The classic 4


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 238 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Andrew Christian wrote:
CoDzilla wrote:


Casters are not about damage. Your argument is invalid.

Depending on the type of campaign you are running, that's a silly thing to say.

If your campaign is a socio-political campaign, you are correct, and then in many cases the spell casting vs. melee only matters in that the melee guys usually have less skill points than the bard or rogue.

If your campaign is a typical campaign, where you have to go out on an adventure, get some treasure from some "dungeon" or solve some problem, then doing damage is important.

Doing damage is the role of minions. That means summons, hired help, class features. Actual party members only qualify if they bring something else to the table. CoDzilla yes. Guy who is just there to clean up after everyone else no.

Quote:

I recall someone saying that color spray or hold person or charm are just as valid spells to win a fight. I agree with you.

But those spells wear off. If damage is never done, then the bad guy can come back and kill your wizard.

And while he's color sraying the two minions advancing on him, the fighters are taking out the other 3 or 4 by doing... wait for it... damage.

Because some guy who is just there to CdG things is a valid party role? The Cleric, or Druid does that, and brings useful things to the table. PF melees do not rise above minion status.

Meanwhile the Fighter is swinging at one. If he hits, that one will likely die... if it's level 1. If not, it won't. In any case there's still 2-3 there, who get to attack back. Oops, looks like he went incap again. Should have brought another Color Spray machine.

Quote:
Most people I've seen talk about the big power gap starting at 5th level, because wizards get the big damaging AoE spells. Of course you are forgetting that AoE spells only do 5d6 damage at that level, and a hard to very hard campaign considers a CR5 encounter an equal match to a group of 5, 5th level characters. In other words, you aren't fighting five 1 HD monsters (which is how 3.5 defined a CR 5 encounter), but rather you are fighting five 5 HD monsters, which will most likely be able to avoid the one fireball, five kills.

Casters are not about damage. Your argument is invalid.

A caster who does not realize this is more of a waste of space than a PF melee. Fortunately, all he has to do to be useful is to wake up.

Finally, a hard to very hard campaign does not consider a CR 5 encounter an equal match to a party of 5. That's an easy encounter. A normal difficulty campaign considers a CR 5 encounter as a normal fight for a party of 4. A hard campaign will make the typical encounter 2-3 of those. A very hard campaign will make the typical encounter 4-5 of those. This is assuming of course they are CR 5. There is no real correlation between HD and CR. A CR 5 enemy could have 5 HD, or 15. Or anywhere in between.

You're also wrong about 3.5 CR.

Quote:
Don't just toss my opinion out with the bathwater without explaining yourself a bit more in depth. Seems to be your MO on this thread, is to make very broad, polarizing, and vehement statements about anything other than spell casters, without really explaining yourself with mechanical examples.

When discussing things that should really be common knowledge, I do not bother explaining myself in detail. I figure if I say the sky is blue, that people don't need a complex discussion of atmospheric conditions. They will either already know that, or have just been provided with enough information to confirm this for themselves. So then they look up and see that the sky is indeed blue if they doubt.

Quote:
There are many, many folks on here with at least 2+ decades of DnD experience (that includes, most likely, a decade of 3.x experience) and have seen just about every type of campaign. That disagree with you whole heartedly.

I have as much, or more experience than them. Further this isn't a subjective matter, so if they have been playing all this time, and haven't caught onto basic system knowledge then I question just what the hell they were doing all this time. I figured out that casters rock the house within two weeks. Sure I am highly intelligent and highly intelligent people learn things quickly but that's the sort of thing that anyone with any real experience with 3.x should be able to catch in an amount of time orders of magnitude less than one decade.

Not to mention that any experience other than 3.x is quite irrelevant to the discussion so only the past 10 years matter even if it has been more like 20 or 30.

Quote:
Your experiences are not the only ones that matter in this argument. Just like mine aren't the only ones that matter.

No, they are not. But only accurate assessments matter. Mine happen to be accurate. Many other people's are accurate. Anyone who honestly claims that an optimized party is not a full caster party's assessment is not accurate. They are objectively wrong. On the internet.


Quote:
It really doesn't answer my question however.

then state your question flat out,rather than asking something completely different. this isn't a mind reading game. you asked about traps that warn bad guys. i pointed out that the druid can have disable device... which can stop traps that warn bad guys. Now you say that i didn't answer your question about ... the speed at which traps are found?

Quote:
A rogue finding traps does so at full speed, while a non-rogue has to search actively which slows down their movement rate or look to simply trigger them to find them.

only if they take a particular talent: they don't all do that. A druid is no worse in this regard than a rogue using his talents for 2 weapon fighting.

Quote:
A rogue (and other trapfinders via variants) can disarm magical traps rather than hope to burn dispels on them then hope there aren't any closely after them as they won't have time to fully search before the dispel's suppression wears off.

dispels the party wouldn't have anyway if there was a rogue there instead of a druid. re the inevitable mention of use magic device,the druid can use a wand too...heck, the druid can MAKE the wand.


CoDzilla wrote:
Doing damage is the role of minions. That means summons, hired help, class features. Actual party members only qualify if they bring something else to the table. CoDzilla yes. Guy who is just there to clean up after everyone else no.

No, some classes are about damage, some are about other things. Ultimately, you have to deal damage. A wizard who wastes spells summoning critters to do damage when there is a party fighter is doing just that - wasting spells. Critters and minions are there to tie up foes until the Big Burly Bloke With The Big Weapon gets around to laying the smackdown on them.

Parties are composites that are greater than the sum of their parts, you see, and it all comes down to teamwork. At least, that's the way it's been in every game I have played in ...


Dabbler wrote:
CoDzilla wrote:
Doing damage is the role of minions. That means summons, hired help, class features. Actual party members only qualify if they bring something else to the table. CoDzilla yes. Guy who is just there to clean up after everyone else no.

No, some classes are about damage, some are about other things. Ultimately, you have to deal damage. A wizard who wastes spells summoning critters to do damage when there is a party fighter is doing just that - wasting spells. Critters and minions are there to tie up foes until the Big Burly Bloke With The Big Weapon gets around to laying the smackdown on them.

Parties are composites that are greater than the sum of their parts, you see, and it all comes down to teamwork. At least, that's the way it's been in every game I have played in ...

