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.
In this situation, as a 'story-teller' GM I would have noted that the rogue PC just put a lot of work into his ruse and so the cleric would have to find out about it through his own efforts. Then I would have decided that some other supernatural power had a vested interest in protecting the rogue and so the 'commune' spell keep coming up 'unclear' in regards to his scheme. After that I would work out which supernatural entity was protecting the rogue and use it in the plot.
The wording of the spell is quite ambiguous and is certainly open to interpretation by an individual GM. Personally, I'm quite comfortable with ambiguities in the rules and prefer a looser, more 'free-form' approach. Of course there are those who would prefer a more clear-cut, mechanical solution to the situation and I respect that. But for me, the rules are just there as guidelines.
-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.
The fighter in our group is a sword-and-board fighter with a very good AC. I am running Age of Worms. The party is now level 12 but he hasn't leveled his character yet because he missed last session. His AC is 30. I know that many of the mooks need that 20 to hit him. The big bads later on tend to do better. His total gear is worth about 48000 so he's a little short on where he could be.
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 would think this would greatly depend on the alignment of the god.
Or why even have such a spell?My character: <casts commune> Is X occurring?
god: Meh.
Me: no srsly! Can I stop it?
god: Meh.
Me: Thanks a pantload chet. Why do I follow you again?
god: Meh?
Remember that CoD is making the premise that monsters are always buffed and always uber, and never get dispelled.That's only so crazy. Have you read PF Dispel? 3.X Dispel it's not. It's a lot weaker. It's no longer the go-to option -- 95+% of the time, you now should have something better to do. (And if you don't, the something better you have to do is running for your life.)
Dispel Magic works fine now, it's just not overpowered anymore. Greater Dispel works well, too, the Area option can really jack up someone's plans.
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 would think this would greatly depend on the alignment of the god.
Or why even have such a spell?
My character: <casts commune> Is X occurring?
god: Meh.
Me: no srsly! Can I stop it?
god: Meh.
Me: Thanks a pantload chet. Why do I follow you again?
god: Meh?
Its more like:
My character: <casts commune> Is my friend cheating me?god: Seriously, you think I care about that? I am buisy preventing 30 world shattering conspiracies from taking over the world, 10 plots to summon Ravagug, and there are 3 wars going on that I am trying to minimize casualties, and your coming to me with Boo Hoo, he's cheating. Why do I grant divine power to you again?
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 would think this would greatly depend on the alignment of the god.
Or why even have such a spell?
My character: <casts commune> Is X occurring?
god: Meh.
Me: no srsly! Can I stop it?
god: Meh.
Me: Thanks a pantload chet. Why do I follow you again?
god: Meh?
Its more like:
My character: <casts commune> Is my friend cheating me?
god: Seriously, you think I care about that? I am buisy preventing 30 world shattering conspiracies from taking over the world, 10 plots to summon Ravagug, and there are 3 wars going on that I am trying to minimize casualties, and your coming to me with Boo Hoo, he's cheating. Why do I grant divine power to you again?
Perfectly reasonable if the god is CN.
If all the gods didn't care to help out for thier clerics, why bother giving them aligments? Why bother granting them access to that spell?Following the too busy logic, it could have gone:
My character: <casts commune> Is my friend cheating me?
god: Whew! With all thats goin on I got an easy one...yes, yes he is.
Dispel Magic works fine now, it's just not overpowered anymore. Greater Dispel works well, too, the Area option can really jack up someone's plans.
Except, hey, I wonder which classes get a lot stronger if Dispelling isn't as good of an idea? Would it be the ones that cast spells and tend to have a lot of spells active, or the ones that don't cast spells?
Dispel was never overpowered. While they were spending the round dispelling you, you were killing them. You can always put spells back up -- fixing dead is a lot less trivial, especially when your side loses the fight. But it was a useful tool against characters with buff spells stacked out the wazoo. Now? You're almost always better off doing something else in combat.
The fighter in our group is a sword-and-board fighter with a very good AC. I am running Age of Worms. The party is now level 12 but he hasn't leveled his character yet because he missed last session. His AC is 30. I know that many of the mooks need that 20 to hit him. The big bads later on tend to do better. His total gear is worth about 48000 so he's a little short on where he could be.
