|
The problem with RAW is that is favors casters. Now if nobody cares about it, sure that's fine. But if groups were really going only RAW, it will favor casters more in the end. These optimizers aren't lying for the sake of a trip. Using simple math, they've figured out that casters are more effective because there are much less defenses against it. And PF rules end up helping out more than they hinder.
No it doesn't.
Wizards are also more vulnerable than other classes, as people always seem to forget it also takes rounds to cast defenses. And of course you can only know so many spells per day.
Like I said, name a spell and I will show you the limitations of the spell.
The system is balanced just fine if people actual play the game as written and not as imagined.
People are assuming you actually have time to buff before every single encounter and that you are only self-buffing.
If that is true, then the GM isn't doing his job, because he's actually allowing the party to know when and where every encounter is.
I hate the attitude that players think every encounter happens in a vacuum.
I'm not talking about infinite time to buff. My DM has us fight about 50 guys at one time in order stop the caster. He also have use fight like 20 gaming hours at a time. We are always dealing with ambushes and tons of mooks. He does that in order to STOP casters from being able to end fights quickly.
He has house rules that allow for fighting classes to be more effective (a MUCH better whirlwind attack feat for example). He also uses much more powerful wizards to go against us.
I've stated my example, how does yours stop casters from taking over? My point is if there's such focus on a caster, there's probably an imbalance in the wizard class in the first place.
|
|
The CR system isn't crappy - it's the best ystem for experience we ahve. There are occasional breakdowns, but then it also depends on your style of play, and is at the discretion of a talented GM to modify. A table full of arms-race players needs a different CR challenge than a table full of average guys. A table full of artsy-fartsy role-players might be really challenged by a gelatinous cube. They can't talk to it, no on played a straight fighter, and their Persuasive and Iron Will feats aren't so helpful.
The system is fine. To boot, you can midofy it as you see fit for your table. But don't let yourslef fall into the trap of someone misunderstnading the rules and that leads you to think it was broken. Maybe ask the optimized fighter to make a balance check every now and then, and see how the game changes.
But then the game isn't fine as is. I think DMs should do lots of things to ensure a good time, but I think Paizo and WotC and designers need to do a better job of making things more balanced so DMs can focus on creative things, instead of balancing issues.
Monsters generally have weak saves, so a caster targets them.
This is news to me, here I have been using the bonuses in the monster manual for level appropriate monsters.
Where are the weak saves listed?
Also, the attitude being portrayed about "spellcasters are the only classes that rock" is a very video game way to look at things.
Go play everquest or oblivion, leave the DnD to people who enjoy it for what it is.
Actually in oblivion Thieves were king... in my opinion :)
-1. Only due to the statement of a caster having a small chance of being ready. Being always prepared is almost impossible, but I have never seen a caster that was mostly unprepared, which is what, "...have a very small chance....", is saying.
That is the *real* balance of casters vs melee. The melee are already ready. The casters have a very small chance to actually have what they need on hand as it happens.
-S
+1
although I do not think a fighter, monk, and ranger have to be as simple as you say. They just typically are played by novice players who only do that.
I will admit a clever Wizard is an awesome sight. A tactful fighter is impressive. A crafty rogue... (my personal fav) forget about it.
IMO :)
*sigh*
They do not have a small chance, they just don't always have the perfect spell. Not having any viable options would make them suck.
I mean when you choose in the morning blindsight, because you are going down into the depths of the earth so you think that is a good idea.
Viable right?
but because you prepared Blindsight you decided you wouldn't need calirvoyance/clairaudience, not today anyways.
And then it just so happens you need a scrying spell on a previous room and you didnt prepare one because you were in a hall for a crawl. Ah nuts.
I never said casters suck or that they were never prepared, but they dont always have the golden boy to end all be all prepared in their arsenal.
And the -1 offended me.
:)
ok, no more -1's. :)
I know you did not say casters suck but the end all be all is often not needed, and using a spell to do things it was not intended is always an option. Using stone to flesh to bypass a door made of stone is an example of that.
