Some fighters (typicaly) use wis for dump and have bad Will saves.Really? Why would they dump their WILL save?
A fighter at that level likely has around a +20 will save, so he makes it on a 7 otherwise he rerolls. And that's assuming that the party doesn't know about the encounter with the Balor carting around a literal cart of weapons...
As to the quickened TK.. It's just at +28 to hit, through soft cover so if the target can sport a 34AC (which at that level is not unreasonable unless you've 'given up' on AC) then you've saved for half already. Throw in another defense (say stoneskin or even likely protection from normal missiles) and its nothing.
From the sound of it the balor is going to do more damage via its death throws,
James
PS: There's some table variation on SLAs that mimic 1 round casting time spells on how long it takes for them to be cast.
Depending on the PB used, they may sacrifice it to boost STR or CON.
hence, dump. More than liekly it will be CHA that takes the biggest hit or INT, but if its only a 15 PB i can see WILL suffering as well.Besides, I said some fighters. Not all. I don't assume absolutes or deal in either or. But it's more plausible than not.
Depends. Did you know the Balor was there? Had it already been cast?
If not, all it gives the fighter is a second save at a +2, which is probably not going to help that much. Some fighters (typicaly) use wis for dump and have bad Will saves.
I can't imagine a Balor being all that set back by a 1st level spell either...
If the Balor has to dispel it, its annother standard action.
If cast after the fact, the fighter needs to roll a 5 (+20 is not hard to get on a will save by level 20, likely with improved iron will as well). The Balor spent a turn to dominate you, your cleric his turn to cancel it. You win the action economy, as your fighter now closes to melee or unleashes a full ranged attack and your arcane caster and utility person do something usefull (dimentional anchor)
Depends. Did you know the Balor was there? Had it already been cast?
If not, all it gives the fighter is a second save at a +2, which is probably not going to help that much. Some fighters (typicaly) use wis for dump and have bad Will saves.
I can't imagine a Balor being all that set back by a 1st level spell either...If the Balor has to dispel it, its annother standard action.
If cast after the fact, the fighter needs to roll a 5 (+20 is not hard to get on a will save by level 20, likely with improved iron will as well). The Balor spent a turn to dominate you, your cleric his turn to cancel it. You win the action economy, as your fighter now closes to melee or unleashes a full ranged attack and your arcane caster and utility person do something usefull (dimentional anchor)
Whoa there Tex! Just because I thought he had a good point, I'm not saying Balor = instant win.
I merely agreed with the dominate tactic becasue of the nature of the beast. A Balor would most definately try it right off the bat, and of all the classes present, the fighter is the most likely to fail a Will save.A party thats versatile and works well together should defeat the Balor 8/10 times.
Doesn't mean he won't try. After all, you beat him, he goes back home. No big deal.
And the javelin thing...would be impressive, you have to admit :)
Besides, I said some fighters. Not all. I don't assume absolutes or deal in either or. But it's more plausible than not.
I guess YMMV, but if you are building a fighter dumping WIS is not a bright thing to do and you deserve what you get for doing so.
Cause face it if you are playing a fighter at mid levels or beyond, you are going to draw WILL saves by those that can choose to target you with them.
-James
Correct on all counts sir.
I removed some posts. The constant condescension needs to stop.
yeah.. Balor could dominate our fighter (he is here? or is not?) assuming nobody cast a 24 hour mind blank on him.
An 8th level spell slot for a +8 resistance bonus that doesn't stack with the +5 cloak the fighter's wearing unless he's completely insane, netting a +3 bonus? Eh.
Don't get me wrong, it's a good spell, but if that's your reason for casting it I don't think it's a good enough reason.
yeah.. Balor could dominate our fighter (he is here? or is not?) assuming nobody cast a 24 hour mind blank on him.An 8th level spell slot for a +8 resistance bonus that doesn't stack with the +5 cloak the fighter's wearing unless he's completely insane, netting a +3 bonus? Eh.
Don't get me wrong, it's a good spell, but if that's your reason for casting it I don't think it's a good enough reason.
It's a 15% stacking with all the other things. And well, could not even be the only reason. Are the PCs ambushed or being the ambushers? Combine it with invisibilities (vs balor's True Seeing) and use a Deadly Stroke to open the fight (move + standard).
VEEEEERY optmistic but.. just to make my point above: there are too many options to be dismissive ;)
Nope. It's more true that ever. Casters got massive buffs, everyone else got massive nerfs. So if you want a viable non caster, you must not only pull in lots of (3.5) books, but you must also start scrapping the (PF) rules that hold them back from being viable party members.Why? Core is that good for them. It just sucks for everyone else.Except in pure Pathfinder. Which is what we are discussing - in 3.5 I would not disagree!