I've never seen a fighter come close to this in an adventure path, correctly CR'd encounters, in any theoretical exercise, etc.
I'll have to have another look at AoW, but I can't figure out how this adds up.
At the high end, level 12 could reasonably see monsters that would even hit AC 30 on a roll of 1, if not for the nat-1 rule. E.g. very old black dragon. So "tough foes need 15+" is beyond out. AoW is semi-infamous as a meat grinder so I have to think this kind of encounter does happen in there, unless everyone who's talked about it has a much easier idea of what constitutes a meat grinder than I do.
As far as mooks go, only hitting AC 30 on a 20 would mean that you'd have +10 to hit or less, correct? I'm having trouble finding CR 7 monsters in the bestiary (CR = APL-5 -- something you'd never see as a single foe in an encounter, but maybe a bunch of are a decent encounter) that need a 20 to hit AC 30. Heck, the first monster I looked at, the CR 7 air elemental, gets two attacks at +17 -- it's hitting on a 13 and you'd need a ton of those together to make even a very easy encounter.
In this situation, as a 'story-teller' GM I would have noted that the rogue PC just put a lot of work into his ruse and so the cleric would have to find out about it through his own efforts. Then I would have decided that some other supernatural power had a vested interest in protecting the rogue and so the 'commune' spell keep coming up 'unclear' in regards to his scheme. After that I would work out which supernatural entity was protecting the rogue and use it in the plot.
The wording of the spell is quite ambiguous and is certainly open to interpretation by an individual GM. Personally, I'm quite comfortable with ambiguities in the rules and prefer a looser, more 'free-form' approach. Of course there are those who would prefer a more clear-cut, mechanical solution to the situation and I respect that. But for me, the rules are just there as guidelines.
Again, to me: if the rules as written require the GM to make every call with the slightest bit of wiggle room in the rogue's favor? It's really, really not balanced well.
I can understand that a lot of people want Commune to be drastically weaker than it's pretty clearly intended to be -- because honestly, if you're supposed to almost always get unclear as an answer, the spell would probably be a bit more blunt about that -- but in that case I think you should just either go ahead and ban the spell from your games (and warn people who might make clerics about it at character creation) or houserule that it doesn't have an expensive material component and is a second level spell.
|
Optimized wizards are seen all the time; though less frequently now. The witch is generally regarded as the better "God" wizard, just as Oracle of Nature is the better control Druid. In general, high Int and Con, OK Wis, and dumped Str/Dex/Chr. Uses rope trick to sleep, and makes the battlefield a tactical nightmare. Eventually extends buffs into day-buffs and has things like Overland Flight so he is always in the air. D Door is always memmed at least once for emergency escape; loves black tentacles, webs, and other save-or-suck spells that disrupt charge lines. Drinks dos Xes beer. Is able to change out spells so if their standard list won't work for a situation there's a backup plan.
It's hard to play so few play it, and when they do they are subtle... Melees still have fun because they technically get to deliver the killing blows. But yeah, once one is introduced to the party the CRs of encounters need to be adjusted up.
D Door is always memmed at least once for emergency escape; loves black tentacles, webs, and other save-or-suck spells that disrupt charge lines. Drinks dos Xes beer.
He is... the Most Interesting PC In The World.
It's like Disjunction, except with 100% less shooting yourself in the foot.
Speaking of, did you notice what PF did to Disjunction? They pretty much removed the shooting yourself in the foot.
By sort of making the spell weaker they made it probably 100x better for PC use.
I removed a post. Be constructive, not dismissive.
Dispel Magic was nerfed primarily for gameplay purposes. A large percentage of the community don't play with character sheets that recalculate all of your stats. Dispel Magic not only removed buffs but tended to force players to recompute their stat line.
The AoE greater dispel is only going to take one buff or effect away from each player, etc. This makes it much more practical in gameplay terms.
It's the same reason why energy drain was so simplified.
The end result is arguably a net buff for casters (although pretty much every PC is buffed to the nines past a certain level) but it's a necessary one in order to increase the speed to resolve encounters.
As to wind wall, I don't think that large sized javelins are really on the same level as siege weapons, but to each their own.