Monsters generally have weak saves, so a caster targets them.This is news to me, here I have been using the bonuses in the monster manual for level appropriate monsters.
Where are the weak saves listed?
It depends on the monsters. I use a variety of monsters to force my players to have a variety of spells.
Also, the attitude being portrayed about "spellcasters are the only classes that rock" is a very video game way to look at things.
Go play everquest or oblivion, leave the DnD to people who enjoy it for what it is.
Here we go comparing certain people to video game players. Nobody is being insulting. No need to start any flames.
|
|
Also, the attitude being portrayed about "spellcasters are the only classes that rock" is a very video game way to look at things.
Go play everquest or oblivion, leave the DnD to people who enjoy it for what it is.
I hate MMOs. I only play pen and paper. Video games don't provide any real role-playing. You are making assumptions that I am an optimizer. I am not. I just understand that casters > non-casters. I understand that mechanics are part of PF, and that having bad mechanics affect the entire game.
I thought the power gap closed when PF came out. And then I played it a lot, and read a lot of information on it. It turns out PF Core by itself still favors casters, by what degree I am unsure of. Fighters doing more damage is good. Rogues having Sneak Attack nerfed (because the conditions that trigger it are less) is bad. Barbarians being nerfed because of Power Attack nerf is bad.
On the surface, casters seem weaker. No Concentration skill, SoDs are less powerful, and more spell nerfs in general. And then I started discovered all the little things that non-caster stuff got nerfed like Power Attack, Sneak Attack. Not sure if divine casters are weaker or not, haven't really researched it.
-1. Only due to the statement of a caster having a small chance of being ready. Being always prepared is almost impossible, but I have never seen a caster that was mostly unprepared, which is what, "...have a very small chance....", is saying.
That is the *real* balance of casters vs melee. The melee are already ready. The casters have a very small chance to actually have what they need on hand as it happens.
-S
+1
although I do not think a fighter, monk, and ranger have to be as simple as you say. They just typically are played by novice players who only do that.
I will admit a clever Wizard is an awesome sight. A tactful fighter is impressive. A crafty rogue... (my personal fav) forget about it.
IMO :)
*sigh*
They do not have a small chance, they just don't always have the perfect spell. Not having any viable options would make them suck.
I mean when you choose in the morning blindsight, because you are going down into the depths of the earth so you think that is a good idea.
Viable right?
but because you prepared Blindsight you decided you wouldn't need calirvoyance/clairaudience, not today anyways.
And then it just so happens you need a scrying spell on a previous room and you didnt prepare one because you were in a hall for a crawl. Ah nuts.
I never said casters suck or that they were never prepared, but they dont always have the golden boy to end all be all prepared in their arsenal.
And the -1 offended me.
:)
ok, no more -1's. :)
I know you did not say casters suck but the end all be all is often not needed, and using a spell to do things it was not intended is always an option. Using stone to flesh to bypass a door made of stone is an example of that.
Ah but how many casters are going to do that when they dont know whats behind the door?
see my point, the caster is going to want to save the goodies for certain things so in given situations certain spells may not get used.
Now if he did use that spell on the door to turn it to flesh its still a fleshy door (disgusting to think about) and is therefor attached to the rest of the wall. You made it easy to hack through but you used a fifth level spell to do so?
I would love for you to make a spell list (serious actually) and me throw a few encounters of level appropriate and see how you would handle them with creativity.
You could argue that I would throw encounters that are unfair because you are a wizard but I would more enjoy the use of particular spells to come out ahead.
That is not the wizard being the best class, that is you being the best player. There is nothing wrong with being a good player, it is encouraged after all :)
Since when do people need to be penalized as overpowered for being creative? some people wouldn't think of that door idea, that isn't exactly how the spell is intended to be used (atleast most often). It is creative, props to you for using your resources effectively. But if your DM says hey man this is supposed to represent 6 seconds not 30 minutes (as you hunt through books to find the rules on your spells or what to do in a given situation) is that being unfair?
After all mister fighter is probably thinking on his feet, you should be too.