And damage is a subservient role. It's something mooks do. The PCs are not meant to be mooks.

Insert spell to win combat. The rest is just cleanup. Not worth a party slot.

We are still discussing optimized play right?


CoDzilla wrote:
And damage is a subservient role. It's something mooks do. The PCs are not meant to be mooks.

In any event, if you can play without inflicting damage, it's subservient, if not, it's vital - and a specialist at something vital is always useful.

I won't deny that you can make a party of casters work, but that doesn't mean it's the best combination.

CoDzilla wrote:
Insert spell to win combat. The rest is just cleanup. Not worth a party slot.

Insert successful saves against spell that would otherwise win combat, and wish desperately that one of you had the hit points to take a hit when you realise that not having a tank may not have been a strategically sensible decision after all. That's the problem with relying on spells ... they don't always work.

CoDzilla wrote:
We are still discussing optimized play right?

Are we?

Quote:
I know there are endless combinations you could pick that would work, but if your life depended on it, what 4 classes would you pick that you think would have the greatest chance to succeed and why? Let's assume you are adventuring in any typical Adventure Path campaign without any unusual anomalies to consider.

Optimization isn't mentioned there. In fact, I have always viewed it as an exercise in pointlessness, because if everyone does it, the DM just makes the challenges tougher, and if everyone isn't doing it you get an unbalanced party which spoils it for half the players.

I know that my four choices would include at least one that didn't depend on failed saves to function. The caster party may work 9/10 times, but in ten encounters that means one in which you are hosed.

No, if my life depended on it I'd cover all my bases as best I could, and one base to cover is the one where 'if all else goes wrong' ...


Quote:
Parties are composites that are greater than the sum of their parts, you see, and it all comes down to teamwork. At least, that's the way it's been in every game I have played in ...

Definitely

after Godwizard has debuffed the hell out of the enemy , someone needs to finish him off before the spells wear off. a meat shield with a big, honking, 2 handed weapon is a good way to do that. at lower levels, a meat shield is necessary because you can only cast 2-3 spells per day and don't have the resources to make it up with wands and scrolls.

summoning is nice, but they're not fighters, and they're not there when you reaaaaly need them... the first few rounds of combat. Wizards aren't gods for the first few levels if the dm remembers that you're supposed to have about 4 encounters per day.

while A wizard is more powerful than A fighter that doesn't mean that 4 wizards is better than 4 fighters. some things synergize well together to be more than the sum of their parts.

Shadow Lodge

Why is this thread still going? Google has conclusively proven that warriors are the best class, that Pathfinder is the "warrior edition", that if you are playing anything other than a warrior YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG!!!, and that if anyone in your group is playing anything other than a warrior, then they are simply non-viable dead weight that serves no purpose except to hinder the warrior party members.

Pathfinder...all warriors...all the time!

GOOOOOOOOOO WARRIORS!!!

In fact, I suggest that if anyone in your group is dumb enough to play crappy dead weight class like a wizard or a cleric, you should punch them as hard as you can in the nose while chanting "Play a warrior, dummy!" until your hand is worn down to a bloody stump! That'll teach 'em to play crap classes! BADWRONGFUN is bad, wrong, and EVIL!!!


Dabbler wrote:
CoDzilla wrote:
Insert spell to win combat. The rest is just cleanup. Not worth a party slot.
Insert successful saves against spell that would otherwise win combat, and wish desperately that one of you had the hit points to take a hit when you realise that not having a tank may not have been a strategically sensible decision after all. That's the problem with relying on spells ... they don't always work.

75% success rate. If it fails, you get 3 more tries per round.

The PF Wizard also has 10 HP to the PF Fighter's 13. Your argument is invalid.

Not to mention that there is no such thing as a tank in D&D, so the enemy would be hitting the Wizard regardless.

In any case, 75% success rate is pretty good. That's better than you can expect with +6 to hit against most stuff (a level 1 melee), and it works regardless of enemy HP.

Quote:
Are we?

Yes. Though you seem to think we are not by discussing things that are clearly not optimal.

Quote:
I know there are endless combinations you could pick that would work, but if your life depended on it, what 4 classes would you pick that you think would have the greatest chance to succeed and why? Let's assume you are adventuring in any typical Adventure Path campaign without any unusual anomalies to consider.
Quote:
Optimization isn't mentioned there. In fact, I have always viewed it as an exercise in pointlessness, because if everyone does it, the DM just makes the challenges tougher, and if everyone isn't doing it you get an unbalanced party which spoils it for half the players.

The bolded part says you're wrong. Just because he didn't use that exact word doesn't mean it isn't true.

Quote:
I know that my four choices would include at least one that didn't depend on failed saves to function. The caster party may work 9/10 times, but in ten encounters that means one in which you are hosed.

HP damage has a much less than 90% success rate. Per person. You were saying?


BigNorseWolf wrote:


Quote:
It really doesn't answer my question however.

then state your question flat out,rather than asking something completely different. this isn't a mind reading game. you asked about traps that warn bad guys. i pointed out that the druid can have disable device... which can stop traps that warn bad guys. Now you say that i didn't answer your question about ... the speed at which traps are found?

I did state it flat out, here it is again:

JamesMaissen wrote:


So I'm curious how a sub-par trap detection/removal works in the APs that they've put out so far.

Are you saying that slowly searching your way along having a druid's perception then relying on the druid to disable device on mechanical traps and dispels for magical traps, works well in the APs out there?

It doesn't seem all that great to me, but if the APs haven't focused on traps or handled them well perhaps it works out just fine.

It would be akin to a party that has next to no ranged damage dealing capacity doing wonderfully well because the encounters happen to never really need it. Or the party sorcerer being the face even though they don't have any diplomacy ranks working out fine because the scant times any social checks come up they happen to be fairly low and their raw CHA score suffices.

Does that make sense?

That's my question. It deals with the APs that are out there, what they've focused on doing and what they haven't. Is piss-poor trap detection/removal sufficient for them?

-James


james maissen wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


Quote:
It really doesn't answer my question however.

then state your question flat out,rather than asking something completely different. this isn't a mind reading game. you asked about traps that warn bad guys. i pointed out that the druid can have disable device... which can stop traps that warn bad guys. Now you say that i didn't answer your question about ... the speed at which traps are found?

