"Is (rogue) screwing me somehow?" (Yes)
"Is he screwing me this way?" (No)
"Did he do X?"...
Rereading commune "Unclear” is a legitimate answer, because powerful beings of the Outer Planes are not necessarily omniscient" I guess the Dm was not forced to screw the rouge.
Also, where the rogue was at the moment? What about stealing the componenst for commune?
|
...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
Sounds like something I've been looking for. I'm looking for fun as well as a challenge. Hopefully this new group I'm going to start with will have a dynamic similar to this. I'm definitely looking for level 2-3. I'm sick of level 1-2.
|
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
For me the epiphany was, "what the hell are the designers doing to D&D". The idea of some tree roots grabbing my feet doesn't invoke (no pun intended) the same awe as a ball of exploding magical fire. The "correct" choice of spells and prescribed order of casting just leaves my imagination going 'meh'. My self-justification on why this is ok, is simply, I'm playing Pathfinder not D&D and that's way Pathfinder is. If I really didn't like it I could just stop playing it.
I believe strongly the problem can be alleviated somewhat by correcting the problem of hit point bloat. Have hp's top out at name-level and then a set addition per level perhaps? Limit the higher CON bonuses to fighting class again (max +2 for non-fighters) and give Mages d4 hp. For this to work the idea of core-class and sub-class should be resurrected. In short keep the nifty d20 mechanics as refined by Paizo but reintroduce parts of 1e AD&D that worked.
S.
|
|
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.
I played a cheesy trip monkey build in 3.5 for awhile, but got bored with being a one trick pony.
Everyone has read Trentmonk's analysis, and I think he hit a lot of the main points, but it overlooks the fact that the MAD is somewhat negated by your WBL going to enhancement bonuses rather than to armor and weapons. But that is a whole other thread.
3.5 Barbarians I agree 100%. But I like what they have done with the rage powers, to make them more viable, and having the extra feats seem to be making up the gap in some ways. Still see them being used more as a dip class for Rangers or specific Fighter builds to get the Rage and movement bonus in most of the games I play, but it is improved.
Rogues can be amazing if you take advantage of UMD as part of your build. Sneak attack is deadly in and of itself, and the limitations all got taken off. Plus the extra hit points and feats make a huge difference in the games I've seen.
I think they cleaned up a lot of the spells better than people give credit for. The save or die spells are also mostly save or you wasted a round spells. And there seem to be more ways to get your saves up now than before, which is where the gap always seemed to be.
I have seen an optimized fighter/divine champion of Tempus be the most dominant player in a game, up into the high teens. Everyone had moments where they shined, but that player was always the most dangerous on the board.
I would be curious to see someone lay out how they would build a character for an adventure path, start to finish, and compare things that way. I think a lot of times people discuss where they are ideally suited and neglect to look at where other classes are going to shine.
|
|
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).
There is nerfing and there is correcting. I don't think the changes to almost all of the Save or Die spells pathfinder made were a bad thing, but they were a definite nerf. If they were to close some loophole spells that are fine RAI by horrible RAW I wouldn't call that nerfing either.
Options are good, game breakers just kind of break the game.
|
|
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.
My wife's 14th level half elf Ranger has a +30 perception check. Drives me crazy at the table because she can pretty much see everything. Remember they kind of nerfed invisibility a bit.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/special-abilities#TOC-Invisibility
Combined with dual wielding scimitars that crit on a 15, she's been doing fine.
|
|
Quote:This is also the reason why we know and understand the importance of saves, as failing one does end it all. Consequently even the Sorcerer had +18 Fort saves at level 10. He currently has +21, at level 11. Even failing on a 2 doesn't work too well for long term campaign continuity. Failing on much more than that? Forget it.
The enemies have high saves too of course, but fewer resources, and more importantly fewer actions.
I really would like to see these casters with all high saves and all high DCs. I call BS until I see the builds. I don't believe you in the slightest. Prove it.
Particularly since he said earlier Wisdom isn't important for a caster as if they all have 16 Con.