The big thing that makes wizards deadly is if they are given a large amount of time (no time stop jokes here that is 9th level spells haha)
Time is not always easy to come by, especially in a fast paced dungeon or in combat.
I think it would be coddling a player to give them anymore than a minute or two to decide an action, afterall their character only gets 6 seconds. If anything that is being nice about it since I always have my stuff ready to go by my turn and I often have more than one monster.
Just food for thought, my personal ponderings.
|
There's plenty of proof.Wraithstrike wrote:
The game definitely favors casters. I am not saying casters rule every game session, but that is more because a lot of people don't play to win the game. If they did then it would show up more often.
Please explain. I see these accusations all the time but never any proof.
Point by point, lets go to the beastiary.
1. Your caster has a 25% chance (at best) of taking out a CR 1 character if you use (at best) 1 of your 3 1st level spells a day if it has a low will save. If it is against it's good save the chances go down to about 60%. If it fails it does nothing, and has to be within 15 feet of what will attack it next round with no armor. The creature (or creatures) will not be dead, but will be severely weakened.
A fighter with the same high ability score of 20 has a +7 to hit (weapon focus) a creature with an AC average of 12 who has average of 15 hit points. He will, with a longsword, do 1d8 + 7 damage. If he power attacks he still has a better than 50/50 to hit and will do 1d8 + 10 damage. Without using any resources that can't be reused, with more hit points and better armor. If he has cleave (he does have two feats at 1st level) he can hit any neighbors nearby as well if he hits on the first attack.
A Barbarian could rage and make that 1d8 + 10 normally, 1d8 + 13 for a power attack. More or less an instant kill better than 50% of the time.
2. Lets look at your spells
Sleep
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/sleep
10 ft radius isn't that big a space. Standard action can wake them up, as can damage. Also in addition to the will save, it has a 4 HD cap, and doesn't work on undead.
Black Tentacles.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/b/black-tentacles
Is a 4th level spell, so at minimum you are a 7th level wizard at this point, meaning this is against CR 7 creatures generally.
At 7th, CMB will be 12. Not bad, but looking at CR 7 creatures not overwhelming either. The 1d6 +4 at 7th level isn't impressive damage, and grappled is changed in pathfinder. One break of the grapple is about 50/50 for a melee player (harder for a caster with low CMB) and with only a 20ft radius you don't have to go far to get out and render it moot.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/conditions#TOC-Grappled
-2 to attacks, -4 to Dex, and major casting penalties, which seem to hurt casters as much as help.
And you can't go in it either, so it is basically casting into it for a few rounds until they get out.
Web
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/w/web
Same issues as above, only lower damage and easier to get out of. The check is less than 50/50 to escape and as I said above grappled isn't that great.
Same with entangle, only it's bigger. But everyone forgets there actually have to be plants on the ground to use this spell.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/e/entangle
3. Fly is a potion. So is invisibility. Permanency can also be purchased.
Teleport is legit, but also a 5th level spell that has roll risks based on familiarity (so unless you've been to Mordor a lot) and can be negated by fighter feats.
4. Since casters don't need magic items, I'll take that helm of intellect and assume your dex and con are staying low, you aren't buying any scrolls, pearls of power, rods, etc...and you can only make them if you take the feats. So when are you getting precise shot for your rays?
Also, with Master Craftsmen, other classes can make them too.
5. Fly, and Invisibility are minutes per level, Stoneskin is 10 minutes per level. And of course Invisibility is off as soon as you attack, so that spell is burned. That is three spells used, two last less than 20 minutes, one a few hours.
Did I miss anything?
Each level, everybody gets stuff that makes them better too...
The rules work fine for me. The are things that I would change (a spell effect here, a feat tree there) but does not make it not enjoyable or playable.
It's a great system and I love it.
RPG Superstar 2013
|
I stop casters from taking over by providing encounters that aren't as weak against them. Creatures that have good saves or immunities as a type or can survive blowing a save. Also, there's concealment, evasion, cover, dispelling.