I did state it flat out, here it is again:

JamesMaissen wrote:


So I'm curious how a sub-par trap detection/removal works in the APs that they've put out so far.

this was answered: your question is invalid because you are assuming facts not in evidence, namely that the trap detection is sub par.

Quote:
Are you saying that slowly searching your way along having a druid's perception then relying on the druid to disable device on mechanical traps and dispels for magical traps, works well in the APs out there?

AGAIN... the druid is not any slower than most rogues. Fast trap detection uses a very valuable talent. One feat and the druid is on par for disable device. the druid will not detect traps as well as a trap focused rogue but they will detect it, on average, as well as most rogues (better at lowlevels, worse at high)

you're trading a very small decrease in trap effectiveness for a very big upgrade in combat. you are in more combats, and combats are more likely to kill you,than traps,therefore its a very good deal. imho.

Quote:
It doesn't seem all that great to me, but if the APs haven't focused on traps or handled them well perhaps it works out just fine.

i havent done the ap's, but i've done almost everything else. traps are usually an annoyance or a loss of the surprise round. being mildly sub optimal at one isn't a big deal for either a rogue or a druid.

*** unless you wind up in the temple of elemental evil: old school edition. in which case you're dead anyway.

That's my question. It deals with the APs that are out there, what they've focused on doing and what they haven't. Is piss-poor trap detection/removal sufficient for them?

-short answer: a druid is not piss poor trap detection, they're roughly average rogue trap detection:


CoDzilla wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
CoDzilla wrote:
Insert spell to win combat. The rest is just cleanup. Not worth a party slot.
Insert successful saves against spell that would otherwise win combat, and wish desperately that one of you had the hit points to take a hit when you realise that not having a tank may not have been a strategically sensible decision after all. That's the problem with relying on spells ... they don't always work.
75% success rate. If it fails, you get 3 more tries per round.

Are you seriously telling me that all four wizards will have memorised the same spell and be casting them at the same creature in the same round? Congratulations, you have taken an under-optimised party and are playing it in the most under-optimised way. 75% of the time, three of them may as well not be there.

Of course, if that one spell is one that happens to not be working because of circumstances ... ooops! Four dead wizards!

CoDzilla wrote:
The PF Wizard also has 10 HP to the PF Fighter's 13. Your argument is invalid.

Depends very much which wizard and which fighter. If you have a fighter drunk, in his party clothes against a wizard laoded for bear, maybe, but be serious, the fighter is always going to have the bigger Con, Toughness and when they are available attribute boosters that will send him sailing to double the average wizards HP.

Let's take level 1: Wizard = 6hp + con; fighter = 10 hp + Con + toughness if he feels like it, if not he has the spare feats for it whenever he likes.

The only thing here that is wrong here is your math.

CoDzilla wrote:
Not to mention that there is no such thing as a tank in D&D, so the enemy would be hitting the Wizard regardless.

If the foe has the ability to bypass defences, he's going to be stomping the wizards into the dirt BEFORE they get the spells off. If he can't, the tank works great.

CoDzilla wrote:
In any case, 75% success rate is pretty good. That's better than you can expect with +6 to hit against most stuff (a level 1 melee), and it works regardless of enemy HP.

It is, I grant you, but it's an all-or-nothing gamble. The big guy with the sword getting in the way may not get a take-down, but he can give the wizard a chance for spell #2. If not, see my comment on bypassing defences above.

CoDzilla wrote:
Quote:
Are we?
Yes. Though you seem to think we are not by discussing things that are clearly not optimal.

Given your idea of wizard tactics (all spam the same spell, meaning three of them are wasted), I am not the only one, so clearly we are NOT talking optimisation here.

CoDzilla wrote:
Quote:
I know there are endless combinations you could pick that would work, but if your life depended on it, what 4 classes would you pick that you think would have the greatest chance to succeed and why? Let's assume you are adventuring in any typical Adventure Path campaign without any unusual anomalies to consider.
Quote:
Optimization isn't mentioned there. In fact, I have always viewed it as an exercise in pointlessness, because if everyone does it, the DM just makes the challenges tougher, and if everyone isn't doing it you get an unbalanced party which spoils it for half the players.
The bolded part says you're wrong. Just because he didn't use that exact word doesn't mean it isn't true.

The bolded part says that you have to cover your bases and all eventualities, and a caster-only party does not do that. As I have shown above, your spamtastic wizard party has a huge hole in their tactics. As I have pointed out, optimization isn't going to help.

This is the difference: like General Patton you are thinking in terms of winning the battle or bust and are prepared to gamble, which is great when it pays off (like Patton, you don't think you'll lose). Like General Montgomery, I'm thinking in terms of survival, so my first priority is to not lose the battle; after that I'll worry about winning. Now if my life depends on it, making sure you don't lose means living every time, and losing only one battle in ten still means dying.

CoDzilla wrote:
Quote:
I know that my four choices would include at least one that didn't depend on failed saves to function. The caster party may work 9/10 times, but in ten encounters that means one in which you are hosed.
HP damage has a much less than 90% success rate. Per person. You were saying?

Spells have a much less than 75% success rate per person (your figures, above), yet you claim the caster party as 'better'.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
a druid is not piss poor trap detection, they're roughly average rogue trap detection

Actually in Pathfinder a lot of classes are good for trap detection - monks, for example, are as good as rogues thanks to that Wisdom emphasis, and a monk is a lot harder to hurt than a rogue.


Sigh...

Dabbler, I wouldn't worry about it. Codzilla has shown many times he cannot be dissuaded from his position. See the Wiz vs Melee thread.

(By the way he doesn't own APG and refuses to check SRD so anyone quoting APG awesome will be ignored)


BigNorseWolf wrote:


this was answered: your question is invalid because you are assuming facts not in evidence, namely that the trap detection is sub par.

Sure it's sub-par. Perhaps our standards are different here.

Your detection is slow. Despite what you claim, being able to detect traps at normal speeds is HUGE. The difference between this and not CERTAINLY makes the others sub-par.

Chance to detect: As you said the druid has an advantage early on by having a higher WIS, but the rogue's bump every other level eclipses it in a reasonable fashion depending on the druid's build and WIS investment.

Your removal is poor.

Mechanical: is decently behind the rogue in chance to achieve, unless you invest at least a trait into it (determining who you worship) as well as picking up skill focus disable.

