Negative levels and damage to stats drops caster effectiveness too. Must be the right level to cast those spells. Must also have high enough stats to learn them. If you're saying the dex guy loses their feats because of ability drain and neg levels, then your caster is losing spells too.
Given you keep telling everyone that a casters power is in their spells, then their effectiveness drops just as drastically,possibly more so since now they don't have the mighty versatility you keep espousing.
Cheers
Actually this is not correct: Negative levels do not cause you to lose spells (or access to spells) and neither does ability damage. Only ability drain will cause you to lose spell slots or the ability to cast spells of higher levels.
The same applies for feats* -- negative levels don't take them away -- though they do reduce level based abilities (channel energy, sneak attack, smite evil damage, etc).
*feats that require a certain level in a class wouldn't be affected because you are still that level in the class -- it's not level based, it's level clearance -- much like spells.
PFSRD
"For each negative level a creature has, it takes a cumulative –1 penalty on all ability checks, attack rolls, combat maneuver checks, Combat Maneuver Defense, saving throws, and skill checks. In addition, the creature reduces its current and total hit points by 5 for each negative level it possesses. The creature is also treated as one level lower for the purpose of level-dependent variables (such as spellcasting) for each negative level possessed. Spellcasters do not lose any prepared spells or slots as a result of negative levels. If a creature's negative levels equal or exceed its total Hit Dice, it dies."
Seems that is true.
Energy Drain was heavily modified to make it an easier effect to deal with in actual play. Determining spell loss via level drain was deemed to much of an impediment to play that many DMs actively avoid the effect because it can result in a ton of bookkeeping even with a computerized character sheet.
I think James and maybe Jason have both acknowledged that you could always revert characters to a previous build point (including the loss of memorized spells) if you absolutely wanted to but that Pathfinder has simplified many effects (ability drain and energy drain in particular) to speed up their use in play.
Dispel Magic (also a big timesink) is another example of changing a spell more for gameplay purposes rather than balance purposes.
Try running your wizard (or any other character) with Core only and use the Elite Array. I'm willing to bet your wizards would find survival more than a challenge. Remember that the game is built around that assumption. If you increase the point buy to 25 (as you have said you do) then you are increasing the power of the characters by quite a bit. They would then maintain that power as they continue to add on as they level. Try the game on the "hard setting" and see how well you do. I know I could do well if I played on "easy" in "god-mode."
That's not really a fair characterization.
The elite array is rough on pure casters, true.
However, 10 point buy (less than you're using) is not, and I don't think anyone could seriously characterize it as "easy mode".
He plays with 25 point buy so that he can begin play with a 20 in his primary casting stat. The game assumes 15 point buy which makes a more reasonable starting stat closer to 15. He is playing on easy mode. To compound things, he has brought in an arsenal of 3.5 spells that may or may not be balanced for Pathfinder (many probably need some work) without doing the same thing for non-casters. This basically takes his already "easy mode" character and puts it into "god mode" especially when he has made it very clear that his casters always and forever have the perfect spell prepared with the right metamagic rod available at all levels of play. So, yeah, he is playing on "easy mode" with "god mode" enabled.
|
I agree fully on the stuff about negative levels etc. I was merely pointing out that when you apply K's way of interpreting the rules (removing feats etc) you have to do it universally, which applies to casters too.
My real point in all of this, is that casters and fighters do not have as a big a disparity as many people try to point out. Most power for Casters is derived from GM interpretation.
Don't get me wrong, casters are powerful at high levels, but so are non casters.
The most efficient way to play the game is with a balanced party of experienced players.
Apply the rules universally, and things balance fine.
Cheers
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Negative levels and damage to stats drops caster effectiveness too. Must be the right level to cast those spells. Must also have high enough stats to learn them. If you're saying the dex guy loses their feats because of ability drain and neg levels, then your caster is losing spells too.
Given you keep telling everyone that a casters power is in their spells, then their effectiveness drops just as drastically,possibly more so since now they don't have the mighty versatility you keep espousing.
Cheers
I was replying to the myth that fighting guys can fight all day at 100% effectiveness as long as they have HPs. Clearly, even CR 1 enemies can drastically decrease their effectiveness.
It's obvious that casters lose effectiveness as they run out of spells. What was your point? Did you somehow think I was arguing otherwise?
If we remove the conditions that negatively impact on BOTH classes other than HP loss to the point of zero remaining, i.e. stat reduction, paralysis, etc as the examples you gave, then we have a Wizards main resource is spells and a Fighters main resource is HP's during a battle. If we then start removing the MAIN resource of each class, in only one, the Wizard, do we see a decrease in potential. That was my point, pure and simple. Exceptions can be put forward of course either for or against Wizards/Fighters.
S.
You've missed the point entirely.
The myth is: fighting guys can fight at 100% effectiveness as long as they have HPs.
I then proved this wrong. Ability damage and many other effects can reduce a fighter's effectiveness in combat. The only condition where the myth holds true is when the fighting guy is facing enemies with no abilities that grant any kind of condition.... so maybe CR 1 goblins with clean weapons (because weapons with poop on them might give the fighter filth fever and then he's taken ability damage).