Not sure what you were quoting on this but a Ballista is a Huge Size Heavy Crossbow that uses large ammo. The ballistic qualities between a javelin and a ballista bolt are considerably different but essentially they are roughly comparable.
By the RAW large and greater sized weapons are actually quite a bit lighter than they by reason should be. For example a Huge Heavy Crossbow would only way 24 pounds in the hands of a giant but a ballista should be far heavier even the light cheiroballistas.
But because math is hard we get simple doubling of weights instead of cubing the weights which would be more appropriate given the increase in volume.
It probably doesn't come up in too many games but it would limit 15 Huge Javelins from being TKed all the time.
In this situation, as a 'story-teller' GM I would have noted that the rogue PC just put a lot of work into his ruse and so the cleric would have to find out about it through his own efforts. Then I would have decided that some other supernatural power had a vested interest in protecting the rogue and so the 'commune' spell keep coming up 'unclear' in regards to his scheme. After that I would work out which supernatural entity was protecting the rogue and use it in the plot.
The wording of the spell is quite ambiguous and is certainly open to interpretation by an individual GM. Personally, I'm quite comfortable with ambiguities in the rules and prefer a looser, more 'free-form' approach. Of course there are those who would prefer a more clear-cut, mechanical solution to the situation and I respect that. But for me, the rules are just there as guidelines.
Again, to me: if the rules as written require the GM to make every call with the slightest bit of wiggle room in the rogue's favor? It's really, really not balanced well.
I can understand that a lot of people want Commune to be drastically weaker than it's pretty clearly intended to be -- because honestly, if you're supposed to almost always get unclear as an answer, the spell would probably be a bit more blunt about that -- but in that case I think you should just either go ahead and ban the spell from your games (and warn people who might make clerics about it at character creation) or houserule that it doesn't have an expensive material component and is a second level spell.
I think 'Commune' is fine as it is - its a 5th level spell and is deservedly powerful in that respect; in any normal situation I wouldn't be reining it back. But I think that in the example you described I would have applied a little 'wriggle' room because it was affecting a PC - the rogue. It would have been far more interesting role-playing wise if the cleric had to unravel the plot for himself. The rogue player is happy because his well-laid plans aren't blown in one casting, the cleric knows the rogue is up to something but doesn't quite know what, and maybe I've got a new plot thread to follow too. In this highly situational instance the spell description allows you enough leeway to interpret it. I don't think the GM's place to be a medium between the players and the rules. The rules are there as a framework for roleplaying, which is what GMs and players really do.
-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.
It can be done in an adventure path assuming 3.5 is used. Using core PF I think it can be done, but offense will have to be sacrificed.
The fighter in our group is a sword-and-board fighter with a very good AC. I am running Age of Worms. The party is now level 12 but he hasn't leveled his character yet because he missed last session. His AC is 30. I know that many of the mooks need that 20 to hit him. The big bads later on tend to do better. His total gear is worth about 48000 so he's a little short on where he could be.-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.
So you are in SoLS. That is about to change. After chapter 6 the power level of the bad guys jumps up.
Kyuss Knights are statted up wrong and they still get a +27 to hit without power attack with the 3.5 version. If you convert them to pathfinder they have a high attack bonus. They should really have a +36 without power attack.
16HD=8BAB
Martial Calling means they get to add their HD to their attack rolls=16
strength=+9
sword=+1
Bull's strength (SLA)=+2
16+8+9+1+2=36
I will now say using AoW is not a good standard to use for AP's since it is one of the more difficult ones.
PS: I think a CR 13 undead in pathfinder has about 19 HD. That just makes them even worse for a player to fight.
The Swords of Kyuss which qualify as mooks since they are only CR 11 also have a high enough attack bonus to almost autohit an AC of 30
In reference to AC, my primary experience is with a fighter in the RotRL campaign I was GM'ing.
Fighter level 10 (62K suggested wealth)
Dex +2
Dodge +1
Deflection +2
+3 Tower shield +7
+3 Mithral breastplate +9
Barkskin from druid +4
AC=35.
