Previously I said this:
A wizard that somehow lets you do that has a terrible player and deserves to lose.
But in response to this:
Actually, I was just going under the previous assumption that this happens in combat. A much better way to do this would be to send two of my evil rogue minions in the middle of the night. One steals as much gear as he can from Fizban, and then brings it all to me. The second then attempts a coup de grâce on Fizban. Worst case scenario, both get caught, and Fizban doesn't get his 8 hours of sleep in. A few nights of this, and Fizban will be pretty damn useless even with all his gear and spellbooks.
It's actually: A party that somehow lets you do that is full of terrible players and deserve to lose. (Or the DM is fiating the whole thing and it's the equivalent of rocks fall, you die.)
I mean, seriously, your argument is that the wizard has a serious weakness that can be exploited once multiple opponents are in a position to coup de grace him?
that was really not my point at all. Further up i argue why a familiar is better, didnt say it only gave you an extra roll only. But with UMD and a scroll case, a coupple wands and so, id say its better than the object.
Newer mind though, seems like we will have to agree to disagree then. It just seems stupid to me that some PCs cry fault whenever a GM uses the flaws the PCs have created themselves.
people interested could look up treantmonks guide to wizards, he argues maybe better than me why he thinks a familiar is superior
Its wrong to assume every enemy worth their salt knows what every spellcaster's bonded item is... It is a damn masterwork item, it doesn't radiate magic, how the hell does enemy X know what to target?? There isn't any reason to target said ring as there is never a reason to draw attention to it. There is no need to use it "prominently" nor is there a reason for anyone to suspect it is there but yet the BBEG knows and is targeting it?? Please...
This. (And, for the record, I think Bonded Object is too good for its drawback -- I'm not discussing the game the way I think it should work, I'm discussing the game as it actually is, RAW.)
If I was playing in a game with a DM who would ruthlessly attempt to target suspected bonded objects, I'd probably make a wizard who picked the familiar and either just didn't summon one or left it at home -- and then make a point of wearing a bunch of rings, amulets, etc. anyway.
people interested could look up treantmonks guide to wizards, he argues maybe better than me why he thinks a familiar is superior
I've read it, and respectfully disagree with him on that particular point.
The kind of people who are really good at playing wizard (and I'm not saying that I am) tend to start salivating when they read bonded object -- especially since there's no Imbue Familiar With Spell Ability in Pathfinder core.
.
..
...
....
.....
Note: You can load your Toad into a catapult, cast Feather Fall on it and then fire it over the castle's walls..
''What do you see?''
''Goooorrriiiibit''
''Can you be a little more specific?''
[Granted the above needs a few spells to get the most bang for your starbucks - or, you can sense your Toad's fear at being para-dropped into a horde of Goblins...]
::
Quasi OT: A Bonded Object gives a great perk *but* it is still a weakness..
..personally, I don't like giving people extra soft spots to strike, regardless of how often it may occur.
...and let's not forget the extra pair of eyes/ears/scent - extra awareness/less chance of being caught by surprise is one 'spell like effect' I'd love to have up 24-7 on a caster..
Familiars are cheap and disposable - use 'em and abuse em! Go on! They're like military drones but..cheaper!
|
Its wrong to assume every enemy worth their salt knows what every spellcaster's bonded item is... It is a damn masterwork item, it doesn't radiate magic, how the hell does enemy X know what to target?? There isn't any reason to target said ring as there is never a reason to draw attention to it. There is no need to use it "prominently" nor is there a reason for anyone to suspect it is there but yet the BBEG knows and is targeting it?? Please...
You'll notice I didn't claim that every random kobold and goblin that Fizban meets should try to sunder his bonded object (hitherto refered to as his Staff of Non-Uselessness). No, I said that the BBEG and his lieutenants.
I'd take an extra spontaneous spell over a familiar any day
Same here. A worn item is hard to lose, unless you get captured and stripped.
Use it to cast an escape spell before they grab you.
|
.
Note: You can load your Toad into a catapult, cast Feather Fall on it and then fire it over the castle's walls..
''What do you see?''
''Goooorrriiiibit''
''Can you be a little more specific?''
Out of interest, shouldn't Feather Fall prevent you from being flung upwards, as well as falling downwards?
Note to kids: Yes! You can try this at home!
[EDIT: When you try this at home, I meant with a real feather.
Don't try this with a real toad.
Use a wet beanbag, instead.]