It's not an argument that Wizards are innately better(though in other parts of the thread I've stated that too); it's an argument that fighting guys are equally subject to diminishing effectiveness as they face more combats.
People seem to think that in some idealized adventure they will have some super AC and have to deal with the occasional HP damage with a potion and just school everything. The truth is that even with a super AC someone is going to cast Bestow Curse on you or poison you or something and you'll need spellcasters to heal you because your fighting effectiveness is now crap.
The ten-minute workday applies to everyone.
He plays with 25 point buy so that he can begin play with a 20 in his primary casting stat. The game assumes 15 point buy which makes a more reasonable starting stat closer to 15. He is playing on easy mode. To compound things, he has brought in an arsenal of 3.5 spells that may or may not be balanced for Pathfinder (many probably need some work) without doing the same thing for non-casters. This basically takes his already "easy mode" character and puts it into "god mode" especially when he has made it very clear that his casters always and forever have the perfect spell prepared with the right metamagic rod available at all levels of play. So, yeah, he is playing on "easy mode" with "god mode" enabled.
Uh, a 20 in a casting stat in 15 point buy is very, very doable -- and, mechanically, is the smart choice if you're primarily a spellcaster. (Something like a cleric that wants to melee can't put a 20 there, of course -- but a sorcerer or wizard always can.)
Let's make this as simple as possible:
1. Do you disagree that a lower point buy impacts a class that really only needs one stat high less than a class which needs several stats high?
2. Do you disagree that at low enough point buys, some builds become essentially impossible (e.g., two-weapon fighter), and that "high INT wizard" is not one of these builds?
Unless you either substantial change the point value on the point buy schedule or force an array on players a SAD caster (wizard, cleric, etc) can generally do a build like the following with 15 point buy
18 - 17 points
12 - 2 points
12 - 2 points
12 - 2 points
7 + 4 points
7 + 4 points
Factor in racial adjustments and a caster prime score of 20 can pretty much be a given in optimized games.
This same stat line works okay for a THF (although constitution is pretty low) but is pretty much crap for all sorts of other concepts.
The fundamental issue is flexibility for casters is a function of feats and spells, for noncasters is largely a function of ability scores because those drive access to so many feats and class features.
Factor in that casters typically can get by with a lower level con belt and a nice headband whereas martial characters need a double or triple belt and a headband and you can understand the power imbalance.
Personally I think capping the effect of stats to save DC at a given amount (maybe scaled to level) is the only thing that is going to drive SAD casters away from max save DC builds.
That's not a fair statement Bob. He's talking about playing the melee classes (who desperately need the extra points compared to casters, who do have their attempts to purchase higher primary stats weighted more heavily)
How is my statement not fair? His casters all have high casting stats, high Con and high Dex. That can't be done in 15 point buy. As he himself has claimed, he will only play a character that can start with a 20 base casting stat. It's no wonder he thinks that casters are uber and non-casters suck. His 1st level casters are starting with 2 more spells and a DC of 16. That's a huge advantage.
I'm willing to bet that if he tried to play a caster with 15 point buy (and not dumping his non-mechanically useful stats to 7), he wouldn't be able to survive long. As I mentioned before, the elite array is well spread out and should be something that all classes can work with. I challenge him to try it sometime. Actually play the game the way it was designed instead of adding or changing the rules and then complaining that some classes don't cut it.
That's not a fair statement Bob. He's talking about playing the melee classes (who desperately need the extra points compared to casters, who do have their attempts to purchase higher primary stats weighted more heavily)How is my statement not fair? His casters all have high casting stats, high Con and high Dex. That can't be done in 15 point buy. As he himself has claimed, he will only play a character that can start with a 20 base casting stat. It's no wonder he thinks that casters are uber and non-casters suck. His 1st level casters are starting with 2 more spells and a DC of 16. That's a huge advantage.
I'm willing to bet that if he tried to play a caster with 15 point buy (and not dumping his non-mechanically useful stats to 7), he wouldn't be able to survive long. As I mentioned before, the elite array is well spread out and should be something that all classes can work with. I challenge him to try it sometime. Actually play the game the way it was designed instead of adding or changing the rules and then complaining that some classes don't cut it.
The problem is that the current point buy schedule encourages dump stats by it's very design. Almost every class has 2 stats that can be effectively dumped without too much negative effect on the character. For most it's charisma + intelligence but in some cases it's charisma/intelligence + strength.
Nobody can really afford to dump con and dumping dex and wisdom typically hurt your saves so is avoided.
Considering that a -7 to charisma is only a marginal penalty to skill usage (see infinitely long charisma thread), int penalty can be minimized through human skill point bonus + favored class and strength penalty can generally be avoided by ignoring encumbrance rules or using spells I can definitely see why those +4 build points are worth dumping stats.
Personally I acknowledged the problems with the point buy schedule and eliminated the rebate for lower than average ability scores and reduced the cost of mid tier ability score (14 costs 4 points not 5) in order to encourage more mid range abilities but the risk/reward of boosting a primary casting stat into the 18-20 range is substantial.