Total Defense =41
Considering that most of the mooks are bruisers and have something in the range of +13-16 hit bonuses if they are lucky, that means 19 or 20 to hit, with almost no chance of a crit. I think the highest attack bonus in the current mod is something like a +23. If the fighter fights defensively, he would have a 38, and thus the creature would need a 15 to hit. He could probably get his AC up another 5 or so points, but hasn't generally felt the need.
Considering all the other tricks the party has to buff, debuff, battlefield control, etc. etc. the fighter has plenty of chance to shine.
I should also note that the fighter often drops the shield to 2 hand power attack with a heavy pick. A crit from the pick usually one-shots most opponents. He also has maxed out intimidate and dazzling display, and gave a CR 12 dragon the shaken condition for a few rounds. He can also quick draw a composite longbow, and keep the damage flowing.
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.
1) The damage on a huge javelin would be 2-12, not 3-18 (Lg is 1-8). It would also weigh 16 lbs and be approximately 8 feet long, bigger then a staff. It would not fit in an efficient quiver. 15 of them would also weigh 240 lbs. If he wants a gargantuan Javelin for 3-18, it would weigh 40 lbs and exceed the weight limits of the spell.
So, in essence, you're rolling a normal attack at +28, which means you're pretty much bound to miss at level 20, for a max of 30d6 dmg, and more likely 10d6 or less. Mmm, yeah. And you've gotta lug around a bunch of ammo to make it happen.
2) 10th is when the poor will save is really noticeable. 15th is when you buy a mind blank item and it becomes irrelevant...or just a Prot/Evil 3.5, and it ALSO becomes irrelevant for charms.
3) I dunno, casting a spell so the enemy can't find the fighter, can't dominate the fighter and have him shishkebob you, can't terrify the fighter, can't possess the fighter...I think those are all damn good reasons to protect your fellow party member.
Or maybe he just buys a pearl of power and you can cast it for free for him.
4) And dispellable cast spells is a reason to use magic items instead, although Fighters are generally not the person you focus a dispel on
==Aelryinth
Wraithstrike, I'm pretty sure you're reading the Knights of Kyuss wrong. I thought it was either they use their full HD for BAB, or they get an insight bonus = 1/2 HD, effectively giving them fighter attackskill. You're adding their HD to their BAB, and I'm pretty sure that wasn't the intention.
Don't have those modules on me, so not sure, but I always read it as basically giving them fighter Attack.
AC 30 for a Fighter 12? Full Plate +3, Lg Shield +3, Ring +2, 16 Dex, Shield Spec, Nat AC +2...that's a 33 without trying. With armor training, he doesn't even need mithral til he hits a 20 dex or something.
And using Wraithstrike as justification for your Melee's roles is outright a laugh. It's considered one of the most broken 3.5 spells. The only way a Gish gets it is if the DM lets him have it, which most won't, and certainly not in PF.
You don't play by PF rules, CoD.
==Aelryinth
The DM's job is to keep the PCs alive so the players enjoy the game
Pardon me if I disagree violently (as in, with the thunder of cannons and roar of angels in battle to accompany my voice) with your philosophy. It's as off-base to me as people saying that the primary purpose of businesses in the economy is to provide jobs.
Hello all.
I've decided to try and collect all the various complaints and proposed solutions to the Caster-Martial Disparity in one thread, with limited poster-poster responses. I think it would be a really helpful resource for GMs.
I'd appreciate it if everyone who has weighed in on this thread could drop in and give me their version of things. Even (especially) people who I have disagreed with over the last few days.
I'd like to get the signal out of the noise, so I can decide for myself the extent of the problem.
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.
You know, I don't agree with everything you say, but when you're on target, you're completely on target.
I see the GM as something like a film or stage director.
If the Writer (dice) says Willy Loman dies, it is not my job to contradict.
But there is an awful lot of creative control besides.
|
I see the GM as something like a film or stage director.
If the Writer (dice) says Willy Loman dies, it is not my job to contradict.
But there is an awful lot of creative control besides.
I see it similarly.
But my script is weird. I assume everyone is a red shirt when they start out, and as they level they get a better cast slot. But they don't get plot immunity. Sometimes the log just happens to catch Wash unawares...