That might be largely besides the point here. I think the argument was meant as a, the wizard has flaws and bad sides too, kinda argument. No matter what you do as a player, a high level NPC fighting the player, should realise he is a spellcaster, and adjust if necesary. Is it hard to exploit his bad sides, maybe, but is it possible to do it, definately. And thats not the trademark of a bad GM in my oppinion, but rather a GM not content to let the players be the only ones in the universe with a brain.
A wizard that somehow lets you do that has a terrible player and deserves to lose. While you're trying to figure out which of his many rings or amulets is the important one he's going to be killing you.You should note that I mentioned minions. As in send in the expendable guys to make the wizard bleed out his spells, to disrupt his sleep cycle, etc. I'm not talking about Joe Bad guy here, I'm talking about the BBEG or one of his lieutenants.
Player characters use their knowledge of an enemy's weaknesses and strengths ALL THE TIME. When was the last time you faced off against a troll and just kept using a club, instead of trying to use fire? Why should the evil guys be any different. They know that Fizban over there is a wizard. So they're gonna use their knowledge of wizards to screw Fizban over...hard.
The enemy might know depending on certain circumstances. The arcanist might be a sorcerer. The chances of my magic items being sundered is very small, no matter what class I play. At that point the party focuses fire on you for destroying loot, or we pop smoke. If you seem to keep finding me I put up anti-divination spells. By keep finding me, I mean find me or a party member once, by the way. I will admit I don't normally pickup such spells, and I don't know if clerics have them, but if nobody in the party does it might be time to go hunting for scrolls.
If I can't get away, maybe the scrolls are not available, I capture a bad guy and learn who he is working for, and work my way up the chain. Sitting back while someone hunts me down is not how I do things.
Problem is, if you're in a position to actually attack a bonded item, you often have better odds of just trying to kill the wizard. If I'm playing a wizard and some minion manages to circumvent all of my defenses and get into melee range with me, I'm thrilled if he's going to take his round to attack my bonded object, and that's assuming he even knows which of twenty things I'll be carrying that each could be the bonded object actually is. Having to make concentration checks to cast spells (and remember, I've still got scrolls, wands, magic items, contingencies, etc.) until I can designate a new bonded object is a lot less of a speed bump for me than being killed.Puts on BBEG cap
Actually, I was just going under the previous assumption that this happens in combat. A much better way to do this would be to send two of my evil rogue minions in the middle of the night. One steals as much gear as he can from Fizban, and then brings it all to me. The second then attempts a coup de grâce on Fizban. Worst case scenario, both get caught, and Fizban doesn't get his 8 hours of sleep in. A few nights of this, and Fizban will be pretty damn useless even with all his gear and spellbooks.My BBEGs don't just sit back and wait for the PCs to formulate plans to defeat them. Once the PCs are on their radar, they formulate plans to defeat the PCs.
Perception, Alarm, etc are staples. If someone walks into the middle of your camp/resting area the party deserves to die.
Its wrong to assume every enemy worth their salt knows what every spellcaster's bonded item is... It is a damn masterwork item, it doesn't radiate magic, how the hell does enemy X know what to target?? There isn't any reason to target said ring as there is never a reason to draw attention to it. There is no need to use it "prominently" nor is there a reason for anyone to suspect it is there but yet the BBEG knows and is targeting it?? Please...You'll notice I didn't claim that every random kobold and goblin that Fizban meets should try to sunder his bonded object (hitherto refered to as his Staff of Non-Uselessness). No, I said that the BBEG and his lieutenants.
AKA Enemy Worth Their Salt
How exactly did they find out what to target? Who exactly told them? Chances are the PC's don't even know so like I said in the rest of the post that you didn't quote...
I'm fairly certain the wizard didn't.
About targeting bonded items, that exactly what the PCs would do fighting BBEG wizard. Every wizard they cross, they'd target the bonded item if they knew it was a bonded item. If that's good for players to do it's good to do that against the players.
But to be honest, if you are a wizard and have fighter in your face capable of sundering your bonded item then if that's what the fighter does consider yourself lucky. He could be hacking you to pieces. If this situation happens then as wizard you already lost the battle.
I'd take an extra spontaneous spell over a familiar any daySame here. A worn item is hard to lose, unless you get captured and stripped.
Use it to cast an escape spell before they grab you.
That wizard in that movie with those hobbits? Captured! On a tower! Shivering his bit off!