Even with an elite array Casters are going to start out with a 17 in a casting stat which gets boosted to 18 at 4th. 4 more casting stat boosts gets you 22. +6 for a headband is 28 and that's before inherent bonuses from wishes and books get factored in.
This shows that an elite array caster is going to have a pretty decent casting stat by the mid to higher levels. In contrast MAD classes generally can't peg all their advancement on one stat outside of strength only THF builds.
I don't particularly like the result but unless you are willing to change some of the math with houserules SAD casters are extremely efficient to build.
Uh, a 20 in a casting stat in 15 point buy is very, very doable -- and, mechanically, is the smart choice if you're primarily a spellcaster. (Something like a cleric that wants to melee can't put a 20 there, of course -- but a sorcerer or wizard always can.)
Let's make this as simple as possible:
1. Do you disagree that a lower point buy impacts a class that really only needs one stat high less than a class which needs several stats high?
2. Do you disagree that at low enough point buys, some builds become essentially impossible (e.g., two-weapon fighter), and that "high INT wizard" is not one of these builds?
The only way to get the 20 starting stat in 15 point buy is to build functionally retarded characters. I have already seen this proposed. To get an 18 to start, you already have to drop one of your stats to an 8. Note that he also has a decent Con score. From what he has said, that is a 16 (he has said +3 bonus on Fort saves). Now he needs 10 more points to get there. Where do they come from? It is impossible to have a bunch of high stats with 15 point buy.
On to your questions:
1. Obviously a class that only needs one decent stat will be better than a class that needs two or more. That being said, it's not an excuse to dump nearly everything just because you can't play without being the pinnacle of your class immediately. I don't think that any character suffers from 15 point buy nearly as much as you are claiming. In actual play, I have never seen it. Not with monks, paladins, or any other class. The player makes appropriate choices that match the stats he has placed. He works his way to what he wants instead of starting there.
2. I don't believe that a two-weapon fighter is nearly impossible with a low-point buy (To make sure I could do it, I built one from level 1 to 20 with the elite array and gave him no magic items.). I also don't think that we are talking about the same thing when you say "high INT wizard." I am speaking specifically about only being able or willing to play a wizard that starts with a 20 INT. That is the key. He has said more than once that he will not play a caster that doesn't start with a 20 in his casting stat.
Some things to keep in mind with my groups:
1) We want combat to last more than 1-2 rounds. For us 3-5 rounds is very common
2) We want our characters to feel like they've earned their stripes
3) We don't think that any character who can single handedly take out EL+4 or more regularly is any fun
4) We don't mind if our actions aren't 100% successful
5) We don't mind if our characters have a weakness or two
6) We are using only Pathfinder rules. We are not bringing in anything from 3.5 except the Age of Worms AP which is modified for Pathfinder. The options for the players are only Pathfinder though.
I believe that there's a fix for the Arcane vs. melee imbalance that already exists in the rules system; the major catch is that it requires high attention to detail by both the GM and the player.
Track the purchase, portage/storage, consumption and repair/restocking of all spell material components and focuses.
- Make the wizards expend standard actions getting out components the round prior to casting.
- Make them track the rate of consumption of components before they can be restocked; this can be critical when in the wilderness for weeks.
- Track the exposure of the caster to water, fire, smoke, acid, gravity or any other environmental effect that might damage or compromise the components they carry.
It adds a layer of administration for both the GM and the player, but it will certainly bring out the realities of how fragile a spellcaster is in the hard wilderness, especially if the GM is diligent in generating weather, random encounters and random threats in the field in general that are outside of the published material.
Many players have lost touch with the fact that outside of their library/lab, many wizards would be pretty miserable traipsing around rough terrain for days, if not weeks.
I've worn armor all day and camped in a tent for two weeks - I speak with the conviction of experience.
I believe that there's a fix for the Arcane vs. melee imbalance that already exists in the rules system; the major catch is that it requires high attention to detail by both the GM and the player.
Track the purchase, portage/storage, consumption and repair/restocking of all spell material components and focuses.
- Make the wizards expend standard actions getting out components the round prior to casting.
- Make them track the rate of consumption of components before they can be restocked; this can be critical when in the wilderness for weeks.
- Track the exposure of the caster to water, fire, smoke, acid, gravity or any other environmental effect that might damage or compromise the components they carry.It adds a layer of administration for both the GM and the player, but it will certainly bring out the realities of how fragile a spellcaster is in the hard wilderness, especially if the GM is diligent in generating weather, random encounters and random threats in the field in general that are outside of the published material.
Many players have lost touch with the fact that outside of their library/lab, many wizards would be pretty miserable traipsing around rough terrain for days, if not weeks.
I've worn armor all day and camped in a tent for two weeks - I speak with the conviction of experience.
If a DM tried to make me track all that stuff I would either take eschew materials, or I would buy a ridiculous number of spell component pouches, and stuff my handy haversack/bag of holding/etc so I can at least last a few months.
Keep in mind that the DM would also have to track such resources for enemy casters when determining which components I found.
Why would the materials be subjected to the weather? By the time casters start to become an issue the means to keep the components away from mother nature won't be an issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeh, Eschew Material Components ftw. Sorcerers even get it for free in Pathfinder.
