|
Protection from evil is good, except you would have to spend a round casting it rather than doing something else. Great prep spell, not so good in combat.With Minutes duration, it has seen a lot of use in my campaigns... possibly because it was one of the few good Pally spells until the APG.
It always falls into the "Stuff we cast when we know we are ambushing" list.
Which is a useful, regularly used list.
That is not how that rule works. WBL means you get 10,500 gold at level 5, with the unspoken expectation you spend every copper on boosting your combat effectiveness. If you blow it all on cheap err... ladies of ill repute instead, it's you who is the only one who got screwed here.And if you can use that cash more efficiently, more power to you.
PFS bans crafting outright, but aside from that, in organized play (you know, strict RAW) that is exactly how wealth works. You have three guesses as to how the term Greyhawking came to be, and the first two don't count.
I've generally stopped arguing with you due to your aggressive behaviour (much rather debating this with dire mongoose and the other guy), but this I have to respond to since there's no RAW support at all for what you're saying.
Relevant PFSRD quotes:
8) Choose your Characters Starting Equipment.
Each new character begins the game with an amount of gold, based on his class, that can be spent on a wide range of equipment and gear, from chainmail armor to leather backpacks. This gear helps your character survive while adventuring. Generally speaking, you cannot use this starting money to buy magic items without the consent of your GM.
The armor or other protective devices you purchase may affect his starting Armor Class (AC), so once you have purchased armor or other protective devices you can determine your Armor Class (AC).
Character Above 1st level: If you are creating a character or creature at a level higher than 1st you should consult the Wealth for Higher Level PC's table or your GM to determine your starting gold. Table: Character Wealth by Level is included at right for your convenience.
Table: Character Wealth by Level lists the amount of treasure each PC is expected to have at a specific level. Note that this table assumes a standard fantasy game. Low-fantasy games might award only half this value, while high-fantasy games might double the value. It is assumed that some of this treasure is consumed in the course of an adventure (such as potions and scrolls), and that some of the less useful items are sold for half value so more useful gear can be purchased.
Table: Character Wealth by Level can also be used to budget gear for characters starting above 1st level, such as a new character created to replace a dead one. Characters should spend no more than half their total wealth on any single item. For a balanced approach, PCs that are built after 1st level should spend no more than 25% of their wealth on weapons, 25% on armor and protective devices, 25% on other magic items, 15% on disposable items like potions, scrolls, and wands, and 10% on ordinary gear and coins. Different character types might spend their wealth differently than these percentages suggest; for example, arcane casters might spend very little on weapons but a great deal more on other magic items and disposable items.
Yes, you start with 10500 gold which can be used for buying stuff. Nowhere at all does it say that you start with months of crafting time, that's just your personal interpretation. The strictest reading of the RAW is basically, "this is now. you have 10500 gp and access to a magic shoppe. period.".
Also, note the bolded part. In all other places where treasure is referenced to, it's insinuated that the relevant wealth level of an item is it's market value. The 170 gp treasure for a 1st-level party isn't supposed to be 170 gp in crafting value, right? Of course not. Thus, the logical conclusion would be that the table is used for expecting the market value of the items they have. Now, you could say that "expected" isn't a precise word, but these are guidelines after all. Thus, I find it strongly insinuated (though not proven) that WBL is based on market value.
I'm not saying that your interpretation is AGAINST the RAW, though it is my personal belief it is against the RAI, what I'm saying is that there's no rule support for what you're trying to do. It's 100% interpretations, rather than saying "that's not how the rule works" to another very valid interpretation (that also has circumstantial "evidence" in the RAW).
Apparently you interpret cover differently than I do. You can draw a line to the backpack (and the AoE can incinerate said backpack) but the contents have full cover, and are therefore immune.
Wouldn't that mean someone in full plate and helmet would have full cover from "behind"? While there is no facing, couldn't they put their gloved hand above the openings in their helmet? (if they have some kind of helmet with only small openings, not that uncommon)
|
|
The strictest reading of the RAW is basically, "this is now. you have 10500 gp and access to a magic shoppe. period.".
I partially disagree. The strictest possible reading of RAW is very close to that, but slightly different.
Character Wealth by Level lists the amount of treasure each PC is expected to have at a specific level.
I would say the strictest possible reading is basically "you have gear, cash, and goods worth 10500 gp taken from all your travels". Much of it is locked into gear that the DM gives you, and you have no control over it.
So without crafting, you can just use whatever the heck the DM gives you, or you can sell it for half and buy gear that's half as expensive. Not very good options, though there are ways around this with skills.
With crafting, you can sell the gear for half, then use that half to make something equally valuable. This is a powerful ability, and I firmly believe that's exactly how it's supposed to work by RAW. Not that you get money and are forced to buy gear with it. That you have gear worth X money, granted by the DM's adventures. Maybe some of it's in cash, but the bulk of it should be in gear.
Naturally, it doesn't work that way in PFS. But it isn't supposed to.
Slow I still get one attack.
Honestly, try playing around with slow against the kinds of monsters you realistically fight around the first few levels that you get it especially -- they're almost all melee monsters with three or more attacks, possibly features like pounce or rend, and terrible will saves. Or terrible enough.
