...where the spellcaster was played by somebody who had a bent to exploit each situation to his utmost advantage and didn't care if it ruined the fun...I think the game was designed with the thought in mind that the player of the wizard will want to solve the riddle, for instance, instead of gimping the adventure by teleporting around it.
Caineach
I, think, if you reread his post you will see that what he's describing is not rules or mechanics but a playstyle. Its a playstyle I may personally agree with but the post presented is no better than a total Optimization player telling people that if they don't play in the way s/he does they are wrong.
In no section of the book does it endorse or abjure either playstyle.
One can only hope you do not have both at the same game table.
|
At level 5 and higher spell wise the question isn't if you will win, but how. So I won't go into spells of those levels.
So, core only. I devoted exactly 10 seconds of thought to this.
1: Color Spray. If it's not undead, or one of a very few other things it's gone. If it is one of those things, the divine casters can just melee it down or something.
2: Glitterdust and Web. The Glitterdust nerf is entirely meaningless in actual play, because this is D&D, and therefore combats are fast. Web, of course speaks for itself.
3: Stinking Cloud and Slow. Slow works on almost everything in the game. Stinking Cloud is a bit narrower, but says save or be unable to act. Duration: Several times the...
Let’s take these one at a time, using CoDzilla’s build. Now as I do this, understand it isn’t me saying these are bad spells. They aren’t. I’m just pointing out the in game issues with each of them at the relative level you receive them, and how in an actual game these limits come into play.
1st Color Spray
Plus Side: With a 16 DC to save, it’s going to be 75% that anything with a low will save under 2 HD is unconscious, blinded, and stunned. And with a 15 ft cone it can hit multiple creatures. Great stuff.
Minus side: In order to use it, you have to be within 45 ft of whatever you are using it on (if you are normal and not small), meaning you are also within charging range. Given a 10 Dex (CoDzilla’s Build) your AC is probably, well, 10 until you get magic items. Sure you could cast Mage armor, but it’s only good for an hour a level so that would have to be your first round action unless you knew and could buff in advance. Even then, if you have 4 1st level spells, that would be two of them.
First level melee is going to have either an 18 or 20 Str, meaning at least a +5 to attack (+6 if they took weapon focus) with a +2 for charging you are up to between +7 and +9 or having better than a 75% chance hit. With a two handed weapon that is between 6 and 7 damage before you roll dice.
CoDzilla’s build, with 16 con, has 10 hit points at first level. And with 15 ft cone, you have to have the area between you and what you are attacking clear, lest there be friendly fire. So this makes this an initiative game. CoDzilla has a 10 Dex.
CoDzilla already pointed out the undead issue, but that isn’t that big a deal unless all you memorize is Color Spray.
2nd Glitterdust:
Plus side: Will save or you are blinded (in addition to showing invisible), at the level you get it the DC is going to be 17 with a 20 Int or 18 if you got an enhancement. Plus with medium range, you can get some distance between you and your enemy, unlike Color Spray above, and it has a 10 foot radius so you can nail a clumped group.
Minus side: It’s a 2nd level spell, meaning you are at least 3rd level when you get it. It’s still only 75% to succeed against low saves, but by 3rd most melee with have gone ahead and gotten iron will, making that about 65%. And you can try the save again each round if you didn’t make it the first time. And again, this is against low will save classes who have a 12 at 3rd level. Other classes (and creatures) could obviously do better, and soon WBL will make cloaks of resistance a reasonable purchase.
Being blinded sucks, but it isn’t dead. Nice spell, but considering the save every round if you miss the first one it is not SoD.
3rd Web
Plus side: Medium Range with a wider area than Glitterdust at 20ft radius, and it lasts 10 minutes a level, so at minimum 3rd level, that is a half hour of web.
Minus side: Reflex Save negates, so for a low reflex character this will work 75% of the time (assuming Dex 12). Rangers and Rogues will start with a +3 reflex and add on likely higher Dex.
But lets assume they fail the save. The DC for the grapple check is the DC of the spell (either 17 or 18) . A third level Fighter is going to have a CMB of either +7 or +8, meaning about 50/50 to break the grapple check. Less for a Raging barbarian.
So 25% of the time it has no effect at all, and of those that it gets, 50% of full BAB can break out, making it an equal use of rounds (you cast as a standard, they break out as a standard). And if not, you are grappled, but receiving cover.
Nice spell, but not SoD.
4th Stinking Clouse
Plus side: Medium Range, lasts even after you leave the cloud,
Minus side: It’s a fort save, so for this discussion 5th level Melee are starting with a +4 to fort. 14 con is completely reasonable, so +6 to the save. And WBL for 5th is 10,500, so I hope you have a +1 Cloak of Resistance. CoDzilla’s wizard will have a +4 or +5 fort save.
I’ll assume you have the +2 Int by now, so save is going to be 19, so 65% of the time it works and they are nauseated and only able to make a move action for 1d4 +1 rounds. Pretty good, but more dangerous to casters than Melee, since nausea also means you can’t cast.
5th Slow
Plus side: You can stagger multiple enemies, basically making them only able to make a move or a standard action each round. Lasts at least 5 round at the level you cast it, meaning basically the whole encounter.
