Not at all. I point out the points that it suffers -- like the fact that with 82,000gp and level 11 the best spells you are going to have is level 6 with a DC of 28, you only have 3 of those 6th level spells, and the average creature is going to have a 45% chance of success against those spells.
What that you would fight at level 11 has +16 in its worst save?
Although, that being said, for the theoretical all-full-caster party, a half and half chance of success for the toughest single creatures you'd face is plenty good -- your chances of making 4 of those saves each round for very long aren't great.
You don't have to be invulnerable to be better than a fighting guy.
Sure, as a spellcaster like a Wizard you are going to have a bad CMD..... so who cares? When you get grappled you take some damage for a round while the three other spellcasters in the party kill the thing.
People keep strawmanning this argument by saying "your Wizard isn't invulnerable" when we are talking about parties of spellcasters being better because individually any one spellcaster is bringing more to the party than any one fighting guy.
Posting a Wizard build is only meaningful if you post the fighters they are competing with too. It's especially meaningless considering that we are talking about full parties.
PS. Wizards have familiars that can scout out a lot of the dangers. I mean, how many monsters are going to suspect the crow flying overhead is the forward scout of an enemy?
So, whats your fix? So I want to hear your solution Kirth, i've read some of your homerules but I would like to hear your fix for d20, not being snarky.
I'd see two major areas to start.
1. Redesign the basic combat chassis. (a) Make spellcasting while being attacked a LOT harder. (b) Make fighting while moving a LOT easier. (c) Make hp damage count for something -- monsters take fatigue penalties and penalties to supernatural and spell-like ability DCs when wounded, etc. (d) Make hp damage dealt more realistic in terms of a % of monster hp.
2. Solve the linearity of melee abilities vs. quadratic nature of spells. (a) Turnin feat chains into single feats that scale with BAB. (b) Introduce a means of capping the insane attack penalties for iteratives. (c) Give fighters useful class features, like increasing reach, shooting down fliers, and true seeing (call the latter an Ex ability: he's just so experienced that he can deduce where enemies are, and what they're really like, based on his awareness of the battlefield). (d) Totally redesign the ranger and barbarian so that their primary themes are no longer irrelevant after 6th level (for the ranger, I've combined it with the horizon walker, etc., etc. -- he goes from a wilderness guide to a planar shepherd as he levels).
|
Not at all. I point out the points that it suffers -- like the fact that with 82,000gp and level 11 the best spells you are going to have is level 6 with a DC of 28, you only have 3 of those 6th level spells, and the average creature is going to have a 45% chance of success against those spells.
What that you would fight at level 11 has +16 in its worst save?
Although, that being said, for the theoretical all-full-caster party, a half and half chance of success for the toughest single creatures you'd face is plenty good -- your chances of making 4 of those saves each round for very long aren't great.
I would agree about the saves, as you are looking at +14 for the good save by chart for CR 11.
But I also point at Stone Golem.
The point is the Wizard has to play in context just like everyone else, and it still has two low saves and the least hit points in the game.
|
|
Not at all. I point out the points that it suffers -- like the fact that with 82,000gp and level 11 the best spells you are going to have is level 6 with a DC of 28, you only have 3 of those 6th level spells, and the average creature is going to have a 45% chance of success against those spells.
What that you would fight at level 11 has +16 in its worst save?
Although, that being said, for the theoretical all-full-caster party, a half and half chance of success for the toughest single creatures you'd face is plenty good -- your chances of making 4 of those saves each round for very long aren't great.
You don't have to be invulnerable to be better than a fighting guy.
Sure, as a spellcaster like a Wizard you are going to have a bad CMD..... so who cares? When you get grappled you take some damage for a round while the three other spellcasters in the party kill the thing.
People keep strawmanning this argument by saying "your Wizard isn't invulnerable" when we are talking about parties of spellcasters being better because individually any one spellcaster is bringing more to the party than any one fighting guy.
Posting a Wizard build is only meaningful if you post the fighters they are competing with too. It's especially meaningless considering that we are talking about full parties.
PS. Wizards have familiars that can scout out a lot of the dangers. I mean, how many monsters are going to suspect the crow flying overhead is the forward scout of an enemy?
If you take Familiar over arcane bond, in which case you have one less spell, and much less flexibility.
I don't think anyone is saying they won't post a fighter/combat build. That issue never seems to be a problem in threads dealing with classes other that Wizards.
You are 100% right about context. The game is played in parties. And the Wizard and Fighter are complementary to each other, one can soak and keep baddies off the other while it casts.
And the Wizard and Fighter are complementary to each other, one can soak and keep baddies off the other while it casts.
How do fighters do that in 3.X, exactly? In 4e they "mark" people (which I find distasteful), but what can they do reliably in Pathfinder to keep monsters from just going over/around/past them?
You are 100% right about context. The game is played in parties. And the Wizard and Fighter are complementary to each other, one can soak and keep baddies off the...
Except our whole argument is that we can replace the Fighter with another Wizard and get more soaking, leading to fewer rests and less resources wasted.
The Wizard soaks by using spells to control the battlefield, use summoned minions, giving the monsters conditions that make it hard to do damage (like blindness), or just using spells like Blink for a 50% damage reduction and 50% spell immunity above and beyond AC and saves.
It's not a question of balancing all the class out against each other, and the discrepancy wasn't as much of an issue in 1st/2nd ed D&D.
Ahahahahaha. This never ceases to amuse me.
In 1st/2nd ed spells offered tremendous power, but even the most powerful spell (Wish) had major drawbacks.
Hell yeah. Geass in 2E had the crippling drawback "If the guy you cast it on manages to suck enough superhigh-level wizard cock to have Wish cast on him, he gets to take a third option besides becoming your slave forever or dying". Color Spray had the mighty drawback of "If your targets have higher HD than you, or at least 6, they get to try and save*, instead of losing automatically". And so on.
