|
So offer up a level 20 fighter build that is better than a level 20 Wizard at protecting a party. That's the challenge. Then we can see how things shake out with some CR 18-22 monsters. PRD only.If it doesn't derail into a bloody flamewar we can try other levels.
Wow, you change your stance on arguments faster than I can keep up with. Earlier you were arguing that posting a build was a trap, and now you're demanding people post builds. Seems you're happy to demand the fighting types have builds so you can look over them and tailor your caster to defeat them in a challenge, yet you refuse to build a caster because you believe the fighter types will pick over it and tailor their encounters to defeat them.
You made claims earlier that fighters can't keep monsters off casters so they are useless tanks. Yet you claim casters can do this better because they are summoning monsters. If your GM is running a game where he ignores fighters to target casters, why are his monsters focusing on summoned creatures again?
Arguing for one thing then demanding another has its own definition. You should google it.
I don't quite know what you're referring to when it comes to K and CoDzilla's mindset about builds. Are you talking about not making them? I can empathize with that mindset (if that's what you speak of), since people like you keep demanding a wizard build that can crush everything as the only thing that would sate you.The issue is that they have claimed that the wizard is always prepared and can just cast his "win" spell, whatever that may be. They have actually claimed that the wizard can cast constantly. They have yet to show how this is possible. Until they can post a build that does that, many of us will just assume that they are just arguing to argue and actually have little to no understanding of the system. We want to be proved wrong. I'm willing to bet that the designers would also like to see this so that they can address a real problem with the game. Alas, the problem doesn't really exist.The problem doesn't exist because no one has ever claimed that spellcasters can cast constantly, or that they can beat everything.
Please do a google search on "Strawman Argument". Then come back.
several examples of "First I cast this, then I cast this, then once that happens I cast this and then I finish him off with this"
Its not a big deal, those are steps. You definitely arent the first person to do it that way.
The problem is that it doesnt take into account the opponent reaction at all. Makes it very difficult for anyone to win when you dont take into account 3 rounds of action.
And I have seen the "I use dimension door, then I cast charm person on the erinyes, even though she beat me on initiative." post (not sure if that was you but I am sure that is one example he is reffering to). That didnt take into account her actions at all, really unfair arguement it was.
The point is the I am always prepared arguement wizards propose isnt practical at all. Curve balls happen.
"You walk into an opening and you are greated by two bodaks that surprise you with stealth. Roll two fortitude saves for death. What do the wizards do? they bite the big one and die most likely..."
"No, I had blindsight cast and I knew they would be here so I had a blindfold on"
yes blindsight is a good spell and you might have it prepared but come on lets be realistic here how often do you prepare blindsight and walk around with a blind fold on. (this question is retorical, if I get a common sense comment or a any intelligent wizard would I will sacrifice the small child next to me to a pagan god :) haha)
the small example above is just one example
:S
perpetual counters wizards have for any situation because they have spells for every situation. Spells are very good, but you only get so many a day and so many prepared, claiming to have all your versatility at your feet is overpowered and it usually the way wizards are argued for on these forums.
Metagaming at its worst = wizards on these forums sometimes.
Not that some of your points arent valid, just putting it into perspective. How many arguements have you changed your spell preperation?
I would give you 5 different encounters and tell you pick the same set of spells and you face them all in a day. Then see what happens. I might be convinced then.
The problem doesn't exist because no one has ever claimed that spellcasters can cast constantly, or that they can beat everything.
Please do a google search on "Strawman Argument". Then come back.
It has been claimed often. Very often we read about how the caster would just cast the "I win" spell without actually telling us that that spell is. Of course, most of that comes from CoDzilla (or whatever name he is using). I scrolled back to see where I read that the wizard can cast spells constantly and it wasn't in this thread. I was in another thread. I would have to find it but you are correct that it has not been claimed in this discussion.
I don't think you know what a Strawman Argument is. I really don't. Nothing I have said is a Strawman. The claims are actually made. They aren't that hard to find. You have even misrepresented what we have said, which is most definitely a strawman. We are not making the claim that fighters are better at controlling the enemy. That is not the claim that we have made so arguing against it is the exact definition of a strawman.
...One thing I am wondering.
If a 20th level wizard runs into a hypothetical 20th level melee character with a free cast of Heal every round and will and fort as his good saves (And I mean +28 or better good), does he have the capability to win, and I don't mean that 'OH I TELEPORTED AWAY SO THE CHALLENGE WAS DEALT WITH FULL EXP' win either, I mean actually have a chance against? Let us assume that the hypothetical melee character has access to the standard 20th level capabilities to see invisibility and fly around, because our hypothetical character is smarter than a bag of rocks.
(Would the character in question be considered specialized tactics? Probably. The free heal every round would come from an intelligent item keyed to defeat/slay arcane casters. I would argue however that if wizards and other things with arcane spells are all as infinitely better than all other classes as has been supposed to be correct then the battle tactics used by the world itself would inevitably shift so that gearing towards these 'specialized tactics' become the norm rather than the exception--after all, anything truly difficult (nay, nigh-impossible!) to kill is an arcane caster, so it makes sense to take great pains to get really really good at killing them.)
As absurd as arena/pvp arguments are, I feel like putting my 2cp on this one. The "lolz i run away full xp" isn't so much that as it is: i have now seen you. I will run away, scrye on you, and then teleport to you when you sleep and pre-game you to death.
I think also, in the end, the more arguments like "the fighter could totally have max ranks in UMD and a bunch of scrolls, boots of fly, goggles of true seeing, wand of rope trick" the more that fighter just seems like a poor man's caster or at least that he relies on a caster for all his toys.
But 20th level is a horrible place to balance classes, 7-13 is more the meat and potatoes of this game. As much as I think casters are the bees knees, I like playing melee as is (which means dedicated healers, ick. someone has to take one for the team and be a healbot!) and these levels are the most fun to me in part because it is when the melee start to taper off in usefulness and the casters take over as gods. Start. Really IMO unless you have a lenient DM who lets you buy whatever you want with WBL which I never get, wizards are only the best class not gods until lvl 15 or so.
I would argue however that if wizards and other things with arcane spells are all as infinitely better than all other classes as has been supposed to be correct then the battle tactics used by the world itself would inevitably shift so that gearing towards these 'specialized tactics' become the norm rather than the exception--after all, anything truly difficult (nay, nigh-impossible!) to kill is an arcane caster, so it makes sense to take great pains to get really really good at killing them.)
This is very true. Nobody negates that a 20 level wizard would be crazy powerful. I just do not accept that the gameworld around him wouldn't take it in consideration.
(this counts both ways I guess - probably most being of the gameworld would flee toward any 20 level PC or PNC infamous for being aggressive, incredibly evil or such).
As absurd as arena/pvp arguments are, I feel like putting my 2cp on this one. The "lolz i run away full xp" isn't so much that as it is: i have now seen you. I will run away, scrye on you, and then teleport to you when you sleep and pre-game you to death.