Then why does no-one else's experience bear this out? Did you try actually playing PF core-only before you came to this judgement?
Then why does no-one else's experience bear this out? Did you try actually playing PF core-only before you came to this judgement?
Actually, mine does... and yes, we did play strict PF before I threw up my arms and started houseruling everything.
Then why does no-one else's experience bear this out? Did you try actually playing PF core-only before you came to this judgement?
Mine does to some degree.
The main thing is: flaws in an edition of the game become more apparent (and more painful) as you A) play it longer and B) play it more (mechanically) seriously.
I mean, I loved 2E. I played the hell out of 2E for a good decade and loved it. By the end of that time, my group couldn't even really stand to look at it anymore, much less think about playing it -- the fault lines, by then, were too apparent to us. It was too obvious that certain character options drastically outshined others, to the point where we could only really have fun with the game if everyone played the same narrow set of things or everyone made a gentleperson's agreement not to play those things. (I won't be specific on the flaws or that's going to be another huge thread derail for no good reason.)
Some people will never play 3.0 or its variants long enough or seriously enough for those same fault lines to become apparent or all-encompassing. That doesn't mean they're wrong for enjoying the game as they find it -- after all, we did too, at one point. But once you see, really see, a fault line, you can't unsee it again.
For all of that, PF is still the game I choose to play, and to me it's still a better game than 3.5 -- but I don't kid myself that it couldn't be better still.
|
Then why does no-one else's experience bear this out? Did you try actually playing PF core-only before you came to this judgement?Actually, mine does... and yes, we did play strict PF before I threw up my arms and started houseruling everything.
Now this could be an interesting jump off point.
What have you had to nerf to keep casters in line?
I had not had an issue with simulacrum prior, but after being shown the abuse potential I am limiting that spell (as advised by the developer I might add)
Otherwise, I have not seen a gap as casters drop as often or not more than anyone else.
Where are you finding the need to limit as a DM?
Then why does no-one else's experience bear this out? Did you try actually playing PF core-only before you came to this judgement?Actually, mine does... and yes, we did play strict PF before I threw up my arms and started houseruling everything.
Interesting. Would I be right in guessing from previous posts that you and Dire Mongoose are firm optimisers, and played through to relatively high level?
He's actually pretty much rewritten the game Ciretose, although his rewrite is significantly closer to base than my own. Spellcasting is a full round action (like a full attack action in PF) but otherwise mostly un-nerfed if I remember right, and noncasters are heavily augmented. (In Kirth's game Fighters and Monks are people you do NOT want to mess with, and if a Ranger wants to find you he will, it's just a matter of time until you have an arrow sticking out of your back)
Yes. This. And the 6th level playtest barbarian spent Monday evening happily slaughtering hordes of ogres and trolls.
He's actually pretty much rewritten the game Ciretose, although his rewrite is significantly closer to base than my own. Spellcasting is a full round action (like a full attack action in PF) but otherwise mostly un-nerfed if I remember right, and noncasters are heavily augmented. (In Kirth's game Fighters and Monks are people you do NOT want to mess with, and if a Ranger wants to find you he will, it's just a matter of time until you have an arrow sticking out of your back)Yes. This. And the 6th level playtest barbarian spent Monday evening happily slaughtering hordes of ogres and trolls.
OT: That monk is smexy Kirth. Props.
Interesting. Would I be right in guessing from previous posts that you and Dire Mongoose are firm optimisers, and played through to relatively high level?
I wouldn't say I'm personally a firm optimizer. In the game in which I'm currently a player and not GM, I'm intentionally playing a character I know to be significantly sub-optimal because it puts me on more of an even keel with some of the players who are less experienced with the game.
I would say that I've played 3.0/3.5/PF at times with people who are pretty firm optimizers, and/or are the kind of people who view it as a personal challenge to find something obscure that's seriously overpowered; I also spent the bulk of the 3.X years playing organized play campaigns (sometimes along with traditional games).
It's really hard to explain the, I can't quite say optimization effect, but let's say elevation of play that occurs with people seriously playing an organized play campaign, but I'll try: You could run two or three normal campaigns, and maybe nobody in your group ever decides to make a druid. Or maybe someone does and, for whatever reason, they just don't notice or understand how good Entangle is. (It was, correctly IMHO, taken down a peg in PF so let's for the moment say I'm talking about 3.X Entangle.) You can't be involved in convention play and have that same blind spot, assuming you play with random or partly random tables and not always with a group of your friends -- within your first convention, you'll see somebody playing a druid casting Entangle and you'll see how very powerful it is, even if maybe it doesn't sound that strong when you skim the spell description. If you make a druid down the line, you already know how good it is, when it's good, when it's not the best option, etc. -- you can't un-know it.