...along comes a bat.. thing. (bird? I forget).
That could be your familiar!
Also, a bonded item can't fetch your slippers! :D
::
Note:I respect and acknowledge the power of a Bonded Object - it has obvious merits.
However, I think many fail to appreciate the power of agents capable of independent action and possessing mobility.
::
''Target sighted. North sector. Be advised - cleric in play. Over.''
''Go on boy, get me ma scroll! Good boy! Have some cheese!''
''Toady! Get help!''
*Toad waddles off at 5'/round...*
''Mmm.... amphibious and nutritious!''
''I want to know who comes in here, when they come in here and what they're wearing under their robes..''
''When you see the large volcano - drop the ring. Avoid the big winged monsters. G'luck!''
''Why... is there a toad in my martini Hmm?''
*mmmmm hugs*
*..etc..*
::
Ok, so these are hardly case-defining examples but hopefully they'll encourage some folk to think outside the whatsit...
..oh, and finally...
YOU CAN CAST DETONATE ON YOUR FAMILIAR AND THEN SEND/THROW/LAUNCH/MISC THE POOR SOD INTO THE MIDDLE OF THE GOBLIN CAMP..
HELL. YES.
Every wizard they cross, they'd target the bonded item if they knew it was a bonded item.
They might, but this is the big catch -- there's no reason anyone would know what the bonded item is or if a wizard even has one.
I think there should be reasons built into the ability, but there aren't.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Not knowing where you were hit is one thing, knowing where you were hit and using that as a way to determine where the attack came from is another. Trying to "reason" it should be possible cause you should know is bad, pushing it to get something you shouldn't know when you fail a roll is worse.
I think you want to be in the 'Where the Hell did that shot come from, anyway?' thread.
Feel free to move it, Mr Postmonster.
All this talk of toad-throwing and toad bombs is offensive. Please refrain from treating familiars with such cruelty. Thank you. XD
people interested could look up treantmonks guide to wizards, he argues maybe better than me why he thinks a familiar is superiorI've read it, and respectfully disagree with him on that particular point.
The kind of people who are really good at playing wizard (and I'm not saying that I am) tend to start salivating when they read bonded object -- especially since there's no Imbue Familiar With Spell Ability in Pathfinder core.
You do realize it still requires materials right? that means yes you get a discount, but an insanely power i wouldnt call it. Mostly i think item creation feats is pretty bad, so this power is not much better.
Although yes ofcourse, feel free to disagree, thats the beauty of a good discussion, if everyone agrees its not that fun.
Not knowing where you were hit is one thing, knowing where you were hit and using that as a way to determine where the attack came from is another. Trying to "reason" it should be possible cause you should know is bad, pushing it to get something you shouldn't know when you fail a roll is worse.I think you want to be in the 'Where the Hell did that shot come from, anyway?' thread.
Feel free to move it, Mr Postmonster.
You are most certainly correct, deleted ;-p
About targeting bonded items, that exactly what the PCs would do fighting BBEG wizard. Every wizard they cross, they'd target the bonded item if they knew it was a bonded item. If that's good for players to do it's good to do that against the players.
But to be honest, if you are a wizard and have fighter in your face capable of sundering your bonded item then if that's what the fighter does consider yourself lucky. He could be hacking you to pieces. If this situation happens then as wizard you already lost the battle.
If I get to the wizard then I try to kill the wizard. If I destroy his item, and he gets upset and disintegrates me or worse, then taking the item out really did me no good. The PC's would also have to know what the item is assuming they went with the worse strategy, IMHO.
My wizard spent many an adventure waving his staff around and casting spells with it always in hand, making a big show of the power he drew from it (even using prestidigitation to make the staff react in various ways).
Towards the end of the campaign arc, the BBEG did indeed target my wizard staff for destruction in hopes of crippling my character before the final encounter.
Oh how surprised the BBEG was in said encounter when he realized that my wizard had full spell capabilities with which to bear against his hated foe! It would appear that the poor sod had somehow managed to overlook the sequestered bonded ring my wizard had been utilizing all along. :P
If I get to the wizard then I try to kill the wizard. If I destroy his item, and he gets upset and disintegrates me or worse, then taking the item out really did me no good. The PC's would also have to know what the item is assuming they went with the worse strategy, IMHO.About targeting bonded items, that exactly what the PCs would do fighting BBEG wizard. Every wizard they cross, they'd target the bonded item if they knew it was a bonded item. If that's good for players to do it's good to do that against the players.