On paper or in theory you may not think it's that great. In practice, by about the third fight where the wizard gets to slow a monster or monsters before they get to full attack, you're going to be ready to call the fight a win and move on -- because at that point, there's really no chance a PC will die no matter how unlucky they are, and all you're doing is wasting some time haggling over how many charges of the Cure Light Wounds wand are burned in the cleanup.
Throw in a second caster like, say, a druid throwing lowly level 1 Entangle or a sorcerer/wizard throwing Stone Call to make a little difficult terrain to kite around and the slowed monsters literally can't even attack anymore until slow is up.
Hold person, but I think it is assumed that you are with a cleric who would memorize it as a 2nd level spell.
Save each round.
Yup. But you can pretty well fix that by casting it on someone within a five-foot step + reach of one of your allies -- and if you're dealing with melee opponents, there's an excellent chance there's not only one of those, but one of those that won't get to take an action until after your ally coup de graces them.
In practice there's a pretty high kill rate with this, even if your ally in question is, say, a sorcerer with an 8 STR and a mundane longspear. Even that terrible melee threat is forcing something like, what, Fort 22 or die on average?
|
|
That's not helpful at all since there are hundreds of spells to choose from along with dozens of feat options. That's the point of this discussion. Just assuming wizard = win isn't helpful at all. Whether or not it's true isn't helpful to understand why or why not. While you, and many others, may not think evocation is a good school it may be a great choice in some campaigns. That's the point of compiling the information that CoDZilla is giving us.An excellent wizard build is the one with maxed out INT and spells that aren't evocation.
Everything else is more or less irrelevant.
I had a great post eaten. Damn. (It was long).
But, to sum up: there isn't a lot of "must have" feats for wizards, so most builds are going to be very similar (imp init, a couple metas, maybe a crafting feat, spell penetration, spell focus (x2) and maybe a save booster. The rest are gravy/can be used for flavor type stuff.
Spells? Post a book, yeah, but posting a prep list invited the same kind of "the fighter can always counter with" metagaming the whole "wizards always have the right spell ready" camp does.
Evocation is objectively poor. Hit points increase far to quickly for the capped (and xd6, generally) evocation spells to keep up and be relevant (remember, your camp always assumes saves are easy, so it's more like xd3 damage). Sure, game style can alieviate that somewhat, but most published modules and probably most games don't set evocation up to be whoopass.
And the last part of the summation: there seems to be an assumption that Kirth, Cod, Kyrt, TOz and others are wizard fetishists. Nah, if you read closely, we mostly all want to play martial/melee types who can keep up and be relevant. We like the Conan archetype. We just don't think Pf supports what we want to play well.
Evocation is objectively poor. Hit points increase far to quickly for the capped (and xd6, generally) evocation spells to keep up and be relevant (remember, your camp always assumes saves are easy, so it's more like xd3 damage). Sure, game style can alieviate that somewhat, but most published modules and probably most games don't set evocation up to be whoopass.
While I agree that evocation is one of the worse schools, it's more than just direct damage. It's got some nice non-combat spells for when you're high enough level to waste the low-level slots (floating disc, dancing lights, ), and some useful combat spells such as the hand series, gust of wind, darkness, wind wall, wall of force and so on. I'd say that it's a quite nice school to prepare a spell level or two below your highest, due to being circumstantially very useful (wind wall and gust of wind being prime examples) but maybe not something you want to prepare or cast every day. The same really goes for blasts too, the CAN be useful, not just very often. At 10th level, it may be worth using a 3rd level slot for a fireball if you know you're up against many enemies.
EDIT: Also note that you can build viable damage dealing casters, it's just that it takes a lot of focus and usage of APG feats and abilities. Spell mastery goes a long way towards that, for example.
And the last part of the summation: there seems to be an assumption that Kirth, Cod, Kyrt, TOz and others are wizard fetishists. Nah, if you read closely, we mostly all want to play martial/melee types who can keep up and be relevant.
Nah, not all of you. Mostly CoD, who also +1s the suggestion of banning all melee classes in the other thread. To some extent the mongoose who seems to also be in favor of the "all casters or you're gimping yourself"-mentality (I may be wrong), but he seems like a nice enough sort so that's not really meant as negative. It would just be nice to see where his point of view is coming from.
|
|
Evocation is objectively poor. Hit points increase far to quickly for the capped (and xd6, generally) evocation spells to keep up and be relevant (remember, your camp always assumes saves are easy, so it's more like xd3 damage). Sure, game style can alieviate that somewhat, but most published modules and probably most games don't set evocation up to be whoopass.While I agree that evocation is one of the worse schools, it's more than just direct damage. It's got some nice non-combat spells for when you're high enough level to waste the low-level slots (floating disc, dancing lights, ), and some useful combat spells such as the hand series, gust of wind, darkness, wind wall, wall of force and so on. I'd say that it's a quite nice school to prepare a spell level or two below your highest, due to being circumstantially very useful (wind wall and gust of wind being prime examples) but maybe not something you want to prepare or cast every day. The same really goes for blasts too, the CAN be useful, not just very often. At 10th level, it may be worth using a 3rd level slot for a fireball if you know you're up against many enemies.