Now figure in the course of a weekend you'll pick up on a dozen things ilke that and in the course of a year you'll pick up on hundreds. You're not trying to be an optimizer, per se, you just have a lot of knowledge of what works and doesn't work beyond what you've personally played. You'll see a low level melee character crack a guy for a hundred points of damage (or whatever levels/numbers) and ask, "Wait, how did you do that?" and probably pick up three or four new tricks in the process. In that environment, new good ideas of tactics spread like wildfire -- it's not like arguing on a message board where I say Animal Growth is crazy good and you say it's not and neither of us is really convinced -- you see in actual play how great it is and then from then on you just know. A Living/OP game is like a rock tumbler that ruthlessly wears away rough edges and produces ever more optimal characters without really trying.
(And of course, the small list of feats/classes/etc. banned in your organized play campaign? There's probably a good reason for that, and if you're of a mind to, you know about a whole bunch of really good things to pick for a campaign that doesn't ban them.)
Maybe that gives you a better idea of where I'm coming from? (Incidentally, the most heartbreaking full-caster vs. anyone else stories I could tell from those days don't involve combat at all.)
Then why does no-one else's experience bear this out? Did you try actually playing PF core-only before you came to this judgement?Actually, mine does... and yes, we did play strict PF before I threw up my arms and started houseruling everything.
Kirth, do you have a houserules page or thread I could check out? No, not to discredit you, but rather I respect your intellect (and lack of jerkiness) and I want to see what you did.
I somehow get by without (balance) houserules, so this constant theme of broken RAW confuses me. It may be that I have cooperative players, and probably I am selectively enforcing rules that help me balance in-game (see above). My solution has generally been to keep the wizard paranoid. I'll bet this does fall apart with an all-wizard party, but thankfully I haven't had that happen to me ever.
Spellcasting is a full round action (like a full attack action)
Barring for attack spells, this is indeed a wonderful idea, because it's an apparently little twist able to completely reform how the game flows.
Brilliant.
Actually, several utilities (i.e. teleport) would be very fun to use if the casting time were raised to, say, 10 round (no need of minutes).
Interesting. Would I be right in guessing from previous posts that you and Dire Mongoose are firm optimisers, and played through to relatively high level?
I started out in 3.5 not optimizing at all; I'd have "organic" characters like a ranger 5/sorcerer 2/druid 4 who, at 11th level, was looking at 2nd level spells and a BAB of +9; I would've been a lot better off just going straight druid, but whatever.
This changed when I got to play in Age of Worms -- my "sissy elf cleric" emerged after the 4th or 5th adventure as an unmitigated badass, through no effort at all on my part. Then "Spire of Long Shadows" was a big turning point, because two TPKs for "balanced" (e.g., paladin/rogue/cleric/sorcerer) parties led to a re-evaluation of class priorities, and a caster-heavy party finally tackled the place and got through it.
Then I DMed Savage Tide, and saw the barbarian -- feared by all the others at 1st level -- bored out of his mind after 11th when he really couldn't do a whole lot to contribute. The rogue was only viable because he'd maxed out his social skills, and that AP has you doing nothing but negotiating with demons for about a third of it. The wizard and druid, meanwhile, were doing all the heavy lifting. We all saw the writing on the wall then.
Finally, I min-maxed the hell out of a tripping monk for the Pathfinder playtesting, and learned that, at 5th-6th level, he was still helpless against 2nd level mooks. So, yeah, Pathfinder wasn't much of an improvement.
Notice that my increasing optimizing is actively driven by the caster-warrior disparity; the disparity is not a result of optimizing. Like I said before, I now like to play at Optimization Level II, at which everyone agrees to keep things within "X" range.
Kirth, do you have a houserules page or thread I could check out?
TriOmegaZero was kind enough to host my Version 1.0 rules, which in playtesting and analysis were found to have a number of flaws, so I'm working on and playtesting Version 2.0 now -- which I hope to have ready by the new year.
BTW I found Misah Green (whom someone referenced earlier) to be quite genial and remarkably helpful when it came to identifying underlying fault lines in certain rules subsystems.
I forget, did you give the ranger Shadow-walk or was that only something I was doing Kirth?