I think also, in the end, the more arguments like "the fighter could totally have max ranks in UMD and a bunch of scrolls, boots of fly, goggles of true seeing, wand of rope trick" the more that fighter just seems like a poor man's caster or at least that he relies on a caster for all his toys.
But 20th level is a horrible place to balance classes, 7-13 is more the meat and potatoes of this game. As much as I think casters are the bees knees, I like playing melee as is (which means dedicated healers, ick. someone has to take one for the team and be a healbot!) and these levels are the most fun to me in part because it is when the melee start to taper off in usefulness and the casters take over as gods. Start. Really IMO unless you have a lenient DM who lets you buy whatever you want with WBL which I never get, wizards are only the best class not gods until lvl 15 or so.
Scry typically requires a piece of the persons either clothing or hair... you going to go claim that?
Also there is a will save, even if they are sleeping and if I was a fighter I might have an anti-scrying something around to help with that problem. Warlords can be paranoid too after all. (not trying to metagame here just saying if you are going to throw out random spells I am going to point out why its unfair to say that)
The whole sleeping trick thing is not a good arguement. Again cowardly and putting wizard on autowin. Everyone wins if you kill in sleep.
The only reason the PF wizard (and, to a lesser extent, other casters) cannot yet be prepared for everything, period, until maybe very high levels, is relative lack of PF supplements compared to 3.5. That's if you're willing to admit that claims of backwards compatibility always were a lie.
But you don't need to be prepared for everything, period, or incapable of being challenged, to be wildly unbalanced. You just need to be better prepared than other guys. And, notably, every single challenge proposed to screw over wizards, screws over everyone else as well. And often even worse.
For example, let's look at the "many weak encounters to wear down the wizard" supposed solution. In 3.5 I laughed at endurance dungeon runs, as you could get AC 24 at level 5 from 10 min/level and longer spells alone (then add some more from Dex, mythril buckler and whatever) and then just throw alchemist fire flasks at mooks who cannot hurt you save on nat 20 (and this is not theory, that's how one of my wizards became the party tank in the actual play). If mooks generally take too much hits to drop, shoot cheap wands that you picked from loot/made yourself. Now, this approach did not appear in the actual play all too often, because endurance-fests against hordes of mooks were atypical. But it was - and I believe still is in PF, although, for now, to a lesser extent - a totally wiable way to endure the mook waves. And the wizard did not need any permanent investments to use it.
Alternatively, the wizard can just use invisibility to bypass everyone. I didn't use this, because I had a party with my PC, but it is possible.
But what a fighter can do when faced with gradual attrition by enemies, who actually can hit him on numbers other than nat 20, because his AC is only around 20 or so at low levels? Sure, he has more HPs, but his HPs bleed away far faster. Unless mooks are beefy enough to require several hits of whatever the wizard uses, the fighter's only advantage is relative resistance to critdeath.
The only reason the PF wizard (and, to a lesser extent, other casters) cannot yet be prepared for everything, period, until maybe very high levels, is relative lack of PF supplements compared to 3.5. That's if you're willing to admit that claims of backwards compatibility always were a lie.
Backward compatibility means that I can add a spell, a feat or a monster from 3.0/3.5 with little or no tweak.
Does not mean that all the crap that broke 3.5 can work. Well, they DO work but are likely to brek the game again.
I really don't get why is so difficult to get, unless one wants to bash PF because it's fun :P
I agree that more books will raise the risk, because of an unwanted effect, or a spell that cames out as being, say, the new Celerity.
...One thing I am wondering.
If a 20th level wizard runs into a hypothetical 20th level melee character with a free cast of Heal every round and will and fort as his good saves (And I mean +28 or better good), does he have the capability to win,
Even assuming these - and this is quite a far assumption in PF, where saves suffered, so the target always or nearly always making them is no longer a standard assumption for high-level, high-optimization play - just command your current set of minions to kill and spam Enervation. Or disjoin stuff that gives the melee type all that, then kill him with whatever if you're in haste.
wizards are only the best class not gods until lvl 15 or so.
Really, I blame Treantmonk for a generation of wizard flame threads. In his guide he clearly states what he means by wizards being god, yet, that context is lost in the 50,000 arguments about the class. I don't think it really had the same potential for misunderstanding when people were calling the wizard Batman instead.
I agree with meatrace's comment about, mostly -- I think wizards are the strongest / most versatile / most useful class, but it doesn't mean they beat everyone everywhere everytime. (And the greater context for my arguments really is, the wizard should have been made weaker / shouldn't have gotten its tough new class features in PF, not that everyone should always play wizard.)
|
So offer up a level 20 fighter build that is better than a level 20 Wizard at protecting a party. That's the challenge. Then we can see how things shake out with some CR 18-22 monsters. PRD only.If it doesn't derail into a bloody flamewar we can try other levels.
Let me quote you from earlier in this thread.
Thanks for a showing a perfect example.Poster A says: "Wizards and other spellcasters are much better than fighting guys."
Poster B says: "You say Wizard's can do everything against everything! Prove it with a build!"
Poster A says: "No, I didn't say that. Why are you stawmanning me? I just said that Wizards and other spellcasters are objectively better."
Poster B says: "Ha! You can't prove that Wizards can do everything against everything and I proved it or else you would have posted a build. If you posted a build I could come up with a situation where it would lose. I declare victory!"
Poster A says: "Well, of course you could, but I'm not arguing that Wizards can do everything because that's obviously not true. I just said that Wizards and spellcasters are better than fighting guys in all ways."
Poster B: "See! He can't even post a build because he knows I could beat his character!"
Poster A: "OK, I'm not following this thread anymore because you are not arguing rationally."
Poster B says: "Haha! He left so I declare victory again!
There seriously is a limited number of times you need to do that before you realize it's a trap. For reference, see in the earlier part of the thread where a post offered three situations and tried to get me to beat them with one Wizard when I was talking about a party of spellcasters. That ended up not being productive."
You are being a hypocrite. I will post a build when you post a build. Put it behind spoilers if you want.
But it isn't about builds. It is about the fact that you don't know the rules and have no idea what a fighter can do in Pathfinder because you've never played one.
In addition, you don't seem to read spells when you reference them, so I'm betting you don't read them when you play and your DM doesn't know the rules that limit casters effectiveness.
I respect some of the other people on your side of the argument, even if I disagree with them, because they are consistent and have a good grasp of the rules.
You change positions faster than a porn star, just trying to "win" rather than figure something out and discuss it.
You said earlier that reading rules is boring to you. It shows.
|
|
If I took the time I could throw out a Two Handed Build that had disruptive, spellbreaker, teleport tactician and stepup, following step, step up and strike.
I'm pretty sure K would say it didn't work.
We're not gonna convince him guys. Don't try.
And with these he would still have Between 16 and 17 more feats left.
On your large point, it is a party based game. Fighters and Wizards are complementary. The fighter keeps baddie off the fragile wizard (while doing damage himself) so the Wizard can use the round to cast spells.
|
|
...One thing I am wondering.