But to be honest, if you are a wizard and have fighter in your face capable of sundering your bonded item then if that's what the fighter does consider yourself lucky. He could be hacking you to pieces. If this situation happens then as wizard you already lost the battle.
Or worse yet, you destroy magical loot because it wasn't his bonded item. So even you did win that Uber Staff is destroyed. You party wizard might be pretty upset about that.
But to be honest, if you are a wizard and have fighter in your face capable of sundering your bonded item then if that's what the fighter does consider yourself lucky. He could be hacking you to pieces. If this situation happens then as wizard you already lost the battle.
I don't know. I mean sundering is terribly easy. CM check in place of an attack and roll damage. A fighter could just charge and sunder. A wizard could easily survive a single attack and cast something defencive.
A steel ring would have hardness 10, hp 1. That's 11 points of damage, which every fighter is easily capable of after lvl 4.
well as the required check to cast spells if the object disappears, is not a spellcraft check but a concentration check, i cant see how spellcraft is gonna help you that much.
The DC to cast a spell anyway, is also equal to 20+spell level, so the DC would be 24 to cast a level 4 spell. At level 7 you will have 7 levels, +4 int = 11+d20 to the concentration roll of 24. Thats 40% chance to succed, while still being possible, it means that 60% of your spells will have no effect, if you add in saves, any monster will then get effected about 20% of the times you cast a spell, thats not a lot. compared to about 50% normal.
That is to me a huge difference. I do agree that the benefit is quite good, for the bonded object, but i still think its worse than the familiar, IF the GM could consider stealing or destroying it, if you are playing a nice GM that dosnt like his players to get penalty's then go for the object.
At higher levels you will make more and more Con checks, so the penalty will get mitigated, but to pick an achilies heel for a char for the first 13 levels or so, is still a huge thing to me. Also after level 7 you can get a familiar able to use UMD, and to be that beats the bonded object anyway. basicly still familiar > bonded object.
Concentration DC of 24 against a concentration bonus of +11 ? At 7th level, I would peg the ability score bonus at a +6 (5 ability +1 enhancement) and - especially with arcane bond - the +2 trait bonus on concentration on top of that, for an "I see this more often than not" bonus of +15 at 7th level instead of +11. A much more acceptable chance of successfully casting spells without the bonded item of 60% as compared to the proposed 40%. Targeting bonded items requires a Sunder maneuver or an unlikely-failed save against a targeted shatter spell IF your bonded object was not magical. Most foes are not going to waste their efforts in fragging the bonded object - they'll kill the wizard instead, or force him to withdraw.
Here's a question I just have to ask, how many people have actually been a real campaign where at level 7 wizards are routinely running around with +7 or higher modifier to their INT and, if they are, just how gimped are their other stats (and yes, the other stats do matter)? I could see maybe a +6 but to me anything more than that at level 7 or +10 at any time suggests a campaign where gold flows like water, which is not like any campaign I've ever been in.
This seems to be the big disjunction, since even a difference of one on the concentration check can make a big difference between the chance of having to make that roll be a minor nuisance or a major pain.
As far as targeting one is concerned, if you are playing a game and your spell book and bonded object are never even remotely threatened, it is the DM's own fault if your character is making planning adventures a pain. While it is quite possible, and not particularly hard, to protect those items, it does time and resources, usually gold or spells, to do so, resources that are not endless, and ultimately controlled by the DM, not the player.
Here's a question I just have to ask, how many people have actually been a real campaign where at level 7 wizards are routinely running around with +7 or higher modifier to their INT and, if they are, just how gimped are their other stats (and yes, the other stats do matter)? I could see maybe a +6 but to me anything more than that at level 7 or +10 at any time suggests a campaign where gold flows like water, which is not like any campaign I've ever been in.
This seems to be the big disjunction, since even a difference of one on the concentration check can make a big difference between the chance of having to make that roll be a minor nuisance or a major pain.
As far as targeting one is concerned, if you are playing a game and your spell book and bonded object are never even remotely threatened, it is the DM's own fault if your character is making planning adventures a pain. While it is quite possible, and not particularly hard, to protect those items, it does time and resources, usually gold or spells, to do so, resources that are not endless, and ultimately controlled by the DM, not the player.