*And without magical bling, which they were in no way guaranteed to have - and which hardly any monsters had - most characters needed to be about level 13 in 2E to save against spells at greater than 50% rate - assuming spells without penalties to saves. So Color Spray, Chromatic Orb (1st-level SoD spell!) and whatever were legitimate ways to destroy the vast majority of opposition well into two-digit levels.
Now, wizards had some real drawbacks in 2E. Very long memorization (and therefore necessity to conserve high-level spells) at high level and extreme fragility early on, mainly. Lack of instant win buttons was not one of these drawbacks.
|
|
And the Wizard and Fighter are complementary to each other, one can soak and keep baddies off the other while it casts.How do fighters do that in 3.X, exactly? In 4e they "mark" people (which I find distasteful), but what can they do reliably in Pathfinder to keep monsters from just going over/around/past them?
Attacks of Opportunity, the fact that you can't go through an enemy, you have to go around them.
It's all about battlefield placement. Most combats only last a few rounds unless you are dealing with high volume, low (relative to level) effectiveness enemies.
But this is also where a wizard can get hosed if not protected by those that can actually give them the space to cast not on the defensive. The 15 Plus spell level can be a real problem.
|
|
You are 100% right about context. The game is played in parties. And the Wizard and Fighter are complementary to each other, one can soak and keep baddies off the...
Except our whole argument is that we can replace the Fighter with another Wizard and get more soaking, leading to fewer rests and less resources wasted.
The Wizard soaks by using spells to control the battlefield, use summoned minions, giving the monsters conditions that make it hard to do damage (like blindness), or just using spells like Blink for a 50% damage reduction and 50% spell immunity above and beyond AC and saves.
Summoning is a full round cast. Who exactly is protecting you while you cast these, and how many are you casting a day? Not to mention when are you casting all these defensive/buff spells, while also summoning.
Until higher levels, you can only cast one spell around. Even then, doing so takes up extra slots.
This is the kind of "We can do everything at all times" logic that makes us call you out on posting a build.
You are 100% right about context. The game is played in parties. And the Wizard and Fighter are complementary to each other, one can soak and keep baddies off the...
Except our whole argument is that we can replace the Fighter with another Wizard and get more soaking, leading to fewer rests and less resources wasted.
The Wizard soaks by using spells to control the battlefield, use summoned minions, giving the monsters conditions that make it hard to do damage (like blindness), or just using spells like Blink for a 50% damage reduction and 50% spell immunity above and beyond AC and saves.
Summoning is a full round cast. Who exactly is protecting you while you cast these, and how many are you casting a day? Not to mention when are you casting all these defensive/buff spells, while also summoning.
Until higher levels, you can only cast one spell around. Even then, doing so takes up extra slots.
This is the kind of "We can do everything at all times" logic that makes us call you out on posting a build.
Fighters can't protect Wizards. They can't control the movement of monsters, they can't force the monster to attack them instead, and only in the most contrived chokepoint maps can they even be a speedbump to a monster's choice of target. They can't even stand in front of a Wizard and provide cover against arrows or spells.
Luckily, spellcasters don't need protection. A move or a 5' step are all that spellcasters need to get the range on a monster that they need to cast spells. Battlefield control spells and even low level buffs mitigate total damage taken over a battle more than any meatshielding a fighting guy might do.
|
|
You are 100% right about context. The game is played in parties. And the Wizard and Fighter are complementary to each other, one can soak and keep baddies off the...
Except our whole argument is that we can replace the Fighter with another Wizard and get more soaking, leading to fewer rests and less resources wasted.
The Wizard soaks by using spells to control the battlefield, use summoned minions, giving the monsters conditions that make it hard to do damage (like blindness), or just using spells like Blink for a 50% damage reduction and 50% spell immunity above and beyond AC and saves.
Summoning is a full round cast. Who exactly is protecting you while you cast these, and how many are you casting a day? Not to mention when are you casting all these defensive/buff spells, while also summoning.
Until higher levels, you can only cast one spell around. Even then, doing so takes up extra slots.
This is the kind of "We can do everything at all times" logic that makes us call you out on posting a build.
Fighters can't protect Wizards. They can't control the movement of monsters, they can't force the monster to attack them instead, and only in the most contrived chokepoint maps can they even be a speedbump to a monster's choice of target. They can't even stand in front of a Wizard and provide cover against arrows or spells.
Luckily, spellcasters don't need protection. A move or a 5' step are all that spellcasters need to get the range on a monster that they need to cast spells. Battlefield control spells and even low level buffs mitigate total damage taken over a battle more than any meatshield a fighting guy might do.
Bold doesn't make you right. And you still didn't answer the question of when you are casting all those spells.
Not to mention, you know, reach.
Bold doesn't make you right. And you still didn't answer the question of when you are casting all those spells.
Not to mention, you know, reach.
Round 1? I don't know how you play, but monsters rarely start combat in the square next to the Wizard and still have actions for attacks.
And I'm sorry, but I must have missed the monsters with 30' reach. A single move is more than enough to get enough breathing room to cast a buff or battlefield control spell that will give several rounds of breathing room to do whatever you want. Sometimes all you need is a 5' step.
Now you have to tell me how a fighter is supposed to protect a Wizard? Unless every single combat map has a chokepoint, it's not going to stop melee attacks (and some monsters still have Reach you know) and even in a chokepoint map they can't do anything about spells or ranged attacks.
I can tell you how a Wizard does it. He uses battlefield control spells to funnel melee monsters away or puts up barriers so that ranged attacks and spells can't target him. Sometimes he casts a spell like Blink and gets a 50% immunity to physical damage AND spells.
But how does a Fighter do it!?!?!?!
|
|
Bold doesn't make you right. And you still didn't answer the question of when you are casting all those spells.
Not to mention, you know, reach.
Round 1? I don't know how you play, but monsters rarely start combat in the square next to the Wizard and still have actions for attacks.