Minus Side: Close range, meaning at 5th level you are likely in charging distance if you use it and it fails. It’s a will save, so better against Melee. Assuming Iron Will (a must have by level 5) and a +1 Cloak it’s that good old 75% chance of working.
But with Vital strike, I still wouldn’t walk up to them, and if they do make the save, you are in charging range and likely taking a lot of damage you aren’t made to soak. 5th level wizard with Codzilla build has 40 hit points.
6th Black Tentacles.
Plus side: Medium range and 20 ft radius and even does a little damage to anyone caught in it. No saving throw!
Minus side: You are 7th level at this point, so 1d6 +4 damage isn’t much of anything, if you get grappled. Which is the catch. While there is no saving throw, there is a Combat Maneuver Check. CMB Check is your caster level +5, basically making you equivalent to a 20 Strength fighter. But CMD is 10 + Str + Dex + Size modifier.
So this will almost certainly be less that 50% to work against any full BAB class, and they will be able to move out of it with no real effect if they make the CMD check. And they can retry each round (at a +5 penalty).
Nice spell, not SoD.
I’m not going to say more, because I’m actually glad he posted spells for us to discuss and evaluate rather than just calling us all idiots. It is a positive step I want to encourage for CoDzilla.
All I can say is that Yes, the in-game pace of my campaign is quite fast for some reason. I hate this. I feel it should take years in-game to develop those skills.
I've had to pad RotRL with downtime, actually, because if you run it as written the first three books take place over one season! (fall to winter) Even then, if I were using the SLOW XP track from the CRB, my players would be two levels higher than they are now, (12th) and we haven't even reached 1 year in game.
But no, I don't keep a visegrip on the calendar like that. I just think tracking time at all has a positive effect on WIZ balance. We played a lot of 3.5 games where characters would bounce from campaign to campaign, and while I think people were (mostly) fair with gold, we ended up with very well-equipped casters. That's not a problem we've had with adventure paths. The difference is noticeable and relevant to the discussion, that's all I claim. It certainly isn't a fix in and of itself.
But with Vital strike, I still wouldn’t walk up to them, and if they do make the save, you are in charging range and likely taking a lot of damage you aren’t made to soak. 5th level wizard with Codzilla build has 40 hit points.
5th level enemies won't have Vital Strike, so we're talking BBEGs only, and even if they're 3 levels above yours they'll have, at most, VS only (IVS only at 11th), for +2d8 damage (mean 9 hp, hardly "a lot," if Large and using a greatsword). However, VS can't be used on a charge for some inane reason, so that fails, too; the enemy would have to already be within 40 ft. (assuming 10 ft. reach), or 30 ft. if armored.
|
|
I made a whole side thread about this after hearing how easy it was. Jacobs confirmed they brought back the old rule about enhancements for just this reason.I'd be glad they did, but that just means a 2nd level spell is better than a 20th level fighter's trained maneuever. If the rule were "or requires spell of minimum level equal to twice the enhancement bonus needed," that would be cool.
I am not sure which spell you are referencing, but that overlooks the fighters high C M D. having to be overcome first, while in melee.and unless you have the feat, provoking AoO.
If you are talking about shatter, it does not work on magical items.
If you are talking about shatter, it does not work on magical items.
Then there is some justice in the universe.
Hi Ross. You are a gentleman and a scholar who does your job well!Can we please stop this line of posting?I will admit I was wrong. I mistook one condescending, insulting jerkass for another condescending, insulting jerkass. Not a hard mistake to make.
That wasn't me, but thank you for the compliment.
In either case, both this link of posting and the attitude that inspired it really need to stop.
Stuff about spells
Just off the top of my head:
1) In your world, targets are all taking save feats, but casters aren't taking spell focus feats? That seems a little suspect to me.
2) Equally, in your world the monsters/targets seem to be spending their WBL, but casters aren't spending theirs?
3) Finally, do terrain or blocking creatures that prevent a charge (but that can be maneuvered around to deliver a spell) not exist in your games?
|
|
But with Vital strike, I still wouldn’t walk up to them, and if they do make the save, you are in charging range and likely taking a lot of damage you aren’t made to soak. 5th level wizard with Codzilla build has 40 hit points.5th level enemies won't have Vital Strike, so we're talking BBEGs only, and even if they're 3 levels above yours they'll have, at most, VS only (IVS only at 11th), for +2d8 damage (mean 9 hp, hardly "a lot," if Large and using a greatsword). However, VS can't be used on a charge for some inane reason, so that fails, too; the enemy would have to already be within 40 ft. (assuming 10 ft. reach), or 30 ft. if armored.
You are right about vital strike, my back. But if you are using power attack (and why wouldn't you on a low ac caster) and a two handed weapon with a 22 str (reasonable at 5th) weapon specialization and a +1 weapon you are doing 18 damage before you roll dice, half of CoDzilla's hit points.
|
|
Hi Ross. You are a gentleman and a scholar who does your job well!Can we please stop this line of posting?I will admit I was wrong. I mistook one condescending, insulting jerkass for another condescending, insulting jerkass. Not a hard mistake to make.
That wasn't me, but thank you for the compliment.
In either case, both this link of posting and the attitude that inspired it really need to stop.
