In my experience players devolve away from creativity when a game mechanic is available. If the player had described how the trip was happening, ropes across an open area and a "hey you!" or something. I would have ignored the rule on trip size limit (had I been aware of it)! But what I got was, "+12, er, +2, er +5, er, +x, so that's +y total, <rolls dice>, he's tripped". That's rubbish in my DM books, I refuse to reward such play, period.
YMMV of course,
S.
It really doesn't matter which monster you were talking about though. No matter how you slice it, autohitting an AC of 60 requires an investment of extremely high proportions. Remember that the dragon needs to have a total of +59 to hit AC 60. While doable, I find it highly unlikely that this is going to be the norm in most games. Can it be done? I believe that it can be done. Heck, just charging from above will give an additional +3 to the +15 you already had (which is a very reasonable tactic from a dragon).So CoDZilla is actually wrong that monsters should be autohitting AC 60 all the time. Even if we assume that the gold dragon is going to, that means that only the gold dragon out of the 4 CR 20 creatures in the book is going to pull that off. Now if we bring in advanced monsters, there will be undoubtedly more but still a smaller percentage than "all."
Sorry to be nitpicky, but auto-hit is actually attack=(AC-2), since the maximum accuracy can only be 95% (rolling a 1 always hits), so if you can hit them on a 2 (+58) then you are at the auto-hit mark. Just wanted to note that.
AC 60 actually is really high. I hold no illusion otherwise. Especially when you combine this very high AC with effects such as displacement to weed out more of the hits that would get through. It also greatly reduces your chances to be critically hit (something people tend to forget). High AC also makes you more resistant to criticals due to the confirmation rules.
+50 to hit is a 55% chance to hit AC 60 though, which can be a bit worrisome. However, it really does take quite some buffing for something like a Balor to hit +50 attack on their main attack, let alone their iterative attacks.
|
|
You could have just as easily done the same thing with the 3.5 character. There is no reason why you have to sacrifice the narrative for the mechanics.In my experience players devolve away from creativity when a game mechanic is available. If the player had described how the trip was happening, ropes across an open area and a "hey you!" or something. I would have ignored the rule on trip size limit (had I been aware of it)! But what I got was, "+12, er, +2, er +5, er, +x, so that's +y total, <rolls dice>, he's tripped". That's rubbish in my DM books, I refuse to reward such play, period.
YMMV of course,
S.I have to ask Stefan, was the guy enlarged? If he was, he was legitimately big enough anyway.
The thing is, that creative fluid gaming style you're discussing? It's cool and fun, but it puts the characters down more towards being human and less towards being heroes. The bonuses are there because they define what the character is physically capable of on it's own without using such tricks.
Note it's entirely possible to combine the two. Just have to make it clear to your group that you reward creative applications and attempts.
No he wasn't enlarged. I guess I got defensive when I initially said I didn't think a 6'2" human was really going to trip a full grown T-Rex. He then argued very loudly (I also dislike people who try to make a popint by yelling) the opposite and backed it up with everything except apparently the rule that states he couldn't...
I like your term "creative fluid gaming style" and I think you are right on the money.
I agree the two can be combined, but this individual I really don't think played for any other reason than CoDzilla has lead us to believe he plays for - and was perhaps just as opinionated about the 'right way' to build a character. He was the thorn in our group and his loss has improved our group, stress levels are much lower and fun levels are way up.
And yes players doing 'counting' during the game annoys the crap out of me.
Cheers ears,
S.
E]
In my experience players devolve away from creativity when a game mechanic is available. If the player had described how the trip was happening, ropes across an open area and a "hey you!" or something. I would have ignored the rule on trip size limit (had I been aware of it)! But what I got was, "+12, er, +2, er +5, er, +x, so that's +y total, <rolls dice>, he's tripped". That's rubbish in my DM books, I refuse to reward such play, period.
YMMV of course,
S.
I hate when things become mere numbers, too. But that's not related to the amount of mechanics - even in BECMI moments of "I hit I hit I hit" happened.