And I'm sorry, but I must have missed the monsters with 30' reach. A single move is more than enough to get enough breathing room to cast a buff or battlefield control spell that will give several rounds of breathing room to do whatever you want. Sometimes all you need is a 5' step.
Now you have to tell me how a fighter is supposed to protect a Wizard? Unless every single combat map has a chokepoint, it's not going to stop melee attacks (and some monsters still have Reach you know) and even in a chokepoint map they can't do anything about spells or ranged attacks.
I can tell you how a Wizard does it. He uses battlefield control spells to funnel melee monsters away or puts up barriers so that ranged attacks and spells can't target him. Sometimes he casts a spell like Blink and gets a 50% immunity to physical damage AND spells.
But how does a Fighter do it!?!?!?!
Summon is a full round cast.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/summon-monster-iSo you stand there and do nothing but cast while what your fighting gets on top of you. The summon doesn't appear until next round, where you designate it. So fail meat shield.
Some buff spells last awhile, but most of the good ones are at best minutes per level, if not rounds. So you spent a round casting those while big baddie moves up on you?
And if big baddie doesn't have reach, 5 foot works fine. If big baddie is on top of you, are you planning on making a tumble check?
First round fighter moves up and does damage, while engaging the creature 30 to 60 feet away from the rest of the party and buying you a safe round to cast.
Next round fighter does a full attack.
Not saying the fighter is better, but the game is played in rounds and the question of what you are doing round by round is a valid one. One that you have not answered.
|
|
One thing we found was increasing casting times to full round actions. That helps.
Houstonderek wants to use 1E spell effects, dangers and all. I am undecided about that. Scry and die IS harder if you have a chance of splattering yourself all over the place as well.
Don't forget all the other wonderful effects. Some of which, admittedly, aren't melee friendly. Like Haste aging the recipient a year. Twenty or thirty Haste spells, and you'll be wishing potions of longevity grew on trees. Wish aged the caster ten years, I believe.
Furthermore, if you wanted to summon something useful, you had to go through all kinds of crap. And even then it wasn't even close to 100% you'd succeed.
The worst offender in any 3.x/Pf game is the standard action to cast BS. Especially if the spell involves a somatic component. 3.x/Pf reasoning (I suppose): Wizard has to make all these gestures to cast, but still has enough time afterward to move 30'. Fighter can swing one time and move 30'. Because, as we all know, altering reality is much less taxing than swinging a sword.
|
|
Houstonderek wants to use 1E spell effects, dangers and all. I am undecided about that. Scry and die IS harder if you have a chance of splattering yourself all over the place as well.My experience with 1E... it didn't change much, except the whole campaign just randomly ended sometimes -- which I wouldn't consider an improvement.
I'm sure there are players out there who were afraid enough of 1E/2E teleport gone wrong to avoid using it, but I never encountered any.
(Along similar lines, I once saw a 2E campaign randomly end when a pivotal character with 99% chance to survive resurrection rolled the double-ought. Right about there I decided that was terrible game design, or at least, intended for a type of game that no one I knew was playing.)
Yeah, I know. Risk is no fun. Hello story time.
|
|
Not at all. I point out the points that it suffers -- like the fact that with 82,000gp and level 11 the best spells you are going to have is level 6 with a DC of 28, you only have 3 of those 6th level spells, and the average creature is going to have a 45% chance of success against those spells.
What that you would fight at level 11 has +16 in its worst save?
Although, that being said, for the theoretical all-full-caster party, a half and half chance of success for the toughest single creatures you'd face is plenty good -- your chances of making 4 of those saves each round for very long aren't great.
I would agree about the saves, as you are looking at +14 for the good save by chart for CR 11.
But I also point at Stone Golem.
The point is the Wizard has to play in context just like everyone else, and it still has two low saves and the least hit points in the game.
Yep. Tensor grabs some cannon fodder to help save Mordenkainen. When the cannon fodder takes out the exactly one thing in Maure Castle the wizards can't handle, well, one was dead already and the other just got sent home...
To mid and high level wizards, fighters are just caltrops they throw in the way of the (very few) things they cannot handle.
Summon is a full round cast.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/summon-monster-iSo you stand there and do nothing but cast while what your fighting gets on top of you. The summon doesn't appear until next round, where you designate it. So fail meat shield.
Some buff spells last awhile, but most of the good ones are at best minutes per level, if not rounds. So you spent a round casting those while big baddie moves up on you?
And if big baddie doesn't have reach, 5 foot works fine. If big baddie is on top of you, are you planning on making a tumble check?
First round fighter moves up and does damage, while engaging the creature 30 to 60 feet away from the rest of the party and buying you a safe round to cast.
Next round fighter does a full attack.
Not...
And why is the monster stopping? How did you buy that round?
Basically, you are saying that the DM has stopped and decided to make your Fighter relevant by stopping the monster.
As a Wizard, you might be taking that Acrobatics check (remember, this is Pathfinder so the skill is Acrobatics and not Tumble). You cross-class it because this is Pathfinder and cross-classing is awesome AND you are a wizard and have lots and lots of skill points and you expect to be provoking AoOs sometimes.
Maybe you just take the AoO. Who cares? Taking a single attack is par for the course in combat. The monster might miss and the AoO won't stop your move. This is Pathfinder and chances are good that you have a lot of HPs and are wearing a magic mithril Breastplate.
And you never summon on round 1.... because it's a full round action and you should be buffing or using combat control to buy yourself and the party several rounds of attacks or blanket resistances to attack like blindness. Summons are just for flat damage when a monster is already boned by your other spells or you are doing a surprise attack.
Just by taking a move you can reduce a monster's attacks on you to 1-2 a round, and maybe even 0 attacks if you move faster than the monster and can consistently make a Acrobatics check, and the whole time you can cast spells.
|
|
And why is the monster stopping? How did you buy that round?