Magical: Is drastically behind the rogue in chance to achieve, and when coupled with slow trap detection is dangerous as even when achieved you might not have the requisite time to determine whether or not passing through its area is even safe.

This is not factoring in a trap specialist (rogue alternate feature) that allows bypassing far earlier than the normal rogue.

So in my measuring this is sub-par. Perhaps your value for par is below this and this is 'extravagant'.

My question was about the APs out there. Your opinions are based on other materials that don't have much consequence or occurrence of traps. That's fair, but slightly off in the sense that this question was based upon the APs.

I haven't played them either, so I don't know.

My comments were not that the druid is ineffective, rather is such a kludgey trap detection and removal sufficient?

On your other experience you guess that it is. I don't know, you might be right. In other venues it would be a hit. Perhaps a hit worth taking, but a hit nevertheless.

Quote:

traps are usually an annoyance or a loss of the surprise round. being mildly sub optimal at one isn't a big deal for either a rogue or a druid.

I've played in things where traps and alarms essentially caused a swing from APL+0 or APL+1 encounters to be APL+4 encounters. So traps can be important.

Now if they don't come up, or only come up as in your experience then things like fast traps don't seem worth as much as other rogue talents. Meanwhile for me I can't imagine a rogue that doesn't take it.

Quote:


-short answer: a druid is not piss poor trap detection, they're roughly average rogue trap detection

Then all I can say is that our feelings on rogue trap detection are vastly different. Also what we consider an 'average' rogue as it pertains to traps. But it all stems from the usefulness of trap detection/removal which is dependent upon the consequences for being less in this area.

Peace,

James


Sure it's sub-par. Perhaps our standards are different here.

Your detection is slow.

please answer: do you think more than half of all rogues blow the talent on fast trap detection? If yes then the druid is sub par. If not then the druid is par for the course.

again, fast trap detection is NOT automatic for a rogue.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


please answer: do you think more than half of all rogues blow the talent on fast trap detection?

How about I simply quote my prior post?

James Maissen wrote:


Now if they don't come up, or only come up as in your experience then things like fast traps don't seem worth as much as other rogue talents. Meanwhile for me I can't imagine a rogue that doesn't take it.

And again as I said there, if traps are not a factor in the campaign then rogues will be seen as less viable and that talent as less essential.

Which is why I was asking about the APs as that's what the OP was asking about.

Neither of us know the answer here, so perhaps someone else can answer this question?

-James


Ardenup wrote:

Sigh...

Dabbler, I wouldn't worry about it. Codzilla has shown many times he cannot be dissuaded from his position. See the Wiz vs Melee thread.

(By the way he doesn't own APG and refuses to check SRD so anyone quoting APG awesome will be ignored)

I was rapidly coming to that conclusion - he's one of these "My opinions are facts!" posters, even though nothing of the sort is remotely true.

On the subjects of rogues, I'd have to say that while they are useful, it's as much for their other talents as trap detection. Yes, they can be better at it than anyone, but they are not essential any more.

Given the choice, I would usually go for a multi-classed rogue option, because rogues have their limitations. For example:

Fighter/rogue/duelist is one combo I like a lot.
Monk/rogue is one of my favourites, they make an excellent scout but with more survivability than a rogue.

With straight classes, the following can now be your trap-detector: monks, druids, rangers and bards. My reason for using dips for rogue is you don't just want to find traps, disabling them is also very useful ...


Dabbler wrote:
CoDzilla wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
CoDzilla wrote:
Insert spell to win combat. The rest is just cleanup. Not worth a party slot.
Insert successful saves against spell that would otherwise win combat, and wish desperately that one of you had the hit points to take a hit when you realise that not having a tank may not have been a strategically sensible decision after all. That's the problem with relying on spells ... they don't always work.
75% success rate. If it fails, you get 3 more tries per round.

Are you seriously telling me that all four wizards will have memorised the same spell and be casting them at the same creature in the same round? Congratulations, you have taken an under-optimised party and are playing it in the most under-optimised way. 75% of the time, three of them may as well not be there.

Of course, if that one spell is one that happens to not be working because of circumstances ... ooops! Four dead wizards!

Assuming the party is 4 wizards, and not something like 2 arcane casters and two divine casters absolutely. Color Spray is that good.

As for the other three, it's four chances to go first when you only need one to succeed, and four tanks of Color Sprays.

But as I said, two arcane casters and two divine casters would be optimal.

Quote:
Depends very much which wizard and which fighter. If you have a fighter drunk, in his party clothes against a wizard laoded for bear, maybe, but be serious, the fighter is always going to have the bigger Con, Toughness and when they are available attribute boosters that will send him sailing to double the average wizards HP.

No, no he won't.

SAD means the Wizard has the same or better Con.

Craft feats means the Wizard has the same or better Con.

Wizards need fewer feats than Fighters, because caster feats aren't diluted, so if they wanted to take Toughness they easily could.

Quote:

Let's take level 1: Wizard = 6hp + con; fighter = 10 hp + Con + toughness if he feels like it, if not he has the spare feats for it whenever he likes.

The only thing here that is wrong here is your math.

Wizard = 16 Con, favored class = 10 HP.

Fighter = 14 Con (yay MAD!), favored class = 13 HP.

Oh and guess who favored class mechanics favor? That's right, the Wizard, because he's the one not forced to multiclass and PRC constantly to keep up.

The only thing wrong here is your math.

Quote:
If the foe has the ability to bypass defences, he's going to be stomping the wizards into the dirt BEFORE they get the spells off. If he can't, the tank works great.

I don't know what you are talking about, so here is a bunny with a pancake on its head.

What are you talking about?

Quote:
Given your idea of wizard tactics (all spam the same spell, meaning three of them are wasted), I am not the only one, so clearly we are NOT talking optimisation here.

No, three are not wasted. If it gets to their turn, and they don't need to Color Spray they Scythe instead. But we've already been over this.

Also, defense might win championships, but it loses D&D. Due in no small part to the fact defense doesn't actually work, but if all you're doing is not dying, you are stalling at best. Team Color Spray, which isn't even optimal for the reasons stated multiple times already is both keeping themselves safe, and winning. After all, they only have a 1:256 chance anything gets to attack them, and more likely it's done after the first, or the second Wizard takes their turn.