Reward the players for being imaginative, maybe with a mere circumstance bonus here and there if they are doing something cool. It brings at the table a lot of awesome. GMG suggests something similar too.
|
|
I see. Glad to hear things got better with your group. Based on the description it appears this wasn't the first time things blew up.I am curious though, what do you mean by 'counting' ?
Very astute. We tried to accommodation his style of play, but it was his general attitude that was the problem. He was always telling people their characters were wrong and telling (not suggesting) the players how to improve and failure to comply resulted in insults. Yes this could occur in any edition, but with all the feat/class combos of 3e+, rules mastery (as was the idea behind 3e), really makes a difference. See CoDzilla's post for an idea of the differences between a character and an optimized character. I understand CoDzilla view on being able to one shot Balor's at level 20, but at level 20 I would be hoping a battle would be epic.
By counting I meant adding up bonuses round to round rather than preparing before the game. Sometimes it would take 30-40 seconds for the number to add to the d20 to be arrived at. He seemed elated by this process and I believe we were all meant to be impressed as the numbers skyrocketed into double digits. Very disruptive. More so in that I like a descriptive combat round with almost the anti-climax being the actual roll to hit and damage.
S.
I think his group does play like that, and they boost monster's abilities with the treasure that will go to the players. That is why the melee types struggle in their games, without 3.5 books to boost them.Emphasis mine. +1 to this.I'm sorry I was talking about the gold dragon (unless your pet name for the Tarrasque is goldie and it casts spells like one), and I listed haste..
So what are you talking about?
Again I only put down some basic buffs and didn't go all out. At worst I used an amulet of mighty fists which people seemed to object to my using so much on.
With a little work beyond the 5 seconds it took me to write this I think that you could squeeze out another +7 to hit. But even if you couldn't the point stands.
Now I don't like agreeing with Cod both for how he argues and for what he argues, but you need to give the monsters their due. They're not just sitting around pages of the bestiary waiting for adventurers to attack them in a flat featureless plain.
-James
Agreed, but each situations should be looked at individually. The Solar originally referenced has equipment on, rolling the treasure beforehand to give them more is different than planning the encounter with different but comparable cost/power stuff and making that the treasure.
I actually think CoDzilla would argue against Monsters being able to plan and think if he has to fight them.
+1
Yeah I think we've found the source of his outrageous hyperbole.Back to the argument that while it is reasonable for a dragon to use magic items in its posession, doing so ups the CR. Only NPCs with class levels get WBL to justify their CR, which is why there's a chart and rules for it. Monsters with no more than the word "Standard" on the bottom line of their entry, not so much. I think this is very much the basis for the discrpency between the two parties melee expectations.
Not to say Melee still don't have the short end of the stick after level 7 or so, but I think that even if we agree that 4 casters is optimal (where I might disagree, I like the big 4 class standard setup) it is very much NOT fun. I've played in high level games where melee did just fine in combat. Agreed, not as much as the people doing the real heavy lifting (casters) but nonetheless they contributed because even in the most in-depth and roleplay-heavy campaign, reducing a creature to 0 HP is sometimes the ONLY effective way to permanently eliminate it as a threat. My point is merely that, barring a "cr 15" creature using its own treasure intelligently and focusing a beating on the party, stock monsters don't pose a significant challenge to a moderately optimized damage dealer (non-caster) in Pathfinder. Even with core only and the "nerfed" power attack.
I can understand arguments like fighters cant fly, there is no hate mechanic, HP is boolean, etc. They are valid. Saying a fighter at level 10 HAS to be able to do 250 DPR or something absurd is just that, because a CR 10 creature only has 130 HP. Making some crunched out hyperbeing monster that has 500 HP and does 750 DPR and then slapping on a label of CR 10 is cheating and lying and will get you bad data. Realistically, against a single CR 10 opponent, PAR is about 75 DPR, or enough to kill it before it kills you barring crits or other statistical anomolies.
I think another thing to remember is that, hey, you're in a freaking party. Let's say you're just about in for a challenging encounter. You're level 8, and there are 3 CR 7s (CR 10 encounter). That's 255 HP to eat through. In a party of 6, with 1 arcanist and 1 healer, if everyone can manage 65 DPR the whole encounter is down in a round. Which isn'teven fun. Just saying though, CoD and others act like it is the sole responsibility of a melee character to dish out enough to one-round the encounter to be viable, when there is likely 3-4 melee characters to share that burdon.