Do a lot of tables have trouble with casters? My biggest problem is sometimes I have too much going on to give my NPCs due diligence, and then I sort of backslide into 'all NPC casters have the same spel selection.'. I should get better at that.
It certainly wasn't better in 3.5, where epic bards would Doomspeak the targets of their cleric buddy's Extended implosion.
WHen you DM a Lion samurai that wins iaijutsu duels before they start with Lunge, or fighters that throw a no dachi for 2d6+8 at third level, or antipaladins that follow up their channel smite with a conductive weapon, you might feel the casters aren't so bad.
I stop casters from taking over by providing encounters that aren't as weak against them. Creatures that have good saves or immunities as a type or can survive blowing a save. Also, there's concealment, evasion, cover, dispelling.
Do a lot of tables have trouble with casters? My biggest problem is sometimes I have too much going on to give my NPCs due diligence, and then I sort of backslide into 'all NPC casters have the same spel selection.'. I should get better at that.
It certainly wasn't better in 3.5, where epic bards would Doomspeak the targets of their cleric buddy's Extended implosion.
WHen you DM a Lion samurai that wins iaijutsu duels before they start with Lunge, or fighters that throw a no dachi for 2d6+8 at third level, or antipaladins that follow up their channel smite with a conductive weapon, you might feel the casters aren't so bad.
+1
it has come to my attention casters are either coddled with lots of time or are played by good, creative, smart, awesome players and their friends/themselves don't play fighters or rogues or mundane classes with the same ability as the casters.
That I also see based on experience, I have seen some clever fighters use their resources and casters who just don't match up.
comes once again down to the player IMO
PO ^
Is anyone with me in the "If you read the rules and play by them the game works great" camp?
I certainly am. Of date, I have made one house rule, and that's one brought over from 3.x - a nat 20 always hits and is an automatic crit. Other than that, yes, the rules work fine.
I think the games runs pretty well on its own. There are some things that need defining (precision based damage for example) but overall things work out pretty well.
Some things I have noticed with people who think class X is vastly superior to other classes:
1) The DM uses opponents that are weak against class X
2) The DM does not understand how to combine opponents of different CRs to achieve a specific EL
3) The DM uses house rules without understanding how those rules affect the rest of the game
4) The DM uses very high point buy and allows for half the stats to be dumped to 8 or lower
5) The DM doesn't take the time to understand how certain things interact with each other or how each spell or feat works
6) The DM doesn't know how to advance monsters (or weaken them) to achieve a specific CR
7) The DM doesn't work on telling a cooperative story with the players
8) The DM doesn't make sure that high level characters have chosen their feats at the appropriate levels (a third level rogue cannot begin play with Deadly Aim and Weapon Focus unless one of those was taken as a rogue talent)
9) The DM doesn't enforce rules for one character class but does for another
10) The DM is afraid to tell the player(s) who do legitimately end up with overpowered characters that the build is too much and needs to be changed
11) The DM allows characters to always have exactly the magic items necessary to achieve the build they want even while out adventuring.
The game isn't perfect, and cannot be. What the game does do well is provide a great framework for a variety of different game styles. Some work better than others for certain classes. Too often people on the boards are under the misconception that their game is how the game is meant to be played.
|
Is anyone with me in the "If you read the rules and play by them the game works great" camp?
With my extra requirement of sensible judgement calls from time to time, absolutely.
On the flipside it irritates me when certain people (ok, mostly RD, sorry dude) come on and try to debate every single tiny detail or situation, and then complain the RAW doesn't work. Thats what a DM is for, and if the players don't trust the DM to make those calls in those situations then something is wrong.
With my extra requirement of sensible judgement calls from time to time, absolutely.
On the flipside it irritates me when certain people (ok, mostly RD, sorry dude) come on and try to debate every single tiny detail or situation, and then complain the RAW doesn't work. Thats what a DM is for, and if the players don't trust the DM to make those calls in those situations then something is wrong.
This pretty well cuts to the heart of the issue. The rules work but you still need an even-headed DM not only for interpreting but also playing to the characters (both strengths and on ocassion weakness). Rules will never be perfect, DMs will never be perfect but that's a pen and paper RPG for you. Its a feature not a fault.