Basically, you are saying that the DM has stopped and decided to make your Fighter relevant by stopping the monster.
As a Wizard, you might be taking that Acrobatics check (remember, this is Pathfinder so the skill is Acrobatics and not Tumble). You cross-class it because this is Pathfinder and cross-classing is awesome AND you are a wizard and have lots and lots of skill points and you expect to be provoking AoOs sometimes.
Maybe you just take the AoO. Who cares? Taking a single attack is par for the course in combat. The monster might miss and the AoO won't stop your move. This is Pathfinder and chances are good that you have a lot of HPs and are wearing a magic mithril Breastplate.
And you never summon on round 1.... because it's a full round action and you should be buffing or using combat control to buy yourself and the party several rounds of attacks or blanket resistances to attack like blindness. Summons are just for flat damage when a monster is already boned by your other spells or you are doing a surprise attack.
Just by taking a move you can reduce a monster's attacks on you to 1-2 a round, and maybe even 0 attacks if you move faster than the monster and can consistently make a Acrobatics check, and the whole time you can cast spells.
The monster is stopping to hit me, because I'm hitting him in the face with a sword.
Also, the monster can't charge through me, because I am an enemy, so it can move, but probably not move and attack.
And if you damage while casting, you have penalties to cast.
And are you taking arcane spell failure chances in armor or have you taken 4 feats (light armor proficiency, Medium Armor Proficiency, Arcane Armor Training, Arcane Armor Mastery) and not worrying about your swift actions? Not to mention movement and armor check penalties for wearing that armor.
Speaking of which, what is your acrobatics skill? I mean you get points for your high Int, but only 2 naturally and Acrobatics is not a class skill for you. Is Dex your secondary focus or something?
This is why we ask for builds. When there is no baseline you can claim you have everything.
And the Wizard and Fighter are complementary to each other, one can soak and keep baddies off the other while it casts.How do fighters do that in 3.X, exactly? In 4e they "mark" people (which I find distasteful), but what can they do reliably in Pathfinder to keep monsters from just going over/around/past them?
Kirth,
|
|
The go around stuff
I don't think we disagree on much of what you posted, except for the go around stuff.
Keep in mind that you can do a good amount of damage on a single attack in pathfinder if you are a melee player, and over run is going to provoke AoO. And even then it is against CMD, which is high for melee classes.
Casting and SLA is why you get close as a fighter, to put them at risk when they are casting by casting on the defensive or forcing them to move and cast.
And flight is what it is and why fly potions were invented.
And the Wizard and Fighter are complementary to each other, one can soak and keep baddies off the other while it casts.How do fighters do that in 3.X, exactly? In 4e they "mark" people (which I find distasteful), but what can they do reliably in Pathfinder to keep monsters from just going over/around/past them?Kirth,
** spoiler omitted **I hope you don't mind if I reply to your comment towards Kirth with my own thoughts Anthony.
It's a cool idea, but personally I hate the thought of it burning up an immediate action (aka the next turns swift action) AND movement from the next round at the same time. The immediate action expense should be sufficient, it still restricts you to using the option once per turn.
It looks that way at first glance, but the round does assume that everything's happening more or less simultaneously. If it were implemented how you present it, if someone moves, any pursuer actually gets more actions during the round and that doesn't seem fair. All this would do is allow you to take part of your turn's worth of actions a little earlier than you normally would. If the thought of it burning an immediate action is distasteful, then it could be just a free action allowable only once per turn, and it would still forgo the equivalent action on your next turn.
You ran up on a monster with either a charge attack or a Vital strike, and probably hit him harder with your attack then he can with any of his.
And he's going to IGNORE you? What?!?
He goes around you, he takes an AoO. Full TH, full dmg. OVerruns you...good chance it won't succeed, AoO, full th, takes dmg.
Then, while you waste your action crossing the room and maybe getting a swipe at the guy in robes over there, this guy behind you charges you again and more then likely kills you with his third attack at full TH and dmg.
You've accomplished exactly nothing and you are dead. What intelligent foe is going to do that? If it full attacks off the wizard, the Fighter definitely gets a full attack and will surely kill it dead with full force iteratives.
That guy in the yellow jacket is obstruction for the guy with the shotgun. He's also got a knife in his hand. You ignore him, he's going to kill you. He's also potentially a martial artist...you ignore him, he's going to kill you. The guy with the shotgun is a problem you can run from, use the body in front of you to ward against, or retreat from.
You deal with the immediate threat, you don't metagame. If you start playing this game as a math puzzle, I'm afraid you probably shouldn't be playing it at all.
==Aelryinth
** spoiler omitted **
What I've done is (a) allow half move and full attack; and (b) allow any movement/attacks not used on your turn to be "saved up" for use as preemptive actions later in the round. Almost like holding an action, but you don't have to declare it in advance, and it doesn't screw up the rest of your turn.
So a 6th level fighter with speed 30 ft. could attack once and then wait; when a monster tries to get around him he can immediately move 15 ft. to intercept and attack again, for example.
Ok, let's outline all your mistakes at one at a time:
The monster is stopping to hit me, because I'm hitting him in the face with a sword.
No he's not. He can do whatever he wants, and he actually has an incentive to not let you full attack him.
This is not an MMO and there are no hate mechanics.
Also, the monster can't charge through me, because I am an enemy, so it can move, but probably not move and attack.
Yeh, it can move and attack, even if that attack is just to attack the Fighter and then move on to the Wizard. The Fighter can't stop that because none of his abilities do that.
Then on Round 2 it can charge because the fighter is not going to be able to reposition himself in front of the monster again.
Of course, this is if the monster is not faster than 30 or flying or any other thing that makes it super easy to ignore the Fighter.
And if you damage while casting, you have penalties to cast.
Reread these rules, since they only apply when you are casting a full round spell or someone readies an action to interrupt you or you are taking continuous damage like from a spell effect.