EDIT: Also note that you can build viable damage dealing casters, it's just that it takes a lot of focus and usage of APG feats and abilities. Spell mastery goes a long way towards that, for example.
And the last part of the summation: there seems to be an assumption that Kirth, Cod, Kyrt, TOz and others are wizard fetishists. Nah, if you read closely, we mostly all want to play martial/melee types who can keep up and be relevant.Nah, not all of you. Mostly CoD, who also +1s the suggestion of banning all melee classes in the other thread. To some extent the mongoose who seems to also be in favor of the "all casters or you're gimping yourself"-mentality (I may be wrong), but he seems like a nice enough sort so that's not really meant as negative. It would just be nice to see where his point of view is coming from.
He's actually stated a few times he prefers to play martial types. He just thinks, like a few of us do, that they're not vital (or optimal) for a party make up.
I might not have his opinion correct, but I think he is more saying "if you're not going to fix the disparity, just get rid of the classes", not "don't even try, it's pointless".
|
|
Slow I still get one attack.Honestly, try playing around with slow against the kinds of monsters you realistically fight around the first few levels that you get it especially -- they're almost all melee monsters with three or more attacks, possibly features like pounce or rend, and terrible will saves. Or terrible enough.
On paper or in theory you may not think it's that great. In practice, by about the third fight where the wizard gets to slow a monster or monsters before they get to full attack, you're going to be ready to call the fight a win and move on -- because at that point, there's really no chance a PC will die no matter how unlucky they are, and all you're doing is wasting some time haggling over how many charges of the Cure Light Wounds wand are burned in the cleanup.
Throw in a second caster like, say, a druid throwing lowly level 1 Entangle or a sorcerer/wizard throwing Stone Call to make a little difficult terrain to kite around and the slowed monsters literally can't even attack anymore until slow is up.
Again, I am not saying these are bad spells. I am saying that they are not SoD spells.
He is so far making a Wizard very similar to a guy I play with who has a Transmutation Wizard. He goes into each combat with a bunch of SoS spells, and when they work he is unquestionably the MVP. When they don't, we make fun of him because he has functionally done nothing but hide behind the rest of the group and mutter stuff burning spells. Since we play several encounters at a time before recharged (usually with some kind of timer going so you can't just take a nap and come back) he is always either worried about running out of useful spells or literally running out of useful spells. He is all win or all fail.
Slow wears off at Round per level,and most times unless you are fighting a BBEG (who would be more likely to save due to being higher level) there are multiple things you are dealing with aside from the slowed guy. You'll probably clear the battlefield before the slow wears off, but not always. Particularly with attacks that come in waves, which our DM (and I when I am running) tend to do.
Entangle was nerfed like crazy in Pathfinder.
|
|
Hold person, but I think it is assumed that you are with a cleric who would memorize it as a 2nd level spell.
Save each round.
Yup. But you can pretty well fix that by casting it on someone within a five-foot step + reach of one of your allies -- and if you're dealing with melee opponents, there's an excellent chance there's not only one of those, but one of those that won't get to take an action until after your ally coup de graces them.
In practice there's a pretty high kill rate with this, even if your ally in question is, say, a sorcerer with an 8 STR and a mundane longspear. Even that terrible melee threat is forcing something like, what, Fort 22 or die on average?
You and I don't disagree that much. I think Wizards and Fighters go together like peas and carrots.
CoDzilla is ignoring the role of the Melee in this two step. I look at it like the Wizard is roping and the fighter is branding. You need both.
No one but a melee is going to be close enough to coup de grace, since there is at minimum a 1 in 4 chance the spell fails and who you are fighting gets a full round attack on whoever is standing next to him with a full round action available.
|
|
+1.Slow I still get one attack.Honestly, try playing around with slow against the kinds of monsters you realistically fight around the first few levels that you get it especially -- they're almost all melee monsters with three or more attacks, possibly features like pounce or rend, and terrible will saves. Or terrible enough.
On paper or in theory you may not think it's that great. In practice, by about the third fight where the wizard gets to slow a monster or monsters before they get to full attack, you're going to be ready to call the fight a win and move on -- because at that point, there's really no chance a PC will die no matter how unlucky they are, and all you're doing is wasting some time haggling over how many charges of the Cure Light Wounds wand are burned in the cleanup.
Throw in a second caster like, say, a druid throwing lowly level 1 Entangle or a sorcerer/wizard throwing Stone Call to make a little difficult terrain to kite around and the slowed monsters literally can't even attack anymore until slow is up.
If your DM is calling a fight on a wounded enemy and not making you play it out, I can see where a lot of your positions come from.
|
|
Misrepresent much there?If your DM is calling a fight on a wounded enemy and not making you play it out, I can see where a lot of your positions come from.+1.Slow I still get one attack.Honestly, try playing around with slow against the kinds of monsters you realistically fight around the first few levels that you get it especially -- they're almost all melee monsters with three or more attacks, possibly features like pounce or rend, and terrible will saves. Or terrible enough.