IIRC, eschew materials does not affect components too expensive (more than 1 gold).
Of course, the most expensive are less vulnerable to weather because are gems or similar things.
And I have only mentioned a handful of 3.5 spells for casters - Greater/Superior Resistance, (Mass) Conviction, Persisted Recitation (and the implied divine metamagic), Persisted Righteous Wrath of the Faithful.
You're soooo kidding yourself if you don't think even that small amount jacks up casters a lot, though. Especially divine metamagic.
The only way to get the 20 starting stat in 15 point buy is to build functionally retarded characters. I have already seen this proposed. To get an 18 to start, you already have to drop one of your stats to an 8.
Why is a character with an 8 stat functionally retarded?
Does anyone think there isn't some area that they're probably slightly below average in?
That being said, it's not an excuse to dump nearly everything just because you can't play without being the pinnacle of your class immediately.
Why would you need an excuse to make the stat you use constantly for everything important high and a stat you use rarely if at all lower?
I don't think that any character suffers from 15 point buy nearly as much as you are claiming. In actual play, I have never seen it. Not with monks, paladins, or any other class.
Really? I'm only claiming that it impacts classes that need multiple stats (especially all of the characters that kind-of need charisma but can't get by with only charisma, such as paladins and bards, but, yes, also monks) more than characters who need less stats.
The less stat points you allow, the more the single-stat characters can shine over the multi-stat characters.
2. I don't believe that a two-weapon fighter is nearly impossible with a low-point buy (To make sure I could do it, I built one from level 1 to 20 with the elite array and gave him no magic items.).
Out of curiousity, how does that character get the full two-weapon feat tree and also manage to have a high strength?
Is true, IMHO, that high point buy favors meleers and generally MAD classes.
About the 3 "7" stats PC..
Said this, three 7 can be annoying because of ability damage. At high level one could find way to not be targeted or being immune, but you have to go through low levels with 3 low and vulnerable to damage stats.
Moreover.. What stats you dumped? I guess planar bindings are easier with an high Charisma...
Every single one of them except the first one affects the entire party.
Sure, but if that's your baseline, no wonder you think a non-caster group is unplayable.
(Which it is, but you're heavily stacking the deck.)
Is true, IMHO, that high point buy favors meleers and generally MAD classes.
About the 3 "7" stats PC..
Said this, three 7 can be annoying because of ability damage. At high level one could find way to not be targeted or being immune, but you have to go through low levels with 3 low and vulnerable to damage stats.
Moreover.. What stats you dumped? I guess planar bindings are easier with an high Charisma...
I think the 3 sevens builds are actually suboptimal in many ways as the character has generally gimped a save stat in order to achieve that build.
3 7s Wizard is dumping strength, wisdom and charisma.
3 7s Cleric is dumping dexterity, intelligence and charisma. A case could be made to dump strength instead of dexterity or even charisma but I'm assuming default war priest build.
3 7s Spontaneous is dumping strength, intelligence and wisdom.
3 7s Druid loses flexibility in Pathfinder, 3.5 could do this with impunity due to wildshape cheese, that same ability is dramatically curtailed
In each of those cases the character is generally taking a -2 to a stat that modifies a save. While the case could be made that reflex saves aren't as critical for optimized play, having a -2 to wisdom can really hurt the viability of will saves even for classes with good will save progression.
In short the 18,14,14,7,7,7 or 18,16,10,7,7,7 is doable at 15 points but it requires a pretty substantial trade off in order to achieve that goal. The marginal benefit to casters of having a 16 con is IMHO counterbalanced by the reduced survival rate due to bad reflex/will at low to mid levels.
Higher point buy does increase survival rate because it's not longer necessary to dump as many stats but overall it increases the survival rate without really increasing the top end power that much.
In contrast MAD classes really can't dump as effectively. They generally have 2 possible dump stats (Charisma and Intelligence are most common but not the only combination). More importantly they benefit less from having a single extreme ability score because with feat prerequisites and the necessity of covering holes in the basic class build it generally forces them to invest in multiple stats in order to achieve high survival rates.
I believe that there's a fix for the Arcane vs. melee imbalance that already exists in the rules system; the major catch is that it requires high attention to detail by both the GM and the player.
Track the purchase, portage/storage, consumption and repair/restocking of all spell material components and focuses.
- Make the wizards expend standard actions getting out components the round prior to casting.
- Make them track the rate of consumption of components before they can be restocked; this can be critical when in the wilderness for weeks.
- Track the exposure of the caster to water, fire, smoke, acid, gravity or any other environmental effect that might damage or compromise the components they carry.It adds a layer of administration for both the GM and the player, but it will certainly bring out the realities of how fragile a spellcaster is in the hard wilderness, especially if the GM is diligent in generating weather, random encounters and random threats in the field in general that are outside of the published material.
Many players have lost touch with the fact that outside of their library/lab, many wizards would be pretty miserable traipsing around rough terrain for days, if not weeks.
I've worn armor all day and camped in a tent for two weeks - I speak with the conviction of experience.