Oh I know, I just figured you were going to have to read and deal with the posts and wanted to give you a smile amid the frustration of dealing with us :)
But if you are using power attack (and why wouldn't you on a low ac caster) and a two handed weapon with a 22 str (reasonable at 5th) weapon specialization and a +1 weapon you are doing 18 damage before you roll dice, half of CoDzilla's hit points.
And in my game that would suck for him, because he'd be fatigued and taking penalties to his spell DCs to boot -- and because the enemy would probably have the Skirmish feat, and would therefore be getting in an extra iterative attack at the end of a charge.
But in Pathfinder, CodZilla's wizard weathers that one attack and is still as good as new, and can then step back 5 ft. (to avoid having to cast defensively) and throw another SOL spell at the BBEG.
|
|
Stuff about spells
Just off the top of my head:
1) In your world, targets are all taking save feats, but casters aren't taking spell focus feats? That seems a little suspect to me.
2) Equally, in your world the monsters/targets seem to be spending their WBL, but casters aren't spending theirs?
3) Finally, do terrain or blocking creatures that prevent a charge (but that can be maneuvered around to deliver a spell) not exist in your games?
Fair points. I'll try to address them one at a time.
1. Spell focus is one school, so feel free to add one to the DC of the save for one spell or another.
2. I had the casters getting Int enhancements, but feel free to give examples of what WBL is spent on.
3.They do, but if you can argue the caster can use it for effect you also have to argue the other side can try to avoid it. And in the color spray case, charge is a bonus as it would still be likely to hit and drop the wizard either way.
By the way, I think your pit spells are good examples of much more effective save or you are SOL spells, I just wanted to stay focused on the post I made.
|
|
But if you are using power attack (and why wouldn't you on a low ac caster) and a two handed weapon with a 22 str (reasonable at 5th) weapon specialization and a +1 weapon you are doing 18 damage before you roll dice, half of CoDzilla's hit points.And in my game that would suck for him, because he'd be fatigued and taking penalties to his spell DCs to boot -- and because the enemy would probably have the Skirmish feat, and would therefore be getting in an extra iterative attack at the end of a charge.
But in Pathfinder, CodZilla's wizard weathers that one attack and is still as good as new, and can then step back 5 ft. (to avoid having to cast defensively) and throw another SOL spell at the BBEG.
Unless they took step up :)
|
But if you are using power attack (and why wouldn't you on a low ac caster) and a two handed weapon with a 22 str (reasonable at 5th) weapon specialization and a +1 weapon you are doing 18 damage before you roll dice, half of CoDzilla's hit points.And in my game that would suck for him, because he'd be fatigued and taking penalties to his spell DCs to boot -- and because the enemy would probably have the Skirmish feat, and would therefore be getting in an extra iterative attack at the end of a charge.
But in Pathfinder, CodZilla's wizard weathers that one attack and is still as good as new, and can then step back 5 ft. (to avoid having to cast defensively) and throw another SOL spell at the BBEG.
I really hate that argument- step up completely invalidates it even in the vacuum of 'wizard is surrounded by empty squares' that people assume during this theory which is often not the case in sessions.
Step up and strike means that poor wizard dies before he gets a chance to cast.
Unless they took step up
A great idea for a feat, crippled by the fact that it charges you an arm and a leg in "interest" the next round, and the fact that PF casters -- while unable at all to cast defensively at 1st level -- still pretty much auto-succeed at mid level and up. Unless the fighter also takes an entire feat chain to mitigate that. And at the rate he's burning feats now, even a fighter won't have nearly enough to keep up.
Step Up and Strike merely replaces Disruptive in this long list of required feats. So far, the theoretical 6th level fighter bad guy has Iron Will (to allow him to make that first save), Power Attack, Weapon Focus, Vital Strike, Step Up, and Step Up and Strike... a total of 100% of his available feats. If he's not a 6th level fighter, he's got less than that.
|
|
He doesn't need to take the whole chain, if he takes Step Up and Strike and can take off 50% of the wizard's HP in the charge and the step up and strike attack the wizard dies like a chump before he even gets a chance to defensive cast.
Anyway, I failed my will save VS posting in pointless theorycraft, I bid you all good day as I got a second save and thankfully I made it...
Er.. what about take a freaking bow and shot at the wizard when unnoticed?
What about waiting for the fighter is buying something at the grocery and slap the SoS in his face then?
Er.. what about take a freaking bow and shot at the wizard when unnoticed?
What about waiting for the fighter is buyng something to the grocery and slap the SoS in his face then?
+1. Talk is cheap.
I think there are real problems in the system, but they get doubly amplified; first by players who push the envelope, and second by very vocal theorycrafters turning the majority of threads into thought experiments. Doesn't mean the problem isn't there, but I wish people would stop pretending they can just think their way out of it.
Nerf, playtest, rinse, repeat. That will fix your home game. It can never be so simple for the game's publishers, unfortunately. Any change they make will be protested by an equally enthusiastic group: "Wizards suck now! Why play anything but a fighter! Gawd! Fighter edition sucks!"
I've had to pad RotRL with downtime, actually, because if you run it as written the first three books take place over one season! (fall to winter) Even then, if I were using the SLOW XP track from the CRB, my players would be two levels higher than they are now, (12th) and we haven't even reached 1 year in game.
I think I can top that. I once played in a campaign that started at 6th, and ended at 16th level.