Don't hold your breath waiting for a build. He's never posted one in any form.
|
|
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.
The "optimized" wizard build should be posted somewhere, as it seems like a discussion of a mystical beast at this point.
In my experience there is no single optimized build. There are builds that are optimal for situations. If one of my characters is always optimal and outshining everyone else, then am probably not diversifying the game enough.
If your DM is predictable enough that you can build a "win" class than the the game is probably predictable enough to be boring to play.
|
|
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.
The "optimized" wizard build should be posted somewhere, as it seems like a discussion of a mystical beast at this point.
In my experience there is no single optimized build. There are builds that are optimal for situations. If one of my characters is always optimal and outshining everyone else, then am probably not diversifying the game enough.
If your DM is predictable enough that you can build a "win" class than the the game is probably predictable enough to be boring to play.
You do realize most people who play at the highest levels believe druids and clerics are better than the wizard right? yet you keep trotting this out over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
|
|
In pathfinder? PF clerics and druids are a little weaker than 3.5, so I'm not really sure about that anymore.
You do realize most people who play at the highest levels believe druids and clerics are better than the wizard right? yet you keep trotting this out over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
I was talking about 3.5. I'm not sure what PF's rankings are yet. Other than the tier that wizard, cleric, druid are on. I think sorcerers are in tier 1 as well, but unsure exactly.
I think the strength of the Arcane spellbook plus the various Nerfs to the Cleric (and the Druid) have probably moved the 3.P Wizard past the 3.P Divine Casters.
Druids because they can still be buttkickers in Melee, have a full power pet (action economy ++), and have a rocking mix of spells might still have them slightly more potent than the wizard but it's not as clear cut as it was in 3.x. Furthermore the need to specialize the Druid reduces it's flexibility.
The key is not that 1 class is able to solo adventures but that 4 casters (mix of divine + arcane) is often superior to a balanced party and definitely superior to a martial only party.
Obviously this means that there are some factors at work which make casters superior to noncasters.
The trick is determining exactly what those factors are and how you want to redress the balance (if you want to screw with it at all). Some people like to boost martial to equalize with the casters and others like to take a subtractive approach.
I'm personally in the latter camp.
I was talking about 3.5. I'm not sure what PF's rankings are yet. Other than the tier that wizard, cleric, druid are on. I think sorcerers are in tier 1 as well, but unsure exactly.
I've seen a thread on this before, but not since the APG and people having time to digest what the archetypes etc. do to how it shakes out.
That'd be a pretty good thread although I won't get that rolling in this one.
|
|
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.
The "optimized" wizard build should be posted somewhere, as it seems like a discussion of a mystical beast at this point.
In my experience there is no single optimized build. There are builds that are optimal for situations. If one of my characters is always optimal and outshining everyone else, then am probably not diversifying the game enough.
If your DM is predictable enough that you can build a "win" class than the the game is probably predictable enough to be boring to play.
You do realize most people who play at the highest levels believe druids and clerics are better than the wizard right? yet you keep trotting this out over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Where did the goalposts go?
Am I wrong or is the title of this thread "Wizards vs Melee"
|
|
I was talking about 3.5. I'm not sure what PF's rankings are yet. Other than the tier that wizard, cleric, druid are on. I think sorcerers are in tier 1 as well, but unsure exactly.In pathfinder? PF clerics and druids are a little weaker than 3.5, so I'm not really sure about that anymore.
You do realize most people who play at the highest levels believe druids and clerics are better than the wizard right? yet you keep trotting this out over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
And isn't this the "Wizards vs Melee" thread on the Paizo (home of Pathfinder) messageboard?
I can't even see the goalposts anymore.
|
|
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.
The "optimized" wizard build should be posted somewhere, as it seems like a discussion of a mystical beast at this point.
In my experience there is no single optimized build. There are builds that are optimal for situations. If one of my characters is always optimal and outshining everyone else, then am probably not diversifying the game enough.