I think that is going too far. I do think that too many of those who think casters are pure uber forget that many of the spells they like have costly components. Those should come right out of the caster's WBL. It also needs to be applied to those wonderful toys the casters seem to be using. Creating a wand of stoneskin would cost 10,500+250*50 = 23,000 gp and 23 days to create. Some spells are obviously better choices for wands, but my point is that the magic items still have material component costs. I think that much of the discrepancy comes from GMs not enforcing the limitations already build into the casting classes.
7/10/16/18/7/7. Your argument is invalid.
We use 25 PB not because it makes spellcasters better, but because it makes everyone else better. And as meaningless as those 7s are in actual play, they are still distasteful.
You should use more hyperbole and straw man arguments. I don't think you have enough of them. After all I have specifically stated on multiple occasions the pure melee characters in this campaign are a Crusader and a Warblade -...
Actually you proved my point. Thank you. Having three 7s in a character is making a character that is functionally retarded. This isn't the first time I've said that this week. I can tell you that if you came to my table with a crap build like that, I would tell you to create a real character or find another group. With three 7's you wouldn't survive past level 2 or 3 in a game that uses effects that attack your stats. Poisons are very common but there are also other creatures that will attack your stats, like shadows.
So my point is this, you are playing the game on "easy mode" and giving the casters more leeway than non-casters. You are then assuming the problem is the non-casters.
PS: Do you know what hyperbole and strawman arguments are? I'm not sure you do.
With three 7's you wouldn't survive past level 2 or 3 in a game that uses effects that attack your stats.
That worked in expanded 3.5, when the DM could pull out an ego whip to attack a low Cha score. In Pathfinder that option does not exist -- indeed, I don't know of anything in the Pathfinder core rules that punishes a low Cha score, other than taking a nominal penalty to a small handful of skills that your friends can do better anyway.
Remember, we're talking actual mechanical penalties here. "Functionally retarded" is a fluff description. "Find another game, because I won't allow it" is DM fiat. Neither of those constitutes well-written rules mechanics.
I agree that a stiff dose of MAD would bring the casters down a peg. Unfortunately that dose isn't written into the rules. A rule that said, "Wizards use Intelligence to determine bonus spells prepared per day, and Charisma to determine the save DCs of their spells" would discourage Wizards dumping Cha (except in specific builds focusing on no-save spells). A revised point-buy system that gave less benefit for dumping a stat, and higher costs for jacking one up, might help. Both of those would be hard rules revisions, not DM fiat or fluff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That worked in expanded 3.5, when the DM could pull out an ego whip to attack a low Cha score. In Pathfinder that option does not exist -- indeed, I don't know of anything in the Pathfinder core rules that punishes a low Cha score, other than taking a nominal penalty to a small handful of skills that your friends can do better anyway.
You've got to think outside the box, Kirth. For instance, every module should feature mummies infected with bubonic plague and leprosy and covered in ungol dust! That'll show those low-Cha characters a thing or two.
:-)
Actually you proved my point. Thank you. Having three 7s in a character is making a character that is functionally retarded. This isn't the first time I've said that this week. I can tell you that if you came to my table with a crap build like that, I would tell you to create a real character or find another group. With three 7's you wouldn't survive past level 2 or 3 in a game that uses effects that attack your stats. Poisons are very common but there are also other creatures that will attack your stats, like shadows.So my point is this, you are playing the game on "easy mode" and giving the casters more leeway than non-casters. You are then assuming the problem is the non-casters.
PS: Do you know what hyperbole and strawman arguments are? I'm not sure you do.
I prefer a higher degree of risk than the average DM as the penalties for dying once raise dead/restoration become practical (I'm assuming that NPC clerics are somewhat prevalent) are pretty low but I think the average group's tolerance for heavy metagaming is pretty low.
Ability damage/drain and level drain can often ruin games especially if encountered at too low of a level (shadows in particular are a high risk of TPK encounter early on).
However keep in mind that in highly optimized games even low level casters are going to try to force numerous sleep cycles and will often have various defensive buffs (mirror image and blur/displacement are common) that make the ability to effectively target them with ability drain/damage effects somewhat limited.
AoE ability damage/drain such as ability damage gas traps, etc can be a viable way of challenging these types of casters but they often result in pretty significant mortality rates.
Further there is definitely a generational shift in terms of expectations in play. I grew up with 1e unfair/antagonistic DM play so in many ways I don't mind it (although I think it's time has passed). Modern gamers have different expectations as to survival/success rates.
You can call it player empowerment or GM softballing encounters but the end result is that if the players escalate the power level it's not always incumbent on the DM to increase NPC lethality accordingly.
Now personally I think people should step back from ultra-optimized character design as the margin of error in challenging encounters becomes really low but others have a different opinion.
Roy for instance thinks that the margin of PC failure should be in the single digits for any given encounter. I personally feel that relative chance of success should be significantly lower especially at low to mid-level.
That worked in expanded 3.5, when the DM could pull out an ego whip to attack a low Cha score. In Pathfinder that option does not exist -- indeed, I don't know of anything in the Pathfinder core rules that punishes a low Cha score, other than taking a nominal penalty to a small handful of skills that your friends can do better anyway.