Yes. At every even level, my ranger gets an improvement to his tracking ability:
2nd - +1/2 level to track
4th - infallible direction sense
6th - swift tracker
8th - anchored navigation
10th - planar tracking
12th - walk in Shadow
14th - planar survival
16th - find the path
18th - planar shepherd
20th - personal demi-plane
Finally, I min-maxed the hell out of a tripping monk for the Pathfinder playtesting, and learned that, at 5th-6th level, he was still helpless against 2nd level mooks. So, yeah, Pathfinder wasn't much of an improvement.
You meant helpless as a whole or unable to trip O_o?
You meant helpless as a whole or unable to trip O_o?
Unable to effectively trip, unable to hit when not tripping, and the fact that I had rapid movement OR rapid attacks and couldn't combine them meant that I had absolutely no "schtick" of my own. A 5th level PF monk has BAB +3; I ended up with a 16 Str despite general MAD and a +1 kama, which meant I was +7 to attack mooks (AC 18: +6 armor +2 shield). At +10 to trip (IIRC), I could knock down CMD 12 mooks (but not finish them off), and I couldn't trip or hit anything at all that was a credible threat.
You meant helpless as a whole or unable to trip O_o?Unable to effectively trip, unable to hit when not tripping, and the fact that I had rapid movement OR rapid attacks and couldn't combine them meant that I had absolutely no "schtick" of my own.
What CMD assumed for them? What CMB assumed for the monk?
(do not be offended by my question, it is curiosity because I'm sure we have different gamestyles).
|
|
As an aside, I wish people would stop saying 'I have never had any complaints in X years.' it doesn't prove anything except that none of your players spoke up about any issues they had. I ask my players for feedback and only assume they're enjoying themselves when they tell me so.
Hey, I said "with a couple of exceptions!" ;-)
What CMD assumed for them? What CMB assumed for the monk? (do not be offended by my question, it is curiosity because I'm sure we have different gamestyles).
Sorry -- see edit above. I had to run away from the CMD 20 mimic that was immune to tripping (and ended up eating the rest of the rogue-heavy party).
Dunno.. in an heavy rogue party I would have just tripped and placed myself in a position to allow flank. Tripped + flank + rogue = dead.
A tripped enemy has -4 to hit, this could have made your party safer. Essentially, I would act as a control (say tumble to stun a mook and place yourself to flank another or more, make the rogues act concordingly).
What class the other party members were? All rogues?
By level 6 a +2 from improved trip and +1 for the level could have raised the CMB a bit. The mimic is immune to trip.. what other feats did you have?
What your DM would have done?
I say this because I play more the meleers on battlefield and I'm curious to see what other people do :)
If you enjoy your classes go for it - I don't want to make you change your mind.
|
|
What CMD assumed for them? What CMB assumed for the monk? (do not be offended by my question, it is curiosity because I'm sure we have different gamestyles).Sorry -- see edit above. I had to run away from the CMD 20 mimic that was immune to tripping (and ended up eating the rest of the rogue-heavy party).
To be honest, though, our biggest party weakness was a wizard character that thought evocation was wonderful.
We tend to not tell people how to play their characters. Gets hairy sometimes.
An aside about our group as it stands: we stop quite often to discuss how the houserules are working, or what we'd like to see our characters able to do at certain levels. We also discuss if we think an option is appropriate, under- or over- powered, or even relevant.
I figure the design goal isn't to eliminate sub optimal choices all together, but to make sure nothing is too much of a trap, and to make sure there are enough optimal/good options to actually allow effective variances amongst the classes (as in, sword and board is viable for someone wanting to play that archetype, martial types of different styles can keep up at higher levels and not look identical).
I think we've given up on balance, isn't happening, as spells almost always are > than feats/class abilities. But martials can still be relevant if given options that overcome some of their high level shortcomings without digging into WBL expectations. Frees up resources for non-"Big Six" items they would need to keep up (boots of Teleport, Wings of Flying, etc).
And the word "nerf" is kryptonite to a couple of us. Don't put brakes on a class, make the other ones better (viable/fun past the normal "spells rule, melee drools" breaking point).
|
What CMD assumed for them? What CMB assumed for the monk? (do not be offended by my question, it is curiosity because I'm sure we have different gamestyles).Sorry -- see edit above. I had to run away from the CMD 20 mimic that was immune to tripping (and ended up eating the rest of the rogue-heavy party).To be honest, though, our biggest party weakness was a wizard character that thought evocation was wonderful.
We tend to not tell people how to play their characters. Gets hairy sometimes.