If your DM is predictable enough that you can build a "win" class than the the game is probably predictable enough to be boring to play.
You do realize most people who play at the highest levels believe druids and clerics are better than the wizard right? yet you keep trotting this out over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Where did the goalposts go?
Am I wrong or is the title of this thread "Wizards vs Melee"
You moved it once on me, so even though I didn't mean to, sure, I'll move it for you too.
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? ** spoiler omitted ** THAT's what a Level IV game is like. It's almost impossible to scale down from.
As much as I disagree with a lot of your ideas, you and your crew are a lot more amiable and less dismissive than CoD/Mistah Green/K/Crusader, etc. Yours is a voice of (relative) temperance. Also, lenseman references make me happy in the pants.
Edit: For my own anecdote. I think a lot of this is just sort of a symptom of knowing how the sausage is made. I went to school for audio engineering and there was an instructor there who told me he can't even listen to the radio anymore because his mind starts hyperanalyzing the music, how it should have been done better, or how overproduced it was, the lyrics etc. He couldn't enjoy what he'd spent his life persuing. Same if you take a screenwriting class or two you see the same tropes in EVERYTHING you watch/read.
That's the only way I can imagine a Type IV game going, a bunch of angry overthinkers trying to outwit each other at a game of arithmetic, and losing sight of the art of the thing.
I guess I'd consider myself somewhere between II and III, but I prefer to play with people who are Type I and II players and encourage them to think a little more seriously, than play with a type III or IV group and ask them to dial it back some for the sake of fun.
I think they cleaned up a lot of the spells better than people give credit for.
I agree. I struggled a bit building my first PF arcane caster PC (a sorcerer) because my thought process was: "By now I know which sorc/wiz spells are so good/versatile/universally-applicable that I can suck up the sorcerer's relative lack of versatility by loading up on those spells in my choices." And you know? Almost all the 3.5 core spells on that mental list were made weaker in some way."
The flipside is, doing a great job rebalancing 90% of the "problem" spells is kind of like closing your front door 90% of the way in the winter. It's better than doing nothing but it doesn't ultimately solve the problem you were trying to solve.
I'd be really happy to even see official web errata to close up the other 10%, since PF2E is supposedly still many years away, even if it never made it into the printed books -- WotC did this with 3.5E Righteous Might, for example. It's kind of the best of both worlds -- the people trying to play the game at a mechanically very high level are typically pretty aware of stuff like that, and the more casual gamers are typically either ignorant of it or don't care enough to make a point of observing it, but their games don't really suffer without it, either.
Fixing the spell isn't something anyone could reasonably be expected to get right in one serious pass. To be honest, Paizo did a much better job than I could have done or that I would have excepted anyone could do.
The other half to 'fixing' spells really might require another edition. Take Solid Fog for example. You read the 3.0/3.5 version of it, and if you never really played with it and saw how strong it was, you might well gloss over it as a junk spell when it really was one of the strongest spells of its level, standing head and shoulders above most other choices. It got weakened considerably and Pathfinder, and none of the changes are unreasonable or unfair in the least. The problem is, what's left isn't strong enough to be a 4th level spell -- probably it's more like 3rd or maybe even 2nd now. If you want to maintain backwards compatability I'm not sure there's any good way to fix that.
And there seem to be more ways to get your saves up now than before, which is where the gap always seemed to be.
Well, yes and no.
In a sense what you're saying is true.
However, multiclassing is a much, much less favorable option in PF vs 3.X, and in 3.X it's really how you got your saves up. Since saves were front-loaded in a class -- something PF also addressed with its PClasses, which is again a good change but does have the net effect of lowering saves -- the best way to have good saves was to have a lot of classes. A level 12 martial character with levels in 8 different classes wasn't an odd thing at all in 3.5 -- it's kind of what you had to do for a number of reasons.
I like that higher levels of the base classes are a lot more viable. It's a good change. But a Fighter 6 simply does not have the saving throws of a Fighter 2 / Barbarian 2 / Ranger 1 / Occult Slayer 1. For example.
