Arcane bond nullifies wizards?


Rules Questions

101 to 123 of 123 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Kthulhu wrote:
nicklas Læssøe wrote:
Dire Mongoose wrote:


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.
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.

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.

And other than knowing said Wizard waves his hands about then fire rains down on him he still needs a Knowledge Arcane or Spell Craft roll to know anything else.

I force my players to make the knowledge dungeoneering rolls needed to determine a weakness, and I never call monsters by name only use descriptions.

My BBEG must be a lot more greedy why Sunder the master crafted item? It sells for a crap-load. Hell Jewelry is nifty too, as well as spell-books. Disarming master-crafted weapons is much better if you intend to add to your treasure horde :) Sunder is bad you can't sell broken items for very much...

Shadow Lodge

Dire Mongoose wrote:

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?

Personally, I have my doubts as to whether anything that "Stephen Hawking" has produced in the past decade or so isn't just the work of his graduate students. But I digress.

I'f I'm hiring an ADVENTURING wizard, then I want one who's decently well rounded. I'll sacrifice a couple of points of INT to have a guy who's not coughing up blood constantly, folds at the slightest bit of damage, or has trouble making a DC 15 Fortitude save (sorry Raist!).


im beginning to get the feeling you dont read all my post, and only answer part of what i state abraham.

Yes blur only negates 5% of the difference between them, but thats assumed the cleric will only get hit on a 20. and therefore the wizard on a 15+. if the wizard was hit on a 5+ and the cleric on a 10+, blur would (in probability) be the same as if you had to hit the wizard on a 8+, ie. better than only 5%. So yes its still inferior to the clerics ac. Although he will negate sneak attacks and precision damage, which makes up for that in my oppinion.

The wizard WILL NOT spend an action buffing up with shield and blur, why would he? it is very cheap to make lvl 1 and 2 scroll by yourself. So to get an improved familiar with UMD to use it, is good action economy. Then the wizard can show off his higher level spells, helping out in the encounter from the beginning.

Im pretty sure my answer, two posts ago, that there was a reason the cleric had armor prof. Its a benefit, ofc it is, they have that med BAB progression, healing, spontanious conversion, and better saves, Because divine spells are inferior to arcane. Its for balance.

I was marely arguing that the wizard would be able to equal the armor prof out, ie. that he is not inferior. As you claimed regularly in the beginning of the thread.


.
..
...
....
.....

Realmwalker wrote:

My BBEG must be a lot more greedy why Sunder the master crafted item?

..because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money.

They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with.

Some men..

..just want to watch the world burn.

::

Spoiler:

Bonus Ode to a Toad

Oh Toady,
You complete me,
You love me,
I love blowing you up,
Oh Toady.

*shakes flaming fist*


nicklas Læssøe wrote:


The wizard WILL NOT spend an action buffing up with shield and blur, why would he? it is very cheap to make lvl 1 and 2 scroll by yourself. So to get an improved familiar with UMD to use it, is good action economy. Then the wizard can show off his higher level spells, helping out in the encounter from the beginning.

Actually shield is a personal spell and the familiar cannot cast it for the wizard. The familiar link works the other way in this regard.

That said if you are spending a feat towards this, then the cleric spends a (nowhere near optimal) feat towards heavy armor proficiency.

Finally the cleric, in medium or heavy armor, does not look as easy to hit as the wizard without any armor and will draw less fire as a result.

-James


Kthulhu wrote:


I'f I'm hiring an ADVENTURING wizard, then I want one who's decently well rounded. I'll sacrifice a couple of points of INT to have a guy who's not coughing up blood constantly, folds at the slightest bit of damage, or has trouble making a DC 15 Fortitude save (sorry Raist!).

Well, of course the 20 INT wizard will have a CON score too. Don't be silly! It's everything else that gets sacrificed depending on the point buy.


Dire Mongoose wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:


I'f I'm hiring an ADVENTURING wizard, then I want one who's decently well rounded. I'll sacrifice a couple of points of INT to have a guy who's not coughing up blood constantly, folds at the slightest bit of damage, or has trouble making a DC 15 Fortitude save (sorry Raist!).
Well, of course the 20 INT wizard will have a CON score too. Don't be silly! It's everything else that gets sacrificed depending on the point buy.