There are CHR poisons -- granted, a high CON helps cover that, the countermeasures to poisons are many, and poison immunity is pretty standard across the board at higher levels, but it's something!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That worked in expanded 3.5, when the DM could pull out an ego whip to attack a low Cha score. In Pathfinder that option does not exist -- indeed, I don't know of anything in the Pathfinder core rules that punishes a low Cha score, other than taking a nominal penalty to a small handful of skills that your friends can do better anyway.You've got to think outside the box, Kirth. For instance, every module should feature mummies infected with bubonic plague and leprosy and covered in ungol dust! That'll show those low-Cha characters a thing or two.
:-)
What a world!
"Didya hear about Bob? Mummy attack on the farm road."
"Poor bastard! Found one of them in the outhouse last weekend myself."
Why is a character with an 8 stat functionally retarded?
The only way to get the 20 starting stat in 15 point buy is to build functionally retarded characters. I have already seen this proposed. To get an 18 to start, you already have to drop one of your stats to an 8.
He doesn't have just one 8 though. The characters he builds have at least two high stats. That would mean that 3 of his other stats are 8 or 7. Look at what he proposed, 7/7/7/10/16/18. Three 7s. That's not a roleplaying character. That's building an optimized spreadsheet.
Does anyone think there isn't some area that they're probably slightly below average in?
I don't mind low stats. I'm the one arguing for using 15 point buy. He's the one who feels the need to have 25 point buy so that he doesn't have any low stats.
Why would you need an excuse to make the stat you use constantly for everything important high and a stat you use rarely if at all lower?
When you dump everything except the one stat you need for 100% of the characters you play, then you are no longer creating characters. You are playing a game of one-up-manship with the DM. If that's the type of game he prefers, that's fine. But to pretend that that's the norm is seriously mistaken.
Really? I'm only claiming that it impacts classes that need multiple stats (especially all of the characters that kind-of need charisma but can't get by with only charisma, such as paladins and bards, but, yes, also monks) more than characters who need less stats.
The less stat points you allow, the more the single-stat characters can shine over the multi-stat characters.
Really. I have not seen characters be unplayable just because they don't have high stats for everything they want. Instead, I have seen the player look for ways to deal with the problem. Taking feats, seeking out stat boosters, focusing their character's build more, all these things are fine options. Characters don't have to be good at everything. The trick is to find what you want to be good at and go for that.
Out of curiousity, how does that character get the full two-weapon feat tree and also manage to have a high strength?
That's the easy part. Str:14, Dex:15, Con:13, Int:10, Wis:12, Ch:8. I made him a half-orc and gave him a +2 Dex. The first stat to boost at level 4 is Con. After that, just make sure you boost Dex and Strength appropriately. By level 20, the stats I have are: 16, 19, 14, 10, 12, 8 without any magic items. I used the weapon master archetype and focused on shortswords. Without any magic, each attack deals 1d6+24 points of damage. His attacks are 24/19/14/9 and 24/19/14. He crits on 17-20 with a +4 to his crit confirmation rolls. Each crit deals an additional 2d6 bleed. There are probably better choices for weapons but it was getting late and I didn't want to put too much thought into it. If you would like, I could post the full build.
Of course, nothing says that I had to go that route. A two-weapon fighter doesn't actually have to choose the whole two-weapon fighting tree. He could be build a wide variety of ways. He could be build to use a tripping weapon in one hand and something else in the other. He could be built with a net in one hand and a trident in the other.
There are CHR poisons -- granted, a high CON helps cover that...
That was sort of the point: no one dumps Con, so poisons are essentially attacking a strong save in any semi-optimized character. Even a low-Cha wizard. Ego whip allows a Will save as well, but still deals half damage on a save, and you can augment it to jack up the DC and damage. Say! A Toxicology skill allowing you to jack up poison DCs and damage would sure be nice...
If you do not do those things, the non casters are down 6 to hit, which means they start missing all the time.
But if you can't do them (because divine metamagic and persistent spell aren't allowed in the game, as they wouldn't be in any game with a halfway sane DM, not that most of my DMs have been halfway sane), neither can your enemies.
Basically you think the game is only playable if both the players and the DM crank everything to 11. It's not. The game works out just fine if everyone's a little more casual about it. What doesn't work is if the players are going at it casually and the DM isn't or vice versa.
And, for the record, pretty much all of the post-Dungeon-Magazine APs are going at it a whole lot more casually than you are.
And, for the record, pretty much all of the post-Dungeon-Magazine APs are going at it a whole lot more casually than you are.
It can be pretty frustrating, to see "obvious" choices that are way better than "trap" ones, and be forced to choose trap ones so as to fit the AP assumptions and not run roughshod over them. Better, in my mind, to tighten up the core rules a bit -- either eliminate the optimizing options (starting with the casters'), or improved the melee options and make the APs harder -- one or the other.
I agree that a stiff dose of MAD would bring the casters down a peg. Unfortunately that dose isn't written into the rules. A rule that said, "Wizards use Intelligence to determine bonus spells prepared per day, and Charisma to determine the save DCs of their spells" would discourage Wizards dumping Cha (except in specific builds focusing on no-save spells). A revised point-buy system that gave less benefit for dumping a stat, and higher costs for jacking one up, might help. Both of those would be hard rules revisions, not DM fiat or fluff.