There are still a good number of spells that are too good for their level but there are an even greater number of spells that are pretty much inferior for their level. Most of the evocation school needs so much help that it basically needs a new edition for instance.
|
|
You moved it once on me, so even though I didn't mean to, sure, I'll move it for you too.
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.
The "optimized" wizard build should be posted somewhere, as it seems like a discussion of a mystical beast at this point.
In my experience there is no single optimized build. There are builds that are optimal for situations. If one of my characters is always optimal and outshining everyone else, then am probably not diversifying the game enough.
If your DM is predictable enough that you can build a "win" class than the the game is probably predictable enough to be boring to play.
You do realize most people who play at the highest levels believe druids and clerics are better than the wizard right? yet you keep trotting this out over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Where did the goalposts go?
Am I wrong or is the title of this thread "Wizards vs Melee"
Look at your post.
Now look at my post
Now back to your post!
Less Old Spice Guy, let me point out your post was about someone seeing an optimized Wizard and wanting to make that.
So I commented about the optimized wizard being like bigfoot, much discussed, never shown to exist.
Then you said Clerics and Druids were awesome.
I'm on a horse!
|
|
Well, yes and no.
In a sense what you're saying is true.
However, multiclassing is a much, much less favorable option in PF vs 3.X, and in 3.X it's really how you got your saves up. Since saves were front-loaded in a class -- something PF also addressed with its PClasses, which is again a good change but does have the net effect of lowering saves -- the best way to have good saves was to have a lot of classes. A level 12 martial character with levels in 8 different classes wasn't an odd thing at all in 3.5 -- it's kind of what you had to do for a number of reasons.
I like that higher levels of the base classes are a lot more viable. It's a good change. But a Fighter 6 simply does not have the saving throws of a Fighter 2 / Barbarian 2 / Ranger 1 / Occult Slayer 1. For example.
This is a fair point, as there was a definite push to encourage staying with one class. I haven't seen a run of the numbers on getting saves up for melee characters, and that is really the brass tacks of the comparison vs spells with saving throws.
|
|
You moved it once on me, so even though I didn't mean to, sure, I'll move it for you too.
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.
The "optimized" wizard build should be posted somewhere, as it seems like a discussion of a mystical beast at this point.
In my experience there is no single optimized build. There are builds that are optimal for situations. If one of my characters is always optimal and outshining everyone else, then am probably not diversifying the game enough.
If your DM is predictable enough that you can build a "win" class than the the game is probably predictable enough to be boring to play.
You do realize most people who play at the highest levels believe druids and clerics are better than the wizard right? yet you keep trotting this out over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Where did the goalposts go?
Am I wrong or is the title of this thread "Wizards vs Melee"
Look at your post.
Now look at my post
Now back to your post!
Less Old Spice Guy, let me point out your post was about someone seeing...
Ok, this is funny.
|
|
As much as I disagree with a lot of your ideas, you and your crew are a lot more amiable and less dismissive than CoD/Mistah Green/K/Crusader, etc. Yours is a voice of (relative) temperance. Also, lenseman references make me happy in the pants.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? ** spoiler omitted ** THAT's what a Level IV game is like. It's almost impossible to scale down from.
+1
I have no issue with people homebrewing. I think it adds to the game for the rest of us, as you all are pretty much doing an alternative playtesting of a subset game, and that always adds cool new ideas.
The process of trying to re-write the rules is kind of an awesome project in and of itself, and so of course I can respect that. But you all firmly acknowledge you are playing something different, because RAW doesn't work for you.
CoD/Mistah Green/Crusader (singular or plural...) is like the annoying Street Preacher with a bullhorn screaming for everyone to repent and follow his logically inconsistent belief system or be damned for our ignorance.
Lensmen series is closer to Dragonball Z in terms of character power (or, to be properly respectfull, Dragonball Z is imitating the Lensmen in terms of character power). First you've got highly trained normal people; then you've got the first lensmen; then you've got the 'natural' Lensmen' prodigies; then you've got the Grey Lensmen; and finally you've got the kids of the Lensmen, who are basically godlings on a personal/telepathic scale, and they are channeling the mental powers of millions of standards Lensmen to annihilate the enemy godlings.