The smartest person in the room often hates others for not being able to think to his level.
I generally find people like him to be right more often than not in RAW environments. But most people don't like being told they're wrong or playing with kid gloves.
From what I have seen, he thinks he's the smartest person in the room and doesn't bother with explanations. Unfortunately he trots out tropes that have some holes in them, and to me these indicate that he is NOT the smartest person in the room, he's just found a way of playing that is 90% successful and uses it, then denigrates others for exploring the remaining 10%. They are the ones I would call the smartest in the room.
Remember that CoD is making the premise that monsters are always buffed and always uber, and never get dispelled. Therefore, you must be uber before being buffed.
That does explain a lot. It also proves my point about optimization - shove it to the max, and you get the DM upping the ante to challenge you, and all you've actually done in effect is remove a lot of 'sub-optimal but fun' options from the game. Removing fun from the game is never good ...
That does explain a lot. It also proves my point about optimization - shove it to the max, and you get the DM upping the ante to challenge you, and all you've actually done in effect is remove a lot of 'sub-optimal but fun' options from the game. Removing fun from the game is never good
This sums what implied with Int vs Wis, above ;)
|
|
in regards to CoDzilla's discussion about one-shotting a balor... a battle vs a balor at level 20 really SHOULDN'T be epic, if you get what I mean. That's a CR equal to Average Party Level. Aka a 20th level party should be able to take down 4 (or is it 5 in pathfinder?) of those guys in a day.
From a mechanics of the game I get that completely. But it just 'feels' wrong. Why bothering leveling if the general outcome is the same? 4-5 rounds and that's it. Leveling just seems a mechanism to make the 4-5 rounds of in-game time take more and more real-time to resolve. This is a result of the X encounters per level mentality, as mentioned by Derek, as I see it. What's more important, getting the next feat or stat increase, or discovering who is behind the plot to kill the local mayor? The two are linked for sure but I think the emphasis seems to be on leveling, and saving the mayor is the method by which to level, rather than leveling being a consequence of saving the mayor. To put into context, I have no issue with leveling being completely up to the DM when certain, dare I say, milestones (no not 4e ones) have been reached.
As for Melee vs Wizard - if I had a fighter doing 400 DPR and auto-hitting I wouldn't be feeling too upset with regards to Wizards in MY party.
S.
in regards to CoDzilla's discussion about one-shotting a balor... a battle vs a balor at level 20 really SHOULDN'T be epic, if you get what I mean. That's a CR equal to Average Party Level. Aka a 20th level party should be able to take down 4 (or is it 5 in pathfinder?) of those guys in a day.
From a mechanics of the game I get that completely. But it just 'feels' wrong. Why bothering leveling if the general outcome is the same? 4-5 rounds and that's it. Leveling just seems a mechanism to make the 4-5 rounds of in-game time take more and more real-time to resolve. This is a result of the X encounters per level mentality, as mentioned by Derek, as I see it. What's more important, getting the next feat or stat increase, or discovering who is behind the plot to kill the local mayor? The two are linked for sure but I think the emphasis seems to be on leveling, and saving the mayor is the method by which to level, rather than leveling being a consequence of saving the mayor. To put into context, I have no issue with leveling being completely up to the DM when certain, dare I say, milestones (no not 4e ones) have been reached.
As for Melee vs Wizard - if I had a fighter doing 400 DPR and auto-hitting I wouldn't be feeling too upset with regards to Wizards in MY party.
S.
... and that, ladies and gentlemen, is why so many DM's do away with XP and level the party up on attainment of goals and not monsters and loot.
... and that, ladies and gentlemen, is why so many DM's do away with XP and level the party up on attainment of goals and not monsters and loot.in regards to CoDzilla's discussion about one-shotting a balor... a battle vs a balor at level 20 really SHOULDN'T be epic, if you get what I mean. That's a CR equal to Average Party Level. Aka a 20th level party should be able to take down 4 (or is it 5 in pathfinder?) of those guys in a day.