In-game time? About 3 months. Talk about breaking versimilitude.
It was 3.5 and one PC was a Druid and another was a half-celestial crusader. The GM compensated by making "standard" CR encounters way above APL. I remember once we leveled up after 3 fights. 3 fights!
That's not what I said. I didn't say anything about correct adjudications. I said that they need to apply the rules consistently. Take a look at the various "class X" sucks threads. You can easily see how the rules are applied to one class and not to another. I'm not saying that there aren't still going to be issues. I'm saying that the issues are lessened.There is no difference between claiming there isn't consistence with their application of the rules and claiming they aren't making correct correct adjudications (since by not being consistent you are making incorrect adjudications). Using another thread or another discussion is only relevant if the specific person you are debating on this thread is on record on the other thread making an incorrect or inconsistent call. Other wise all your doing is saying "but other people make mistakes all the time and so therefor so do you."
The reason I pointed this out wasn't to be an ass. Hopefully it didn't come off that way. The reason I pointing this out is because I genuinely believe you would strengthen your argument by not relying on anecdotal evidence.
There is a significant difference though. I am referring to those who intentionally apply the rules haphazardly or favoring one class or group of classes while not showing the same level of application to the other classes. The entire argument actually is anecdotal because there are no studies on this. I can only review the various boards and see how people are applying the rules. Whenever someone throws things like "class x can't have nice things" it is very clear that they are inconsistently applying the rules between classes.
I didn't think you were being an ass. I think you are misunderstanding where I'm coming from. As an example, someone posted a wizard that has a tarrasque for their simulacrum (I think it was you but I could be wrong). The poster was very open about how difficult it is to determine from the spell what the tarrasque should be like in this case. There are some people who would rule that the tarrasque simulacrum is the way it was presented with all the best options while at the same time not allow the fighter to be able to get a bonus from attacking from higher ground if he manages to jump high enough in combat. Both require some adjudication on the DM's part but one decision favors one class over another. This is what I mean by "inconsistently applying the rules."
Another reminder - respond nicely to other posters.
Another reminder - respond nicely to other posters.
At this point, maybe you should convince Gary to have that reminder appended to every post!
Another reminder - respond nicely to other posters.At this point, maybe you should convince Gary to have that reminder appended to every post!
Technically, there is one already. It's at the bottom of every text entry box on the messageboard post field.
In order to keep our messageboards friendly and fun, here are some reminders about our policies:
- Do not use profanity or vulgar speech;
- Do not make bigoted, hateful, or racially insensitive statements;
- Do not defame, abuse, stalk, harass, or threaten others;
- Do not advocate illegal activities or discuss them with intent to commit them;
- Do not post any content that infringes and/or violates any patent, trademark, copyright, or other proprietary right of any third party.
Violating any of these rules may result in suspension or permanent removal from our messageboards.
There you go again Evil Lincoln, always trying to fix things when there isn't a problem...
You want to WHAT the messageboard?.
See! The message board is just fine, if you actually play by the rules!
What were we talking about again?
very vocal theorycrafters turning the majority of threads into thought experiments.
Except that some of those "theorycrafters" are reporting on actual play experience, and have then gone back to try and identify the sources of the problems they encountered. Which is different from the equally vocal ostriches who simply ignore any problems and say "the DM will fix it."
very vocal theorycrafters turning the majority of threads into thought experiments.Except that some of those "theorycrafters" are reporting on actual play experience, and have then gone back to try and identify the sources of the problems they encountered. Which is different from simply ignoring any problems and saying "the DM will fix it."
Some are reporting experience, which I believe. Some are almost certainly parroting clever things they have heard others say.
I'm really trying to promote a moderate stance on the whole issue. I acknowledge that there seems to be a problem, I just haven't experienced it myself. I rather admire your analysis of style-of-play types and how they interact with the problem, but I still feel like I don't fit neatly there either.
There is a significant difference though. I am referring to those who intentionally apply the rules haphazardly or favoring one class or group of classes while not showing the same level of application to the other classes. The entire argument actually is anecdotal because there are no studies on this. I can only review the various boards and see how people are applying the rules. Whenever someone throws things like "class x can't have nice things" it is very clear that they are inconsistently applying the rules between classes.
I'm still not sure I see a difference. It still seems to me to require an assumption and reference to an irrelavant 3rd party.
Why does someone necessarily have to be inconsistency applying rules if they make the claim "class x can't have nice things"? Personally I'm more inclined to say something like "class x has too few nice things", however, I don't see where either statement requires inconsistency of any kind.
Maybe I'm still misunderstanding you. Is there a specific example you can give me that would necessitate that such a claim would require inconsistent rules application?
I didn't think you were being an ass. I think you are misunderstanding where I'm coming from. As an example, someone posted a wizard that has a tarrasque for their simulacrum (I think it was you but I could be wrong). The poster was very open about how difficult it is to determine from the spell what the tarrasque should be like in this case. There are some people who would rule that the tarrasque simulacrum is the way it was presented with all the best options while at the same time not allow the fighter to be able to get a bonus from attacking from higher ground if he manages to jump high enough in combat. Both require some adjudication on the DM's part but one decision favors one class over another. This is what I mean by "inconsistently applying the rules."