It is hard to find out what the item is without metagaming. Even as a DM I make knowledge and gather info checks against the players using my NPC's abilities. I don't just allow them information because I am the DM. If the NPC does not have divination spells or know a way to get one cast for him then he is out of luck. If I spy on the PC's in person I roll checks on their behalf behind the screen or between game sessions. Using the word "fault" is implying wrongess, by the way.
I'm surprised smart bad guys don't try sundering cloaks more often. An evil wizard could easily have a dominated troll sunder a cloak of resistance before he lays the target flat with a spell.
Taking a -5 penalty to all saves can be a HUGE hit!
I don't know. I mean sundering is terribly easy. CM check in place of an attack and roll damage. A fighter could just charge and sunder. A wizard could easily survive a single attack and cast something defencive.
A steel ring would have hardness 10, hp 1. That's 11 points of damage, which every fighter is easily capable of after lvl 4.
Sure, but what are you sundering? I'm wearing ten rings and none of them radiate magic. Maybe they're even identical and I swap them around at random every morning so I don't even know which one it is. It's like mirror image that lasts forever for free.
I'm also carrying a staff, wearing a bunch of amulets, etc.
The fact that there's absolutely no way to pick out the bonded item categorically kicks just about any anti-bonded-item strategy straight in the crotch.
It is hard to find out what the item is without metagaming. Even as a DM I make knowledge and gather info checks against the players using my NPC's abilities. I don't just allow them information because I am the DM. If the NPC does not have divination spells or know a way to get one cast for him then he is out of luck. If I spy on the PC's in person I roll checks on their behalf behind the screen or between game sessions. Using the word "fault" is implying wrongess, by the way.
Would you prefer the term "responsibility"? Any DM who does not control the resources of time and gold or designs encounters in such a way that a PC is not required to spend at least some resources and effort in order to protect their weaknesses has more than earned the responsibility of keeping the campaign from running out of control. I agree that a bonded object should be fairly easy to hide, but it does take resources to do so. Extra rings, magical protections, false magical auras, even just hiding it under something takes effort and resources that are now not available to be spent elsewhere. And most of the campaigns I've been in don't have the players swimming in both time and money. The bonded object can be very good for the wizard, but it should also be something that they are willing to invest a fair amount of energy into protecting, and that is an element that many posters aren't mentioning.
Here's a question I just have to ask, how many people have actually been a real campaign where at level 7 wizards are routinely running around with +7 or higher modifier to their INT and, if they are, just how gimped are their other stats (and yes, the other stats do matter)? I could see maybe a +6 but to me anything more than that at level 7 or +10 at any time suggests a campaign where gold flows like water, which is not like any campaign I've ever been in.
+7 not I, but +6 at level 7 is very standard in my games. (And +7 at level 8 is very standard.)
The other stats do matter, but the other 5 put together do not matter as much to a wizard as INT does. Whatever devils' bargain you have to make to get the INT up is worth it.
Extra rings, magical protections, false magical auras, even just hiding it under something takes effort and resources that are now not available to be spent elsewhere.
Keep in mind that, by default, a bonded object isn't even magic.
That makes it considerably easier/cheaper to conceal.
Maybe its just me, but any character that has more than one, maybe two, dump stat(s) is way, way to one dimensional for my tastes. If a DM doesn't exploit the weaknesses of someone who feels that they can ignore 5 of their base stats, you have a very merciful DM.
I don't know. I mean sundering is terribly easy. CM check in place of an attack and roll damage. A fighter could just charge and sunder. A wizard could easily survive a single attack and cast something defencive.
A steel ring would have hardness 10, hp 1. That's 11 points of damage, which every fighter is easily capable of after lvl 4.
Sure, but what are you sundering? I'm wearing ten rings and none of them radiate magic. Maybe they're even identical and I swap them around at random every morning so I don't even know which one it is. It's like mirror image that lasts forever for free.
I'm also carrying a staff, wearing a bunch of amulets, etc.
The fact that there's absolutely no way to pick out the bonded item categorically kicks just about any anti-bonded-item strategy straight in the crotch.
Oh I agree totally. I was pondering the notion that a fighter would be better of attacking the wizard than the item or that if a fighter gets close enough to sunder the wizard would already be doomed.
Maybe its just me, but any character that has more than one, maybe two, dump stat(s) is way, way to one dimensional for my tastes. If a DM doesn't exploit the weaknesses of someone who feels that they can ignore 5 of their base stats, you have a very merciful DM.
Unless you're playing 80 point buy, you're always going to have weaknesses somewhere, statwise.