From a mechanics of the game I get that completely. But it just 'feels' wrong. Why bothering leveling if the general outcome is the same? 4-5 rounds and that's it. Leveling just seems a mechanism to make the 4-5 rounds of in-game time take more and more real-time to resolve. This is a result of the X encounters per level mentality, as mentioned by Derek, as I see it. What's more important, getting the next feat or stat increase, or discovering who is behind the plot to kill the local mayor? The two are linked for sure but I think the emphasis seems to be on leveling, and saving the mayor is the method by which to level, rather than leveling being a consequence of saving the mayor. To put into context, I have no issue with leveling being completely up to the DM when certain, dare I say, milestones (no not 4e ones) have been reached.
As for Melee vs Wizard - if I had a fighter doing 400 DPR and auto-hitting I wouldn't be feeling too upset with regards to Wizards in MY party.
S.
God, yes.
Death to XP.
Thank you for once again proving my point about how 'optimising' ruins games.
Balor and Pit Fiends are not actual casters. Yeah, they have a lot of spell-likes that MUST be used to make them worthy of their CR.. but I'm not sure that, in several situations, both wouldn't go melee at least for a while (maybe only at the start or at the end of the fight).
Moreover, you assume no crit by level 20. There is not basis for this.
No.
they have a lot of offensive spells, but lacks of special effects to plane shift, secure from teleport (forbiddance, dimensional anchor) and only Pit Fiend uses a relevant divination.
They have offensive spell-like but on the long road are completely different beats from casters and have advantages and disadvantages compared to them.
If blasting is not viable, how the balor defeast your powerful optimized spellcasters? By summons?
I still don't get it COdzilla? Why limit your game by setting the defaults around things that clearly stretch the intended limits of the game? Why claim that, "Not optimizing means there's no game at all"?
I just don't get it.
Clearly you play the game in a way you enjoy, but I doubt more then a small handfull of folks would find your playstyle enjoyable. I know I wouldn't. Why insist that your way is the only way? You could very easily alter your game so that (for example) you don't have to resort to shock trooper cheese for melee to keep up, but you don't. You could put very basic limits on casters to prevent the game from devolving into rocket tag, but you don't. Honestly all the tools are at your fingertips to play the game you want, and you come up with this AC-is-irrelevant, only-casters-can-play-atrocity. Which is fine for you, but why insist that the game must be played in your way?
This is level 20 we're talking about. Who is getting critically hit at this level?
Most characters in a core PF game could be -- even heavy fort is only 75% there.
@ CoDzilla: I'm not sure summoned creatures can pass protection from evil.
And I said above: are you sure your ubercaster will fail the saving throws? Is not "safer" to beat them up?
And:
Combat does not happen in a vacuum. In your game apparently does, this is why you have this mindset.
The system says non casters must optimize to be playable, even in a normal difficulty campaign.
I'm sorry, this is false - nowhere is stated.
You keep bearing that if you do not optimize you die - but you are not considering the fact that an encounter of X level could be composed by 1 powerful creature, or more weaker. The math behind the two encounters is really different and differences in danger could be found in this thing.
They system says, "Make it your game".
The system is intend to accommodate all manner of playstyles. If yours causes these problems, why not make a small handfull of house rules that bring the game into what you would consider balance? Why base your level of play around areas of the game that you have found a way to stretch or break?
Thank you for once again proving my point about how 'optimising' ruins games.Not optimizing means there's no game at all, because every time something level appropriate breathes on your non casters, they drop dead. And rather than make an all caster team, you continue to go through an Enterprise of Red Shirts. Because reacting intelligently would be optimizing.
I've been playing D&D for 32 years. You would have thought in that time I would have noticed if this were objectively true. You know something? It isn't.
Your 'reacting intelligently' is your DM metagaming to try and challenge over-powered characters.
Your "CR appropriate" is by anyone else's standards a joke: AC60 and +50 attack bonus should be around CR40 in anyone else's game standards (extrapolating from the table in the Bestiary, although it doesn't go up that high) and no I don't care what rules you tweak to say it isn't.