Wraithstrike, I'm pretty sure you're reading the Knights of Kyuss wrong. I thought it was either they use their full HD for BAB, or they get an insight bonus = 1/2 HD, effectively giving them fighter attackskill. You're adding their HD to their BAB, and I'm pretty sure that wasn't the intention.
Don't have those modules on me, so not sure, but I always read it as basically giving them fighter Attack.
AC 30 for a Fighter 12? Full Plate +3, Lg Shield +3, Ring +2, 16 Dex, Shield Spec, Nat AC +2...that's a 33 without trying. With armor training, he doesn't even need mithral til he hits a 20 dex or something.
And using Wraithstrike as justification for your Melee's roles is outright a laugh. It's considered one of the most broken 3.5 spells. The only way a Gish gets it is if the DM lets him have it, which most won't, and certainly not in PF.
You don't play by PF rules, CoD.
==Aelryinth
You are right I did misread it, but it still hits a 30 AC quiet easily and books stats are still to low.
It gains half its HD as a bonus to attack rolls so it would be a +28 or 26 without bull's strength. I guess the book has it one too high then, but it still hits a 30 without a lot of trouble, and so do the so Swords of Kyuss with a +24
I'll have to have another look at AoW, but I can't figure out how this adds up.
At the high end, level 12 could reasonably see monsters that would even hit AC 30 on a roll of 1, if not for the nat-1 rule. E.g. very old black dragon. So "tough foes need 15+" is beyond out. AoW is semi-infamous as a meat grinder so I have to think this kind of encounter does happen in there, unless everyone who's talked about it has a much easier idea of what constitutes a meat grinder than I do.
As far as mooks go, only hitting AC 30 on a 20 would mean that you'd have +10 to hit or less, correct? I'm having trouble finding CR 7 monsters in the bestiary (CR = APL-5 -- something you'd never see as a single foe in an encounter, but maybe a bunch of are a decent encounter) that need a 20 to hit AC 30. Heck, the first monster I looked at, the CR 7 air elemental, gets two attacks at +17 -- it's hitting on a 13 and you'd need a ton of those together to make even a very easy encounter.
There have been several areas where the mooks needed a 19-20. He also does like to use tactics to boost his AC when he can. He likes to use cover which also helps. I would have to go back through the module and I don't really feel like doing that right now. The air elementals that they just fought he wasn't there for. He probably would have done fine though since the module specifically states that they attack the flying characters first. That was the wizard and druid unfortunately.
They also had a fight in an arena where the NPCs did not have that great of attacks or ACs overall.
I'm sure that we will see some changes as they continue on. Right now, he's doing fairly well. It's the rest of the party that's having an issue. They didn't shore up their defenses as well as they should have when they had the chance. Again, this will change now that you pointed out that the crafting rules have changed.
The fighter in our group is a sword-and-board fighter with a very good AC. I am running Age of Worms. The party is now level 12 but he hasn't leveled his character yet because he missed last session. His AC is 30. I know that many of the mooks need that 20 to hit him. The big bads later on tend to do better. His total gear is worth about 48000 so he's a little short on where he could be.-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.
So you are in SoLS. That is about to change. After chapter 6 the power level of the bad guys jumps up.
** spoiler omitted **
I actually need to read through the next chapter in the next couple of days. They just finished Chapter 6 last week. With the realization on how crafting has changed, they may have a better chance.
A knight of Kyuss was like 16th level, tho, right? It should have a good attack bonus. A 16th level PC probably has 40+ AC, however. So at 12th, yeah, it can be nasty. 4 levels later, it's having problems.
==Aelryinth
|
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.
I know I'm way late on this one, but I want to get this thought out there.
The difference between a Level IV game and all the rest has to do with a different world-building approach as well.
In Level III and below, the players expect the world to act in the same conventions as the real world does. The rules are a rough approximation of our physics.
In a Level IV game, the rules are the physics of the game world. High level fighters can step off cliffs without fear of death, and wizards can determine what spell effects are objectively better than others because they can test them.
If you read Frank and K's Tomes, the sections on economy and society and alignment effects take what the actual rules say to their logical conclusion. They don't allow literary conventions to override the rules.