A moderate INT is a much, much bigger weakness to be exploited than a low STR or CHR on a wizard.
To put it another way, if you needed to hire a physicist, would you pick:
A) A high school student who's moderately strong, in good health, is personable, and has made it through a high school physics class or
b) Stephen Hawking?
All the plus sides of person A over B can't compensate for the fact that they're not competent to do the job you need them to do.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Maybe its just me, but any character that has more than one, maybe two, dump stat(s) is way, way to one dimensional for my tastes. If a DM doesn't exploit the weaknesses of someone who feels that they can ignore 5 of their base stats, you have a very merciful DM.
Have to agree with this. Dump Wisdom, expect an Alip or two over your career. Strength? Shadow-bait. IMC, you dump charisma, you could become Purina Brand Lahamu Chow(tm).
Just as I feel a familiar should be occasionally endangered, spellbooks occasionally threatened and holy symbols/bonded items/feat focused weapons occasionally sundered, if you min/max, expect to get occasionally kicked in the dump stat.
It is hard to find out what the item is without metagaming. Even as a DM I make knowledge and gather info checks against the players using my NPC's abilities. I don't just allow them information because I am the DM. If the NPC does not have divination spells or know a way to get one cast for him then he is out of luck. If I spy on the PC's in person I roll checks on their behalf behind the screen or between game sessions. Using the word "fault" is implying wrongess, by the way.Would you prefer the term "responsibility"? Any DM who does not control the resources of time and gold or designs encounters in such a way that a PC is not required to spend at least some resources and effort in order to protect their weaknesses has more than earned the responsibility of keeping the campaign from running out of control. I agree that a bonded object should be fairly easy to hide, but it does take resources to do so. Extra rings, magical protections, false magical auras, even just hiding it under something takes effort and resources that are now not available to be spent elsewhere. And most of the campaigns I've been in don't have the players swimming in both time and money. The bonded object can be very good for the wizard, but it should also be something that they are willing to invest a fair amount of energy into protecting, and that is an element that many posters aren't mentioning.
When they take an action that makes it obvious they might want to hide it.
example:If they get into a fight in front of a lot of people, and the item is revealed then spreading false rumors about the item being switched or sold is a good idea, but until someone has been given a chance to find out what the item is I won't go out of my way to protect it.Now at higher levels divination spells might be an issue, but I would cross that bridge when I got to it, and even then I would not spend more than 3% of my wealth on the issue. If a monsters gets in my face I am more worried about dying.
Maybe its just me, but any character that has more than one, maybe two, dump stat(s) is way, way to one dimensional for my tastes. If a DM doesn't exploit the weaknesses of someone who feels that they can ignore 5 of their base stats, you have a very merciful DM.
The bad guys don't know what the DM knows, and it is not my place to go out of my way to harrass them. :)
Most dump stats normally exploit themselves.
Maybe its just me, but any character that has more than one, maybe two, dump stat(s) is way, way to one dimensional for my tastes. If a DM doesn't exploit the weaknesses of someone who feels that they can ignore 5 of their base stats, you have a very merciful DM.Unless you're playing 80 point buy, you're always going to have weaknesses somewhere, statwise.
A moderate INT is a much, much bigger weakness to be exploited than a low STR or CHR on a wizard.
To put it another way, if you needed to hire a physicist, would you pick:
A) A high school student who's moderately strong, in good health, is personable, and has made it through a high school physics class or
b) Stephen Hawking?
All the plus sides of person A over B can't compensate for the fact that they're not competent to do the job you need them to do.
Depends what I'm hiring them for. If its a strictly lab job, than Stephen Hawking is a very good choice; if its field work, I want someone who is going to be able to carry at least some of the equipment they are going to need, be able to interact with others without completely pissing them off (which most stereotypical wizards cant do), and in general is tough enough and wise enough to be able to deal with the rigors of working in the field without requiring constant aid from tools, spells, or their fellow party members.
Also, a 16 INT, which i consider to a moderate bonus, would be more the equivalent of someone with a college degree. A 20 INT can help if you are frequently casting spells that require saving throws, but for many schools a massively high DC is not an absolute requirement. A 16 INT wizard may have a few less spells, but unless they are trying to do everything on their own, that can be worked around easily enough with the help of the rest of the party. It is still possible to use mundane methods to get down a cliff at level 10, and sometimes maybe the only choice depending on the other environmental conditions in the area.