On paper or in theory you may not think it's that great. In practice, by about the third fight where the wizard gets to slow a monster or monsters before they get to full attack, you're going to be ready to call the fight a win and move on -- because at that point, there's really no chance a PC will die no matter how unlucky they are, and all you're doing is wasting some time haggling over how many charges of the Cure Light Wounds wand are burned in the cleanup.
Throw in a second caster like, say, a druid throwing lowly level 1 Entangle or a sorcerer/wizard throwing Stone Call to make a little difficult terrain to kite around and the slowed monsters literally can't even attack anymore until slow is up.
Pot. Kettle.
You make assertions about what is and is not viable without even having all of the books available to you. At the same time refuse to provide specific examples.
The Wizard we have gleaned from you so far is a very useful party member. He also can't do any real damage, so he is dependent on others, and has dangerously low will and reflex saves, as well as AC. His charisma is low and he has few utility spells so he won't be particularly effective outside of combat.
All of which is fine. It is a good build. The game is supposed to be played with a group of people working together, and the Wizard you post certainly has a use and purpose in any group.
But he is also very vulnerable, and all of his spells are all win or all fail. In an extended adventuring day, he's going to run out of spells. Make scrolls and you can count that toward your WBL. You'll also need to add a handy haversack so you can get them without provoking and AoO, not to mention getting the scroll is a move action, making it functionally a full round action to cast.
Melee fighters serve a role. A role that you devalue, likely based on your DM's style.
If your DM has short encounter days which allow you to rest, doesn't ambush you, foreshadows encounters with great accuracy, and calls fights when the enemy is weaken rather than making you use your resources to finish the battle, you don't need classes that can dish out large amounts of damage in a single round that don't run out of spells.
That is your game. Have fun with it.
But that isn't how others play. And your Wizard would be fine in my campaign. Successful even. But he would also not be any more impressive than the rest of the group, and there would be a number of times where he was as much a liability as an asset.
But that isn't how others play. And your Wizard would be fine in my campaign. Successful even. But he would also not be any more impressive than the rest of the group, and there would be a number of times where he was as much a liability as an asset.
+1
I'm Spartacus!
Er... I mean yeah I totally agree. I dislike the emphasis on optimisation, dpr, "what's the best class" etc etc.
One of the things I hated about 3.5 was the plethora of bizarre characters people ended up playing. It got to the point that the rarest thing you saw played was a bog standard human fighter.
I like to see players play characters not mathematical exercises. The game is fine. Stop poking it with sticks.
I'm with you ciretose! Fight the power!
Well that was 3.5. We are talking about Pathfinder. As I said before, the fighter was terribly underpowered class
But, to sum up: there isn't a lot of "must have" feats for wizards, so most builds are going to be very similar (imp init, a couple metas, maybe a crafting feat, spell penetration, spell focus (x2) and maybe a save booster. The rest are gravy/can be used for flavor type stuff.
We want to know what those must haves are though. The problem is that we don't know what your wizards will always have and at what levels. It's very difficult to keep up with a conversation when only one-half has all the details. We're looking for those details. For example, the only must have spells that CoDZilla has listed for 1st level are Color Spray and Mage Armor. If those are the only must haves and the other spells are just filler that's fine. We just want to know that.
Spells? Post a book, yeah, but posting a prep list invited the same kind of "the fighter can always counter with" metagaming the whole "wizards always have the right spell ready" camp does.
If you look at the build that I posted from CoDZilla's posts, I did not list the spells he has prepared. I only listed his spellbook. Eventually we're going to have to figure out which spells are always prepared since they are probably going to be useful in the vast majority of circumstances (for example, fly).
Evocation is objectively poor. Hit points increase far to quickly for the capped (and xd6, generally) evocation spells to keep up and be relevant (remember, your camp always assumes saves are easy, so it's more like xd3 damage). Sure, game style can alieviate that somewhat, but most published modules and probably most games don't set evocation up to be whoopass.
I have never assumed that saves were easy and I don't recall anyone else doing so either. I have assumed that any character would try to shore up its weaknesses as best it can. While a level 20 fighter may have a base +6 to his Reflex and Will saves, I think it's reasonable to assume that he would have found a way to improve those somewhat. Just like CoDZilla has done with his wizard's Fortitude save which has a base +1 at level 5. He managed to push that to +8 (he forgot to add in the cloak of resistance so it's actually better than his claim of +7).
And the last part of the summation: there seems to be an assumption that Kirth, Cod, Kyrt, TOz and others are wizard fetishists. Nah, if you read closely, we mostly all want to play martial/melee types who can keep up and be relevant. We like the Conan archetype. We just don't think Pf supports what we want to play well.
I have never assumed that about any of them except CoD. He has made that very clear in every thread I've seen him posting.
For most people, I assume that they are playing a different style campaign than I am and their observations are different from mine. There are a small few who assume that you either play things exactly their way or you are wrong.
I think that Pathfinder does a fine job supporting melee and non-melee just fine. I would never say that non-casters are 100% equal to casters. I also don't say that non-casters are worthless because they aren't perfect. There are some who actually are taking that position.
Evocation is not a good choice in any 3.x D&D campaign, because all of the things that make it bad are inherent to 3.x. It's not like Charm or something, which can either be useless or amazing depending on if you primarily fight non humanoids, or spend a lot of time in cities.