If a 20th level wizard runs into a hypothetical 20th level melee character with a free cast of Heal every round and will and fort as his good saves (And I mean +28 or better good), does he have the capability to win, and I don't mean that 'OH I TELEPORTED AWAY SO THE CHALLENGE WAS DEALT WITH FULL EXP' win either, I mean actually have a chance against? Let us assume that the hypothetical melee character has access to the standard 20th level capabilities to see invisibility and fly around, because our hypothetical character is smarter than a bag of rocks.
(Would the character in question be considered specialized tactics? Probably. The free heal every round would come from an intelligent item keyed to defeat/slay arcane casters. I would argue however that if wizards and other things with arcane spells are all as infinitely better than all other classes as has been supposed to be correct then the battle tactics used by the world itself would inevitably shift so that gearing towards these 'specialized tactics' become the norm rather than the exception--after all, anything truly difficult (nay, nigh-impossible!) to kill is an arcane caster, so it makes sense to take great pains to get really really good at killing them.)
It is about who wins initiative.
My wife rolled up a 12th level gnome cavalier that does 3d8 + 84 damage on a charge attack.
12th level.
There is a severe underestimation of how much damage a melee class can do in a round, even the first round.
I still think it is pretty silly to compare a melee warrior to any caster in 3.X or PF. The greater majority of times the wizards/sorcerors, at least in my experience, spend their daily allotment boosting the effectiveness of their allies with buff spells like haste, changing the condition of the battlefield to favor their allies via walls or clouds, weakening the enemy to make their allies more effective through things such as Crushing Despair, and summoning creatures who can flank as well as use many of the above abilities themselves.
It isn't very often I see "blaster" types used (though it is my guilty pleasure to throw Chain Lightnings with abandon), or even save or lose heavy casters (the DM who runs for me when I'm not running myself tends to use high save enemies, limiting the effectiveness of these spells, so it may just be my group). I find those types of arcanists tend to be better as the omnipotent mad mage in his tower, a BBEG, if you will. They would be more likely to have just the right thing prepared to deal with a situation against a PC than a PC would have specificially geared his allotment to deal with the villian.
On the defense a mage can will likely be aware of PC's running rampant through his home via basic, low level spells: alarm, clairaudience, ect. Or even through underlings. If he has been their villian for a longer period of time and known of them previously he may have scried on them before and thus have a solid understanding of the PC's abilities and general tactics. I find it to be less likely that a PC will have just the solution to any possible situation because he is always prepared for just that thing to happen.
As a PC you simply don't have the wealth and don't have the spells, don't have the skills and don't have the feats to be ready for anything in an instant, that is where the fun of challenges comes into the game. It is a horrid pitfall to assume that a PC wizard can simualtaneously have a ton of defenses constantly active (not to say they won't have long duration spells up - but not as many as I hear people giving them credit for and still having enough spell slots open to be a productive team member), be ready to face any creature while assuming he/she has prior knowledge of it, and have limitless preperation time before combat ensues.
Wizard is one of my favorite classes but I would hesitate to say it is by far superior to melee warriors, it just shines in different ways.
It is there to compliment and assist the team, not BE the team.
I grow tired of hearing:
"You don't need a rogue when a caster can cast Invisibility/Silence/Find Traps."
"You don't need a fighter, the caster can Summon ______, or buff his AC and damage better."
"You don't need a cleric because a caster is better at preventing damage than the cleric is a healing."
And so on and so forth.
And the thing is, all of the above spells and many more have draw backs that people ignore when arguing that a wizard is superior to the other base classes. For example you still have mass when you invis, you still take up space. If you are walking in mud, dirt, grass, snow, dust, and so on you are tracking easily visible footprints. Heck, with heavy enough fog or rain I might even say that it is pretty obvious what square you are in.
The best way for a wizard to "be prepared for anything" is to keep his valued and trusted allies about and have spells prepared to strengthen them to make them even better at what they already do well, while keeping a few interesting spells around to cover what they usually can't do without magical assistance, such as flight and teleportation.
/rant
Being backwards compatible doesn't magically make the system balanced with everything that has ever been released under the OGL.
Good that I didn't mean that, then...
If I can't use my 3.5 books, with exception of stuff that was considered broken for 3.5 as well, though, then the claim of reverse compatibility is BS.
This sounds like a very iffy kind of 'endurance run'. Okay, you can get your AC to 24 using 10 min/level spells. At level 5 that means you might be able to maintain that AC for 2 hours during the day, using up a large portion of your spells. Frankly I think any kind of endurance dungeon run is going to involve encounters throughout the entire day,
And you think wrong. Read some published adventures. Take note how many of them (very few) assume any sort of response to PCs actions that might actually prevent them from resting as much as they care. Also, you need to learn what CR system is for and realize, that if you send more monsters than a certain amount per day against the party, you are murdering PCs by fiat. That's, by the way, is the reason, why few adventures and not many GM actually use mooks that much - they keel over far too easy for their share of daily CR limit they take.
Now, the party is question was quite powerful, and we didn't bother with calculating EXP by the tables, so we destroyed enemies far above and beyond the daily quota, but this didn't break the game. Also, we were nice to our GM and pretended that it is actually crucial to delve as deep as possible as fast as possible. That's why it was an endurance run.
It also breaks down when you encounter something that isn't a mook and can hit AC 24.
Try to read more carefully and you'll notice that 24 was only result of spells (GMA, MCoPfE, Alter Self). The end number was, IIRC, 29 (Grey elf wizard). Take note, that all monsters of equal CR have severe problems hitting that. Many can only on nat 20.
...One thing I am wondering.
If a 20th level wizard runs into a hypothetical 20th level melee character with a free cast of Heal every round and will and fort as his good saves (And I mean +28 or better good), does he have the capability to win,
Even assuming these - and this is quite a far assumption in PF, where saves suffered, so the target always or nearly always making them is no longer a standard assumption for high-level, high-optimization play - just command your current set of minions to kill and spam Enervation. Or disjoin stuff that gives the melee type all that, then kill him with whatever if you're in haste.
Hrm.
Final point before this thread gets all flamey.
Basically, lots of spells are better than Enervation.
Take Color Spray. It's only 1st level and stuns targets in range for 1 round. Even if the enemy saves half the time, you can cast it four times in a four round battle and expect to reduce enemy damage output by an average of 50%.
But I'll stay away from the 1-3rd spells that are better thsn Evervation.
How about Solid Fog. Even in it's neutered Pathfinder form it can split enemy forces for a round by preventing ranged attack AND keeping them in the Fog for a round, wasting several enemy's actions that round. Heck, just making it pop so that the enemy are just in it and you aren't means they take -2 to hit and don't get a 5' step (and you don't face those problems.) Spell Resistance also doesn't affect this, unlike Enervation that has a miss chance AND SR check.
How about Wall of Ice? Again, this is another spell that wastes enemy actions and give you rounds of not being attacked as you concentrate fire or buff, except it also damages enemies breaking through AND can be used as a bridge.