You can cast standard action spells and not even worry about losing a spell in most circumstances (see list above).
And are you taking arcane spell failure chances in armor or have you taken 4 feats (light armor proficiency, Medium Armor Proficiency, Arcane Armor Training, Arcane Armor Mastery) and not worrying about your swift actions? Not to mention movement and armor check penalties for wearing that armor.
So? Pathfinder doesn't have any good Swift action spells and four feats is nothing when compared to the giant stack of AC you get.
Speaking of which, what is your acrobatics skill? I mean you get points for your high Int, but only 2...
Reread the Pathfinder skill rules. Cross-classing means you don't get a +3 bonus. Unlike 3.5, you don't have to spend skillpoints for 2 to 1. So at 8th level you have 8 ranks and it cost you 8 skill points.
And really, who cares? If you roll well you avoid the AoO automatically and if you fail the roll the AoO happens (and still has to hit your AC and is still pretty meaningless because even a Wizard can take a few hits).
---------------------------
So yeh. You think Fighters can do something they can't. They can't be meatshields unless your DM decides to play along.
** spoiler omitted **What I've done is (a) allow half move and full attack; and (b) allow any movement/attacks not used on your turn to be "saved up" for use as preemptive actions later in the round. Almost like holding an action, but you don't have to declare it in advance, and it doesn't screw up the rest of your turn.
So a 6th level fighter with speed 30 ft. could attack once and then wait; when a monster tries to get around him he can immediately move 15 ft. to intercept and attack again, for example.
Yeah, I think I've seen you post that a few times before. Doesn't it get a little wonky with certain monsters though, like say a Purple Worm?
You ran up on a monster with either a charge attack or a Vital strike, and probably hit him harder with your attack then he can with any of his.
And he's going to IGNORE you? What?!?
He goes around you, he takes an AoO. Full TH, full dmg. OVerruns you...good chance it won't succeed, AoO, full th, takes dmg.
Yeh, you really will.
The Wizard is lightly armored and can STEAL YOUR SOUL. The Fighter is heavily armored and almost impossible to hurt and MIGHT wound you.
Taking a full attack while attacking a much more dangerous enemy that you have a chance at hurting certainly beats dying to a full attack against an enemy you can barely scratch because it's covered head to toe in Full Plate.
Anything with an Int of 3 or better will be making rational choices.
|
|
Ok, let's outline all your mistakes at one at a time:
Point by Point
1. As Aelryinth explained above, it makes no sense for a monster to take AoO to go around, when he gets a full round attack on the thing standing in front of him.
2. The monster has to go around the Fighter. It can not go through the fighter. This means AoO and no charging. Pull out some miniatures and game paper and see how having an obstacle that hits you for siginficant damage can be problematic.
3. The Damage while casting was in response to you saying you may not worry about the casting on the defensive penalties and just take the AoO. I may have misunderstood you, but that was how I read what you were saying you were going to do. Casting on the Defensive isn't easy in Pathfinder (15+level of the spell) until you get to high levels, and even then it isn't 100%. So you always risk doing absolutely nothing on your round but being vulnerable if you fail the check.
4. If sacrificing 4 feats means nothing to you, more power to you, sir. But you can't get there until 7th level, at the earliest. And if as a wizard you don't see the value or swift actions...well then again you've burned 4 feats on armor so maybe you don't have the feats to use on metamagic anyway.
5. Yes, but there is still a max ranks per level, and Tumble rules changed to go off CMD, not a fixed number. So if you aren't getting the Dex bonus, you are going to be pouring Skill points in and still be behind. Not to mention not putting it into your knowledge skills like most casters so you know the resistances of what your fighting to avoid wasting spells that won't work.
Anything I missed?
Except they don't get more actions. They have an immediate action (which comes out of the swift action the next turn.)
Action economy is maintained if it's just the immediate action cost. Action economy is stacked against the pursuer if both cost.
I will consider the 'reaction' (free action outside your turn) option. It would be more appealing if there weren't a limit to how many times you could do it though (except the amount of movement you have to spare)
I see where you're coming from. But consider this:
Dude #1 takes a move action to move 30' away from dude #2.
Dude #2 uses an immediate action to move 30' to remain adjacent to dude #1.
It is now dude #2's turn.
If the immediate action doesn't burn a move action on Dude #2's turn, he just got a "free" move. He can now full-attack or use a standard action and then take another move.
|
|
You ran up on a monster with either a charge attack or a Vital strike, and probably hit him harder with your attack then he can with any of his.
And he's going to IGNORE you? What?!?
He goes around you, he takes an AoO. Full TH, full dmg. OVerruns you...good chance it won't succeed, AoO, full th, takes dmg.
Yeh, you really will.
The Wizard is lightly armored and can STEAL YOUR SOUL. The Fighter is heavily armored and almost impossible to hurt and MIGHT wound you.
Taking a full attack while attacking a much more dangerous enemy that you have a chance at hurting certainly beats dying to a full attack against an enemy you can barely scratch because it's covered head to toe in Full Plate.
Anything with an Int of 3 or better will be making rational choices.
At 15th level it gets Trap the Soul at the cost of 1000 per HD of the creature (so in the 15k range) which will fail and shatter on a spell resistance or a will save.
At the same level any fighter worth their salt is doing over 200 damage on a full round attack, and over 50 on a single attack with Vital Strike, Greater Weapon Specialization, etc...
Back to the "I can do everything" approach, which is why posting a build is needed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, let's outline all your mistakes at one at a time:Point by Point
1. As Aelryinth explained above, it makes no sense for a monster to take AoO to go around, when he gets a full round attack on the thing standing in front of him.
Sure it does. Why waste attacks on a heavily armored guy who MIGHT wound you when there are scary lightly armored Wizards who can steal your soul also attacking you? Do you want to waste attacks not hitting the heavy armor guy?