An aside about our group as it stands: we stop quite often to discuss how the houserules are working, or what we'd like to see our characters able to do at certain levels. We also discuss if we think an option is appropriate, under- or over- powered, or even relevant.
I figure the design goal isn't to eliminate sub optimal choices all together, but to make sure nothing is too much of a trap, and to make sure there are enough optimal/good options to actually allow effective variances amongst the classes (as in, sword and board is viable for someone wanting to play that archetype, martial types of different styles can keep up at higher levels and not look identical).
I think we've given up on balance, isn't happening, as spells almost always are > than feats/class abilities. But martials can still be relevant if given options that overcome some of their high level shortcomings without digging into WBL expectations. Frees up resources for non-"Big Six" items they would need to keep up (boots of Teleport, Wings of Flying, etc).
And the word "nerf" is kryptonite to a couple of us. Don't put brakes on a class, make the other ones better (viable/fun past the normal "spells rule, melee drools" breaking point).
I dislike nerfing as well, but dammit, spells are SO powerful. I can't think of what a fighter can do at high levels that's more than 1-2 hit killshots. And then think of what a barbarian can do. And then what a rogue can do. Etc.
I dislike nerfing as well, but dammit, spells are SO powerful. I can't think of what a fighter can do at high levels that's more than 1-2 hit killshots.
I'm giving the fighter better tools. Ability to deduce true enemy locations through tactical reasoning, so that he's effectively got true seeing. Ability to knock down fliers with ranged attacks. Ability to move and full attack. Ability to reliably interrupt and disrupt spellcasting.
I figure the design goal isn't to eliminate sub optimal choices all together, but to make sure nothing is too much of a trap
To that end, a lot of the minor but interesting but ultimately trap options now "piggyback" as freebies on other feats/talents. Like, if you take the rogue talent that gives you nondetection, you get the Nystul's aura one for your gear for free.
Interesting. Would I be right in guessing from previous posts that you and Dire Mongoose are firm optimisers, and played through to relatively high level?I wouldn't say I'm personally a firm optimizer.
{other stuff making a lot of sense}
I completely get where you are coming from. I agree that casters have a lot of advantages in Pathfinder ... but they can't do everything better than the non-casters.
Notice that my increasing optimizing is actively driven by the caster-warrior disparity; the disparity is not a result of optimizing. Like I said before, I now like to play at Optimization Level II, at which everyone agrees to keep things within "X" range.
Interesting, although I think your monk suffered from being a one-trick pony, and monks are tricky to get right anyway (not casting aspersions on your playing there, it's just an observation).
The way I like to play is to keep verisimilitude. I cannot play a cookie-cutter wizard with 20 Int and nerfed other stats to get it, because that person to me isn't real (well, I could do one, but not more than one or they cease to be individual). I design the way I think real people evolve, which sometimes means 'sub-optimal' choices; I prefer to take a concept and make it work effectively within the rules than look for the most telling rules and build a concept around it. Creating a character like that and having them survive through good tactics and clever strategy is a challenge, as far as I am concerned.
When I DM, I try and maintain that verisimilitude and follow a simple philosophy: The DM's job is to keep the PCs alive so the players enjoy the game, while convincing the players that he is out to get them by any means her can.
Truthfully, I never encountered the 'casters uber alles', possibly because in the games I played in the casters (as often as not including my PC) were more interested in being characters than being spell hurling awesomeness. We met foes played intelligently, yet we still triumphed.
I design the way I think real people evolve, which sometimes means 'sub-optimal' choices
and
The DM's job is to keep the PCs alive
Yes; that's a textbook Optimization Level I game.
|
|
Interesting. Would I be right in guessing from previous posts that you and Dire Mongoose are firm optimisers, and played through to relatively high level?I wouldn't say I'm personally a firm optimizer.
{other stuff making a lot of sense}
I completely get where you are coming from. I agree that casters have a lot of advantages in Pathfinder ... but they can't do everything better than the non-casters.
Notice that my increasing optimizing is actively driven by the caster-warrior disparity; the disparity is not a result of optimizing. Like I said before, I now like to play at Optimization Level II, at which everyone agrees to keep things within "X" range.Interesting, although I think your monk suffered from being a one-trick pony, and monks are tricky to get right anyway (not casting aspersions on your playing there, it's just an observation).
The way I like to play is to keep verisimilitude. I cannot play a cookie-cutter wizard with 20 Int and nerfed other stats to get it, because that person to me isn't real (well, I could do one, but not more than one or they cease to be individual). I design the way I think real people evolve, which sometimes means 'sub-optimal' choices; I prefer to take a concept and make it work effectively within the rules than look for the most telling rules and build a concept around it. Creating a character like that and having them survive through good tactics and clever strategy is a challenge, as far as I am concerned.