Yes that was my wizard who was riding the tarrasque simulacrum. The simulacrum was more of a joke at first. I had never really looked to closely at that spell until recently.
If you can clearly demonstrate whether someone is using a rule consistently without requiring any DM adjudication (or despite DM adjudication) than what we are talking about is a clear, well written rule that can be applied and objectively analyzed in a wide variety of situations.
However if the rules necessitate the need for DM intervention and interpretation, then they have already failed you. Any mention of inconsistent rules application becomes superfluous with such a rule because the rules are incomplete, and essentially do not exist. In this case, Simulacrum is essentially just some fluff with some rules for limitations and pricing but no rules exist for actually creating the simulacrum itself, or at least none exist that are coherent.
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Now compare this to the fighter's options.
Worm has 15 foot reach meaning it is getting an AoO on your trek into melee reach. Or hell lets be generous and not give it one with its abysmal initiative and let you charge it first. Can you do 200 damage before it goes?
Bites you with its +25 to hit for an average of 30 damage. Swallows you whole (unless have some serious CMD vs the grapple check) for another average of 36 a round (including the first). Hope you have a light slashing or piercing weapon
Anyone who makes any character without a dagger is a moron. THere will be exceptions to this maxim, but seriously..do people make characters without a light slashing or piercing weapon anywhere on them?
Purple worm is CR 12. At level 12, my fighter has pretty likely a 22 STR or so. I am sure to have Power Attack and Furious Focus. Darn straight we'll be going for Greater Weapon Specialization, and my favorite weapon is the greatsword, though there are lots of awesome weapons and the difference between 1d8 and 2d6 is not a significant part of the problem. I prefer keen to Improved Critical, but one way or the other, I threaten on a 17-20.
If I don't threaten a critical, I hit on a 2 or higher for 2d6+30ish damage, assuming I've got no help from any other source (bard, buff, energy damage, enlargement, heroism, approximately one thousand other things). So I've outdamaged the worm. If he swallows me whole next round, someone else in my party is not swallowed whole, so I have done my job. I'll live and the worm will die. When I get out and consume a cure critical potion, I'll have killed the purple worm on my own. Now, like the other characters, I can only swing my sword a few times per day. Oh, no, wait. I can do that a lot.
Maybe the fight ends with a hold monster, but then every round that worm has a chance to shake it off and eat the wizard, which by the way, is his end. Not really, because anyone can build a good wizard, too.
Either guy I play, I protect my party and end the worm. If the worm attacks on watch, it doesn't matter what class I play, the rest of the party can sleep. I got this regardless. I'll probably kill the purpole worm with a 12th level commoner in my underwear, though the only guy I know who wins role-playing challenges in his underwear is Lou Agresta.
Ergo, classes are balanced, the game is fun, and players kill things, not stats and numbers.
Anyone who makes any character without a dagger is a moron. THere will be exceptions to this maxim, but seriously..do people make characters without a light slashing or piercing weapon anywhere on them?
As a friend of Pariah Dog IRL I'm almost positive he was using sarcasm/harsh language to further hammer home a point. Poorly chosen words maybe but I'm sure he doesn't think a fighter isn't going to be decked out with a small armory of weapons like Chase from the Sword of Truth (seriously that dudes intimidating).
That said, the conversation has moved on well past the point of talking about Purple Worms. Please, lets keep it that way. The purple worm hasn't helped anyone prove anything and I'm loath to see the conversation devolve back into "Its an easy encounter for the wizard" "No, it isn't." "Yes it is" "No, it isn't" "Yes, it is."
THe whole "x can't have nice things" comes more from a general philosophy a lot of people have that goes as follows:
"If it is cool, it should be a spell, and casters should be able to do it."
"If it is in any way, shape, or form 'extraordinary' then nobody but casters should be allowed to it"
That's why x is almost always monks, rogues, or fighters - because 99% of the time, it's used when someone expresses disgust or doesn't want one of those three classes to be able to do something "cool," often the same person that in another thread whines that wizards need more spells.
Ergo, classes are balanced, the game is fun, and players kill things, not stats and numbers
Although I agree with most of your post this in particular +1
I've had to pad RotRL with downtime, actually, because if you run it as written the first three books take place over one season! (fall to winter) Even then, if I were using the SLOW XP track from the CRB, my players would be two levels higher than they are now, (12th) and we haven't even reached 1 year in game.I think I can top that. I once played in a campaign that started at 6th, and ended at 16th level.
In-game time? About 3 months. Talk about breaking versimilitude.
It was 3.5 and one PC was a Druid and another was a half-celestial crusader. The GM compensated by making "standard" CR encounters way above APL. I remember once we leveled up after 3 fights. 3 fights!
3 fights is pretty normal for my group. Sometimes people who are close to leveling get 2 levels out of a session.
3 fights is pretty normal for my group. Sometimes people who are close to leveling get 2 levels out of a session.
3 fights? Wow. We use the slow leveling chart and I cut the xp in half to slow it down even more. Leveling even every 8 or 9 fights when battling CR + 3 or 4 encounter groups is just too much.
3 fights is pretty normal for my group. Sometimes people who are close to leveling get 2 levels out of a session.3 fights? Wow. We use the slow leveling chart and I cut the xp in half to slow it down even more. Leveling even every 8 or 9 fights when battling CR + 3 or 4 encounter groups is just too much.