A CON score is only part of the equation. A wizard that can barely carry his own robes (not to mention his spellbook, which isn't exactly light), has the common sense of a rock, and is likely to piss off everybody he meets is not much help to a party, no matter how good his spells are.


sunshadow21 wrote:
A CON score is only part of the equation. A wizard that can barely carry his own robes, has the common sense of a rock, and is likely to piss off everybody he meets is not much help to a party, no matter how good his spells are.

I submit to you that your party is more interested in winning beauty contests than whatever their actual job is. This isn't a good thing.


Dire Mongoose wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
A CON score is only part of the equation. A wizard that can barely carry his own robes, has the common sense of a rock, and is likely to piss off everybody he meets is not much help to a party, no matter how good his spells are.
I submit to you that your party is more interested in winning beauty contests than whatever their actual job is. This isn't a good thing.

No my party would be more interested in not having to carry the wizard's spellbook for him, and watching him use all his spells to get out to the trouble he has caused.


sunshadow21 wrote:
Dire Mongoose wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
A CON score is only part of the equation. A wizard that can barely carry his own robes, has the common sense of a rock, and is likely to piss off everybody he meets is not much help to a party, no matter how good his spells are.
I submit to you that your party is more interested in winning beauty contests than whatever their actual job is. This isn't a good thing.
No my party would be more interested in not having to carry the wizard's spellbook for him, and watching him use all his spells to get out to the trouble he has caused.

So.... You've decided to go way off topic regarding your dislike of people who make characters with attributes that have anything less than a 0 modifier apparently... Really?


sunshadow21 wrote:


No my party would be more interested in not having to carry the wizard's spellbook for him, and watching him use all his spells to get out to the trouble he has caused.

A wizard with a 7 STR can carry his own spellbook. Strawman.


Dire Mongoose wrote:


So.... You've decided to go way off topic regarding your dislike of people who make characters with attributes that have anything less than a 0 modifier apparently... Really?

Actually, it's not all that off topic. Assuming an optimized character to figure out how much problem an achilles heel like a bonded object is going to have makes a major difference.

My point is that the average adventuring wizard is probably not going to want to put all his eggs in one attribute, which will have a significant impact on his ability to make concentration checks, especially early on. Since many of the numbers posted supporting the bonded object seemed to assume a completely optimized wizard, this is an important point to make. Having one or two negative modifiers probably won't hurt all that much, but any more than that and the character starts to become a liability, not an asset.

An INT of 16 to 18 is not only perfectly doable, but also in many ways more practical to expect, and allows the rest of the stats to be high enough that people aren't wondering how this character is managing to survive. This also changes how willing a character is going to be to accept the possible risk of losing a bonded item.


sunshadow21 wrote:
My point is that the average adventuring wizard is probably not going to want to put all his eggs in one attribute, which will have a significant impact on his ability to make concentration checks, especially early on. Since many of the numbers posted supporting the bonded object seemed to assume a completely optimized wizard, this is an important point to make. Having one or two negative modifiers probably won't hurt all that much, but any more than that and the character starts to become a liability, not an asset.

You don't need more than one or two negative modifiers, even with 10 point buy.

And I can only say that your average adventuring wizards differ from pretty much all of the wizards I've actually seen in play.


sunshadow21 wrote:
Dire Mongoose wrote:


So.... You've decided to go way off topic regarding your dislike of people who make characters with attributes that have anything less than a 0 modifier apparently... Really?

Actually, it's not all that off topic. Assuming an optimized character to figure out how much problem an achilles heel like a bonded object is going to have makes a major difference.

My point is that the average adventuring wizard is probably not going to want to put all his eggs in one attribute, which will have a significant impact on his ability to make concentration checks, especially early on. Since many of the numbers posted supporting the bonded object seemed to assume a completely optimized wizard, this is an important point to make. Having one or two negative modifiers probably won't hurt all that much, but any more than that and the character starts to become a liability, not an asset.

An INT of 16 to 18 is not only perfectly doable, but also in many ways more practical to expect, and allows the rest of the stats to be high enough that people aren't wondering how this character is managing to survive. This also changes how willing a character is going to be to accept the possible risk of losing a bonded item.

If by optimized, you mean the wizard trying to get as many spells per day (AKA being useful to the party) by increasing their only primary stat (the one that affects their spells, the useful part of the class) without gutting themselves and taking 6's in every other stat... Well, yeah. I guess that is optimized. It's also what the vast majority of anyone playing a wizard does. I guess being "optimized" is a point of perspective that spans a whole lot of area.