I personally like going with a hard cap on Save DC modifiers from ability score, better saves all around, and a revised point buy that encourages characters to be within a tight distribution of ability scores in the 10-14 range but like you said those are substantial changes to the core system.
I'm less pleased with the MAD casters option because I think encouraging play style should be more carrot and less stick but I've actually considered making casting stat modifier a derived stat (maybe the average modifier of the three mental stats?- I think if you allow averaging of the raw stat you get too much ability to game the system with odd scores). I haven't really had the time to test it out though :(
With three 7's you wouldn't survive past level 2 or 3 in a game that uses effects that attack your stats.That worked in expanded 3.5, when the DM could pull out an ego whip to attack a low Cha score. In Pathfinder that option does not exist -- indeed, I don't know of anything in the Pathfinder core rules that punishes a low Cha score, other than taking a nominal penalty to a small handful of skills that your friends can do better anyway.
With three 7's Charisma is not even something I would worry about. There are plenty of poisons that affect other stats. There are also spells that affect other stats. In my game, I also use the Critical Hit and Fumble decks so Charisma is also something that can be affected at any level. This is not an endorsement of the decks, and I know that they are optional rules. It is something that my players need to keep in mind when they build their characters though.
Remember, we're talking actual mechanical penalties here. "Functionally retarded" is a fluff description. "Find another game, because I won't allow it" is DM fiat. Neither of those constitutes well-written rules mechanics.
The problem isn't playing one character like that once in a while. The problem is that the people who propose that, actually think that is a good build all the time. Those are not the players I want at my table. Optimization is wonderful. Without it, I don't think a character can survive long. When optimization is the goal instead of good character building, then it's time to find a game that suits your needs. Mine is not that game.
That's not a roleplaying character. That's building an optimized spreadsheet.
In your opinion.
When you dump everything except the one stat you need for 100% of the characters you play, then you are no longer creating characters. You are playing a game of one-up-manship with the DM. If that's the type of game he prefers, that's fine. But to pretend that that's the norm is seriously mistaken.
... have you ever played in an organized play campaign or anything outside of your own circle of friends?
You'll find a lot, lot, lot more tables with 20 INT wizards with poor STR scores than are using the Elite Array.
That's the easy part. Str:14, Dex:15, Con:13, Int:10, Wis:12, Ch:8. I made him a half-orc and gave him a +2 Dex. The first stat to boost at level 4 is Con. After that, just make sure you boost Dex and Strength appropriately. By level 20, the stats I have are: 16, 19, 14, 10, 12, 8 without any magic items. I used the weapon master archetype and focused on shortswords. Without any magic, each attack deals 1d6+24 points of damage. His attacks are 24/19/14/9 and 24/19/14. He crits on 17-20 with a +4 to his crit confirmation rolls. Each crit deals an additional 2d6 bleed. There are probably better choices for weapons but it was getting late and I didn't want to put too much thought into it. If you would like, I could post the full build.
Not for the purposes of this discussion, but I'd be curious to see your two-weapon fighter build, but don't put a lot of effort into it on my account if you don't have it nailed down already. A player in one of my games created a somewhat similar character and I'm just wondering what you've done differently as an idle curiousity.
The problem isn't playing one character like that once in a while. The problem is that the people who propose that, actually think that is a good build all the time. Those are not the players I want at my table. Optimization is wonderful. Without it, I don't think a character can survive long. When optimization is the goal instead of good character building, then it's time to find a game that suits your needs. Mine is not that game.
Well said.
Actually you proved my point. Thank you. Having three 7s in a character is making a character that is functionally retarded. This isn't the first time I've said that this week. I can tell you that if you came to my table with a crap build like that, I would tell you to create a real character or find another group. With three 7's you wouldn't survive past level 2 or 3 in a game that uses effects that attack your stats. Poisons are very common but there are also other creatures that will attack your stats, like shadows.7/10/16/18/7/7. Your argument is invalid.
We use 25 PB not because it makes spellcasters better, but because it makes everyone else better. And as meaningless as those 7s are in actual play, they are still distasteful.
You should use more hyperbole and straw man arguments. I don't think you have enough of them. After all I have specifically stated on multiple occasions the pure melee characters in this campaign are a Crusader and a Warblade -...
Right, that's those things I already addressed. You know, that I pointed out got nerfed?
PF encourages such behavior because there's no drawback.
And Shadows? Is that the best you have? Fine. You have a Str of 10. It takes 3 hits for you to go down, regardless of level. And that's only 1 more than 2. Either you're fighting a single shadow and it's not a problem or you are fighting many shadows and it's death ward or die regardless of Strength.
You've made it very clear you run hack and slash style games where the only way to win is to attack the AC with HP damage. Good for you, but most of us embrace rather than shy away from the complexity of the game. And that means characters with multiple dump stats are perfectly viable in games that cannot punish dump stats. You are also making all manner of unfounded and absurd assumptions about things that I have neither said nor alluded to. You are wrong. Period.