When I DM, I try and maintain that verisimilitude and follow a simple philosophy: The DM's job is to keep the PCs alive so the players enjoy the game, while convincing the players that he is out to get them by any means her can.
Truthfully, I never encountered the 'casters uber alles', possibly because in the games I played in the casters (as often as not including my PC) were more interested in being characters than being spell hurling awesomeness. We...
It's always been as long as everybody is on the same page, there's not too many problems. But what if one of your players read something on a forum, and then discovered he likes an optimized wizard? It doesn't take anything away from role-playing, but he likes that mechanically, he's doing better than before? It starts an arms race that is difficult to stop. Once people test the limits and go beyond them, it can be hard to go back to "how it used to be".
I've seen players have an epiphany. That look when that player realizes a Fireball isn't as effective as Entangle (or whatever example one wishes to use). Once they experience that, they start thinking totally differently, and it changes everything.
Often times, it's not because they want to be a badass or a munchkin, but that they realize something is better or more effective.
For me acknowledging the breaking points and working back from them to find the style of play (heavily 1e-2e greyhawk) that I want to simulate is method that I choose to play the game.
For a long point in time I relied on the social contract of don't spotlight hog. I heavily houseruled 2e back in the day and didn't really want to spend the time to houserule 3e which is significantly more complex in many ways.
I think that's actually what many people do.
More recently though I've decided that Pathfinder made some good design choices in trying to scale back from the constant brinksmanship and that it would be easier to houserule Pathfinder into shape than expanded 3.x (which is basically completely unworkable given my time constraints).
For me the problem isn't so much the existence of SoS/SoD effects (the game has always had them to some degree or another) it's that the success rate of optimized SoD casters is still way too high. I also think the caster's ability to manipulate the action economy is a major factor in the caster's favor.
So far I've basically limited my tweaks to adjusting classes/races (giving everyone more stuff to do out of combat) and nerfing some of the more egregious caster options.
I'd like to spend some time down the road buffing evocation so that it's no longer a joke option but that's a pretty major undertaking. It will probably involve changing a good amount of evocation battle spells to swift actions and/or buffing damage to halfway respectable levels with status effects being a possible third option.
I personally am reluctant to go to the casting = full round action solution because I think it can be overkill. I wouldn't be opposed to some solution that brings back interrupting casters though in a meaningful manner.
Oh and counterspelling needs to be dramatically altered so that it's a viable tactic. The genre is littered with examples of casters dueling to get off effects not just trading spells I would like to simulate that sort of effect.
I completely get where you are coming from. I agree that casters have a lot of advantages in Pathfinder ... but they can't do everything better than the non-casters.
I would say, definitely not everything... but still a little too much.
Here's a 3.5 story; it would work materially unchanged in PF although you'd pay 500 GP instead of 100 XP.
I'm running a Living Greyhawk module for an APL 12, I think, table. It is, in part, an investigative adventure. Adding an interesting twist is that in the process of investigating the main mystery, players will probably come across evidence of illegal (if morally justifiable, to most PCs) activity by a secretive organization that maybe half a dozen or so PCs across the whole campaign have become members of. If one of these characters is present for a play of this adventure, they're contacted discreetly by their superiors and given the side-mission of burying this evidence and covering up these crimes.
As it happens, I have one of members of this secret society at my table. He's straight rogue. He does a great job of using his skills, magic items, and general sneakiness to hide or destroy all of the key pieces of evidence. Some of his moves were genuinely surprising in their inventiveness.
Unfortunately for him, also at the table is a cleric who has adventured with him before and has been very suspicious of him for a long time. At the end of the investigation, the cleric still isn't completely sure what's going on with the main mystery of the adventure -- in part because things the rogue stole or destroyed leave an incomplete picture. To make sure the party accuses the correct guilty parties, he crosses off 100XP and casts Commune. After 3 or 4 of his 11 yes/no questions, he's got it sorted out. Then, rather than let the rest go to waste, he thinks about it for a minute and continues, asking something roughly of the form:
"Is (rogue) screwing me somehow?" (Yes)
"Is he screwing me this way?" (No)
"Did he do X?" (No)
"Did he do Y?" (No)
"What about Z?" (Yes)
And you know? After asking the 8 or so questions about the rogue pulling one over on him and still not having it narrowed down to his satisfaction, he crossed off another 100 XP, and cast Commune again.