Thanks for mentioning the topic this time at least.


Sorry about the apparent off topic tangent, I lost track of the number of posts. By optimized I mean a wizard that's everything and the kitchen sink into a single stat at at the exclusion of all else, while expecting access to things like +4 or higher headbands of intellect by the time they can cast 3rd level spells, which is something I have never seen in any campaign I've played in. Or at least that is what I'm forced to guess by some of the numbers people were throwing around for "reasonable" concentration checks.


sunshadow21 wrote:
Sorry about the apparent off topic tangent, I lost track of the number of posts. By optimized I mean a wizard that's everything and the kitchen sink into a single stat at at the exclusion of all else, while expecting access to things like +4 or higher headbands of intellect by the time they can cast 3rd level spells, which is something I have never seen in any campaign I've played in. Or at least that is what I'm forced to guess by some of the numbers people were throwing around for "reasonable" concentration checks.

Except getting an 18 in 1 stat doesn't take the kitchen sink, even having two 7's isn't horribly debilitating to a character. Just because the average stat is 10 for an adventurer PC doesn't make a 7 unplayable. It is a penalty but those are something that can be worked around, don't play the "face" if your charisma is low, buy a mount if your strength is low. A 7 is probably closer to what the common npcs have as an average. The PC with that stat is no worse than the typical npc, but yet the world ends??

As for the +4 headband, I specifically remember that post saying "if you can craft as you can get it for half the cost." Go ahead, re read it, it is there. The fact of the matter is, the class is based of one stat. The better that stat is, the more effective the class is at doing what it is supposed to be doing. Higher DC's, more spells, less likely chance to blow a spell when making a concentration check. If you're going to have a drawback that could come up on a semi regular basis which involves concentration checks, bumping your primary stat might be even more important and worth the effort in tweaking things to be the best you can be at it.


Having an 18 and 2 7s isn't that hard or bad, but it does amplify the "one trick" pony aspect of the class, something that in my opinion is something any good DM would remind the player of at least occasionally. As far as crafting is concerned, half of a +4 headband is still a freaking lot, and maybe its just because I've played with comparatively stingy DMs, but both time and gold are very precious commodities in the campaigns I've played in. Also, unless you make that headband your bonded object, any bonded object is not going to be getting many boosts needed to protect it. And if all you are doing to protect is stuffing it under your cloak with no other attempt at subterfuge or misdirection, someone will figure out what it is and where it is. They may or may not be able or willing to do anything about it, but someone will find out eventually, especially if the character is constantly casting spells. This doesn't even go into any effort required to protect and copy your spell book, which is yet again another time and money sink. Not the mention the numerous scrolls and wands a typical wizard is expected to have. To me personally, the whole combination is just way too much of a black hole for resources. It is bad enough without the sink hole of a bonded object, unless your DM is really, really nice about giving out lots of gold and down time.


Skylancer4 wrote:


Except getting an 18 in 1 stat doesn't take the kitchen sink, even having two 7's isn't horribly debilitating to a character. Just because the average stat is 10 for an adventurer PC doesn't make a 7 unplayable. It is a penalty but those are something that can be worked around, don't play the "face" if your charisma is low, buy a mount if your strength is low. A 7 is probably closer to what the common npcs have as an average. The PC with that stat is no worse than the typical npc, but yet the world ends??

Here's the standard array for basic common NPCs. 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, and 8. Two negative stats. That array with 18 instead the 13 is completely doable in 20pt Build I'd guess.


voska66 wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:


Except getting an 18 in 1 stat doesn't take the kitchen sink, even having two 7's isn't horribly debilitating to a character. Just because the average stat is 10 for an adventurer PC doesn't make a 7 unplayable. It is a penalty but those are something that can be worked around, don't play the "face" if your charisma is low, buy a mount if your strength is low. A 7 is probably closer to what the common npcs have as an average. The PC with that stat is no worse than the typical npc, but yet the world ends??
Here's the standard array for basic common NPCs. 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, and 8. Two negative stats. That array with 18 instead the 13 is completely doable in 20pt Build I'd guess.