Edit: Raistlin is an impressive wizard, but from what little I've read, he did not make a good adventurer.
Here's a question I just have to ask, how many people have actually been a real campaign where at level 7 wizards are routinely running around with +7 or higher modifier to their INT and, if they are, just how gimped are their other stats (and yes, the other stats do matter)? I could see maybe a +6 but to me anything more than that at level 7 or +10 at any time suggests a campaign where gold flows like water, which is not like any campaign I've ever been in.
This seems to be the big disjunction, since even a difference of one on the concentration check can make a big difference between the chance of having to make that roll be a minor nuisance or a major pain.
As far as targeting one is concerned, if you are playing a game and your spell book and bonded object are never even remotely threatened, it is the DM's own fault if your character is making planning adventures a pain. While it is quite possible, and not particularly hard, to protect those items, it does time and resources, usually gold or spells, to do so, resources that are not endless, and ultimately controlled by the DM, not the player.
Here is my current wizard's stats (level 1)
S-8 D-14 C-12 I-19 W-10 Ch-15With a point bump at level 4, and a little bit of downtime around level 5 (when I get Craft Wondrous) I should be able to afford a +4 headband of vast intellect. I mean it's only 8k. You're right though +6 is much more likely. Just remember how quickly WBL advances though.
As for the rest of the stuff, a game where the DM routinely takes away your toys is not fun to play in. There's a difference between making the game more challenging, and turning your abilities off like Data on star trek. Whoops there goes your spellbook, start over MAGE. Just like saying to the cleric your god cuts you off from your power source. Yeah it's there in the rules and its possible, but when was the last time you saw it happen?
I don't think the DM should constantly actually targeting a character's weakness, but some level of threat needs to be there most of the time, otherwise the character is likely going to be very hard to manage from the DM's perspective, since the player is going to be more likely to think they can get away with pulling a fast one on the DM. It doesn't have to be a major threat, or something that is hard to deal with, just enough to keep the sense that adventuring in general is a dangerous profession going, and giving yourself not just one, but two, achille's heels is not something to be done lightly or flippantly.
Edit: In fact, the best DM's will never actually reach the point of a even a direct threat. Like in a good horror movie, the fear comes not from what is actually seen, but what the viewer's mind conjures up on its own.
I didnt say AC didnt matter after level 10. Im claiming that armor dosnt. With just a simple level 1 spell he gets a shield bonus, and instead of a normal armor, bracers of armor are pretty much as good. (they only go up to +9 and not +14 for the full plate) but with everything into account, they can generally get to about the same AC as the cleric dude, without the armor. But with other things instead, so the ability to wear armor is not that big of an issue at higher levels.
Actually everything you have there isn't correct.
Bracers of armor only go up to +8 -- or as good as half plate. The first level spell is nice -- except it takes an action to cast and only provides a +4 -- as opposed to the +7 that a heavy shield will provide or +6 that a light shield will provide.
Also for that +8 armor bonus you are paying 64,000 gp -- where as the cleric in his breastplate will have a +8 at a cost of 4,350 gp.
A cleric in a +5 breastplate with a +5 light shield (or buckler take your pick) will have an AC bonus from armor and shield of +17 -- compared to the wizard with bracers of armor +8 and a shield spell having only a +12.
That's a huge difference in AC.
Your opinion that "armor doesn't matter" is patently false -- Armor is the cheapest way to raise AC and the easiest -- this isn't just at 20th level either -- this holds from level 1 on -- which is when you can't afford the sort of investments you are suggesting the wizard make -- both in actions and in gold.
Actually everything you have there isn't correct.Bracers of armor only go up to +8 -- or as good as half plate. The first level spell is nice -- except it takes an action to cast and only provides a +4 -- as opposed to the +7 that a heavy shield will provide or +6 that a light shield will provide.
Also for that +8 armor bonus you are paying 64,000 gp -- where as the cleric in his breastplate will have a +8 at a cost of 4,350 gp.
A cleric in a +5 breastplate with a +5 light shield (or buckler take your pick) will have an AC bonus from armor and shield of +17 -- compared to the wizard with bracers of armor +8 and a shield spell having only a +12.
That's a huge difference in AC.
Your opinion that "armor doesn't matter" is patently false -- Armor is the cheapest way to raise AC and the easiest -- this isn't just at 20th level either -- this holds from level 1 on -- which is when you can't afford the sort of investments you are suggesting the wizard make -- both in actions and in gold.