Some things are subjective. Some aren't. Evocation objectively sucks in 3.x.
It was great before that though.
That is your opinion. It is not an objective look at the school at all. I have played and have seen played very effective evokers. It's not that difficult. One thing that helps keep them effective is that their spells are often at least partially effective, some completely effective in the right circumstances. So the wizard didn't outright kill that creature with his spell, at least he managed to do something. Instead of pass/fail, he gets partial credit. This makes it so that other spells or other characters don't have to work as hard. Look at the power word spells. They have a hit point maximum that they can affect. If one wizard (or other caster who uses an attack spell) brings the target to below 201 points, it can be blinded with no save. If the creature is brought below 151 points, it can be stunned with no save. If it is brought below 101 points, it can be killed with no save. Those are assuming the creature can be targeted by those spells of course, but most enemies can be.
There are also some evocation spells that have no save and are very useful, such as many of the wall spells and contingency.
I think you are interchangeably using "evocation" with "blaster." Blasters can also be effective but they don't have to be evokers. Not all evokers have to be blasters (but they probably will be since that is the bulk of their spells).
Ignoring anything that is patently absurd, already addressed, or is more misrepresentation. Which currently means anything ciretose is saying.
Look, several of us have stopped with the condescending BS. It's time for you to do the same. You wanted us to listen. We're trying to listen.
We want to know what those must haves are though. The problem is that we don't know what your wizards will always have and at what levels. It's very difficult to keep up with a conversation when only one-half has all the details. We're looking for those details. For example, the only must have spells that CoDZilla has listed for 1st level are Color Spray and Mage Armor. If those are the only must haves and the other spells are just filler that's fine. We just want to know that.I didn't mention Mage Armor actually. Other than to say as early as level 5, you're in auto hit range with or without it, even if you also have Dex.
I assumed that when you mentioned you could cast Mage Armor to increase your AC, that you were saying it was a spell you would have. Is it a spell your wizard would probably have in his spellbook or not? That's all I want to know. It's a good spell and I don't see why you wouldn't but you're the one selecting the spells so I will defer to you.
I have never assumed that saves were easy and I don't recall anyone else doing so either. I have assumed that any character would try to shore up its weaknesses as best it can. While a level 20 fighter may have a base +6 to his Reflex and Will saves, I think it's reasonable to assume that he would have found a way to improve those somewhat. Just like CoDZilla has done with his wizard's Fortitude save which has a base +1 at level 5. He managed to push that to +8 (he forgot to add in the cloak of resistance so it's actually better than his claim of +7).As best they can. That's the whole point.
Improving saving throws is very easy. You know it as well as I do. It's not difficult at all to get any character's saves to reasonable levels.
Before we go any further, there's one thing that needs to be clearly established. What saves are, and what they mean. There are three categories of saves: Low, average, and good. There are also several things that boost saves. By determining how many of these you have, you can determine where your saves are.
They are, in order:
1: Good base save progression for that save.
2: Having a primary stat associated with that save.
3: Being a spellcaster (which means access to all kinds of save boosting stuff others can't get).The first two of these are worth 1 point each. The last is worth two.
3 or more points: Good save.
2 points: Average save.
1 or fewer points: Low save.Which is why you'll notice that the Wizard actually has a higher Fortitude save than the Fighter, even before casting spells by a full 2 points (and without the rat familiar, it's still a tie). It's also why even with a Wis 7 he's matching or beating the Fighter in Will saves, and is particularly doing so with Wis 10 (25 PB). Reflex saves are admittedly lacking on them both, but fortunately that's not important because Reflex save effects, with very, very few exceptions are not important.
The point of this is, your ability to do things is based on your access to resources to do those things, not based on will alone. The Fighter can want good saves all he wants, he's not getting better than average (he might get his Fort save up to good status... it isn't likely though).
You have some arbitrary points there with very little to back them up.
So here are some things to keep in mind with saves that you have neglected to mention:
1) Will saves are probably the most important since the majority of spells and spell-like abilities target those saves. This has actually increased with Pathfinder since some of the spells that did not require saves now do.
2) You forgot to mention feats that can increase saves or even allow rerolls. Each of the save boosting feats is like gaining a +4 bonus on a particular stat for the sole purpose of improving your saves. You can still improve them more with gear. The enhancement stat boosting gear can give you another +3, the various tomes and manuals can give +2, the luckstone can give +1, an ioun stone can give +1, and a cloak can give you +5. That's a grand total of +14 if you don't improve your stats normally. I doubt most people are going to go for all of those but the point is that one does not need to be a caster to improve their saves. I should also point out that cover can increase your Reflex saves.
3) Wizards do not have a primary stat that is associated with any of their saves. Yes, you can put your points into Dex, Con, or Wis, but none of those are actually primary stats for the wizard or sorcerer.
4) If you are preparing spells that boost your saves, then you are using resources that could be used for other things. It is often better to boost a save without a spell than with unless you gain some other benefit as well. I would rather have heroism than cat's grace because heroism grants a +2 morale bonus on all saves, all attack rolls, and all skill checks. Cat's grace only improves Dexterity and is an enhancement bonus, one of the easiest and most common bonuses just from gear.