My point being that PC's are supposed to be the cream of the crop, heroic even. If the best of the best average 10, the normal people are averaging something less. Just because an average NPC's stats are that, doesn't mean that it is the "world average." Even the NPCs who the PCs run into are probably better than the "world average" and would have appropriately better statistics such as those given.


sunshadow21 wrote:
Having an 18 and 2 7s isn't that hard or bad, but it does amplify the "one trick" pony aspect of the class, something that in my opinion is something any good DM would remind the player of at least occasionally. As far as crafting is concerned, half of a +4 headband is still a freaking lot, and maybe its just because I've played with comparatively stingy DMs, but both time and gold are very precious commodities in the campaigns I've played in.

Actually it helps NOT be a one trick pony... It has a ton of skill points because of the focus on intelligence. That right there is 2 tricks for the intentionally "one trick" (spell casting) pony class.

The problem here is "in campaigns I've played in," you are not me, nor any of the other posters here. We all play the game and maybe we all play completely differently. What works for you, or doesn't seem to work is fine. You've got a number of people telling you it does and the game doesn't grind to a halt if it is done. Even the published AP's state that downtime should be given when needed and that if there is a time line given that it is mutable according to the group and what needs to get done. Basically, it is up to the DM. If they don't want you to have downtime, you won't. If they don't want you to have the appropriate WBL, you won't. Basically if they want to make the game annoying, it will be.

sunshadow21 wrote:


Also, unless you make that headband your bonded object, any bonded object is not going to be getting many boosts needed to protect it. And if all you are doing to protect is stuffing it under your cloak with no other attempt at subterfuge or misdirection, someone will figure out what it is and where it is. They may or may not be able or willing to do anything about it, but someone will find out eventually, especially if the character is constantly casting spells. This doesn't even go into any effort required to protect and copy your spell book, which is yet again another time and money sink. Not the mention the numerous scrolls and wands a typical wizard is expected to have. To me personally, the whole combination is just way too much of a black hole for resources. It is bad enough without the sink hole of a bonded object, unless your DM is really, really nice about giving out lots of gold and down time.

Why would you need to "boost it" to protect it? At first all it is is a masterwork item. Why would you be hiding it, why would you be making a BIG DEAL out of it? Are you intentionally trying to sabotage yourself?? Even if you enchant it, would you not try to protect your investments? If you use it the same as any other important piece of gear how do they know it is different. I'm supposed to be "constantly casting spells" if I'm a wizard, you are starting to make no sense now. How do they know how many spells you should or shouldn't be able to cast, hell how do they know how many you cast before unless they were watching everything you did.

Again about the money and time sink, it's subjective. Maybe an issue to you, maybe not to the next guy/gal. What scrolls and wands I'm supposed to have, says who?? If you want me to have a scroll ask, if you want me to have a wand that I don't think I need, well feel free to buy it for me. Otherwise play your own character, thanks. Okay, in your opinion it isn't for you, fine. In others the bonded item has merit and we're explaining why. Do you really need to say anything else besides that?

I think it is worth it, it is free feats and an extra spell per day. That is damn "cool" and actually FREES UP RESOURCES instead of becomes a black hole like you said it does. Unless your DM is being a jerk, down time should be available, hell we used to ENFORCE it when people leveled up. I'm not saying the adventure should be put on hold at the drop of a hat, I'm just saying taking a few days off here and there doesn't actually hinder an adventure. Hell in some groups we've been so beat up that it took days to heal back to full health so we had downtime we didn't necessarily want.


nicklas Læssøe wrote:

im beginning to get the feeling you dont read all my post, and only answer part of what i state abraham.

Yes blur only negates 5% of the difference between them, but thats assumed the cleric will only get hit on a 20. and therefore the wizard on a 15+. if the wizard was hit on a 5+ and the cleric on a 10+, blur would (in probability) be the same as if you had to hit the wizard on a 8+, ie. better than only 5%. So yes its still inferior to the clerics ac. Although he will negate sneak attacks and precision damage, which makes up for that in my oppinion.

The wizard WILL NOT spend an action buffing up with shield and blur, why would he? it is very cheap to make lvl 1 and 2 scroll by yourself. So to get an improved familiar with UMD to use it, is good action economy. Then the wizard can show off his higher level spells, helping out in the encounter from the beginning.

Im pretty sure my answer, two posts ago, that there was a reason the cleric had armor prof. Its a benefit, ofc it is, they have that med BAB progression, healing, spontanious conversion, and better saves, Because divine spells are inferior to arcane. Its for balance.