Yeah, I agree, but the GM likes it that way. Encounters aren't always only CR+3 or 4. Not uncommon for them to be +6 or +7, or more. Propperly designed against the party strengths, players can still win them. We are using medium progression too.
3 fights? Wow. We use the slow leveling chart and I cut the xp in half to slow it down even more. Leveling even every 8 or 9 fights when battling CR + 3 or 4 encounter groups is just too much.Yeah, I agree, but the GM likes it that way. Encounters aren't always only CR+3 or 4. Not uncommon for them to be +6 or +7, or more. Propperly designed against the party strengths, players can still win them. We are using medium progression too.
IMHO, the PCs can't win a CR = APL + 7 encounter without extreme GM mercy.
(Barring something like, single opponent, PCs manage to win initiative and throw a SoD and the opponent rolls a 1.)
3 fights? Wow. We use the slow leveling chart and I cut the xp in half to slow it down even more. Leveling even every 8 or 9 fights when battling CR + 3 or 4 encounter groups is just too much.Yeah, I agree, but the GM likes it that way. Encounters aren't always only CR+3 or 4. Not uncommon for them to be +6 or +7, or more. Propperly designed against the party strengths, players can still win them. We are using medium progression too.
IMHO, the PCs can't win a CR = APL + 7 encounter without extreme GM mercy.
(Barring something like, single opponent, PCs manage to win initiative and throw a SoD and the opponent rolls a 1.)
lvl 15 anti-Paladin with PC wealth vs are lvl 7 party, 4th encounter that day. 20+ saves, so no save or lose. 35 or so AC(DM didn't realize he was cheating and let his smite AC bonus stack with his +3 ROP). Took 2-3 charges from our staff of healing, as well as our druid almost completely dedicated to more healing. Our Paladin was the only one who could hit him with any reliability (my ranger needed nat 20s, Paladin needed 15+ on primary attack), and he was brought down to -15 of 17 but has diehard, and the anti-paladin's vorpal sword took off our alchemist's head. Between stacking debuffs on him (-4 from bard's demoralize and bardic performance) and spaming healing, we were able to take him out in about 6 rounds.
Now, this GM also gives PCs max HP/lvl (but so do his NPCs) because he likes throwing things like this at us, and we are completely over our WBL.
Like I said, when the enemy is designed against what the party can handle, and designed to their strengths and with their weaknesses in mind, they can take out challenges way above their APL. The damage output he could dish out was not enough to kill any melee PC in 1 round outright, even with him as a duel wielding sword and board, and the DM knew how much healing we could dish out to keep us going. Overall, if the dice favored him for a couple more points of damage on 1 roll it probably would have been a TPK, but instead we made it through with only 1 casualty as a result of vorpal, which we knew he had and was plot relevant.
Is anyone with me in the "If you read the rules and play by them the game works great" camp?
Yes.
IMHO, the PCs can't win a CR = APL + 7 encounter without extreme GM mercy.
(Accounts of many kinds of extreme DM mercy)
I rest my case. No further questions, your honor.
But to be a little more specific/constructive:
1) A level 15 PC-chooseable-race classed character is not CR 15.
2) Max HP per level PCs is not fair/balanced/equal if you give the same thing to NPCs. There's this thing called action economy.
3) Being completely over your WBL is... yeah.
4) The paladin has 17 CON at level 7? Uh, what kind of stat generation are you using?
5) Trying to find the weakest possible encounters of a CR such that the PCs might actually be able to handle it = extreme DM mercy. (And by extreme, I mean if you run the idea past 10 random DMs, probably 10 will say something of the form, wow that's a lot more mercy than I'd give the players in my game.)
6) Sword and board? Especially to fight a whole party? Mercy.
7) This guy is sword and board and somehow only has AC 35?
8) Can you heal someone from almost dead to full in one round? If so, that's got to be some serious mercy. If not, why is the anti-paladin stopping attacking the almost dead guy? Also mercy.
9) Uh, how's a level 7 paladin getting +20 to hit again? It definitely can be done, but I have the strong feeling the answer is some combination of "We use 50 PB" and "He has five times the wealth he's supposed to have."
In decades of playing the game with over a hundred different GMs I genuinely have never heard of this level of the GM trying so hard to help the players win. There's different levels of lethality in games, and that's fine -- but this is orders of magnitude above the Charity Train Express. This is a level even beyond "We're telling an epic tale and PCs never die" story hour. In many years of hearing about people's monty haul campaigns you have somehow taken the cake.
In many years of hearing about people's monty haul campaigns you have somehow taken the cake.
"Killing Thor with a push spell?"
I got one better I think...
The bard convincing over a dozen vamps that the sun was about to rise...at around 10 pm.
It is CR 14. Add in level PC wealth giving it +1
IMHO, the PCs can't win a CR = APL + 7 encounter without extreme GM mercy.
(Accounts of many kinds of extreme DM mercy)
I rest my case. No further questions, your honor.
But to be a little more specific/constructive:
1) A level 15 PC-chooseable-race classed character is not CR 15.
2) Max HP per level PCs is not fair/balanced/equal if you give the same thing to NPCs. There's this thing called action economy.
3) Being completely over your WBL is... yeah.