Anything smart enough to see "Wizard" is not taking out the impossible to hit guy first.
Most monsters are smart. I'm not even joking. There is a good chance your griffin is as smart as your fighter. I mean, the Griffon can understand Common even if it doesn't have a mouth to speak with. It could be a playable character.
I do understand your point though, and I'd expect animals or mindless creatures like vermin to respond to the nearest and not most dangerous threat... but then I'm not threatened by vermin or animals.
2. The monster has to go around the Fighter. It can not go through the fighter. This means AoO and no charging. Pull out some miniatures and game paper and see how having an obstacle that hits you for siginficant damage can be problematic.
Pull out your own minis, dude. Walking around a Fighter is easy and all it costs you is an AoO that might not hit (heck, you might not even get that if the monster has Acrobatics). Considering that preventing you from doing a Full attack is in it's best interest I think it might do that.
The monster can also Overrun you as part of a charge, and depending how far off the RNG it's CMD is that might be a better option.
3. The Damage while casting was in response to you saying you may not worry about the casting on the defensive penalties and just take the AoO. I may have misunderstood you, but that was how I read what you were saying you were going to do. Casting on the Defensive isn't easy in Pathfinder (15+level of the spell) until you get to high levels, and even then it isn't 100%. So you always risk doing absolutely nothing on your round but being vulnerable if you fail the check.
Casting on the Defensive? Have you ever seen someone play a spellcaster?
Seriously.
You move and cast. Always. You do that because casting defensively is a chance to lose the spell AND you might get AoOed AND you are in range of monsters who might full attack you. None of those are good and it's better to just take a potential AoO and definitely get a a spell off.
4. If sacrificing 4 feats means nothing to you, more power to you, sir. But you can't get there until 7th level, at the earliest. And if as a wizard you don't see the value or swift actions...well then again you've burned 4 feats on armor so maybe you don't have the feats to use on metamagic anyway.
At low level you can't use much metamagic and at medium to high level you have enough feats.
Seriously, have you even looked at spellcasters?
5. Yes, but there is still a max ranks per level, and Tumble rules changed to go off CMD, not a fixed number. So if you aren't getting the Dex bonus, you are going to be pouring Skill points in and still be behind. Not to mention not putting it into your knowledge skills like most casters so you know the resistances of what your fighting to avoid wasting spells that won't work.
Look, it works like this: you don't need a good check because failure simply means you take the AoO. Getting any check at all is a bonus, so if your Dex is only 12 or 14 it doesn't matter.
And as a Wizard you have a lot of skill points... far more than you can spend on useful things.
Anything I missed?
Yes, you missed the part where the Fighter can't prevent the monster from using spells or ranged attacks or special attacks. So like the main offensive abilities of like 80% of published monsters.
At 15th level it gets Trap the Soul at the cost of 1000 per HD of the creature (so in the 15k range) which will fail and shatter on a spell resistance or a will save.
At the same level any fighter worth their salt is doing over 200 damage on a full round attack, and over 50 on a single attack with Vital Strike, Greater Weapon Specialization, etc...
But the monster doesn't know what a particular Wizard can do, making them an infinitely more terrifying threat than a Fighter.
A Fighter can only kill you. A Wizard can potentially turn you into a slave, a statue, kill you, trap you, turn you into a fluffy bunny.... the list goes on and on and that's only the things they actually can do. In the setting, they probably tell much worse tall tales about Wizards.
Anything with an Int of 3 or better will be making rational choices.
Why? Intelligence 3 creatures aren't bright at all. Besides, what if they have a Wisdom of 3 also? What if they are chaotic? What if they only fight in large groups? What if they prefer to fight solo? What if they prefer hit-and-run tactics? What if they live by the credo "might makes right?"
I really think that part of the problem here is that you are assuming all opponents are the same while many of us think that it's much more interesting to have kobolds fight differently than orc which fight differently than trolls which fight differently than dragons, etc.
Also, what if the rational choice is to deal with the guy who just hit you for 40 points of damage in a single hit and you only had 60 hit points to begin with? What if the rational choice is to stop the guy who not only just struck you for 40 points of damage but also managed to throw you to the ground? What if the rational choice is to stop the fighter from moving you from where you are to where the piss-off barbarian is at who has a full-attack action waiting?
I think you presume way too much. I also think you would find yourself horribly surprised in a different campaign.
I think you presume way too much. I also think you would find yourself horribly surprised in a different campaign.
Um, in a "different" campaign where the monsters go out of their way to not attack wizards, I'm fairly certain he would be surprised, but less horrified and more "haha really" about it, seeing as how youre just making wizards better.
Sure it does. Why waste attacks on a heavily armored guy who MIGHT wound you when there are scary lightly armored Wizards who can steal your soul also attacking you? Do you want to waste attacks not hitting the heavy armor guy?
Anything smart enough to see "Wizard" is not taking out the impossible to hit guy first.Most monsters are smart. I'm not even joking. There is a good chance your griffin is as smart as your fighter. I mean, the Griffon can understand Common even if it doesn't have a mouth to speak with. It could be a playable character.
I do understand your point though, and I'd expect animals or mindless creatures like vermin to respond to the nearest and not most dangerous threat... but then I'm not threatened by vermin or animals.
I suggest you take a closer look at the Bestiary. The griffon, since it's your example, has an Intelligence of 5. Unlikely to happen to the fighter since the lowest he's going to start with is a 7 and even then most players won't do that.
Oh, and why would most monsters see "wizard." I don't know about you, but the games I play in don't have big glowing class names over the characters.
Also, why deal with the fighter, or monk, or rogue, or whatever non-godlike caster is there? Maybe because they can. If the wizard is so powerful that no one can withstand his awesomeness, why fight him when you can fight some worthless mook and survive? That would be the smarter tactic. If I can't harm the wizard because he's unstoppable, then perhaps I should focus on something else I can handle. (Note that this is not how I feel but is a response to the inane assumption that the monsters should fight the most powerful enemy.)