5) The wizard only has a higher Fortitude save because you are comparing your wizard's enhanced save to the fighter's base save. If the fighter has even a 16 Constitution (dwarf?), they are tied. The fighter can still take that Great Fortitude and the cloak your wizard has for a higher Fortitude save. I wouldn't take the Great Fortitude for the fighter but it's still an option.
6) You haven't actually given us anything to go on to tell us what the goals are for saving throws. In your campaigns, it's probably much higher than in mine. Most opponents (using just the CRB and Bestiary) are going to have DCs = 10 + 1/2 hit dice + Con or Cha modifier for non-spells/non-spell-like abilities. Spells and spell-like abilities are 10 + spell level + relevant ability. So those aren't usually too difficult to deal with. Even a 9th level spell only starts at a DC 23 (yes, it will probably be a little higher but not significantly).
7) You have not defined what "good," "average," and "low" actually mean. I was assuming that those were originally defined by the class saving throws but your comment that a fighter might get his Fortitude to a Good save makes me think that you are not using those terms.
8) I know how much you like 25 point buy but the game really does assume a much lower point buy. That makes the saves a bit lower and gives the characters some weaknesses (in other words, it forces choices/sacrifices to be made). I can easily build a non-caster that can compete with the Bestiary and NPCs in the books with 15 point buy. It's very easy. No, they won't save all the time but that's why they have some good saves and some low saves. It's incredibly easy to get them to save more than 50% of the time. It's not difficult to get them to save 70% + for their low saves and 95% with their good saves.
WRONG!
I have never assumed that about any of them except CoD. He has made that very clear in every thread I've seen him posting.
For most people, I assume that they are playing a different style campaign than I am and their observations are different from mine. There are a small few who assume that you either play things exactly their way or you are wrong.I think that Pathfinder does a fine job supporting melee and non-melee just fine. I would never say that non-casters are 100% equal to casters. I also don't say that non-casters are worthless because they aren't perfect. There are some who actually are taking that position.
Then you have poorly stated your position. You are the one who has said that they should be banned. You are the one who has said over and over that non-casters are useless unless they are at 50 point buy. You are the one who has made it very clear that non-casters can never hold their own. If that isn't your position, then you have failed to make a coherent point and you really should go back and try again.
Or are you saying that I am wrong in my opinion that non-casters are viable but not as powerful as casters?
No amount of "skill" makes 1d6 a level anything but a complete and utter waste of time. As for the roughly 1% of things that are classified as Evocation, and do not fit this formula? Illusion.
So you don't think that 30d6 to a dozen enemies is a good thing (empowered and intensified cone of cold)? What if those dozen enemies are also taking an additional 50% damage just because they are vulnerable? That's effectively 45d6 damage (maximize rods would make that 270 [135 on a successful save] damage to fire based creatures in a 60 foot cone). Not bad actually. Those types of spells are supposed to be room clearing spells. Used mostly against mooks. When used properly, they allow for more tactical options. Yes, I intentionally picked cone of cold and assumed fire-based creatures because I am assuming that the evoker who is headed off to the elemental plane of fire knows to prepare this way.
When I was in the army, we trained in the use of hand grenades and land mines. We also trained in the use of more precise and lethal weaponry. There were also some who specialized in non-weapon combat such as propaganda. When used together, they are incredibly effective.
Doing things no one cares about is classified as wasting your turn by any objective analysis. An Evoker does nothing but this.
This is not an objective analysis. It's subjective. It's your opinion on how your games go compared to how my games go. That is the very definition of subjective. I have played very effective evokers. I have seen very evokers played as well. Just like with color spray, you have to use the evocation spells in the right circumstances.
Riddle me this. Why would a Wizard, or any caster really who does have options to influence the combat right now willingly subject themselves to all of the failings of HP damage and still do a poor job of it? Really, Evocation is that bad. If your melee characters aren't doing more damage than a Fireball with every single swing of their sword, they're wasting their time. Now, what does that say about you?
Most of the spells you say are awesome are binary. They are pass/fail. Like I said before, damage dealing is partial credit. In addition, area of effect damage dealing can often be an effective way to clear a room. Some creatures are just going to be immune to some of your spells as well so it's always best to have options.
Power Words, or at least the core ones are just as bad. They only work on things that are near dead anyways, particularly the later ones (and the earlier ones, well you could blind things for the past ten levels, and more than one thing at once even). Common immunity tags too.
I've seen PW: Stun used exactly once by any decent player in 3.x in a full decade of playing 3.x. It was because he was playing an Artificer, and therefore got all items so cheaply, and has all bases covered so easily that it was a "Hell, why not?" choice, and then only because Artificers can use staves very effectively via such things as Metamagic Item: Chain Spell to make it multitarget. And even then, it only saw use against mooks. Anything else was either immune to stun, or had way too many HP to make it useful.
...That's an Aquaman job if I ever saw one. The other two? Never cast, even once by anyone, ever.
...Oh and by the way... even if those spells were worth a damn, and they are not that would be a point in favor of Enchantment, not Evocation. Because that's what they actually are.