Quote:
Spells have a much less than 75% success rate per person (your figures, above), yet you claim the caster party as 'better'.

At level 1? No, no they don't. Enemies have Will saves in the -1 to +1 range, your DC is 16. QED.

And that's without being an actual specialist in illusions. Which isn't a bad choice actually.


james maissen wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


please answer: do you think more than half of all rogues blow the talent on fast trap detection?

How about I simply quote my prior post?

James Maissen wrote:


Now if they don't come up, or only come up as in your experience then things like fast traps don't seem worth as much as other rogue talents. Meanwhile for me I can't imagine a rogue that doesn't take it.

And again as I said there, if traps are not a factor in the campaign then rogues will be seen as less viable and that talent as less essential.

Which is why I was asking about the APs as that's what the OP was asking about.

Neither of us know the answer here, so perhaps someone else can answer this question?

-James

whoops,sorry.

I've never seen a rogue take it, and i can't recall seeing it on an optimization build. traps are never that big a deal , and its simply not nearly as FUN as the other options.

Quote:


chance to detect: As you said the druid has an advantage early on by having a higher WIS, but the rogue's bump every other level eclipses it in a reasonable fashion depending on the druid's build and WIS investment.

roughly 8th or 9th level. since the goal was to survive until 12th that seems like a point for the druid. a druid can pump wis to the exclusion of all other stats and still be darn effective.

Quote:
Mechanical: is decently behind the rogue in chance to achieve, unless you invest at least a trait into it (determining who you worship) as well as picking up skill focus disable.

either one or the other would be sufficient to put a druid on par, unless you're assuming par for a rogue is skill focus disable device. This is a feat Or a trait. not both.

Quote:
Magical: Is drastically behind the rogue in chance to achieve, and when coupled with slow trap detection is dangerous as even when achieved you might not have the requisite time to determine whether or not passing through its area is even safe.

a druid can walk around all day with detect magic, which puts him ahead of the rogue in magical trap detection. he can also use spell-craft to determine what the trap does to decide if he should just summon a monster to deal with it.

druids disarm single use non alarm traps FASTER than most rogues via the hapless summoned earth elemental.

Par (score) is a predetermined number of strokes that a scratch golfer should require to complete a hole.-wiki

you're assuming that the average rogue has skill focus: disable device and two rogue talents invested in trap finding... that's certainly possible but its not average and its going to make the rogue a liability in every fight.


CoDzilla wrote:


Assuming the party is 4 wizards, and not something like 2 arcane casters and two divine casters absolutely. Color Spray is that good.

So assuming the party is 4 wizards. Show us what they look like at level 1.

To me it would seem that they are likely in trouble for a good number of fights being skewed like that.

You seem to believe that they survive well, so let's see it. If you want to use OGL pathfinder material beyond the core go for it.

Color spray is nice, but it has lots of limitations. Even more so if the 3 other PCs with you are all also wizards looking at it as their knight in shining armor.

-James

Liberty's Edge

CoDZilla,

I have a bit of a facetious question...

Why bother going on the adventure or playing the game at all?

If the god combo is a bunch of wizards, and no matter what argument anyone else comes up with, your spells always end up succeeding in the end and everything is hunky dory in Wizard land...

Why bother even going on the adventure.

Just show up and ask your DM what treasure you get.

Wait...

I'll answer for you...

Because everything doesn't always work.

And if everything doesn't always work, and you got a group of just wizards... then you are screwed.

Plus, as a DM, I tailor adventures to the party running through them. So I will make it challenging for 4 Wizards. It isn't going to be the same module a balanced party would face.

And then what if there is a boss bad guy who knows your party, so he sets up his minions with serious defenses against spells. An anti-magic zone, serious SR that your spell casters actually have to think about (your contention that SR is not a concern is silly--no matter the optimization) etc, etc.

And to say that the fighter or the paladin or ranger are just mooks is also a very silly assertion.


CoDzilla wrote:

Wizard = 16 Con, favored class = 10 HP.

Fighter = 14 Con (yay MAD!), favored class = 13 HP.

Oh and guess who favored class mechanics favor? That's right, the Wizard, because he's the one not forced to multiclass and PRC constantly to keep up.

The only thing wrong here is your math.

Everything wrong with your argument is summed up here.

In what way is a fighter more MAD than a wizard? Well none actually. A fighter needs good strength, constitution and dexterity, usually in that order. A wizard needs good intelligence more than a fighter needs good strength (you can build a good fighter without it, but you cannot build a good wizard without it), good dexterity as much as a fighter does if not more so, and constitution ... well, he needs it as much as any other class.

Hence on average, fighters are likely to have a higher constitution than wizards. The wizard is likely to have 14 Con and the fighter 16 Con. The fighter is likely to blow a feat on Toughness, too, and he has them to spare, but we'll ignore that for now.

All you have demonstrated in this is that a badly designed fighter does not vastly outshine a wizard specifically designed for good hit points. Maybe you make all your wizards like that, but most optimised wizards have high Intelligence as their paramount stat, and decent dexterity to hit with those rays. Sure, a wizard does not need the dexterity ... but by the same token neither does the fighter, especially if he is going to go heavy metal and armour up as early as he can.

Is my maths bad? No, but your assumptions are clearly VERY skewed.


james maissen wrote:
CoDzilla wrote:


Assuming the party is 4 wizards, and not something like 2 arcane casters and two divine casters absolutely. Color Spray is that good.

So assuming the party is 4 wizards. Show us what they look like at level 1.

To me it would seem that they are likely in trouble for a good number of fights being skewed like that.

You seem to believe that they survive well, so let's see it. If you want to use OGL pathfinder material beyond the core go for it.

Color spray is nice, but it has lots of limitations. Even more so if the 3 other PCs with you are all also wizards looking at it as their knight in shining armor.

-James

No, we're assuming two arcane and two divine casters. Optimized party, remember? Try to follow along.


Dabbler wrote:
CoDzilla wrote:

Wizard = 16 Con, favored class = 10 HP.

Fighter = 14 Con (yay MAD!), favored class = 13 HP.

Oh and guess who favored class mechanics favor? That's right, the Wizard, because he's the one not forced to multiclass and PRC constantly to keep up.

The only thing wrong here is your math.

Everything wrong with your argument is summed up here.