Pull out your own minis, dude. Walking around a Fighter is easy and all it costs you is an AoO that might not hit (heck, you might not even get that if the monster has Acrobatics). Considering that preventing you from doing a Full attack is in it's best interest I think it might do that.
The monster can also Overrun you as part of a charge, and depending how far off the RNG it's CMD is that might be a better option.
So when the fighter trips you and the rest of the party gets to take their attacks of opportunity, possibly two if the fighter wasn't alone and they have Combat Reflexes, how exactly did the monster get around the fighter? Let's not worry about what feats the fighter has. Instead let's just look at distance. If the enemy started 30 feet away (your number given earlier) and the fighter ran up there, how does the monster get to the wizard? He needs to move around the fighter which adds at least 10 feet to the distance. Now the monster, which couldn't charge, is not near the wizard nor the fighter. I thought that every monster with a 3 Intelligence makes only rational choice. That doesn't sound rational to me.
Casting on the Defensive? Have you ever seen someone play a spellcaster?
Seriously.You move and cast. Always. You do that because casting defensively is a chance to lose the spell AND you might get AoOed AND you are in range of monsters who might full attack you. None of those are good and it's better to just take a potential AoO and definitely get a a spell off.
So there is no chance that the wizard's enemy has Step Up? There is no chance that the enemy readied an action? There is no way, ever, under any circumstances, that the wizard will ever need to cast defensively? Maybe you need a different DM who actually challenges you.
At low level you can't use much metamagic and at medium to high level you have enough feats.
Seriously, have you even looked at spellcasters?
Seriously, are you going to address the issue?
Look, it works like this: you don't need a good check because failure simply means you take the AoO. Getting any check at all is a bonus, so if your Dex is only 12 or 14 it doesn't matter.
And as a Wizard you have a lot of skill points... far more than you can spend on useful things.
I may be at a loss here but how is the wizard able to put all his points into the Knowledge skills, fly, and acrobatics, and whatever other skill you think should be added. He has 2+Intelligence. Even if he started with a 20 Intelligence, he has filled his skill slots with Knowledge skills. There are 6 Knowledge skills that give information on the enemy. You will want to keep that maxed out so that you can always know what to cast. How many more points can you spend?
Yes, you missed the part where the Fighter can't prevent the monster from using spells or ranged attacks or special attacks. So like the main offensive abilities of like 80% of published monsters.
So the fighter can't use his feats? He can't Trip, Grapple, or anything else? There isn't a chance that the fighter uses his actions wisely? There is no chance at all that the fighter didn't just critically hit that monster and cause it to be blinded, stunned, staggered, or any of a number of other effects? There isn't a chance that the fighter has Stand Still? If you are going to assume that the wizard can do anything then you should assume the fighter can use his abilities as well. Oh, and where do you get that 80% from? I would love to see the math on that.
Yeah, I know. Risk is no fun. Hello story time.
Interesting risk is fun.
The campaign randomly ending because a bad teleport throws a TPK isn't interesting. It's just stupid. It's even more stupid than the game systems in which your character can die permanently during character creation. Either way, thanks for wastin my time for no good reason, game designer.
We all have different tipping points for it, but if at some point playability didn't override worship of the almighty risk the only game you or anyone would be playing would be Russian Roulette -- if not for very long.
So? Pathfinder doesn't have any good Swift action spells and four feats is nothing when compared to the giant stack of AC you get.
... Quicken Spell?
I'm struggling to find an angle by which it's possible to actually play a spellcaster in this game and yet still have that blind spot.
So? Pathfinder doesn't have any good Swift action spells and four feats is nothing when compared to the giant stack of AC you get.... Quicken Spell?
I'm struggling to find an angle by which it's possible to actually play a spellcaster in this game and yet still have that blind spot.
Quicken spell is very expensive, and by the time you can use it you shouldn't. For example, around 9th level you still need those 5th level slots.
Around 15th and 16th level when it's more viable, you can get your swift action back by wearing lesser armor and using more magical equipment for your AC. Of course, by then it's just silly because few enemies even last a full round.
Basically, unless you've found a way to get Quicken for free it's not worth it.
Quicken spell is very expensive, and by the time you can use it you shouldn't. For example, around 9th level you still need those 5th level slots.
Around 15th and 16th level when it's more viable, you can get your swift action back by wearing lesser armor and using more magical equipment for your AC. Of course, by then it's just silly because few enemies even last a full round.
Basically, unless you've found a way to get Quicken for free it's not worth it.
Huh.
To me Quicken starts seeming viable more around 12th.
I mostly give up on AC entirely as a pure caster, and by the double digit levels I've given up on it for sure. In 3.X some AC was valuable to keep power attacking monsters honest, but in PF I don't see even that much use to it. YMMV.
Sure it does. Why waste attacks on a heavily armored guy who MIGHT wound you when there are scary lightly armored Wizards who can steal your soul also attacking you? Do you want to waste attacks not hitting the heavy armor guy?
Anything smart enough to see "Wizard" is not taking out the impossible to hit guy first.Most monsters are smart. I'm not even joking. There is a good chance your griffin is as smart as your fighter. I mean, the Griffon can understand Common even if it doesn't have a mouth to speak with. It could be a playable character.
I do understand your point though, and I'd expect animals or mindless creatures like vermin to respond to the nearest and not most dangerous threat... but then I'm not threatened by vermin or animals.
I suggest you take a closer look at the Bestiary. The griffon, since it's your example, has an Intelligence of 5. Unlikely to happen to the fighter since the lowest he's going to start with is a 7 and even then most players won't do that.
Oh, and why would most monsters see "wizard." I don't know about you, but the games I play in don't have big glowing class names over the characters.