You clearly have to ramp up encounters off the scale in order to challenge your optimised characters, which is fine for your game if that's what you enjoy.
The casters in your party? Probably tired of burning diamond dust on your sorry self by now.
All your statements like this reveal is that for all your talk of intelligence, you don't actually understand that not everybody plays the way that you do (in fact, in my experience almost nobody does). Have you not considered that I might actually PLAY the casters in my party sometimes? In fact 2/3 of the time counting through current active games.
Look at it like this:
You/your DM have optimised the hell out of encounters because you optimise the hell out of your characters. Hence the monsters you face are in reality way, way above what anyone else would face at their stated level. But what have you actually achieved by this?
Your encounters aren't any harder or easier for you to beat than mine are for me, because the DMs I play with, and the players I DM for, don't play your way. You can claim they are going easy on us, but one job of a DM is to scale the encounter to the party sufficient to be challenging - any DM can say "Rocks fall, everyone dies" after all; you cannot 'win' D&D.
The major difference between our games as I see it is that I can choose from all the 'non-optimal' options that you pour scorn on in order to make an enjoyable character, and you cannot. Making interesting characters and playing them (and surviving, thank you very much) is what makes the game fun for me. So tell me, which of us is actually having more fun? Isn't having fun the point of the game? Isn't overcoming a tough challenge by employing a handicap more of a triumph?
There is no 'wrongbadfun' here at all; I'm not trying to say you are doing it wrong, but if playing your way was the only way I was allowed to play, I'd quit.
They system says, "Make it your game".
The system is intend to accommodate all manner of playstyles. If yours causes these problems, why not make a small handfull of house rules that bring the game into what you would consider balance? Why base your level of play around areas of the game that you have found a way to stretch or break?
+1. This is the reality of it. CoDzilla is off at one end of the gaming spectrum, but he fails to appreciate that there is a spectrum at all.
And if "smart enemies are smart" can't be taken as a default assumption, I wonder just what the hell people are doing with their games.They system says, "Make it your game".
The system is intend to accommodate all manner of playstyles. If yours causes these problems, why not make a small handfull of house rules that bring the game into what you would consider balance? Why base your level of play around areas of the game that you have found a way to stretch or break?
Playing them the way we enjoy them? Playing smart enemies realistically smart rather than metagaming the crap out of them and twisting CR rules into a pretzel just to challenge overpowered PCs?
No, stuff like that can't be handwaved away as just some style difference. At some point you have to ask yourself "Am I playing D&D here?"
Just as long as I don't have to play your way, I DON'T CARE! If I'm having fun, and my fellow players are having fun, that's all that matters to me.
The object of the game is to have fun. Only if you forget that is there no point in playing.
|
No, stuff like that can't be handwaved away as just some style difference. At some point you have to ask yourself "Am I playing D&D here?"
Most of us here are actually not, we're playing Pathfinder. Hi, welcome to the discussion. If you leave the attitude at the door, I'd be happy to discuss Pathfinder with you. That's assuming there's anything left of you when you peel the attitude away, of course.
You're going to have to provide some context here. Who mentioned summons?
See above. "pre battle summon a CR 19 demon".
And no, it's not safer. They'll still be alive, and fully fighting fit until they die.
Maybe I explained the concept badly. If you are facing a bunch of spellcaster and you are a Balor, what's safer? Spam spells hoping for they missing the save (hurr.. with a million of items and buffs, unlikely) or just beat them up?
Just because it doesn't bother to tell you this doesn't mean it isn't stated. There are such things as unspoken statements, inherent truths to a system. All of which have the same result. With less honesty.
If they did come right out and tell you optimize or die, we'd be a lot better off. Then people would know what they are getting into, and not be offended, or try and argue with people that tell them like it is.
I point out what Dabbler said, above.
And I am considering that. That means you have even more HP to plow through than with one big enemy. One of my main examples is 1,120 HP, level 15 encounter. That's 6 Frost Giants, 6 Winter Wolves. Look it up. A single CR 15 creature would have about a quarter that total. Still going to try and defend HP damage? Because multiple foes forces optimization more than single ones. So by all means, go ahead and assume that. It won't help you.