How does a rogue compete with that?
|
|
And the word "nerf" is kryptonite to a couple of us. Don't put brakes on a class, make the other ones better (viable/fun past the normal "spells rule, melee drools" breaking point).
I couldn’t disagree with you more on this one.
The transition from 2nd to 3rd has show us how much a few changes can make one type of class (caster) much more powerful than all the others. Sure spells were powerful in older editions but the breaking point came in 3rd edition.
(not in any kind of order)
- Move and Cast
- Concentration
- More Spells
- Less limitations on casting and learning spells
- No drawbacks on spell function (wish, teleport, haste, etc, etc)
- Animal Companions (druids), familiars (sorc/wiz) with major game impact
- Stat disparity. This goes from needing multiple attributes vs. less but also for people using the point buy system. Should a point of Strength equal a point of Wis or Int in a pb scoring system?
- DC and saving throw system manipulation
Earlier editions had little in the way of high level gaming since things tapered off at 11-13th level. They tried to pull off higher level gaming in 3rd and casters got to use all sorts of cool spells and powers (developers love writing spells).
Unfortunately all the other classes didn't get the memo that they were supposed to be playable after 10th level. The new spells didn't stop coming though.
I don't want fighters who need to fly to be viable to a flying wizard. Just limit the wizards ability to fly, to stay in the air if hit, how many other body trans/buffs he can have on at the same time, and so on. Casters need to be reined in, not everyone else brought up to caster levels.
If people want to play classes with the reality bending powers I don't have a problem with that, nor do I with the ability to bend reality via spells. Just get a good price point in there, some trade-offs and major risks - including death.
All these things disappeared in 3rd
The DM's job is to keep the PCs aliveYes; that's a textbook Optimization Level I game.
It's probably also worth saying that as long as a DM softballs the players, they probably aren't going to improve a whole lot, mechanically. When what you're doing is working, in the sense that it's not getting you killed, why change?
I think it's fine to run the game that way if you and your players are having fun with it. Certainly I've run the game that way. But, running the game that way does not tend to provide you with a lot of insight about how the game really balances out. It's kind of like playing Risk or Chess with your kids and letting them win -- if you're spending time together and that's fun for you, more power to you, but at the same time you have to accept that past a certain point it's not going to make either of you better at the game.
I design the way I think real people evolve, which sometimes means 'sub-optimal' choicesand
The DM's job is to keep the PCs aliveYes; that's a textbook Optimization Level I game.
True, but the two do not necessarily go hand in hand. If the DM is doing his job right, he can be pushing a hardline level IV game and the players never know he is working to challenge them and yet keep the alive by not exploiting their unknown (to them) weaknesses (for example, CoDzilla gave an account of his party offing a dragon several levels above them as played intelligently - I say no way, that dragon wasn't very smart at all, it should have killed half of them if it did things right, so perhaps their DM was playing 'smart-stupid' to keep them alive?).
By the same token, a player used to hard line optimisation could tone it down by taking suboptimal choices in a level II or III game.
I'd be hesitant to incorporate this as a natural trait (considering all the monsters with spellcasting, and how drastically making this innately available could change how spellcasting plays out) but... this feat is everything you need Vuron. (I've playtested it and works out pretty well.)
Improved Counterspell: By spending their immediate action, a spellcaster can burn up an appropriate spell to counter-spell any spell he is aware of that is being cast that is cast within or targetted through an area equal to medium-range from himself. (so at level 1 this is a 110 foot radius.)
So let me get this mechanic straight.
The caster can use the same spell (or a spell that generates an opposite effect) as an immediate action to negate someone casting an appropriate spell within x range?
Or do you mean any spell of the same level?
Spellcraft check or no?
Metamagic impact this other than heighten?
I honestly would like to have some way for non-casters with spell-like abilities the ability to impact spellcasters and vice versa but that's major surgery to the system.
|
|
Interesting. Would I be right in guessing from previous posts that you and Dire Mongoose are firm optimisers, and played through to relatively high level?I wouldn't say I'm personally a firm optimizer.
{other stuff making a lot of sense}
I completely get where you are coming from. I agree that casters have a lot of advantages in Pathfinder ... but they can't do everything better than the non-casters.
Notice that my increasing optimizing is actively driven by the caster-warrior disparity; the disparity is not a result of optimizing. Like I said before, I now like to play at Optimization Level II, at which everyone agrees to keep things within "X" range.Interesting, although I think your monk suffered from being a one-trick pony, and monks are tricky to get right anyway (not casting aspersions on your playing there, it's just an observation).