The whole throwing planets stuff around is just the advance of science fiction. Remember that it also meant putting up inertialess modules in searing precision around the entire planet to accomplish that, which took the resources of basically a galactic empire to pull off. That's not something comparable at the personal level. The 'death rod' that simply killed every mortal opponent facing the Grey Lensman, now, that was pure cheese, but at higher levels he was killing whole starships with the fallout from the telepathic battles with the big bad guys.
==============
I must be missing something in the Telekinesis spell. I don't see where you can hurl 15 Javelins for 3d6 each. Looks to me like a max of 1d6 each, and that's if you're hurling Large Greatswords that are heavy. And you've got to hit with each one, likely to fail at those levels. The limit of total damage the spell can do is 15d6. Ten million nails? 15d6. 15 Large javelins? 15d6. That's it. It's right there in the spell. It's a freaking Direct Damage spell, and by CoDzilla's own arguments, it sucks. Even the 3.5 version has the damage cap in there. The 375 lb weight limit means that any Enlarged character is basically immune to it, too.
Lastly, throwing out the Dominate argument at any level past 10th is pure idiocy and a smokescreen. If your Fighter doesn't know he needs a little something to help his Will save along, then the Wizard fails in every combat against a poisonous creature because his Fort save is poor. In 3.5 games, after 15th, Will saves are MEANINGLESS with Mind Blank around, either in magic item format or as a cast spell.
And Protection from Evil will break any Dominated Fighter out of control of the monster, as it suppresses the effect. IN ADDITION, he gets another save to remove the spell for when the Prot/Evil wears off.
Trotting out Persistent Wrath of the Righteous as a DEFENSE for your play style and 'rightness' of the lack of power of Haste just fell right over on itself. First, it's not Pathfinder. Secondly, neither is Persistent Spell. Third, it's pure Metamagic Cheese, to be useful at any playable level with that +5 level mod, you MUST turn around and use Divine Metamagic and break the metacap. Fourth, even in 3E, there's a whole lot of DM's that label Persistent Spell as something that breaks the Cleric, and ban the spell. Turning temporary buffs into permanent buffs is effectively a permanent power-up, and will naturally throw off the balance of everything. At level 5, Persistent Wrath of the Righteous is also impossible.
Finally, accusing someone of making magic items from spells that clearly violate the magical item guidelines in power (Swords of True Strike/wraithstrike) is an outright intelligence slam. They clearly violate the #1 'Comparable Power' guideline. Quit accusing others of being stupid.
C'mon, man, at least try to put up a cogent argument.
==Aelryinth
I must be missing something in the Telekinesis spell. I don't see where you can hurl 15 Javelins for 3d6 each. Looks to me like a max of 1d6 each, and that's if you're hurling Large Greatswords that are heavy.
That's because you need to read the whole spell. Here's the sentence immediately preceeding the sentence you read:
Weapons cause standard damage (with no Strength bonus; note that arrows or bolts deal damage as daggers of their size when used in this manner).
And hey, what's the standard damage on a huge javelin?
Lastly, throwing out the Dominate argument at any level past 10th is pure idiocy and a smokescreen. If your Fighter doesn't know he needs a little something to help his Will save along, then the Wizard fails in every combat against a poisonous creature because his Fort save is poor. In 3.5 games, after 15th, Will saves are MEANINGLESS with Mind Blank around, either in magic item format or as a cast spell.
Well, let's see:
1) Is it 10th level, or is it 15th? Pick an angle and stick with it.
2) In 3.5, casters have a lot more tools than uncasters to get their will save up. A lot more. Although you're correct that if what you really want is to build a melee character who isn't afraid of dominate, it's very doable -- if at the expense of other things you probably should care about.