You are considering HP only. More smaller enemies mean less "numbers" in the to-hit values, lower saves. Being prone to AOE, but better not argue about this.
If you play badly, you are likely to die. But you can "require" lesser numbers in AC and stats if you use wisely terrain and controls.
Is true that more enemies have an edge on the action economy department, but players still have a voice, as well terrain has. The system is far more flexible than you think.
The system says non casters must optimize to be playable, even in a normal difficulty campaign. The system also says even if they do, all caster teams are optimal.
Can you cite your source please? I can't find this line in any of the books anywhere. I am still thinking that you should get a refund for your books. What you could do is play with a system that actually suits your style better.
The fact that so many campaigns, even without using house rules, doesn't have this problem is evidence enough to show that you are wrong. I know, you are under the arrogant misconception that your way is the only way to play but the reality is that your way, to so many others, is the least fun way to play the game.
The bestiary is notorious for lowballing enemy stats.
This is where you are running into your disconnect. The Bestiary isn't low balling the stats. You are high balling your characters. By using 25 point buy and always starting with a 20 in your primary stat, you are already head and shoulders above starting opponents in the Bestiary. By bringing in tons of DnD material, you are increasing your party's power over and above the expectations of system. The CR system is very clear on how difficult each EL should be. Once you change the characters, you have changed the expectations of the EL system.
Your way isn't wrong for your group. You are assuming that it is right for all groups. I can assure you that if you played a caster in my group, you would find that you are not a god at any level (we aren't talking epic levels). You will also find that the non-casters hold their own.
Right now, the wizard in the party is having the most trouble. He doesn't have every spell known to man. He also ends up getting surprised easily because he doesn't have the points to prevent this from always happening. Last session he was hit by an air elemental because the module explicitly stated that they will attack anyone who attempts to fly through the room. They were hard to spot (the module gave them +22 on top of their already decent Stealth due to the fog they were hiding in that was 100 feet away). Getting caught in the whirlwind made casting nearly impossible. Escape required a Reflex save DC 23. He ended up getting pounded on harshly until he was at -9 hit points. The rogue prevented him from falling too far away but couldn't pull him up fast enough. The druid had to reincarnate him. In case it matters, the party was level 11. Most of them survived the encounter with 2 of these elementals.
Custom items? That's your argument? Why not just get continuous Wraithstrike for 48k then?
Because wraithstrike doesn't exist outside of 3.5. Likewise, I know far more GMs that ban wraithstrike, shivering touch, and other questionable spells than simple defensive spell magic items.
And even then either you have to waste a round, or the Cleric does just so you can begin to do anything. No, Life Drinker weapons aren't viable unless you have a continuous source of immunity. Most likely via race.
The easiest is via a race. It is far from most likely. The majority of races do not have the ability to use death ward. A common alternative might be to become undead.
Protip: Most DMs do not allow the custom item rules. Now I'd allow the Wraithstrike item, because every real melee can already do that and Fighters need Nice Things. I wouldn't allow the Death Ward armor. I would direct you to Soulfire, which is +4 and does the same thing.
My experience has only been the opposite. I've never seen a capable of GM who didn't allow basic magic items that allowed core spells as part of a magic item, especially since there are many precedents throughout the core rules (items that cast spells, continual defensive spells, etc).
Just one problem.
+1 heavy fort soulfire [armor] = no more room for enchantments. And Animated shields got nerfed, which hurts martials hard but no one else cares. So you don't have another place to put special properties.
I'm not including outside materials in my evaluation of the core options and balance. I'm not basing my evaluation of Pathfinder on the vast wealth (or flood) that is the 3.5 version and all of its supplements (good or bad).
Other Notes
Meanwhile, I listed some wands in the pit-fiend's equipment, which it can use with its +28 Use Magic Device. Those can be used for buffing, fighting, and the like. Overbuffing is great, but dropping a greater dispel magic as a swift action without changing your combat tactics is very easy at that level, which means potion (and wand) buffs are most likely dead in the first round. Even though the targeted dispel got nerfed in Pathfinder, you'll still clobber 4-5 buffs.