In what way is a fighter more MAD than a wizard? Well none actually. A fighter needs good strength, constitution and dexterity, usually in that order. A wizard needs good intelligence more than a fighter needs good strength (you can build a good fighter without it, but you cannot build a good wizard without it), good dexterity as much as a fighter does if not more so, and constitution ... well, he needs it as much as any other class.

For the precise reason you stated for Fighters, but that you were wrong about Wizards.

Fighter needs Str/Dex/Con/Wis. 4 stats.

Wizard needs Con and Int. Dex isn't important. 2 stats.

Even if you try and ignore Wisdom on the Fighter, which means one Will save and you're a liability 3 is still grater than 2.

Meanwhile Strength is a weaker stat than Intelligence. Ever wonder why there's so many 3.5 races with large Strength bonuses? It's because you need something like 40-50 Str or more to be an effective melee, which requires tricks to do but you're just fine with max stat + level + items for Int.

And know what that means? 20 Strength or bust. Dex builds are not viable, don't insult the board's intelligence by claiming otherwise.

Quote:
Hence on average, fighters are likely to have a higher constitution than wizards. The wizard is likely to have 14 Con and the fighter 16 Con. The fighter is likely to blow a feat on Toughness, too, and he has them to spare, but we'll ignore that for now.

How high a PB do you need to get the Fighter at 18 Str, 16 Con, high Dex, high Wis before racial adjustments again? I'm pretty sure it's higher than 25.

Quote:

All you have demonstrated in this is that a badly designed fighter does not vastly outshine a wizard specifically designed for good hit points. Maybe you make all your wizards like that, but most optimised wizards have high Intelligence as their paramount stat, and decent dexterity to hit with those rays. Sure, a wizard does not need the dexterity ... but by the same token neither does the fighter, especially if he is going to go heavy metal and armour up as early as he can.

Is my maths bad? No, but your assumptions are clearly VERY skewed.

Con is everyone's second best friend. The Wizard just has more resources to capitalize on that.

And hit with what rays? The only good ray in PF core that comes to mind is Enervation - and by the time you are using it, you're at 15ish, because it's not worth casting when you first get 4th level spells or for a while after. Which means hitting touch AC is no problem.

There's good rays in 3.5, but we're not talking about that.

Liberty's Edge

CoDzilla wrote:


No, we're assuming two arcane and two divine casters. Optimized party, remember? Try to follow along.

I thought you were arguing about 4 wizards having 4 color sprays each and thus optimizing the color spray?

If you think as a Cleric I'm taking nothing but color spray, you're stupid.

Secondly, just because you don't know how to optimize a fighter (as seen by your math above) does not mean they are crappy classes.


Andrew Christian wrote:


Plus, as a DM, I tailor adventures to the party running through them. So I will make it challenging for 4 Wizards. It isn't going to be the same module a balanced party would face.

And then what if there is a boss bad guy who knows your party, so he sets up his minions with serious defenses against spells. An anti-magic zone, serious SR that your spell casters actually have to think about (your contention that SR is not a concern is silly--no matter the optimization) etc, etc.

And to say that the fighter or the paladin or ranger are just mooks is also a very silly assertion.

I just wanted to remind people that the OP was asking about APs, as-are, running them as they are published to be run. I dont think any of the APs involve anything you mentioned above, even if you are tailoring specifics to your party.


CoDzilla wrote:
Fighter needs Str/Dex/Con/Wis. 4 stats.

Two stats - Str and Con. Fighters have to take hits and dish them out, that's what they do. Wisdom maybe to try and resist mental attacks, but frankly you are best not bothering and taking Iron Will. After all, you have feats to burn but only so many points to allocate. Dex just does not have to be important unless you are a missile specialist, but that's a whole different ballgame.

CoDzilla wrote:
Wizard needs Con and Int. Dex isn't important. 2 stats.

Wizard needs Dex and Con the way the fighter needs Wisdom. He definitely needs Int. A fighter can be effective with a 14 strength, but I don't know a wizard that could risk that low an intelligence score. If a wizard needs 2 stats, the fighter needs 2 stats.

CoDzilla wrote:
Even if you try and ignore Wisdom on the Fighter, which means one Will save and you're a liability 3 is still grater than 2.

There's no try about it, you can ignore it. Otherwise by the same logic the Wizard needs Con and Dex equally, or fall to bad saves in those. If your wonderful spamtastic wizard has 16 Con, he needs 16 Dex and that leaves him with 14 Int on 25 point buy. Of course he can add his +2 racial bonus in there, but it's hardly stellar is it?

CoDzilla wrote:
Meanwhile Strength is a weaker stat than Intelligence. Ever wonder why there's so many 3.5 races with large Strength bonuses? It's because you need something like 40-50 Str or more to be an effective melee, which requires tricks to do but you're just fine with max stat + level + items for Int.

Yes, we know you think spells rule, but you do not need such a massive strength to be effective in melee. Melee is not just about dishing out damage; it's about tying down foes as well.

CoDzilla wrote:
And know what that means? 20 Strength or bust. Dex builds are not viable, don't insult the board's intelligence by claiming otherwise.

So all the effective fighter builds I have seen with less than 20 strength weren't effective? Rigggght.

I don't think I'm the one trying to insult the board's intelligence here. You are making a lot of assertions without any case to back them up that fly in the face of the experience of many players.

CoDzilla wrote:
Quote:
Hence on average, fighters are likely to have a higher constitution than wizards. The wizard is likely to have 14 Con and the fighter 16 Con. The fighter is likely to blow a feat on Toughness, too, and he has them to spare, but we'll ignore that for now.
How high a PB do you need to get the Fighter at 18 Str, 16 Con, high Dex, high Wis before racial adjustments again? I'm pretty sure it's higher than 25.

Get real, 16 +2 Racial is 10 points. I don't need massive Dex, or Wisdom. 18 Str, 12 Dex, 16 Con, 12 Wis, 11 Int is 25 PB assuming I want to pay lip-service to your demands that dexterity and wisdom are remotely important. Or I could go for the Iconic dwarf fighter with 16 Str, 10 Dex, 18 Con, 12 Int, 14 Wis, 9 Cha.

Why do I need high Dexterity for a fighter? What does he get out it in plate armour? Sweet Fanny Adam. The fighter is as likely to need it as the wizard, if not less so.