The way I like to play is to keep verisimilitude. I cannot play a cookie-cutter wizard with 20 Int and nerfed other stats to get it, because that person to me isn't real (well, I could do one, but not more than one or they cease to be individual). I design the way I think real people evolve, which sometimes means 'sub-optimal' choices; I prefer to take a concept and make it work effectively within the rules than look for the most telling rules and build a concept around it. Creating a character like that and having them survive through good tactics and clever strategy is a challenge, as far as I am concerned.
When I DM, I try and maintain that verisimilitude and follow a simple philosophy: The DM's job is to keep the PCs alive so the players enjoy the game, while convincing the players that he is out to get them by any means her can.
Truthfully, I never encountered the 'casters uber alles', possibly because in the games I played in the casters (as often as not including my PC) were more interested in being characters than being spell hurling awesomeness. We...
I get this, and I agree that playstyle and group fiat (agreement) can smooth over quite a few flaws/realities in the rules set.
The problem I see in a lot of threads like this is people mistake the ability to smooth out the problems with the rules as not being a problem with the rules.
Just because you dislike the "crank up Int/dump everything he doesn't mechanically need to thrive" playstyle, doesn't mean it isn't something that exists in the rules. Mechanically, there is zero incentive to play a "well rounded character". Only in playstyle does the incentive exist to not hyper-optimize.
At our table, we have a gentleman's agreement to only mildly optimize. (We also roll our stats, so any low stats come organically, not by choice. My wizard with the 6 Str and 8 Cha to go with his 19 Int rolled those numbers, with his elf bonus making the 17 a 19).
As to the "keeping players alive" duty of the GM? I'd walk the first time I thought a roll was fudged. I want to earn levels or die trying. We incorporated a 007 style Hero Point system to take the fudging out of the DMs hand and create a mechanic for the player to decide when something would change. It's kind of like a little bit of luck, and when that luck runs out, Fate decided what happens to you. But a DM looking at a nat 20 and deciding it actually was a six? Nah.
We do our dice rolling in the open. We see everything Kirth rolls, he sees everything we roll (especially my "double 1s" (2d20) twice in a row for my TWF rogue). And he often sets us up against slightly more powerful opponents than we should be facing, CR-wise, since he knows we're capable of planning and narrowing options for our opponents.
So, when you say you triumphed over challenges and monsters were played intelligently, I can't reconcile that with your stated GM goal of "Keep the characters alive". They're antithetical to one another. Either the GM is challenging the party to develop sound tactics and make sound character choices to survive, or he or she is hand holding. Illusion, by definition, isn't reality.
See, "The DM's job is to keep the PCs alive so the players enjoy the game, while convincing the players that he is out to get them by any means her can" is definitely a valid play style, but it exists outside of the mechanics (not the rules or spirit of the game, the game can support many styles) of the game. Ergo, I find any input in a pure mechanics discussion that comes from this playstyle to be far less helpful that input from someone who plays a "let the dice fall where they may" impartial referee type game that relies solely on mechanics, and not DM fiat/philosophy, to resolve game situations.
I'm all for people playing however they want, whether it be rocket launcher tag at high levels, magical tea party, whatever. But, certain play styles are more or less relevant when discussing game mechanics, balance, and the disparity between certain classes in their ability to handle a variety of different situations.
By the same token, a player used to hard line optimisation could tone it down by taking suboptimal choices in a level II or III game.
A Level III game is what most people here would (erroneously) call "hard line optimization." A Level IV game is bleak in terms of options collapse -- like, you almost just want to flip a coin and be done with it, or maybe play "War" instead.
You ever read E.E. "Doc" Smith's Lensman series?
Then the protagonists figure out that this is all "sub-optimal." They master their super-psi powers and just mentally annihiliate the entire enemy race (Level IV). End of series.
1,001
Woo Hoo!
In the case of Wizards Vs. Melee, I find the defendant guilty!
I hereby order the wizard to maintain a distance of not less then 20yrds. from melee at all times!
EDIT: When I play/GM I almost always let the dice fall where they may, and all rolls the players are supposed to know are rolled in the open. However, there are all kinds of other ways I control the flow of combat and pace of the adventure that some would label GM fiat. It is a GMs role to challenge the players, and facilitate great adventures, not just referee the encounter, or read boxed text.
I think there is also more optimization difference between games then the suggested 4 levels. While I would consider myself a type ii GM/Player, I wouldn't consider a mystic thuge an insult to the other party members. I'm guessing that HD, kyrt, and Kirth are type ii, but my games are not as optimized, although they are much more optimized then a type i game.