Other people don't use XP either? I thought it was just me. Wow, that at least is good to know.
The bestiary is notorious for lowballing enemy stats.
Actually this might be a good point to look this over as it hits on many places where the disconnect could happen.
Firstly what is a CR = APL encounter supposed to be? It's supposed to be something that will eat up roughly 20% of a standard party's resources while still being easily defeated.
So what is a standard party? A standard party is 15 point buy with no traits and correct wealth by level.
As you increase the power of the party the power of the meleers does increase -- however this is true of all characters, as it allows the casters to shore up deadly weaknesses (such as CMD, AC, and Saves -- all of which generally suffer for arcane casters specifically).
Now could a 15 point buy martial character still come within 10% of my above posts? Sure. It isn't even hard to do considering that stats only make up about 5% of any part of what I shared in the earlier builds -- the rest was equipment, feats and class features.
The problem is that caster's maximum abilities stay static, and if you raise the enemies to match the raise in the player's abilities the spell casters actually start to fall behind.
As has been shown the average success rate of an optimized SoD/SoS caster is about 55%. Unfortunately no matter what stat buy you use that stays the same -- on the player's end. The GM's side however doesn't. Even applying the "Advanced" monster template means the SoD caster's success rate drops by 10% (since the advance template gives a +2 to all saves). Saves are one of the easiest things to improve -- as such the more you add to the monsters the better their saves will be and the more the poor SoD caster suffers for it -- and he wasn't even in a good spot to begin with.
|
The smartest person in the room often hates others for not being able to think to his level.
I generally find people like him to be right more often than not in RAW environments. But most people don't like being told they're wrong or playing with kid gloves.
From what I have seen, he thinks he's the smartest person in the room and doesn't bother with explanations. Unfortunately he trots out tropes that have some holes in them, and to me these indicate that he is NOT the smartest person in the room, he's just found a way of playing that is 90% successful and uses it, then denigrates others for exploring the remaining 10%. They are the ones I would call the smartest in the room.
Remember that CoD is making the premise that monsters are always buffed and always uber, and never get dispelled. Therefore, you must be uber before being buffed.That does explain a lot. It also proves my point about optimization - shove it to the max, and you get the DM upping the ante to challenge you, and all you've actually done in effect is remove a lot of 'sub-optimal but fun' options from the game. Removing fun from the game is never good ...
This is not any different than people "claiming" they just knew psionics are overpowered, and no amount of argument could get them to change their minds. He thinks what he thinks. Right or not, who knows. But the other side discounts it not because of his evidence, but his attitude.
But the other side discounts it not because of his evidence, but his attitude.I disagree with him. I would be willing to have a rational conversation about it. But that doesn't seem to be an option.
That is because if you don't play like he does you are doing it wrong, and with the buffs the monsters receive it is very hard for melee's to keep up. I should not need an AC or to hit of 60, not for a standard game anyway.
But the other side discounts it not because of his evidence, but his attitude.I disagree with him. I would be willing to have a rational conversation about it. But that doesn't seem to be an option.
His (CoDZilla) posts remind me of the build threads on the Titan Quest forums, the "X class combo just wins" type stuff. Those folks there can also sound elitist and unforgiving.
The difference being:1) Those statements are usually followed with sound logic and in-game references or examples and even sometimes a youtube video to back up the statements.
2) Titan Quest is a "closed" game with set quest line scenarios with a few set monsters that never change, so this logic won't work for a PnP game because it's too open.
3) The comments are helpful/useful.
But the other side discounts it not because of his evidence, but his attitude.
No, they usually get slated for their crappy attitude AND their crappy evidence, it's just the attitude makes further discussion of the evidence impossible.
|
|
You're going to have to provide some context here. Who mentioned summons?
You did.
-James
Uh oh. His paper trail is starting to catch up with him again. He's going to have to make another new account soon so people can't cite what he has said in the past and show the inconsistancies.
I suspect he was Mistah Green before, anyone else suspect any other aliases?