I have always enjoyed the power word spells. They can quickly change the outcome of a battle. I also did not ever claim that they were evocation. I said that using evocation spells that deal damage make those spells easier to use.
Just because you haven't seen something ever used in play does not meant that it will never see use in someone else's campaign. You really need to remember that the very high majority of players are not in your games. I know that some spells and classes are more effective in your games than mine. I also know that some spells and classes will be more effective in my games than yours. Do you really think that your way is the only way to play? Do you really think that everyone else who plays differently than you is simply wrong? You sure act like it.
|
|
I've read the book quit indepth, yes some times there can be unclear wording but true gaps are few. often a simpel cross refrince is needed with a like ability but solutions can be found with little error blamed to inturpitation. read the rules, directions, and class abilitis there fine. weak classes dont exsest only players who dont know how to play them correctly. as a gm i've seen things happen that almost shouldent have not because of any problum with rules but of amazing things creativ players did with their characters. or on the other side peer stupid things that they should have known not to do.
I still like the idea of a superwiz template. I'm glad to see the shift in attitude on both sides, let's keep it up. I would try to contribute, but since I am coming at this from an assumption of my own ignorance, that wouldn't be very helpful.
I understand some people thing we don't need details to provide this kind of example character, but we do. I just won't be satisfied until I have a full statblock, because that assures me that this can exist.
If it is that straightforward, being able to hold up one instance of a completely dominating wizard should be easy. I look forward to the results in earnest.
|
|
You did. For a little while. Ciretose was slipping back into misread mode. I called him on it.
Actually, I thought you were slipping into actually having a serious discussion and posting an example build to discuss. Then you backed away from it.
The fact is you posted a decent build for a 5th level character. It just happens to be a very dependent build, which is fine because it is a 4 player game.
As you have pointed out, if you try to spread yourself out to do to many things you do nothing well. Your wizard does no damage, but has a high chance of disabling. It has no AC, but it has a lot of hit points (for it's class). It can't hit anything, but it isn't supposed to.
It has low Charisma because someone else will play the face. It took craft feats so it can afford to buy scrolls and such to get more spell variety (I assume).
But it is not overpowered yet. Up through 5th level it is useful. More than half the time the spell cast greatly weaken enemies, but the same spells are pretty much useless between 25% and 50% of the time, depending on opposing saves.
You have stated the position that Wizards are overpowered, yet we can't get you to show us this in practice.
Others who feel this way and agree with you on some points have been polite for the most part, have posted examples, and have conceded that style of play matters in how things interact. Many of them are house ruling to accommodate their preferred style of play.
You, on the other hand, proclaim to know how all games work and all rules interact, despite the fact that you don't even own the Advanced Players Handbook.
You were posting examples and the conversation was getting interesting, but you stopped and went back to being condescending. Either you are here to learn, here to teach, or here to troll.
You don't seem to think anything can be learned on here, you've stopped providing information to others, so...
|
|
Aquaman scenario.
Which is more likely here: That you just so happen to have a specifically metamagiced Cone of Cold, and just so happen to encounter a dozen enemies at once, all of which fit into the cone, and just so happen to be weak to cold, and you just so happen to have an item that is otherwise useless... or that you don't? Exactly. That's also an 8th level spell, not counting the rod? So level 15, minimum. Things that are actually effective don't need Eigen Plots to justify themselves.
Color Spray works 75% of the time, against 75% of opponents. Blasting works 0% of the time against 100% of opponents, barring bizarre Eigen Plots.
I like how one 15 ft cone just happens to fit all your enemies when you argue for it, but another one does not when you argue against it. I also like how it's all in the same post.
Color spray works 75% of the time against low will characters, not all characters. If you have a 20 int, save is 16. So if you have a high will save or your wisdom score is more than 12, it is less than 75%. And at a 15 ft cone, you have to be withing 45 feet to be able to move into position and cast it in the same round, meaning you are likely in attack range, making it an initiative race, as even with your 16 dex wizard, 10 hit points is not a lot of hit points.
This is why your wizard took improved initiative with his first feat.
Evocation isn't that great to you because you don't think hit point damage is important. While I agree evocation damge spells aren't always optimal choice for wizards (better for sorcerers who can use more spells a day more times) they almost always do something helpful when cast.
|
|
ciretose, just want to thank you for taking the time to argue this out. I am enjoying reading it, even when I don't agree with you.
It is selfish actually. I come to the boards to learn. The rules are complicated and I constantly get confused by what rules have changed through the years.
If CoDzilla is right, I want to know so I can fix it in my home game like Kirth and Kurt Ryder are attempting. I haven't seen these problems come up, and most times that I have either a rule was read wrong or I come on here and see the developers have fixed it.
3.5 got bad, and some of the stuff added in the splatbooks was clearly pushed out without thought to interactions.
I don't want that to happen here, I have not seen it happen yet. If it is happening, I want to know because I have faith that the developers will work to fix it, because they actually love the game as much as pushing out books.
I would like people to stop using CoD's lack of the APG as an argument. APG ownership is irrelevant. If the game requires a second $30 investment to get a baseline, then that's pretty horrible. I don't personally think it does.