3) Who's casting Mind Blank on the Fighter at 15th level? Surely there are about ten better things to do with one of your few new 8th level slots.
4) Finally, although 3.5 Mind Blank is unquestionably stronger than PF's, keep in mind that these things never exist in a vacuum. It's relevant that, for example, 3.5's Dispel and Greater Dispel are a lot stronger than PF's -- there's a good chance you'll want to throw them out for many other reasons, and catching a Mind Blank with it would be pure gravy rather than the primary point of casting them.
The huge javelin trick is fun - even if I don't think that was intended.
I mean, I guess who wrote the rules dodn't assumed a similar exploit. Is fun for a prepared room, but I definitively do not see every Balor roam around with 15-30 Huge Javelins. It's kinda pathetic (and they could catch fire :P).
It's a cool trick, but that's all.
@Dire Mongoose: did you addressed what I asked for Commune?
Kaiyanwang. Efficient Quiver. All 15 javelins in one easy to carry container. Just dump the entire contents on the floor/ground as a move action, then Telikinesis as a standard.
"The third and longest portion of the case contains as many as 6 objects of the same general size and shape as a bow (spears, staffs, or the like)".
This is the largest. How big the javelin should be to reach 3d6?
You just buy/craft a bigger quiver to fit the javelins lol. Especially in the case of something like a Balor that can easily carry a few around with him.Kaiyanwang. Efficient Quiver. All 15 javelins in one easy to carry container. Just dump the entire contents on the floor/ground as a move action, then Telikinesis as a standard."The third and longest portion of the case contains as many as 6 objects of the same general size and shape as a bow (spears, staffs, or the like)".
This is the largest. How big the javelin should be to reach 3d6?
Sure? And how? How big the quiver must be? And.. is the quiver immune to fire ;)?
Moreover.. are you sure you can dump the content as a move?
It needs to be gargantuan, the 15 javelins in question weigh a bit under 25 pounds.
And there are no rules concerning dumping them either way. In that case, I was under the impression the rules defaulted to the way it normally works.
If you can prove it wrong though (or at least show strong implications of a standard action dumping instead) that's cool too.
Yeah - I am more oriented to the standard action. The Telekinesis is quickened but is somewhat counterintuitive since you could do better that round.
Nevertheless, for an encounter set in ancient ruins with skeletons of giants or similar stuff is a very cool idea. That's all.
|
|
My issue with "Melée" isn't a balance one... it's the "where is the fun" factor.
To the extent I see, melees generally move, attack, done. No real options. Occasionally someone will build a fairly ineffective CMB build, but in making other attack forms more "balanced" Paizo actually made them fairly impossible vs most larger foes.
In comparison, the summoners and oracles I made can reasonably keep up with all but the most optimized melée fighters, while offering a wide bredth of options for me. Further, thanks to encouragement to have a high charisma, I actually have good reason to get to play the party face. My Druids can sneak with the best of them in small animal form, and when combined with the animal companion can actually outdo even the optimized fighter till the veryhigh levels.
Meanwhile the rogue should be more versatile, but never really plays out that way... keeping solid combat stats and functionality is tough.... usually they have to pick.
I guess melee's one saving grace right now (and what I plan to play next) is the APG-enhanced ranger. Lots of great tricks, brings a bow user with his full attack and (thanks to boon companion feat) a rogue-level melée guy to the table, all while having versatile spells (and occasional "ranger obly spes) or rogue-like tricks to the table.
Otherwise melees just seem... boring and non-diverse. And that, more than any issue with balance, is what drives me from playing them.
@Dire Mongoose: did you addressed what I asked for Commune?
The rogue didn't foresee the use of commune and thus didn't steal the component.
That being said, the component in 3.5 was just holy water and incense, and the adventure in question took place in the same town as a major temple of the cleric's religion -- so I don't think there's anything realistic the rogue could have done to keep that from him.
|
@Dire Mongoose: did you addressed what I asked for Commune?The rogue didn't foresee the use of commune and thus didn't steal the component.