I was marely arguing that the wizard would be able to equal the armor prof out, ie. that he is not inferior. As you claimed regularly in the beginning of the thread.

Funny Nicklas I pretty sure I addressed each of your points in turn.

Here's the math problem with your assumption of blur making up for 20%.

The wizard gets hit on a 15+, that's 30% of the time. The cleric only gets hit 5% of the time. Now out of that 30% 20% of the time the hit becomes a miss. 20% of 30% is 12% (I admit I got some numbers backwards last time as I didn't account for the fact that on a 15 the wizard is hit instead of better than fifteen). Also where as the armor is always effective the blur is not. True seeing and blur does nothing, as well as against opponents with blindsight. At higher level (the point of your initial post was that at higher level armor doesn't matter) both of these abilities are common.

Therefore blur is not a reliable defense.

Now you suggest to avoid the action economy penalty to use the familiar to cast the buffs -- which isn't a bad idea -- except again those are actions the familiar could have using to do something else -- like enervation, waves of fatigue (or waves of exhaustion), haste, or other such spells which would have more of an impact on the combat from the same use of use magic device and scrolls that you are advocating for casting the buffs.

Also if the wizard uses scrolls he has to maintain a supply and pay for them -- now at higher level this isn't incredible difficult -- if he does the scrolls at minimum caster level -- which is a gamble.

The problem with the argument that divine spells are inferior to arcane spells is the plain fact they are not.

Divine spells don't take a hit on DC just for being divine, and they are not less likely to get through because they are divine -- they also have the same net effects as the arcane spells do. Clerics have access to SoD, and SoS spells that are just as good as wizard spells, and in the few cases where you would blast the cleric spells typically do so without putting allies in harm's way, and with extra effects to boot (such as stunning, blinding, sickening, etc). The only place an arcane caster has a slight edge is battlefield control and the only place he has a completely uncontested field is in teleportation.

While teleportation is nice it isn't the be all end all of spells.

Divine casters have summoning, blasting, buffing, battlefield control, healing, and debuffing just as well as the arcane casters do.

With save throws in the same range, without longer casting time with an easier time of gaining such spells (since they have unlimited spells known) and the ability to cast in armor as well as any other defense they care to bring (many of which they can achive just as easily as the arcane caster can).

Finally I would like to know what parts of your post I haven't addressed or have ignored in my replies to those specific posts. I generally quote you not to insult or throw your words back but so I can see what it is that you have presented as your argument so that I can reply in turn.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens Subscriber
sunshadow21 wrote:
Sorry about the apparent off topic tangent, I lost track of the number of posts. By optimized I mean a wizard that's everything and the kitchen sink into a single stat at at the exclusion of all else, while expecting access to things like +4 or higher headbands of intellect by the time they can cast 3rd level spells, which is something I have never seen in any campaign I've played in. Or at least that is what I'm forced to guess by some of the numbers people were throwing around for "reasonable" concentration checks.

I think I was the first person who said a 'reasonable' concentration check for a lvl 7 wizard would be 15. I stand by that statement. Almost everyone I have played with use a 20 point buy or better, so I used a 20 point buy as a base. I understand many use 15 point buys but I would guess that at least 50% of people use a 20 point buy or better. That gets you a stat line of 10 12 14 17 10 10 assuming any class that gets to choose a racial bonus or gets int as their racial bonus that means the wizard starts with a 19 int and no negative modifiers. Assuming a stat bump in int at level 4 that brings a base 20 int at level 7. I also assumed by level 7 a wizard would have a +2 int headband giving a total stat modifier of +6. If you use traits many wizards will pick the +2 concentration trait.

So once again +15 concentration is +7 level, +6 int, +2 trait. This is done without unreasonable expectations by the player or a high powered game, just your standard heroic fantasy game. And this is done with a good constitution score, and no negative stats for those of you who hate dump stats.


I would like to see Nick post a 10-13th level fighter that works in his group's games. He is obviously playing the game a lot differently than the rest of us.

PS:Playing different does not mean you are doing it wrong. I just want to see where he(Nick) is coming from with his arguments.

edit:Better yet, how does a fighter without armor survive encounters.

101 to 123 of 123 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Arcane bond nullifies wizards? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.