You've made the following assertions:
All fighters need high dexterity. This is unmitigated crap - only TWFers, duelists and archer builds need high dexterity. The rest can ignore it - for AC they can wear plate armour; they have the feats to spam for Improved Initiative and Lightning Reflexes. the fighter needs high dexterity no more than the wizard does - less, in fact, as a level 1 wizard has no other way of boosting his AC, while the fighter has amour.
All fighters need high wisdom. Why? I mean, fighter Will saves are bad, but actually turning the fighter against the party is a lot harder than it used to be. In any event, a fighter has the feats to take Iron Will if he's worried about it. I wouldn't dump Wisdom, but I see no need to seek out a high Wisdom either.
All fighters need 20 Strength. Again, rubbish. I've seen many fighter builds with much lower strength that were very well made and effective - optimised, even. Duelists can crank up damage with Precise Strike, TWFers can go to town on the sheer number of hits they score. High strength helps, but it isn't as essential as all that and certainly not so essential that a fighter has to turn himself into a glass canon by dumping Con (in effect) just for a few more points of damage).

You have asserted these things, and I'm calling bunk on them. I think you've been optimising your casters so long you've forgotten how other classes work.

Shadow Lodge

Dabbler wrote:
I think you've been optimising your casters so long you've forgotten how other classes work.

I think this is really one of the core problems. He also seems fairly unfamiliar with how Pathfinder works, as many of his references seem to be towards how things worked in 3.5.

He's admitted to not owning the APG, as well as being too lazy to go to numerous free websites that have the rules content from that book. Hell, I question whether or not he actually even owns the Core Rules.


My effective 4

1. Paladin
2. Lion shaman druid or Cleric of Desna
3. Human sorcerer
4. Urban ranger, bow focused (Trapfinding-skills)

Liberty's Edge

Jill, Sabrina, Kelly and Bosley.

Or maybe Fred, Velma, Daphne and the stoner with the animal companion.


Dabbler wrote:
CoDzilla wrote:
Fighter needs Str/Dex/Con/Wis. 4 stats.
Two stats - Str and Con. Fighters have to take hits and dish them out, that's what they do. Wisdom maybe to try and resist mental attacks, but frankly you are best not bothering and taking Iron Will. After all, you have feats to burn but only so many points to allocate. Dex just does not have to be important unless you are a missile specialist, but that's a whole different ballgame.

Because Iron Will makes you immune to Will saves? No, not even close. Walking liability.

Quote:
Wizard needs Dex and Con the way the fighter needs Wisdom. He definitely needs Int. A fighter can be effective with a 14 strength, but I don't know a wizard that could risk that low an intelligence score. If a wizard needs 2 stats, the fighter needs 2 stats.

Everyone needs Con as their second best stat.

Wizards do not need Dex. Fighters do need Wisdom. And an anything with a prime stat of 14 is a waste of space. 20 or bust.

Quote:
There's no try about it, you can ignore it. Otherwise by the same logic the Wizard needs Con and Dex equally, or fall to bad saves in those. If your wonderful spamtastic wizard has 16 Con, he needs 16 Dex and that leaves him with 14 Int on 25 point buy. Of course he can add his +2 racial bonus in there, but it's hardly stellar is it?

No, he has 10 Dex, because he doesn't need Dex, and Reflex saves do nothing important.

25 PB means he has 18 Int + racial, 16 Con, an 8 Str, and everything else is a 10.

Quote:
Yes, we know you think spells rule, but you do not need such a massive strength to be effective in melee. Melee is not just about dishing out damage; it's about tying down foes as well.

With what actual abilities do you do that? DM pity fiat is not an ability.

The rest of your post is completely off base, so I'm ignoring it.


houstonderek wrote:

Jill, Sabrina, Kelly and Bosley.

Or maybe Fred, Velma, Daphne and the stoner with the animal companion.

The stoner name was BAM BAM.

And Daphne was Hot :D


CoDzilla wrote:
{the same old assertions}

Constantly repeating the same old crap doesn't make it valid. You have failed to explain why a fighter needs dexterity, and why a wizard doesn't need dexterity as much as a fighter needs wisdom. You have failed to justify your '20 or bust' assertion - in fact, you fail completely to justify any of your assertions with anything more than what amounts to 'because I say so and I say I'm right.'

As such I can only assume these are tropes you trot out from a lack of any real in-depth understanding of the game or the system. Sure, they work without having to employ your brain too much, but that does not mean there are other ways of doing things that you fail completely to grasp.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed some posts. Threatening to put your fingers in your ears is not an effective, or civil, way to have a debate.


CoD, please stop saying "your argument is invalid."

You're a smart guy, you shouldn't need to condescend to prove your point. If anything, it makes a good arguement seem weaker.


Evil Lincoln wrote:

CoD, please stop saying "your argument is invalid."

You're a smart guy, you shouldn't need to condescend to prove your point. If anything, it makes a good arguement seem weaker.

True statement Lincoln. However, it's also true that an argument in which the casters are trying to use blasting spells really is invalid. Blasting type spells are by far the least useful spells in the game. Sure there are times when you wish you'd prepared fireball or cone of cold, but that's going to happen fewer times than you can count on your fingers in the span of a twenty level campaign.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
True statement Lincoln. However, it's also true that an argument in which the casters are trying to use blasting spells really is invalid. Blasting type spells are by far the least useful spells in the game. Sure there are times when you wish you'd prepared fireball or cone of cold, but that's going to happen fewer times than you can count on your fingers in the span of a twenty level campaign.

I didn't say he wasn't right. I said I would cringe less if he didn't feel the need to announce it instead of making a proper case and being friendly. It's not hard.


Evil Lincoln wrote:

CoD, please stop saying "your argument is invalid."

You're a smart guy, you shouldn't need to condescend to prove your point. If anything, it makes a good arguement seem weaker.

*insert reason* Your argument is invalid.

This gets the point across, in detail in one sentence. Brevity is beauty, at times. Times like where long and detailed posts are removed without warning or cause.

I recall exactly three times in a full decade of 3.x that I would honestly consider Fireball a worthwhile use of a spell slot. One of them was a once and a lifetime scenario, where it could have hit around ten enemies, all of which had fire vulnerability. And ultimately, Entangle and Greater Command and Slow were still better. I believe that's called an Eigen Plot.