4) The paladin has 17 CON at level 7? Uh, what kind of stat generation are you using? yes. 15 base, +2 from belt. We rolled 4d6, and I believe the paladin player has arround a 28 point buy (17str, 12dex, 15con, 10int,8wis,16cha, or something like that before racial)
5) Trying to find the weakest possible encounters of a CR such that the PCs might actually be able to handle it = extreme DM mercy. (And by extreme, I mean if you run the idea past 10 random DMs, probably 10 will say something of the form, wow that's a lot more mercy than I'd give the players in my game.)
no, it is designing encounters that the players can handle. There is a difference. In order to tell the story he wanted to tell, the enemy had to able to be a credible threat to us by himself. This meant he must be strong to things that will end the encounter soon (like saves), have enough HP and AC to not take much damage (He was my ranger's favored enemy and I still needed a nat 20, even with my +17)
6) Sword and board? Especially to fight a whole party? Mercy.
Sword and board is quite effective. You can use the free bull rush to prevent multiple enemies from getting full attacks on you while still full attacking back. At that level, it is also easily able to keep up the damage output of other martial builds. Since he knows our damage dealers are more melee focused, he builds into that by giving them someone they can bash against, thus playing to our strengths to increase fun, while making it difficult for them since the AC was insane for our level.
7) This guy is sword and board and somehow only has AC 35?
I don't know what his AC was exactly. It was at least 35, since I needed nat 20s. It was probably more arround 38, I don't remember at this point. +2 Full plate (+11), +3 ROP, +3 Nat Armor, +2 cheating smite deflection, +2 shield (+4), gives you a 33, and his dex was at least 20.
We have had a staff of healing for at least 3 levels now. Every once in a while random item tables screw the GM. He was really pissed when we rolled it on off a roper. Its down to 1 charge left though, and we have no way of recharging it. Like I said, this fight took 3 of them.
8) Can you heal someone from almost dead to full in one round? If so, that's got to be some serious mercy. If not, why is the anti-paladin stopping attacking the almost dead guy? Also mercy.
+7 lvl, +4 smite, +6 str, +2 weapon, +1 weapon focus. Or something like that. I don't have his sheet.9) Uh, how's a level 7 paladin getting +20 to hit again? It definitely can be done, but I have the strong feeling the answer is some combination of "We use 50 PB" and "He has five times the wealth he's supposed to have."
In decades of playing the game with over a hundred different GMs I genuinely have never heard of this level of the GM trying so hard to help the players win. There's different levels of lethality in games, and that's fine -- but this is orders of magnitude above the Charity Train Express. This is a level even beyond "We're telling an epic tale and PCs never die" story hour. In many years of hearing about people's monty haul campaigns you have somehow taken the cake.
How is he helping the players win? He is designing an encounter that was 1 die roll away from TPK. The wealth just means he increases the level/number of monsters he throws at us. Getting to this boss we had 1 player die, and in the next fight (still that day) we had annother death. Thats not to count the 3-4 other close calls we had too.
It is CR 14. Add in level PC wealth giving it +1
Hold the phone. You're telling me a guy with 240,000 GP to spend on gear can't get his AC over 35? Or do enough damage with, what, 7 attacks in a full attack to drop a 7th level character, adding his level to damage with each one from smite? Especially considering he gets to add the Vorpal to his weapon for free as a class feature.
The best thing you're getting out of a staff of healing is cure serious, so: 3d8+7, average 20.5. That's not keeping up with a guy whose damage bonus on a single hit should be close to double that -- and then he hits you a bunch more times. His DPR should be in the hundreds.
FFS, man. 240k gold:
This guy could come at you with 3 cubes of force and still have a bunch of cash left over or something equally ridiculous.
An absorbing shield that will disintegrate you when he hits you with it is only a fraction of his wealth.
He could come at you wearing two rings of three wishes each.
He could bust out a mirror of life trapping and suck you all in.
He can prismatic spray you ten times with his helm of brilliance, and if you're still standing, he can swap in his second helm of brilliance and do it again.
There is literally no item in the game he cannot afford. There is no limit to the ridiculousness he can bring to bear. There's no realistic way to survive it for 6 rounds without the Mercy Train coming through the station again and again.
There is a disconnect between the two of you guys.
In Cainech's game the DM is creating custom threats that have a specific stat-line but in many other critical ways don't act like normal humanoid PCs.
From a rules perspective it might say "Level 14 Anti-paladin" but in fact it's effective statline is closer to a CR 11 generic monster with a skin of "Anti-Paladin"
In order to avoid SoD/SoS based irrelevancy he's got really high level based saves (presumably to reduce loot after he dies), he's got higher than normal hit points, he's got good but not great AC (many campaigns avoid maxing NPC AC because it's so gear intensive and more gear means more loot), and he hits reasonably hard.
However he's way inferior to an optimized foe of that CR level.
Arguably he could just optimize a foe that has a more appropriate CR but guess what, CR appropriate foes often have crappy saves ;)
The common solutions are:
Give Gear to cover weakness- Which creates a loot problem
Fudge NPC Saves - D:<
Inflate some number without making the NPC a total badass - Cainech's GM's solution
Houserule the game into oblivion - Kirth's solution ;)
I think ultimately what's happening is that the GM is going part way down the 4e highway and making NPC constructs that don't necessarily conform to the PC ruleset but actually provide a good storytelling solution to the problem.