Your right about the +8 bracers, but any real wizard should begin the first many levels with a simple mage armor spell. The bracers are only needed at higher levels, when the mage armor becomes obselete. So the wizard will therefore work fine at lower levels too, as he has nothing that need to be bought, armor wise. At higher levels you could use the wondrous magic item that creates a force shield, but id much rather have my familiar Imp cast shield spell on me whenever i need it (from one of the many scrolls i have given it).
But if we assume the wizard has a shield spell active, can we then agree that with everything in account the difference between AC from armor and shields is at most 5? +12 compared to +17. Thats at most 25% less chance to get hit if your the cleric, i say at most as a monster that autohits the wizard will probably have a smaller chance than 25% to miss the cleric. But still if we assume 25% hit chance is the difference. The that is mitigated almost completely by the spell Blur, that grants 20% displacement, and makes you (almost) immune to sneak attacks and so on. This is a 2nd level spell. So even at higher levels, one low level spell will make up for the difference in AC.
In short yes the clerics armor use is good, does the wizard have alternatives that the cleric cant use, that are just as good? id say yes.
I would still say no -- and you are incorrect about blur -- it doesn't make up the 25% (or even 20%) since it only negates 20% of hits that hit you, So it accounts for 5% (20% of 25%) of the difference. Your better choice of example would have been mirror image which does completely negate the difference -- for a little bit, and again at higher opportunity cost than the armor.
Also the wizard still has to pay opportunity cost for those other options -- mage armor is nice -- but at lower level it's another slot you don't have to use something else -- and another action if you wait to use a wand or scroll right at the start of combat.
The cleric not only has the armor -- he has many spells to up his AC (and provide other defenses as well) -- and better HP/BAB (and therefore defaults to a higher CMB and CMD as well) and a better over all stat for his spells -- in addition to ninth level casting.
Also the cleric's armor can't be dispelled like the wizard's options can -- and again -- the opportunity cost of casting shield.
IF you do it at the start of battle that's another spell you didn't cast that round -- if you quicken it -- again another spell you didn't cast and a higher slot that could have been put to better use (or a use of a lesser metamagic rod that could have been used on something else too -- like haste for the party).
My overarching point however is on armor.
Can a wizard overcome his lack of it? Yes -- can he do so effortlessly? No -- will it come with no other cost to him? No.
Armor (and shields) are the best and easiest way to get a good AC -- AC does matter, therefore armor and shields matter since they provide the biggest, easiest, cheapest, and least action costly bonuses to AC.
The statement that "Armor doesn't matter" therefore is wrong.
The best armor is armor and a shield.
The bonuses a wizard can get do not equal those that you can get with armor.
The bonuses a wizard can get come with higher costs than armor.
The bonuses a wizard can get are not "always on" like armor can be (meaning from encounter to encounter).
The bonuses a wizard can get comes with action costs that armor doesn't have.
The bonuses a wizard can get are easier to take away than the bonuses armor provides.
Also if "armor doesn't matter" (which was the claim) then why bother with it at all for anyone -- and why bother not letting the wizard have it?
Armor matters.
Finally armor carries more than just the bonuses -- it can help you move silently, resist energy, resist grapples, and those sneak attacks/critical hits you mention -- again with cheaper costs in actions and (generally) with cheaper gold/ opportunity costs as well.
Finally armor carries more than just the bonuses -- it can help you move silently, resist energy, resist grapples, and those sneak attacks/critical hits you mention -- again with cheaper costs in actions and (generally) with cheaper gold/ opportunity costs as well.
Well, it's not like bracers of armor can't do those things as well. Unless that was your point.
Well, it's not like bracers of armor can't do those things as well. Unless that was your point.Finally armor carries more than just the bonuses -- it can help you move silently, resist energy, resist grapples, and those sneak attacks/critical hits you mention -- again with cheaper costs in actions and (generally) with cheaper gold/ opportunity costs as well.
Actually in most cases -- they can't.
You specifically can't put stuff on them that doesn't come with an enhancement equivlent. Also the armor will be full bonus and have heavy fortification -- while the bracers of armor will lose bonus to gain such effect.
So to review:
Armor can have +gp bonuses -- bracers of armor cannot
Armor can have full AC bonus and heavy fortification -- bracers of armor cannot
armor lasts without magic -- bracers of armor don't
Basically armor is better in every way.