Really, the list goes on and on. Animate Dead for turning high-end enemies into meatshields? Black Tentacles for grappling death AND difficult terrain (also no SR and no save). Greater Invisibility for immunity to targeted spells and 50% miss chance on most attacks? Resilient Sphere for perfect party protection mid-combat or perfect chokepoint blocker?
Charm Monster? Any chance to take an enemy and turn it into combat fodder for ever a single extra combat is awesome. Hands down.
Yeh, when you are reducing enemy effectiveness by half or more with all the other 4th level spells, a average of 12.5 damage and a -2.5 to all rolls from a spell that has a miss chance and SR check is weak sauce.
According to testimony given earlier in the thread, no wizard who was worth his salt would bother taking or preparing Enervation, and Disjunction provides for a will save. However, it suddenly seems incredibly useful, so conveniently the wizard has suddenly prepared it all along despite it being the worst 4th level spell in existence. (And don't give me that 'make a wand/scroll' excuse. Nobody has EVER in the history of D&D made a wand/scroll of enervation, and anyone who says otherwise is lying or CoDzilla.)
So which is it? Is Enervation worth preparing or is it a total waste of time? Is there a response for when the fighter in question decides to break your face by squeezing off a d8+ridiculous bow attack? And what do we do when neither character is in a bubble and both also have full cleric/rogue/(Wizard/fighter) backup? Who wins then? (I believe the answer should be obvious: Whichever one is controlled by the PCs would win, because the story says so, but let us assume that neither one is controlled by PCs.)
And if the wizard gets minions, then the fighter would have to get them too. Let's leave them out of this... I don't want to have to break out the Kingmaker mass combat rules even if it would be awesome.
|
|
And you think wrong. Read some published adventures. Take note how many of them (very few) assume any sort of response to PCs actions that might actually prevent them from resting as much as they care.
First, I disagree with this. If you like, we can pull out any adventure path and go through it encounter by encounter in a spoiler thread.
Second look how many published adventures don't assume you know when and where the combat will take place so that you can buff prior.
So which is it? Is Enervation worth preparing or is it a total waste of time?
Probably, the poster who said it's a waste of time thinks it's a waste of time, and the poster who said it's worth preparing thinks it's worth preparing.
... you are aware that you quoted multiple people, right?
...One thing I am wondering.
If a 20th level wizard runs into a hypothetical 20th level melee character with a free cast of Heal every round and will and fort as his good saves (And I mean +28 or better good), does he have the capability to win,
Even assuming these - and this is quite a far assumption in PF, where saves suffered, so the target always or nearly always making them is no longer a standard assumption for high-level, high-optimization play - just command your current set of minions to kill and spam Enervation. Or disjoin stuff that gives the melee type all that, then kill him with whatever if you're in haste.
Actually a fighter can easily hit saves in the high 20s to low thirties at level 20. At which point the wizard's spells are auto fail.
However wizard vs fighter wasn't exactly the point here.
Wizard versus monster is closer -- at level 20 the monsters have saves in the high 20's on a regular basis. Since the maximum DC a wizard would have is 34 (sorcerer is 36 with arcane bloodline) he's going to have problems getting the spells to stick. That's not accounting for immunities and reactions from the monsters.
At the "mid~high" levels (11~16) the wizard has a problem with his saves (just like the fighter can) and is just as reliant on gear (needing Int boosters, save boosters, spell savers, etc), in addition to the fact the wizard has to prepare his spells thus always as a chance of not having the "right" one prepared for the encounter.
Several of the buffs earlier posters were relying on (invisibility, and displacement for example) have to be cast at the time of combat usually, and if you are using overland flight you only have a move speed of 40. Most of the monsters with fly speeds are faster than that and with other senses (such as blindsense) can simply move to where the wizard was and "scout" with their senses moving until they get the "ping" (Up until they reach their speed) leaving them a standard action to do something to the now exposed wizard.
The fighter will be ready at the start -- his feats and weapon don't take time to cast and his saves/AC/HP will be what they are regardless.
Wizard versus monster is closer -- at level 20 the monsters have saves in the high 20's on a regular basis. Since the maximum DC a wizard would have is 34 (sorcerer is 36 with arcane bloodline) he's going to have problems getting the spells to stick.
If you want to break that down I can tell you what you're missing. (Although I agree you can't get much higher.)
Wizard versus monster is closer -- at level 20 the monsters have saves in the high 20's on a regular basis. Since the maximum DC a wizard would have is 34 (sorcerer is 36 with arcane bloodline) he's going to have problems getting the spells to stick.If you want to break that down I can tell you what you're missing. (Although I agree you can't get much higher.)
DC
10 Base +13(casting stat maximum 36)+9(highest spell level)+2(greater spell focus) =34Maximum stat:
20 (level 1)
+5 (levels)
+5 (book)
+6 (item)
36
Sorcerers of the arcane bloodline can boost the save DC's of one school by 2 at level 15 giving a 36.
DC
10 Base +13(casting stat maximum 36)+9(highest spell level)+2(greater spell focus) =34Maximum stat:
20 (level 1)
+5 (levels)
+5 (book)
+6 (item)
36Sorcerers of the arcane bloodline can boost the save DC's of one school by 2 at level 15 giving a 36.
Off the top of my head:
Obviously some non-arcane sorcerers have similar DC boosts to something, e.g. Infernal/Fey, although that doesn't get higher than what you've outlined, just matches it in an area.
Spell Perfection (that won't be all your spells, but then really neither will spell focus -- and if you pick right it could be a decent hammer to which everything looks like a nail).
Racial boosts such as gnomes with illusion.
Also worth considering is APG's Persistent Spell, which doesn't up DCs but in most cases helps out in the kinds of situations where you care.
|
|
DC
10 Base +13(casting stat maximum 36)+9(highest spell level)+2(greater spell focus) =34Maximum stat:
20 (level 1)
+5 (levels)
+5 (book)
+6 (item)
36Sorcerers of the arcane bloodline can boost the save DC's of one school by 2 at level 15 giving a 36.
Off the top of my head:
Obviously some non-arcane sorcerers have similar DC boosts to something, e.g. Infernal/Fey, although that doesn't get higher than what you've outlined, just matches it in an area.
Spell Perfection (that won't be all your spells, but then really neither will spell focus -- and if you pick right it could be a decent hammer to which everything looks like a nail).
Racial boosts such as gnomes with illusion.
Also worth considering is APG's Persistent Spell, which doesn't up DCs but in most cases helps out in the kinds of situations where you care.
Yes, but at that point you are trying to make the exceptions the rule.
Part of the issue is that "Save or Die" also means if it saves you have wasted a round and a spell.
Illusions don't have the "i win" spells. spell perfection would raise it by 2 giving maximums of 36/38.
Persistent spell doesn't work with 9th level spells -- until you get a greater metamagic rod of it -- which at 20th level is possible of course.
A very specific build oracle/rage prophet could theoretically get an additional +10 (from Con boost to DC Con of 20 to start +6 item +4 book).