No one used options because they fit the genre, they use options that can be objectively proven as better. Real world armies don't use muskets and horses because rifles and tanks can be proven to be better at winning battles. In-game wizards can measure the effectiveness of evocations and enchantments and determine which work better.
So while the rules encourage certain things, the way you expect the game to work has a large effect on what level you play at.
I wouldn't say that a Level IV Tome game is as stark as you guys think. I've run a plurality of Tome games and I've been able to get by using standard CR monsters that are not buffed to crazy-town; with fights lasting an average of three or four rounds (some shorter, some longer). CoDzilla's assumed numbers are above even that of a decent chunk of the Den.
The common motivation and thought process leading to the conclusions may differ, but the enjoyment of the game (especially at the table) outside of the 'rules' is no different than here.
A knight of Kyuss was like 16th level, tho, right? It should have a good attack bonus. A 16th level PC probably has 40+ AC, however. So at 12th, yeah, it can be nasty. 4 levels later, it's having problems.
==Aelryinth
They were CR 13, and the Swords of Kyuss were CR 11. Now since AoW is a meatgrinder it does not fit within normal CR ranges, which is why it is a bad AP to use if you are trying to compare yourself to ordinary mooks.
Pardon me if I disagree violently (as in, with the thunder of cannons and roar of angels in battle to accompany my voice) with your philosophy. It's as off-base to me as people saying that the primary purpose of businesses in the economy is to provide jobs.
The DM's job is to keep the PCs alive so the players enjoy the game
It isn't?
Look at it like this:
The DM's job is to provide a good game and enjoy himself. To provide a good game it needs to be challenging an d rewarding. If your character gets killed every session, this is not rewarding, to the DM has to challenge the players without killing them (at least not very often). The more danger they think they are in, the better the experience of being challenged. The longer the characters live, the more fun the game. Ergo, convincing the players you are out to get them (challenging them) and keeping the characters alive (preserving them) become the objectives. It may not be at first glance what the game is all about, but it delivers.
Interestingly ...
More people in jobs = more people with cash to spend.
More people with cash to spend = more cash flow in the economy.
More cash flow in the economy = stronger economy.
If you use the economy to generate jobs, you can't go far wrong. It may not be at first glance what the economy is all about, but it delivers.
It isn't?
Nope. The primary job of businesses is purely to provide wealth for the shareholders. Providing jobs is merely a side benefit. No one deserves a job or a living. No character in an RPG deserves to live when the dice say they should die.
Look at it like this:
The DM's job is to provide a good game and enjoy himself. To provide a good game it needs to be challenging an d rewarding. If your character gets killed every session, this is not rewarding, to the DM has to challenge the players without killing them (at least not very often). The more danger they think they are in, the better the experience of being challenged. The longer the characters live, the more fun the game. Ergo, convincing the players you are out to get them (challenging them) and keeping the characters alive (preserving them) become the objectives. It may not be at first glance what the game is all about, but it delivers.** spoiler omitted **
I don't support the silly "ilusion of choice/danger" mindset. If the dice say the players get killed, they get killed.
|
|
Doesn't anyone just Roleplay anymore?!
I've seen endless posts arguing wizards are be all and end all, arguements about how fighters aren't useless, all sorts of stats and spell examples. A load of nitty gritty detailed facts and figures, metagaming, min/maxing the char. Also the most cringworthy statement of 'contributing meaningfully in combat'
It's like MMO's have come to PnP.
Don't get me wrong, everyone has their own style of playing and if powergaming is it then that's fine, but all this arguement about imbalance and useless classes seems crazy.
I mean, personally the games I play (whether they be home games or games at conventions) the focus is the roleplaying aspect of the roleplaying game.
Even designing a character starts with a concept, a background, a personality, skills to support these things, stats to make sense with the char concept and then deciding on a style for combat and choosing feats that make sense. There is little consideration to 'do I rock, will I kick butt in combat, am I the best I can be?' they are all merely side factors of the whole game.
The arguements about classes being useless or others being too good is all very subjective. Yes, mechanically it's clearly true that wizards are 'the best' good for them, and if you play that kind of gaming where it is all about your 'contribution in combat' then it makes sense to be a bunch of wizards. I am unsure why this arguement bothers people though, because unless you are of the powergaming style of play (in which case there is a good chance you are in favour of the Wizard too) it doesn't matter, because for actual roleplayers and for casual players (they are two different categories of gamers) the story and the player interaction are very important factors, combat has its place but is far from the focus
|
|
Doesn't anyone just Roleplay anymore?!