That being said, the component in 3.5 was just holy water and incense, and the adventure in question took place in the same town as a major temple of the cleric's religion -- so I don't think there's anything realistic the rogue could have done to keep that from him.
Except steal all the incense in town! :)
@Dire Mongoose: did you addressed what I asked for Commune?The rogue didn't foresee the use of commune and thus didn't steal the component.
That being said, the component in 3.5 was just holy water and incense, and the adventure in question took place in the same town as a major temple of the cleric's religion -- so I don't think there's anything realistic the rogue could have done to keep that from him.
I see (I didn't know if the cleric was nearby, if they were isolated or in town, and so on - I guess that somewhere else, if the peril was known by the rougle, could have been some chance).
Said this, I was referring too to the fact that the spell is subjected to failure
“Unclear” is a legitimate answer, because powerful beings of the Outer Planes are not necessarily omniscient
“Unclear” is a legitimate answer, because powerful beings of the Outer Planes are not necessarily omniscient
Sure.
I guess what it comes down to for me is, you can't always get unknown for the spell -- in that case it's better that you just ban the spell entirely. All or nearly all of the questions asked fell pretty well within the cleric's deity's portfolio and it seemed reasonable me that he could get answers.
My issue with "Melée" isn't a balance one... it's the "where is the fun" factor.
To the extent I see, melees generally move, attack, done. No real options. Occasionally someone will build a fairly ineffective CMB build, but in making other attack forms more "balanced" Paizo actually made them fairly impossible vs most larger foes.
In comparison, the summoners and oracles I made can reasonably keep up with all but the most optimized melée fighters, while offering a wide bredth of options for me. Further, thanks to encouragement to have a high charisma, I actually have good reason to get to play the party face. My Druids can sneak with the best of them in small animal form, and when combined with the animal companion can actually outdo even the optimized fighter till the veryhigh levels.
Meanwhile the rogue should be more versatile, but never really plays out that way... keeping solid combat stats and functionality is tough.... usually they have to pick.
I guess melee's one saving grace right now (and what I plan to play next) is the APG-enhanced ranger. Lots of great tricks, brings a bow user with his full attack and (thanks to boon companion feat) a rogue-level melée guy to the table, all while having versatile spells (and occasional "ranger obly spes) or rogue-like tricks to the table.
Otherwise melees just seem... boring and non-diverse. And that, more than any issue with balance, is what drives me from playing them.
In this regard, I think you are both right and wrong.
You are wrong (for my point of view) because part of the fun for me is choose the right weapon and the right "stance" (power attack, lunge, combat expertise, shield of swings) for the right situation in the case of the fighter, being in the correct place of the map and using the best disabling attack with the monk, combo the rage powers with the barbarian, and being an opportunistic bastard with the rogue.
A lot of the fun of these classes is in what way their feat and features combine, and how they can une them with the contingent situation.
NEVERTHELESS, there are feats not scaling, feat taxes and few feat/rage powers/whatever overall to select in 20 levels compared to spells. This is annoying because with more Fighter&co. could be far more fun and versatile without being much more powerful IMHO (expanding "horizontally" I generally say).
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?"...
Very simply. GM answers "Unclear" to the first question. It specifically states in the Commune spell that those contacted are not omnicient, and that this is a valid answer to the question.
I guess what it comes down to for me is, you can't always get unknown for the spell -- in that case it's better that you just ban the spell entirely. All or nearly all of the questions asked fell pretty well within the cleric's deity's portfolio and it seemed reasonable me that he could get answers.
In normal gameplay, of course - i generally encourage my players to use these things.
In this odd.. "PvP" situation, the spell had a way to negate the problem ensued. The DM decided to not use it.
In this odd.. "PvP" situation, the spell had a way to negate the problem ensued. The DM decided to not use it.
I'd prefer that a higher level rogue had a way to get some kind of class-based defense to these kinds problems.
I feel like you and Caineach are essentially saying, "This isn't an example of a class imbalance, because the DM can just make any call that's the least bit ambiguous or involves some judgement on his part in favor of the rogue always and forever." I don't think that's a good answer -- at best it's sticking your finger in a leak in the dam just before it bursts.