Which gives a possible (on one build using a gnome and preferred spell to heighten the spell to 9th and spell perfection to double bonuses) of:
10 base
9 level
13 Cha
10 Con
4 feats
1 racial (if illusion)
47 DC
Illusions don't have the "i win" spells.
Well, Color Spray, Phantasmal Killer, Phantasmal Revenge, and Weird.
Not that any of those would really be my pick for a 20th level wizard, but I've often thought you could get pretty good midlevel mileage out of, say, cranking up your illusion DCs and throwing (possibly Persistant) Phantasmal Killer. It's got two saves but it's lowest level actual Pathfinder SoD I can think of by a fair bit.
(Probably my pick for Spell Perfection would be something like Hold Monster or Flesh to Stone, which each have their limitations but I think you could get some pretty great mileage out of, probably with Persistant and Heighten as part of your free metamagic mix. That actually might make an interesting side-thread.)
Illusions don't have the "i win" spells.Well, Color Spray, Phantasmal Killer, Phantasmal Revenge, and Weird.
Not that any of those would really be my pick for a 20th level wizard, but I've often thought you could get pretty good midlevel mileage out of, say, cranking up your illusion DCs and throwing (possibly Persistant) Phantasmal Killer. It's got two saves but it's lowest level actual Pathfinder SoD I can think of by a fair bit.
(Probably my pick for Spell Perfection would be something like Hold Monster or Flesh to Stone, which each have their limitations but I think you could get some pretty great mileage out of, probably with Persistant and Heighten as part of your free metamagic mix. That actually might make an interesting side-thread.)
your point is valid. We are not arguing wizards dont have some tricks in their hats :) just that the saves are not always autofails as some people assume.
I love some of those spells (particularly the holds). They just dont always work, and a wasted spell is one more round closer to death for the wizard in most cases.
A party of four wizards could do great, they really could. But I would predict about once every four or five encounters (due to the hit points being crap and some monsters making saves) one of them either becomes significantly wounded or dies.
Having a party member die every 4 or 5 encounters is no better than with a fighter, rogues, and clerics in the party.
A team of fighters could tactically beat most monsters in my opinion with the right magic stuff in their arsenal at the appropriate levels (One fighter takes ranged, one takes grapple, one becomes the anti-mage, one primary melee combatant). Give them a wand of cure to take care of attrition after encounters (have on of the fighters cover the UMD skill, after all they could all cover the skills the other doesnt have to, now hear me out on this one, WORK TOGETHER), some equipment for fly, maybe throw in one with some stealth equipment. All as they progress in levels.
Sure they would be hurting at some points, but any party would be to be honest. Without the struggle why play?
just a thought :)
A party of four wizards could do great, they really could. But I would predict about once every four or five encounters (due to the hit points being crap and some monsters making saves) one of them either becomes significantly wounded or dies.
Thing is, wizards really don't have crap HP in Pathfinder. It's one of those things we're used to that just really is not true anymore:
1) d6 HP vs d4 HP means about an extra +1 HP per level over 3.5.
2) Favored class means about an extra +1 HP per level over 3.5. You could pick a skill point, but your titanic INT tends to cover that pretty well.
3) All of the mental stat items going in one slot and all of the physical items going in one slot is pretty (probably inadvertantly) pro-wizard-HP too. Since covering one mental or one physical stat is cheap and more now gets expensive fast, the "I don't care much about DEX and I care even less about STR" wizard will tend to have a +CON belt at least as early as the fighter who cares about DEX more than the wizard does and STR a lot more than the wizard does.
4) Add that to all the reasons that semi-optimized wizard HP really wasn't even that bad in 3.5 to begin with: spells like False Life that boost or give temporary HP, single attribute dependency meaning a decent con is possible in even the stingiest point buy (and only gets better from there), and the awesomeness of Craft Wondrous all but assuring easy access to +CON stat items and the like.
Edited to add: more feats also means it's easier to spare one for Toughness now if you're worried about HP -- and it's a feat that tends to mean more to low-size-HD characters than the reverse.
Note at no point am I arguing the game should be this way or that this particular set of changes were good ideas -- (It's a lot of little changes -- they can't all be winners in everyone's book.) but in practice PF wizard HP aren't much behind anyone else's.
Illusions don't have the "i win" spells.Well, Color Spray, Phantasmal Killer, Phantasmal Revenge, and Weird.
Not that any of those would really be my pick for a 20th level wizard, but I've often thought you could get pretty good midlevel mileage out of, say, cranking up your illusion DCs and throwing (possibly Persistant) Phantasmal Killer. It's got two saves but it's lowest level actual Pathfinder SoD I can think of by a fair bit.
(Probably my pick for Spell Perfection would be something like Hold Monster or Flesh to Stone, which each have their limitations but I think you could get some pretty great mileage out of, probably with Persistant and Heighten as part of your free metamagic mix. That actually might make an interesting side-thread.)
your point is valid. We are not arguing wizards dont have some tricks in their hats :) just that the saves are not always autofails as some people assume.
I love some of those spells (particularly the holds). They just dont always work, and a wasted spell is one more round closer to death for the wizard in most cases.
The "auto-win" spells are rarely spells that directly cause an enemy to keel over. Sure, some of those spells do work that way, but they are only auto-win when you are targeting a bad save on a monster.
The real auto-winners are ones that don't even have saves and they cause the enemy to waste actions. For example, let's say you are in a cave and are fighting something with no ranged attacks and you cast Black Tentacles. Chances are good that the enemy is now spending several turns moving towards you while you pepper them with ranged attacks. Now, some of your ranged attacks will be spells and the monsters will be making some saves against those, but the fact that you are attacking them and not facing a counter-attack is an auto-win in most people's book.
BTW, the lowest level save or die is Sleep because you Coup De Grace the enemy after they fail a save.
Wizard is one of my favorite classes but I would hesitate to say it is by far superior to melee warriors, it just shines in different ways. It is there to compliment and assist the team, not BE the team.
I grow tired of hearing:
"You don't need a rogue when a caster can cast Invisibility/Silence/Find Traps."
"You don't need a fighter, the caster can Summon ______, or buff his AC and damage better."
"You don't need a cleric because a caster is better at preventing damage than the cleric is a healing."
And so on and so forth.
The thing is, your comments assume that everyone can be somehow forced to play the game in the exact same way -- by intentionally using the casters as full-time warrior buffers, rather than using them to their full potential. In other words, it limits the player's ability to play his character, not by setting mechanical limits in place within the rules, but by a vague statement of "you're not allowed to do that because you might step on someone's toes."
Because, by the rules as written, wizards CAN actually do all the things you're tired of hearing comments about. If the rules were changed to prevent them, fine -- there would be no more argument! But I don't want each DM to feel like it's part of his job to hobble the casters so that everyone else doesn't feel bad -- the DM has enough to do already, without having to constantly tell the wizard's player "well, you would do that, and you're right, the rules allow it, but I arbitrarily won't let you because eventually Steve might feel like you overshadowed him."