I don't need a game system to roleplay. I need a game system to make a level playing field that allows the mechanics of my character to actually be meaningful.
Also, I'd appreciate if you would stop classifying some people as 'actual roleplayers' as if others are not. It's insulting and weakens your argument.
It isn't?
Nope. The primary job of businesses is purely to provide wealth for the shareholders. Providing jobs is merely a side benefit. No one deserves a job or a living. No character in an RPG deserves to live when the dice say they should die.
I don't support the silly "ilusion of choice/danger" mindset. If the dice say the players get killed, they get killed.Look at it like this:
The DM's job is to provide a good game and enjoy himself. To provide a good game it needs to be challenging an d rewarding. If your character gets killed every session, this is not rewarding, to the DM has to challenge the players without killing them (at least not very often). The more danger they think they are in, the better the experience of being challenged. The longer the characters live, the more fun the game. Ergo, convincing the players you are out to get them (challenging them) and keeping the characters alive (preserving them) become the objectives. It may not be at first glance what the game is all about, but it delivers.** spoiler omitted **
Yes, but the objective of the DM is to make a situation where the dice will most likely not kill the players, but can come very close. Dabbler isn't talking about fudging dice or not sending the players up against nasty things. He is talking about designing the encounter to be at the limmit of what the players can actually handle, without going into the territory where they will outright fail or someone will die. If the players make it harder for themselves and fail, that is their fault and someone may very well die. I don't think he is saying to reduce the danger as the players make stupid choices.
Yes, but the objective of the DM is to make a situation where the dice will most likely not kill the players, but can come very close. Dabbler isn't talking about fudging dice or not sending the players up against nasty things. He is talking about designing the encounter to be at the limmit of what the players can actually handle, without going into the territory where they will outright fail or someone will die. If the players make it harder for themselves and fail, that is their fault and someone may very well die. I don't think he is saying to reduce the danger as the players make stupid choices.
It isn't?
Nope. The primary job of businesses is purely to provide wealth for the shareholders. Providing jobs is merely a side benefit. No one deserves a job or a living. No character in an RPG deserves to live when the dice say they should die.
I don't support the silly "ilusion of choice/danger" mindset. If the dice say the players get killed, they get killed.Look at it like this:
The DM's job is to provide a good game and enjoy himself. To provide a good game it needs to be challenging an d rewarding. If your character gets killed every session, this is not rewarding, to the DM has to challenge the players without killing them (at least not very often). The more danger they think they are in, the better the experience of being challenged. The longer the characters live, the more fun the game. Ergo, convincing the players you are out to get them (challenging them) and keeping the characters alive (preserving them) become the objectives. It may not be at first glance what the game is all about, but it delivers.** spoiler omitted **
+1
Doesn't anyone just Roleplay anymore?!
The combat thing is such a straw man.
Look, it's like this: does your game have any conflict? Do the characters in your game sometimes attempt things for which their success is in doubt? Are they adventurers, or some close facsimile thereof?
If not, the rules are irrelevant to you; this thread is irrelevant to you. It is not for you. Move along. I won't say you're playing the wrong game; if you're having fun with it, more power to you. But this aspect of the game, of the discussion around the game, is not relevant to you.
Now, can your characters actually fail at the things they attempt? Do they legitimately struggle and sometimes die even when it's not the dramatically appropriate time, or is their survival and success assured by the GM? If the latter, see above paragraph.
Still here? Okay, so here it is: it's better for every kind of play style for different kinds of characters to be roughly as good as each other and have roughly as much, mechanically, to contribute as each other. It's not fun if one of your players has this great idea for a monk character, but that character can't survive a combat that isn't even difficult enough to threaten the rest of the party. It's not fun if the fighter has to watch another character overcome all of the out-of-combat challenges because he literally can't do anything but half-assed fight. And yes, it's not fun in combat either if the monk has to watch the druid mow down the whole encounter before the monk even hits anything, too.