I would point out that a Pathfinder Fighter has MANY options on the battlefield.
-Good AC. Without trying too hard a fighter is able to keep his AC up to the point where mooks only hit on a 20, and tough foes need 15+. If the fighter puts up a total defense, he will be unhittable except on a 20.
-Good Defenses: Great fortitude saves, has the feats to spare for iron will and greater iron will, and can usually put a few points into Dex, Con, and Wis. High HP. Not as easy to target with effects as some think.
-Can move and deal decent damage. Thanks to some of the new feats, and general ass-kicking ability.
-Full attack is devastating!
-Can whip out a bow, and deal respectable damage.
And then there are all the other things that take more then a feat or two, but allow the fighter some unique options- dazzling display, step up, etc.
I know, I know, at the end of round 2 a buzzer goes off, and all the PCs die, and everything is irreverent anyway.
My point is that even without specializing, a fighter can attack, be mobile, be defensive, attack at ranged, etc, etc. I have found that the ability to be versatile is often far more useful in real play then having a trick that is situational.
In defense of Dire Mongoose, he did correctly, not only for the game but also for his players/group.
If he had been like you suggest, and just gave "unclear", and then it came out later in the game that this particular god should have and damned well did know what was going on, and I was the cleric's player, I'd be a tad miffed. Not to mention the character in-game thinking his god left him hanging. He made the right call, imho.
I'd prefer that a higher level rogue had a way to get some kind of class-based defense to these kinds problems.
Some sort of "undetectability" or such. Cool. A player of mine had it in an epic campaing, due to an epic prestige class from Wotc site (IIRC). It fits very well.
DISCLAIMER: I DO NOT think it should be an epic feature, for the rogue seems reasonable high level, not epic.
Actually, I'm not even sure that I had favored the rogue FOR SURE. I should have seen what the rogue did in first istance to raise suspect in the Cleric :)
And to be clear, I don't want to say "lol you do it wrong". I want just point out that several spell are sometimes less powerful and more in the hand of the DM than what could seem, IMO.
-Good AC. Without trying too hard a fighter is able to keep his AC up to the point where mooks only hit on a 20, and tough foes need 15+. If the fighter puts up a total defense, he will be unhittable except on a 20.
At what level and with what kind of wealth?
I've never seen a fighter come close to this in an adventure path, correctly CR'd encounters, in any theoretical exercise, etc.
In this odd.. "PvP" situation, the spell had a way to negate the problem ensued. The DM decided to not use it.I'd prefer that a higher level rogue had a way to get some kind of class-based defense to these kinds problems.
I feel like you and Caineach are essentially saying, "This isn't an example of a class imbalance, because the DM can just make any call that's the least bit ambiguous or involves some judgement on his part in favor of the rogue always and forever." I don't think that's a good answer -- at best it's sticking your finger in a leak in the dam just before it bursts.
No. I am saying that a being of the outer planes does not care what most normal people are doing in their daily lives. Unless its something relevant to the being contacted, most questions will get "unclear" as an answer.
|
|
No. I am saying that a being of the outer planes does not care what most normal people are doing in their daily lives. Unless its something relevant to the being contacted, most questions will get "unclear" as an answer.In this odd.. "PvP" situation, the spell had a way to negate the problem ensued. The DM decided to not use it.I'd prefer that a higher level rogue had a way to get some kind of class-based defense to these kinds problems.
I feel like you and Caineach are essentially saying, "This isn't an example of a class imbalance, because the DM can just make any call that's the least bit ambiguous or involves some judgement on his part in favor of the rogue always and forever." I don't think that's a good answer -- at best it's sticking your finger in a leak in the dam just before it bursts.
I kind of agree with this. It explains how gods don't automatically know when people are thwarting their goals and how enemy agents can infiltrate temples.
At the same time, high level sneaky characters should have class abilities that combat such things.