The game isn't much fun if your permissible actions have to run down a long "mother-may-I" list before you finally hit one that's "OK."
Because, by the rules as written, wizards CAN actually do all the things you're tired of hearing comments about. If the rules were changed to prevent them, fine -- there would be no more argument! But I don't want each DM to feel like it's part of his job to hobble the casters so that everyone else doesn't feel bad -- the DM has enough to do already, without having to constantly tell the wizard's player "well, you would do that, and you're right, the rules allow it, but I arbitrarily won't let you because eventually Steve might feel like you overshadowed him."
This. When I say, the wizard/cleric/druid/whatever can do X as well as (other class) can or better, I'm not speaking of the game as I think it should be, but as it actually is.
I'd be happy as a clam if, for example, the Knock spell went away, although I'm sure it's a sacred cow to some people. Sure, the barbarian can still greataxe many doors down. Sure, the level 11 wizard can still disintegrate an offending door. Sure, the mighty portable hole can still circumvent many doors. None of that's as bad in terms of making lockpicking useless as a +infinity, plus extra stuff open locks spell.
(Repeat for a bunch of other things that really sideline other classes.)
Wizard is one of my favorite classes but I would hesitate to say it is by far superior to melee warriors, it just shines in different ways. It is there to compliment and assist the team, not BE the team.
I grow tired of hearing:
"You don't need a rogue when a caster can cast Invisibility/Silence/Find Traps."
"You don't need a fighter, the caster can Summon ______, or buff his AC and damage better."
"You don't need a cleric because a caster is better at preventing damage than the cleric is a healing."
And so on and so forth.The thing is, your comments assume that everyone can be somehow forced to play the game in the exact same way -- by intentionally using the casters as full-time warrior buffers, rather than using them to their full potential. In other words, it limits the player's ability to play his character, not by setting mechanical limits in place within the rules, but by a vague statement of "you're not allowed to do that because you might step on someone's toes."
Because, by the rules as written, wizards CAN actually do all the things you're tired of hearing comments about. If the rules were changed to prevent them, fine -- there would be no more argument! But I don't want each DM to feel like it's part of his job to hobble the casters so that everyone else doesn't feel bad -- the DM has enough to do already, without having to constantly tell the wizard's player "well, you would do that, and you're right, the rules allow it, but I arbitrarily won't let you because eventually Steve might feel like you overshadowed him."
The game isn't much fun if your permissible actions have to run down a long "mother-may-I" list before you finally hit one that's "OK."
Where did I say "someone's not allowed to do something because it might step on their toes"? And where did I advocate stunting permissible actions by casters?
I've played wizards who've focused on melee combat (it was very easy in 3.X even without multiclassing), and am aware of the truth behind a wizard being able to be harder to hit than a standard fighters AC and having comparable damage. That is one of my favorite parts of the class, is its versitility.
My point isn't that they don't have the capability to copy a great many benefits of skills, feats, and class abilities with spells. They obviously can, as per the examples above.
I'm saying that I hate the arguments that claim the other classes are subpar or obsolete because "a wizard can do it better". While a fighter and rogue's effectiveness goes way down in any area or battle with antimagic, they often still have viable options while the wizard can only contribute through a handful of knowledges often times. That is just one example, I'm not saying that regular encounters with antimagic should be or are commonplace. Casters have a limited number of spells per day.
While a wizard can use invisibility and knock to stealth and open doors he will only have so many prepared a day. Along with other drawbacks, see my above post for invisibility examples.
I don't think it is right to assume that a wizard can copy all the key abilities of a party, all day long, and better than everyone else. I don't see it to be reasonable and effective.
That said, wherever a wizard places his emphasis, whether it be stealth and trickery, battlefield control, buffing and damage prevention, or whatever, he is going to excel, but not at everything all the time.
|
|
Because, by the rules as written, wizards CAN actually do all the things you're tired of hearing comments about. If the rules were changed to prevent them, fine -- there would be no more argument! But I don't want each DM to feel like it's part of his job to hobble the casters so that everyone else doesn't feel bad -- the DM has enough to do already, without having to constantly tell the wizard's player "well, you would do that, and you're right, the rules allow it, but I arbitrarily won't let you because eventually Steve might feel like you overshadowed him."
This. When I say, the wizard/cleric/druid/whatever can do X as well as (other class) can or better, I'm not speaking of the game as I think it should be, but as it actually is.
I'd be happy as a clam if, for example, the Knock spell went away, although I'm sure it's a sacred cow to some people. Sure, the barbarian can still greataxe many doors down. Sure, the level 11 wizard can still disintegrate an offending door. Sure, the mighty portable hole can still circumvent many doors. None of that's as bad in terms of making lockpicking useless as a +infinity, plus extra stuff open locks spell.
(Repeat for a bunch of other things that really sideline other classes.)
Wizards are versatile, no arguing against that. As a matter of fact it is their selling point. They are the perfect fill in class in fact. Missing a rogue, well hopefully the wizard will take some spells to help agains that. Mising a primary melee, well if the caster focuses on summons to support the secondary fighting types then you may be ok.
This doesn't make them better at it though. Certainly no where near better than melee types at doing melee.
You could theoretically take a full caster group that can fill the roles of others, but none of them will be doing it better than the classes designed to get that job done. They will be far less efficient at it than a mixed group that works together. Of course, that depends how much your GM coddles the all caster group, especially for the first ten levels of the campaign.
I have an example for your knock spell btw. A funny anecdote from a game we had. A bit off topic so I'll spoiler it.
The looks on my players faces when they heard the muffled booms from around them was pretty funny. The look on the wizards face when he realised he had destroyed a scroll of the spell he'd been trying to get was even funnier. They took the NPC's body back to town and had him raised, which cost them gold. However we all though it was pretty funny. He learnt detect traps after that as well, which was fine, but it started chewing through his spells in trap heavy dungeons I can tell you. I never use this as anargument against casters mind, since I'm pretty sure I went heavy handed as the DM on that occasion, but it was just too damned funny as an opportunity no to try it.
Cheers
Of course, that depends how much your GM coddles the all caster group, especially for the first ten levels of the campaign.
Respectfully, you have not seen those classes played well.
If at or before level 3 you don't look at wizard/cleric/druid and think, this character is contributing at least as much as any other class, you have not seen them played well. 10? Ugh.
|
|
Of course, that depends how much your GM coddles the all caster group, especially for the first ten levels of the campaign.
Respectfully, you have not seen those classes played well.
If at or before level 3 you don't look at wizard/cleric/druid and think, this character is contributing at least as much as any other class, you have not seen them played well. 10? Ugh.
I will respond with you haven't seen meleers (spelling?) played well. If you think casters can drop baddies faster than the melee guys in my groups, your guys aren't trying hard enough.
Play style leads to people seeing a percieved disparity, not the rules.
Also, I didn't say casters get better at it at level 10, I said that's when the GM has to stop coddling an all caster party. That's a bit of inflammatory comment though, and is probably making assumptions about peoples games.