Now in 1st and 2nd edition? Fireball was one of the best spells in the game. I always went for it ASAP and encouraged others to do the same. Aside from legacy though, there's little point even having it in the game in its current state.


CoDzilla wrote:


*insert reason* Your argument is invalid.

Eh, suit yourself. I thought you could do better.


Evil Lincoln wrote:
CoDzilla wrote:


*insert reason* Your argument is invalid.
Eh, suit yourself. I thought you could do better.

Hurray for quoting out of context!


CoD, I really hope for everyones sake that you're attempting to be hyperbolic in your comments here, and are not completely serious.

I tend to optimize in most games, even used to frequent the Char Op boards on WotC, but I've never seen the degree of venom you seem to hold for anything that isn't a spellcaster. In a great many situations casters bring a lot to the table, but dismissing anything else as a minion is absurd. Further, a lot of the numbers you've thrown out in various places (like about how your wizard at level 20 attacks for +35 with the sword he carries around just for appearances), are frankly ridiculous.

Like most of the really hardcore guys of the old Char Op boards your entire framework seems to be built around the idea of fairly optimal situations. To be blunt, that isn't often the case in many games, even those that play published adventures. The largest example that jumps to mind is the Savage Tide, which I'm in the midst of playing through. For a long time your Pcs are separated from society, with scavenged gear of questionable quality and no chance to learn new spells.

Being stuck in the wilderness is hardly the only example of real-play situations that tend to beat all over most optimizers ideas of how their current position on party make up is the best. What about situations where you have to protect numerous weak NPCs? What about when your opponent is actually intelligent and you end up bringing your color spray chain guns against a bunch of undead?

You might honestly be the most insulting poster I've seen trolling these forums this year. Your flagrant disregard for any other style of play, and insistence that others are doing it wrong, don't understand the game, or are playing easy mode as opposed to your super hard mode would be laughable if it weren't so offensive on its face.

You seem to have a basic working understanding of optimization - e.g. nukes aren't particularly effective, save or lose is highly effective - but that is all. People ask you specific questions regarding claims you make and you tend to reply with only insults and generic answers in no detail. You utterly discount the need to do damage because you've hit a foe with a couple debuffs - which is really quite laughable, especially when you are talking about things like stinking cloud and slow, which do virtually nothing to impact a foe's defenses.

You insist on dumping virtually all stats with casters except spellcasting ones and con, which is, in my honest opinion, usually the first sign that a player has little actual table experience. Given that all of your arguments tend to revolve around making what you believe to be the most mechanically efficient choices in all situations, and that you insist that others are clearly doing it wrong if everything isn't - IC - focused on such, I really suspect you are fairly new to the game on the whole compared to many of the people here.

I think on the whole most Pathfinder players are more interested in telling interesting stories than producing the highest possible numbers, and I think that is what the rules are designed to produce. I don't believe that they are perfectly balanced, and that every class contributes the same amount to the game, but I wouldn't want them to be, because if they were a great many of the stories wouldn't be possible.

I also think that in a few years, when you've had some seasoning, you'll probably come back and look at most of your posts here with a degree of chagrin. There is a big difference between practical optimization and what I suspect you endorse (which is full on rules abuse and incredible metagaming). That isn't to say that there is anything wrong with what you do, as long as you are having fun, but having you come here and throw around insults for not doing what you do is, again, laughable were it not so insulting.


Peter Stewart wrote:

I think on the whole most Pathfinder players are more interested in telling interesting stories than producing the highest possible numbers, and I think that is what the rules are designed to produce. I don't believe that they are perfectly balanced, and that every class contributes the same amount to the game, but I wouldn't want them to be, because if they were a great many of the stories wouldn't be possible.

Peter? What stories in the game can you play now, with imbalanced class discrepancies, that you couldn't tell in a more balanced game by having imbalanced levels instead?

Heck, in such a setting you'd actually have more options for those kinds of stories, because you could flip the coin on it's head and have the noncaster be the experienced hero and the caster be the rookie who can barely keep up.


Peter Stewart wrote:


You insist on dumping virtually all stats with casters except spellcasting ones and con, which is, in my honest opinion, usually the first sign that a player has little actual table experience.

To be fair, that's usually in response to someone who tries to assert that you can only have a high casting stat in very generous point buys. The point of the rebuttal is that, no, you actually can make it work even in 10 point buy if you want.

I don't know how anyone who's played the game more than briefly can dispute that a high point buy helps out the monk more than it helps out the wizard, but somehow people still do.

Shadow Lodge

CoDzilla wrote:
Times like where long and detailed posts are removed without warning or cause.

Perhaps if every single post you made wasn't dripping with condescension, thinly veiled insults, and absolute venom for anyone not playing a full-spellcaster, you would find less of your posts removed.


Quote:
You insist on dumping virtually all stats with casters except spellcasting ones and con, which is, in my honest opinion, usually the first sign that a player has little actual table experience.

Ad hom. Argue for or against stat dumps based on their merits, not based on some unproven accusations of someone's conclusions being based on less experience than your own. This is the internet, for all you know the person on the other side could be some white beard who played with gygax and has had a weekly game in every edition from the red box to pathfinder or some 12 year old kid who picked up the book last week... and there's no way to tell.

i suppose you could try to argue that because they don't agree with you you're right about their experience level, but that's more circular than a presupositinal argument.

Liberty's Edge

Gosh! You guys sure make this Pathfinder game seem like a fun way to kill some time.


CoDzilla wrote:
*stuff*

You're probably a troll. Your argument is invalid. That does mean that you have shiny regeneration abilities though, so go you! *thumbsup*

Moving back to the subject before CoD tries to turn the thread into yet another 'casters >>>>> all' debate (seriously is that all he ever does? (And while we're on the subject, why is his name CoDzilla when he prefers arcanes? Shouldn't it be SoWzilla? But I digress))

If I had to pick a four person party, I would probably go with Fighter/Cleric/Bard/Wizard.

It has most of the same dynamics as the basic Fighter/Cleric/Rogue/Wizard, only you have the added bonus of a party face who has maxed Charisma with best interpersonal skills in the game bar none on top of access to more doses of the best buff spells in the game.

And Glitterdust. I don't know why, but I love Glitterdust.

101 to 150 of 238 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / The classic 4 All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.