And unless you have something more substantial to contribute than absurdity...
Pathfinder does not actually encourage that behavior. You are assuming it but it really doesn't. You can easily choose not to do that. That being said, if your DM never attacks your characters' weaknesses, then I can easily see why you think Pathfinder encourages three dump stats.
Tell me where I am wrong with anything I have said about you. You are the one who said that you won't play a caster that doesn't start with a 20. You are the one who said that your games need to be 25 point buy. You are the one who has claimed that non-casters can't keep up in Pathfinder then use non-Pathfinder material to support your position.
Those are not the players I want at my table... When optimization is the goal instead of good character building, then it's time to find a game that suits your needs. Mine is not that game.
Fair enough. You should understand, though, that for some people with more in-depth rules familiarity and a more mathematical bent, practical optimization is obvious enough to be subconscious -- it's an automatic reflex, not a goal. For those people, NOT optimizing a character is extremely difficult, and seems very much like deliberately crippling the character.
All making all characters ineffective does is makes everyone die, freeing them to play a game they can actually succeed at.
If you're playing Age of Worms, that's manifestly true. If you're playing Kingmaker... not so much, as it's geared towards non-optimaized PCs -- the baseline assumption seems to be that survival should be easier for gimps.
It's a choice between Rocket Launcher Tag and Rock-'em-Sock-'em Robots. Some people prefer one; some people the other. What no one likes is when one of the robots comes with a rocket launcher, and the rest don't.
It can be pretty frustrating, to see "obvious" choices that are way better than "trap" ones, and be forced to choose trap ones so as to fit the AP assumptions and not run roughshod over them. Better, in my mind, to tighten up the core rules a bit -- either eliminate the optimizing options (starting with the casters'), or improved the melee options and make the APs harder -- one or the other.
Sure, I think it'd be great if the balance of the game were tightened up a bit (and I'd be in favor of Pathfinder 2nd Edition showing up a lot sooner than I know a lot of people are), but at the moment I think the options basically are: play the game as it actually is, or play a different game, either literally or in the form of a huge pile of houserules -- and playing by RAW but cranking every ounce of optimization out of the already-best options, perhaps counterintuitively, is not playing the game as it actually is.
If gaming is something you get to do maybe once or twice a month as I think it is for many people, the former approach makes a lot of sense.
It's all about the players and DM all agreeing, perhaps implicitly, to play the game on roughly the same level -- otherwise the game does break down, but many otherwise fun games do break down in the same conditions. Even a fantasy sports league ceases to be fun if one player's spending hours a day poring over stats and everyone else is treating it pretty casually, or if half of the players are pretty serious and the other half can't even be bothered to swap out injured players, etc.
And, for the record, pretty much all of the post-Dungeon-Magazine APs are going at it a whole lot more casually than you are.It can be pretty frustrating, to see "obvious" choices that are way better than "trap" ones, and be forced to choose trap ones so as to fit the AP assumptions and not run roughshod over them. Better, in my mind, to tighten up the core rules a bit -- either eliminate the optimizing options (starting with the casters'), or improved the melee options and make the APs harder -- one or the other.
In general I think Pathfinder is formulated to drive AP sales and subscriptions. The APs are generally designed around tough but not insurmountable odds for non-optimized parties (which I think is the bulk of gaming community). If you start making the published APs challenging for optimized characters the casual play characters are facing TPK after TPK.
I think it's a matter of aiming your product to the largest possible target audience. The high end customers will know enough to modify encounter difficulty upwards while you still satisfy the average joe.
Excising the suboptimal and ending the system mastery baloney would've been a good design goal but unfortunately it's completely impossible while trying to maintain any reasonable facsimile of backwards compatibility.
Plenty of people were happy with their 3.x games no matter how broken and messed up I personally find them and most of the people that wanted catastrophic changes went over to 4e. Paizo rightly or wrongly looked to the section of the community that probably didn't play CharOp 3.x and wanted some streamlining and obvious balance corrections done. Venturing too far off the beaten track probably would've improved play and class balance but increases the risk that you won't capture much of the market.
It can be pretty frustrating, to see "obvious" choices that are way better than "trap" ones, and be forced to choose trap ones so as to fit the AP assumptions and not run roughshod over them. Better, in my mind, to tighten up the core rules a bit -- either eliminate the optimizing options (starting with the casters'), or improved the melee options and make the APs harder -- one or the other.
Welcome to the DM's job whenever working with published adventures... making the published stuff work with his campaign's specifics. You'll get this with any game in which players have lots of choices in building their characters.
Now it's true that NPC Clerics would try and use those things, if available. They don't have the resources to do so very well, however. Nightsticks are expensive on NPC wealth.
Hey, what do you know? There you are dragging 3.5 stuff in again.
I think you've decided that you somehow have to drag in all the super-caster-buffing 3.5 material in order to make PF fair for melee characters, and that this approach is somehow logical and necessary rather than completely insane. Although I agree with what you've said in some areas I reject this premise.
As for APs, what I said: everything RotRL on, although RotRL itself is probably more of a meatgrinder than the APs following it, if less than the APs preceeding it.