The argument has always been that casters are better than other classes. They aren't. They have a niche to fill same as every other class. Sometimes they can overlap a niche, but never as good as the class designed to fill that niche.
An all melle party will have deaths regularly, mostly because they lack healing. This is less true at higher levels if the party builds itself to compensate for lack of spam healing casters.
An all caster party will have deaths regularly, particularly if they're all arcane. This will be less true at higher levels, mostly becasue they can all run away.
A party of mixed classes that fill each niche will have less deaths and be far economical in completing tasks, particulalry any campaign that runs from first through to 20th. That's because the classes are pretty well balanced to do what they're designed to do.
Now, I've seen a large number of builds on this thread from teh fighters to meet every challenge that the casters have thrown at them. I've yet to see a caster built that can back up the claims of the casters. Any takers?
Cheers
|
|
Wizard is one of my favorite classes but I would hesitate to say it is by far superior to melee warriors, it just shines in different ways. It is there to compliment and assist the team, not BE the team.
I grow tired of hearing:
"You don't need a rogue when a caster can cast Invisibility/Silence/Find Traps."
"You don't need a fighter, the caster can Summon ______, or buff his AC and damage better."
"You don't need a cleric because a caster is better at preventing damage than the cleric is a healing."
And so on and so forth.The thing is, your comments assume that everyone can be somehow forced to play the game in the exact same way -- by intentionally using the casters as full-time warrior buffers, rather than using them to their full potential. In other words, it limits the player's ability to play his character, not by setting mechanical limits in place within the rules, but by a vague statement of "you're not allowed to do that because you might step on someone's toes."
Because, by the rules as written, wizards CAN actually do all the things you're tired of hearing comments about. If the rules were changed to prevent them, fine -- there would be no more argument! But I don't want each DM to feel like it's part of his job to hobble the casters so that everyone else doesn't feel bad -- the DM has enough to do already, without having to constantly tell the wizard's player "well, you would do that, and you're right, the rules allow it, but I arbitrarily won't let you because eventually Steve might feel like you overshadowed him."
The game isn't much fun if your permissible actions have to run down a long "mother-may-I" list before you finally hit one that's "OK."
But they can't do them all at the same time, and sometimes it takes a full round action to cast a spell to do it the next round not as well as the melee can do it right now.
When you actually read the spells and play RAW, the balance becomes clear.
The snake eater speaks the truth here. The primary casters are approximately equal-ish with the non-casters at levels one and two, where swords can kill fast. At levels 3 and above the weapons start taking longer and longer to win while casting doesn't. (Plus weapons don't provide defensive options the way spells do)
Of course, that depends how much your GM coddles the all caster group, especially for the first ten levels of the campaign.
Respectfully, you have not seen those classes played well.
If at or before level 3 you don't look at wizard/cleric/druid and think, this character is contributing at least as much as any other class, you have not seen them played well. 10? Ugh.
The all of what... four spells they have? Weapons kill faster at level 3 still, especially the bow with rapid shot.
Early levels the casters contribute -- but they don't overshadow. Later levels they still contribute -- and still don't overshadow.
To overshadow they would have to be able to do everything the martialist can do and more -- which they can't.
And if you say they can (like some here do) prove it.
The "auto-win" spells are rarely spells that directly cause an enemy to keel over. Sure, some of those spells do work that way, but they are only auto-win when you are targeting a bad save on a monster.
The real auto-winners are ones that don't even have saves and they cause the enemy to waste actions. For example, let's say you are in a cave and are fighting something with no ranged attacks and you cast Black Tentacles. Chances are good that the enemy is now spending several turns moving towards you while you pepper them with ranged attacks. Now, some of your ranged attacks will be spells and the monsters will be making some saves against those, but the fact that you are attacking them and not facing a counter-attack is an auto-win in most people's book.
BTW, the lowest level save or die is Sleep because you Coup...
Black tentacles isn't a guarantee though -- not even close. Caster level +5 is hardly a great check. At level 7 when you get the spell that's all of a +12 you are at an average of less than a 50/50 chance of success. At higher levels it's even more of a joke than that.
See where it states they make the grapple check at the beginning of your turn including on the round you cast it? Will if it wasn't cast at the beginning of your turn then it couldn't have made a check could it? I know this is a typo, and something that will probably be Errata'ed just wanted to point it out.
Sleep is nice -- if you get all the monsters with the 4 hit dice you get -- otherwise someone wakes someone else up -- barring that you've still spent a full round to not finish the monster -- it still must be dealt with (it is simply much easier to do so).
It's not that casters don't offer much -- it's that they honestly can't offer a real replacement to the damage and damage absorption of a martial character -- who we have seen can easily have the AC, Saves and damage output to make delaying tactics on the caster's end unnecessary.
Without a martial character the casters must delay some rounds to buy time. With a martial character they can instead get right to it (if the martial character doesn't drop the target in the first round~two rounds).
Now, I've seen a large number of builds on this thread from teh fighters to meet every challenge that the casters have thrown at them. I've yet to see a caster built that can back up the claims of the casters. Any takers?
You must have been reading some other thread because no on has offered a build that can do the three things being proposed at the same time:
1. Protect the wizard and make monsters not just ignore the fighter (thus filling a tanking role). The level 20 build offered can't make the check to hold the the CR 20 monsters... at best a TWF build can get a round of attacks while the monsters take a move and then fly or teleport.
2. Have a massively high AC so that thing only hit on a 20 basically.
3. Do a massive amount of damage and kill a level-appropriate monster in one round.
Now, there are builds that do one of those things.... and none that do all three.
On the other hand, I showed how a single Wizard or a group of Wizards can beat three challenges that were offered (though they might take small amounts of damage or lose more spells than is deemed efficient). This led to pages of arguments as people who didn't read Scent tried to tell me it did things it didn't and a whole argument about house-ruling Charm. It's interesting to note that no one mentioned again that those were wins for Wizards.
Now, the way to do the argument is to set the challenges beforehand and then offer the builds. The problem is that even my suggestion for builds led to half a page of flaming.
For some reason people think that because people are arguing that Wizards are better than fighters that it's some kind of argument that Wizards can do anything. We are instead arguing that focused for those three roles, the Wizard is better.
They also seem to think that "you get surprised and lose initiative and so take two rounds of attacks" is somehow a fair scenario for any character. I mean, even a tricked out Fighter is going to get torn apart in that scenario.
"Asking for a build" is flamewar bait because you can tailor a build for any scenario and tailor any scenario to beat a build. That's what I've learned here.
You must have been reading some other thread because no on has offered a build that can do the three things being proposed at the same time:
1. Protect the wizard and make monsters not just ignore the fighter (thus filling a tanking role). The level 20 build offered can't make the check to hold the the CR 20 monsters... at best a TWF build can get a round of attacks while the monsters take a move and then fly or teleport.
2. Have a massively high AC so that thing only hit on a 20 basically.
3. Do a massive amount of damage and kill a level-appropriate monster in one round.
Now, there are builds that do one of those things.... and none that do all three.