Considering that solo martial NPCs are pretty hapless unless you load them to the gills with magical gear I'm not sure I 100% disagree with the solution but it merely highlights why I think the power discrepancy between casters and non-casters should be reduced, if only because high level NPC casters are still a threat and martial characters aren't :(
|
|
1: Yes low level play is a Luck Based Mission in addition to Rocket Launcher Tag. That's why you bring four people with rockets, to maximize the chances you get at least one off first. What is your point?
My point is that with a Dex of 0, your less likely to win initiative. And in order for Color Spray to be effective you have to be close enough to your enemy that they could hit you. And at that level if they hit you, which they likely would considering you have a 10 AC with the given dex score, you die.
Having four people with rockets doesn't make any difference. If you want to argue clumped so color spray would work, the converse is your wizards are clumped so cleave would work. So at low level this makes no sense.
2: Low saves at this level are around +2. Maybe. They could actually be lower than this, but it probably isn't likely. Even high saves though aren't that high. Meanwhile anyone meleeing the blinded enemies effectively has Displacement against them. If they aren't meleeing the enemy, or the enemy isn't meleeing them it's even better protection, since they have a much harder time finding the right square to target. They don't get a chance to break out until round 2. Fight is at least half over by then.
I don't disagree, but again it is a save attempt each round. So round 1 you cast it and it works 75% of the time on. Round 2 the attempt to shake it off and either are able or are not able. It isn't like you can coup de grace them. So what are you doing in the interim while they are trying to shake off blindness. At 1st level you only have 4 1st level spells max. This goes up by 1 at 2nd level.
3: See above about saves. Except it's Reflex instead.
See above asking what you are doing to them in the web, considering the spells you have available. Plus as I said it's better than 50/50 they break the grapple and you've both used a standard action, except there was no spell lost by the melee.
4: CoDzilla's Wizard will have +7 Fort save, but nice try. In any case you're still at the level where you have a high success rate against everyone, even if you hit the wrong save.Creatures with the nauseated condition experience stomach distress. Nauseated creatures are unable to attack, cast spells, concentrate on spells, or do anything else requiring attention. The only action such a character can take is a single move actions per turn.It also shuts down everyone, regardless of class.
Codzilla
5: CoDzilla wizard has 45 HP now. Thank you PF, for making spellcasters better than ever before by buffing crafting feats. +2 Int, +2 Con, +1 resistance = 4,500 in total = less than half. And what else will he spend his money on? Answer: Not more than 6,000 gold worth of stuff, so he can and will afford it. In any case still 75% success rate. Pretty damn good. Better than what non spells are doing by far (by now, you're probably looking at a 0% success rate for HP damage, keeping in mind it's useless until it kills).
I'll take 4 and 5 together. You are 5th level, meaning you have either 4 or 5 feats total (1st, 3rd, 5th, bonus for wizard and maybe one for human). So either your 3rd or 5th level feats is going to be craft wondrous item. Now the cost of making them is 2000 for the belt, 2000 for the headband and 500 for the cloak. I can assume at this point you learned all the listed spells as well as resistance, cat's grace, and bears endurance.
And based on the above you also are taking Great Fortitude, so your Con is now 18, your Int is now 22, but everything else is still 10 or less, right. I'm just keeping track of what you are taking where we are at this level. You have either two or three feats open at this point.
Now on to the meat of is stinking cloud the Nausea lasts for 1d4 +1 round so an average of 3.5 rounds, if they fail the save. They are about about 60% to make the save, so 40% of the time you will have used up the highest level spell you have with no appreciable effect. The rest of the time the creature can move but not attack. How are you damaging them while they recover?
Slow is much better odds of working, but has somewhat less impact for a few more rounds.
The Black Tentacles thing is more a point in favor of maneuvers sucking than casters sucking. After all, casters can just use a different spell.
These were the spells you picked as the SoD spells, not me. If you are saying Black Tentacles is not SoD, I agree with you.
The point is that these are great spells in combination with a group that will do the damage while you weaken the enemy, as well as keep the enemy from killing you while you cast them.
Things the Melee classes do well, and you seem to undervalue.
5: CoDzilla wizard has 45 HP now. Thank you PF, for making spellcasters better than ever before by buffing crafting feats. +2 Int, +2 Con, +1 resistance = 4,500 in total = less than half. And what else will he spend his money on? Answer: Not more than 6,000 gold worth of stuff, so he can and will afford it.
Correct me if I'm wrong here (I'm sure someone will), but I don't think crafting feats are supposed to be factored in to WBL purchases. You "buy" WBL gear based on its value, not as if you actually had the gold to go out and spend however you want.
Look at it this way. If you're adventuring from 1st level to whatever level you're building a character, the only treasure that you get that is really going to contribute to the ability to get ahead of the curve is going to be raw GP or trade items. Gear that you take off of foes is either going to contribute directly to your current wealth (you keep it), or you're going to sell it for 1/2 price. Having crafting feats lets you convert that 1/2 value right back to an item at no loss, and that's the benefit you gain for taking the feat.
That 4,500GP you "spent" above is still worth 9,000GP and that's what should be counted against your WBL.