There are many other ways to deconstruct the argument. I would like it if price of admission was not one of them. I don't want a hobby that comes with a bouncer to oust you if you can't afford all the rules.
Direct inquiry into his builds seems to have yielded the most interesting and civil discussion. Let's keep going that way, thanks!
Which is more likely here: That you just so happen to have a specifically metamagiced Cone of Cold, and just so happen to encounter a dozen enemies at once, all of which fit into the cone, and just so happen to be weak to cold, and you just so happen to have an item that is otherwise useless... or that you don't? Exactly. That's also an 8th level spell, not counting the rod? So level 15, minimum. Things that are actually effective don't need Eigen Plots to justify themselves.
What do you mean "just happen to have?" I was assuming that evoker have the same opportunity to learn ahead of time what they need like other casters. Is there some obscure rule that I missed about that? Please let me know.
I was well aware of the level of the spell. That's why the rod was needed to maximize the damage. I am also well aware of the minimum caster level. Looking through the Bestiary at what I would consider mooks (I said in another thread that I see mooks as CR -4). So let's look at CR 11 creatures. 4 elder fire elementals would be an EL 15 encounter. It would not be unexpected to see them in the Plane of Fire and a 15th level wizard certainly could be adventuring there. They have 152 hit points. Making sure they all are within the 60 foot cone may be a challenge but getting two or even three probably wouldn't be difficult at all. I did say that the spell is for room clearing. 50% to 75% of the enemy being completely wiped out sounds like a good start. It's actually two to three times as good as the spells with single targets that are 100% effective. It's all in the tactics and preparation. I think that's something we can all agree with.
That's nice. What is your point? If it's that explosive devices are effective against low level humans, sure, I'll grant you that. But just to have Fireball means you're not a low level human, which means you can beat low level humans in the manner of your choosing. And all the stuff that's tougher than that is laughing it off.
You got half my point. My point is that the area of effect spells are not meant to take out the big bads. They are meant to clear rooms and take out lower CR opponents. I tried to say that a few times and then figured I would give a real world example of how area of effect attacks work.
TColor Spray works 75% of the time, against 75% of opponents. Blasting works 0% of the time against 100% of opponents, barring bizarre Eigen Plots.
Color spray is a good spell but it is not so good once you start getting past level 9. It is also not the spell to bring with you if you are headed off to battle certain types of opponents. You have rightfully claimed that wizards can change their compliments of spells daily based on what they know or assume is coming up. Are you telling me that you would still prepare Color Spray if you were headed to the Plane of Fire?
Adventuring to another plane is not some bizarre Eigen Plot (I don't know what Eigen means but I assume you mean that the encounter is tailor made for that situation). The adventurers should prepare accordingly. I would hope that your wizards would prepare appropriate spells if headed off to another plane. With Knowledge (The Planes) there is no reason to not be prepared. I have run many adventures that take place outside the material plane.
Any number higher than 0 is as good as full. No, there is no partial credit. It's either dead, or not dead, with only a narrow window between these two states. Even if all Evocations were made no save, and all elemental resistances/immunities were removed, and all Evocations became SR: No they would still be bad. But since none of those are the case, they quickly go from bad to worse.
This is something that I have a hard time with when only mechanics are looked at. This goes for nearly every game system (some try to address the problem). Creatures typically aren't suicidal. They have an innate desire to live. They also do not have tick marks or health bars above their heads to keep them informed of how bad off they are doing. What they do know is how healthy they generally are and how bad they are being hurt. They do not see how their opponents are doing. If you role play the enemy as well as look at the mechanics, you will have a very different game. I rarely have my opponents want to fight to the death (there are some who are more than willing). That doesn't mean they don't die, it just means that typically when they are down to less than 1/3 of their hit points they look for a way to escape unless they can see a clear chance for victory.
So if you want to throw around the "Aquaman Scenario" then I'm going to start assuming you have a "video game mentality." I don't think that would be productive so why not drop them both.
|
|
One more time. Only the last HP matters. The good spells and effects skip straight to the last one. Everything else gets bogged down by all the padding.
As such, the actual effect of casting a Fireball, or a Cone of Cold, or whatever you like at an enemy is that said enemy laughs it off. And they continue to do so as they are hit two, three, and even four, five, six times or more. And that's when the target is a PC. Monsters have more HP.
Succeed or fail maneuvers > fail or fail maneuvers. The only way to make HP damage a succeed or fail maneuver is to one round enemies. Good luck with that.
The spells you have presented still require someone else to step in to do the actual hit point damage, and with the exception of color spray on 2 HD or less creatures they aren't helpless and subject to something like a coup de grace. Your party is going to have to do enough damage to kill them before they either succeed on a re-roll or recover from the effect you have put on them.
I agree using spells to do this is generally poor economy, given that spells are a limited resource. But considering that, what even does significant damage quickly, while also being able to soak damage if the creature makes the save and recovers?
Clerics and Druids can be made to be able to fill this role, but it isn't what they do best and they couldn't do it as well as Melee Fighters filling this role without significant resource expenditure in the form of spells.
And the melee classes act as a buffer to engage enemies unaffected if your spell does not succeed, which in your best case scenario is 1 out of every 4 times you use it.