You've moved the goalposts again. This time to unreasonable positions.
As for the monster just flying or teleporting away from the fighter, that is the DM's call no matter what. So even if I throw a fighter out there who brings the bad guy down to 1 hit point in a single shot, you will just say "see and now he teleports" even though by any reasonable standard that would be an awesome attack above and beyond what is expected.
Honestly, no class is meant to have an AC so high that only a natural 20 will hit. Whether or not it can happen isn't the point. That is not certainly not the norm.
No class is meant to kill a level-appropriate monster in one round. Of course it can be done by every class but that's not actually a reasonable build. The CR is supposed to be based on a party of 4. How many rounds that fight is supposed to last no one knows but it is supposed to be a group fight.
On the other hand, I showed how a single Wizard or a group of Wizards can beat three challenges that were offered (though they might take small amounts of damage or lose more spells than is deemed efficient). This led to pages of arguments as people who didn't read Scent tried to tell me it did things it didn't and a whole argument about house-ruling Charm. It's interesting to note that no one mentioned again that those were wins for Wizards.
Now, the way to do the argument is to set the challenges beforehand and then offer the builds. The problem is that even my suggestion for builds led to half a page of flaming.
For some reason people think that because people are arguing that Wizards are better than fighters that it's some kind of argument that Wizards can do anything. We are instead arguing that focused for those three roles, the Wizard is better.
They also seem to think that "you get surprised and lose initiative and so take two rounds of attacks" is somehow a fair scenario for any character. I mean, even a tricked out Fighter is going to get torn apart in that scenario.
"Asking for a build" is flamewar bait because you can tailor a build for any scenario and tailor any scenario to beat a build. That's what I've learned here.
You have not shown how wizards meet the same challenge you are proposing. You also have not thrown a single build out there. The reason I won't throw one out is because you have already moved the goalposts twice and my melee guy only has so many feet he can move in a round.
And yes, there are many people who actually do make the claim that wizards can do everything better than everyone else and therefore the other classes are irrelevant.
I also don't think we should be throwing beasties out there and then having people offer builds to handle them. That is just going to make it easy to beat the opponent by specifically building toward that goal. I think it would be much better off setting some ground rules:
1) 15 or 20 point buy, although I would prefer the Elite Array so that we don't see 3 dump stats at 7.
2) The character needs to be presented fulled decked out with all spells prepared for the day. He may leave some slots open as per the rules. If he makes a successful Knowledge check then he may use that empty slot immediately. He may leave no more than 1 slot for each spell level open.
3) Average hit points, round up starting with 2nd level. Fighters have 5/level, wizards have 3/level, etc.
4) Only Pathfinder material is allowed. Nothing from WotC or any other source.
5) Be prepared for more than just stock monsters from the Bestiary. Be ready for advanced monsters and NPCs.
6) Somehow figure out how to have the other party members accounted for. The CR assumes that there are 4 members in the party: fighter, cleric, wizard, and rogue.
Dwarven Weapon Master 20 (AC 53, 280 HP, Saves+22, DPR 252 before criticals)
Str 26 Dex 30 Con 22 Int 9 Wis 24 Cha 5
Trait: Devout
Level boosts: 4 Dex 1 Wis
1 Iron will
1 Weapon Focus
2 Point blank shot
3 Rapid shot
4 weapon specialization
5 point blank shot mastery
6 Precise shot
7 toughness
8 Greater weapon focus
9 critical focus
10 Many shot
11 dodge
12 greater weapon specialization
13 improved precise shot
14 improved critical
15 deadly aim
16 penetrating strike
17 steel soul
18 greater penetrating strike
19 skill focus(perception)
20 tiring critical
Belt of perfection +6, Composite keen mighty (+10), longbow of speed +5, inherent bonus Dex 4 Inherent bonus Wisdom 1, Headband of wisdom 6, inherent bonus Str 4, celestial plate, buckler +5(animated), cloak of resistance +5, luck stone, Ring of protection+5, Amulet of natural armor +5, greater bracers of archery, dueling gloves, boots of speed, wings of flying
AC 53
10 (base) +7(insight) +5(deflection) +5(natural) +2(dodge) +6(dex) +12(armor) +6(shield)
Attack +39/+39/+39/+34/+29/+24 (extra arrow on the first)
20(BAB) +5(magical)+10(dex)+2(bracers)+7(weapon training)+2(greater weapon focus)-6(deadly aim)-2(rapid shot)+1(haste)
Damage: 1d8+37 (average damage before criticals: 252)
8(strength)+5(magical)+1(bracers)+7(weapon training)+4(weapon specialization)+12(deadly aim)
HP: 280 Fort: +24(+28) Ref: +22(+26) Will: +24(+26)
That's without trying.
|
|
Ah K, you make me laugh so much. No caster can do all those things either. How humorous.
Look, I'll make this easy for you.
Here's a set of rolls to use for your character. I'll use rolls because it avoids dump stat crap and Rain Man wizards. You build your wizard and Abraham can build his fighter. I gave seven rolls, choose the best and apply as appropriate.
Build them for first level, 5th level, 10th level and 20th level. Then you can compare what they are meant to do.
Or build your wizard and show how he is doing what you just asked the fighters to do.
Also, I need to remind you that when a spell effect asks the DM to make a call on what happens, that isn't a house rule. The game is asking the DM to rule (which is written into the rules both in Core book and GM's guide).
This will be interesting.
Cheers
Edit - eeeewww. Horrible rolls lets just run with 20 point build, no stat less than 8 (which is my rule for home and most DM's that I know of as well).
Dwarven Weapon Master 20 (AC 53, 280 HP, Saves+22, DPR 252 before criticals)
** spoiler omitted **
That's without trying.
Balor:
Attack: +31AC: 36
Hp: 370 (5 DR remaining after your feats taken into account)
So the balor can't hit you unless it rolls a 20. Odds are each of your attacks will hit. That's 222 damage. That's a paltry 60% of his hit points. Why would he bother worrying about you when next round he's going to die anyway?
Gold Dragon, Ancient:
Attacks: +36
AC: 39
Hp: 377
So the dragon needs to roll a 17 or better to hit you. Odds are that your last attack will miss. That's also a pathetic 55% of his hit points in a single round. Again, why bother attacking you when he's not going to see what happens 12 seconds from now?
Pit Fiend
Attacks: +32
AC: 38
Hp: 350 hp (plus regen 5)
So the pit fiend needs to roll a natural 20 to hit you. Again, we should assume your last attack hits. You are dealing only 60% of his hit points in damage in a single round. I don't know why he would be scared of you?
Tarn Linnorm
Attacks: +30
AC: 36
Hp: 385 (plus regen 15)
So it needs a natural 20 to hit you. All but your last attack will hit. You only manage to deal 54% of his hit points in damage. How pathetic is that?
I hope the sarcasm comes across clearly. Personally, I think your build handled things quite well. Of course no one likes him though with that 5 Charisma. Some people just don't need friends.