Also, why deal with the fighter, or monk, or rogue, or whatever non-godlike caster is there? Maybe because they can. If the wizard is so powerful that no one can withstand his awesomeness, why fight him when you can fight some worthless mook and survive? That would be the smarter tactic. If I can't harm the wizard because he's unstoppable, then perhaps I should focus on something else I can handle. (Note that this is not how I feel but is a response to the inane assumption that the monsters should fight the most powerful enemy.)
...Pull out your own minis, dude. Walking around a Fighter is easy and all it costs you is an AoO that might not hit (heck, you might not even get that if the monster has Acrobatics). Considering that preventing you from doing a Full attack is in it's best interest I think it might do that.
The monster can also Overrun you as
You seem to be joking. Monsters intelligent enough to have language should ignore the lightly armored foes that are observably casting spells that are obviously dangerous so they can waste their actions on the heavily armored foes they can't hit?
Perhaps you are the one is not being challenged by the DM.
And yes, fighters do occasionally have the ability to actually control a monster. Rarely.
Pathdfinder made it a lot harder to successfully Trip and Grapple in their new system (and take a look at the number of monsters in the PRD who can't even be tripped).... and grappling means you aren't damaging in a meaningful way... and hoping for a crit at extremely high levels(13th-17th) when the Wizard is blasting things willy nilly and has more slots than he can use....
You're grasping at straws and seem to be basing your calculations on Hill Giants and Trolls when the enemies of the world look more like dragons.... fast and with more than enough abilities to ignore the Fighters of the world.
I mean, a demon simply teleports around a Fighter to attack whoever he wants.... a beholder fires multiply ranged save or dies or other battle ending spells.....heck, even hill giants can simply throw rocks.
My suggestion is to play in some tournaments with other DMs and other players. When there isn't a DM catering monsters to your weaknesses, the game plays quite differently.
Someone should really just tweak a ranged fighter to specialize in the guns from the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign setting with the explosive dice rule. It would be interesting to see if a wizard can, in fact, stop a rifle bullet to the skull fired from prone sniper position approximately 2250 feet away.
Bonus points if the sniper somehow does it while the wizard's preparing spells for the day.
My guess is a resounding 'maybe.'
Actually you proved my point. Thank you. Having three 7s in a character is making a character that is functionally retarded.
There is one thing here that is functionally retarded, and it is the idea that one of wizard archetypes (physically frail and arrogant jerk) is somehow out of place in the game that popularized this archetype.
(Now, playing a character like this still can be wrong for other reasons. But never because it is unfit for the system).
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.
We already know, that you are tyrannical and unreasonable GM. Discussing players' desire to win the game as if it was something negative was a dead giveaway. So you can stop reminding everyone.
|
|
Actually you proved my point. Thank you. Having three 7s in a character is making a character that is functionally retarded.There is one thing here that is functionally retarded, and it is the idea that one of wizard archetypes (physically frail and arrogant jerk) is somehow out of place in the game that popularized this archetype.
(Now, playing a character like this still can be wrong for other reasons. But never because it is unfit for the system).
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.We already know, that you are tyrannical and unreasonable GM. Discussing players' desire to win the game as if it was something negative was a dead giveaway. So you can stop reminding everyone.
I let the bring the build. Then I play the game and make them play the character they made.
Everything works out if you actually follow the rules.
|
|
Stuff
I am not even sure where to begin considering even people on your side think you are ignoring quickened spells, but I'll try.
1 and 2. Fighters do a lot of damage. An AoO isn't something they would just shrug off, and considering the high CMD of a fighter combined with the high attack of a fighter they are likely going to get hit. If a monster wants to not use it's full attack to get one swipe at a caster, it works against the monster.
I also love how even the monsters in your scenario have everything they need to prove your point. Maybe we need to post a monster in addition to post a build...or would that also be a trap.
3. Move and cast doesn't work with reach, unless you want the AoO in addition to being in range of a full round attack next round if you don't kill it outright. A full round attack from a level appropriate Monster meaning as a wizard you are likely dead.
4. You can't even get the 4 feats until 7th level at the earliest due to prerequisites. Guess you aren't worried about needing other feats so you can do things like, you know, fire into combat?
5. At what level would you like me to show how much damage the wizard will take from one attack? There is a chart on page 291 of the Bestiary you can feel free to reference.
Hey Everyone,
Why are people always arguing about how the discrepancy between Wizards (and sometimes casters in general) & Melee characters is still to great? If you want complete balance why do people just not play 4th Edition D&D, they did a great job balancing the classes and the game is terrible. Then the same people argue that role playing is becoming more like playing a video game (especially when it comes to character optimization) and video games strive for THE ULTIMATE BALANCE, especially those MMORPG's.
I suspect in the future they will make all Table Tops where every class is of equal power and equal balance. I play all of the classes and enjoy all of the classes but I wonder if eventually all games will head in the same direction.
-Yeah I know
I think the balance is just fine as it stands. People who complain are. effectively, just being divas.
I like this. Thank you for sharing this, Kirth.
Have You ever considered having a melee "stick" to an opponent (usually it's the other way around) in your house rule thoughts? In other words, expanding the Step Up concept. Basically, I'm thinking if you threaten an opponent you can move as an immediate action to move with them, which takes up your movement in the next round. Taking Pathfinder terms, everyone gets Step Up and No Retreat. It wouldn't be a feat or anything like that; just part of combat rules. I've never liked the stop-and-start feel of turn-based combat (and all the silliness that it creates) and something like this might make it feel less so.What I've done is (a) allow half move and full attack; and (b) allow any movement/attacks not used on your turn to be "saved up" for use as preemptive actions later in the round. Almost like holding an action, but you don't have to declare it in advance, and it doesn't screw up the rest of your turn.
So a 6th level fighter with speed 30 ft. could attack once and then wait; when a monster tries to get around him he can immediately move 15 ft. to intercept and attack again, for example.