EDIT: OK with the exception of high-level play. That is more of a headache than its worth in most cases so lvl 15 is mostly been the end of the road for me.
|
|
Maybe I didn't use the CR properly. CR1 monsters that I'm looking up in the SRD has like a +1 Will for the part. I know gnolls aren't what level 1 party should be fighting, but they are CR1. Some small elementals have +3.
If it's a +1, that's a basically a 14 DC at least. That's not 25% chance. That's around 70%. I'll definitely take and give my party a chance to end the entire threat, or just most of it with 1 spell. I'm fairly certain that Saving Throw DCs don't increase that much for monsters. Most monsters have 1 weak save, so the caster memorizes spells of different saves. Against the monster that has weak saves against a particular type, use that, and the monster is probably going to be out of the fight.
Of course it depends on what the situation is. If 2 orcs ran up against a standard party (1 fighter, 1 clerc, 1 wizard, 1 rogue), I probably wouldn't use a SoD, but I might use my cantrips instead. At high levels, I'll be using my low level spells to buff or debuff instead, and save my powerful SoDs against parties of monsters.
Things like Fly, Invis, and Stoneskin are cast to setup a powerful SoD. They are not cast for no reason. If a caster has those things up, they are planning a powerful SoD that will probably end the encounter. Otherwise, it's not worth casting those 3 spells in the first place. Once they can, casters should be using Overland Flight once the adventuring day begins. In fact, that spell was made because Fly was too good, so they nerfed it to minutes instead of hours.
Ah but how many casters are going to do that when they dont know whats behind the door?
My point was only that a perfect spell is not except for in edge cases.
see my point, the caster is going to want to save the goodies for certain things so in given situations certain spells may not get used.
I would love for you to make a spell list (serious actually) and me throw a few encounters of level appropriate and see how you would handle them with creativity.
I am not silly enough like many other posters to claim that a wizard/sorc/druid/cleric/etc single-handedly owns encounters. What I am saying is that 90+ percent of the time at a minimum he can be useful in a fight in some manner. If the party can't handle a situation that is non-combat he should be filling that gap also.
Once again I was talking about all casters, not just wizards.I also think the player has as much influence, and more than the class, but that does not mean the class can't cause issues. If a powergamer plays a melee type, and the same player runs a cater he will most likely cause more issues as a caster.
Since when do people need to be penalized as overpowered for being
creative? some people wouldn't think of that door idea, that isn't exactly how the spell is intended to be used (atleast most often). It is creative, props to you for using your resources effectively. But if your DM says hey man this is supposed to represent 6 seconds not 30 minutes (as you hunt through books to find the rules on your spells or what to do in a given situation) is that being unfair?
I don't understand the penalize comment, and I have to admit I did not come up with the stone to flesh example. It was in another thread.
I think it would be coddling a player to give them anymore than a minute or two to decide an action, afterall their character only gets 6 seconds. If anything that is being nice about it since I always have my stuff ready to go by my turn and I often have more than one monster.
I agree, but I dont give players all day to take actions either.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Not sure a minimum 14 points of damage is my idea of an optimized fighter. That's a lot, but I wonder what he gave up to get that. At a STR of 18, focus and Power Attack with a greatsword, I see 2d6+8 as pretty easy to get to. How are you reaching a minimum] 14 damage.
In any event, 14 damage may drop a 1st level fighter. It'll get pretty close to straight up killing the wizard. But also, the point was the wizard doesn't get to cast his spell unless the mele guy runs iterference. You called the guy charging into combat an idiot because your perception is the caster will just end the fight. With a 15 foot cone that allows a save? The GM that gets conquered by that is pretty weak tactically, yes?
Let's say you're correct. The fighter doesn't charge in, and the NPC fighter end your wizard, or the PC fighter does charge in, and he gets killed by the NPC fighter instead of the wizard. What I see there is the NPC fighter can kill either one, and the surviving NPC might be able to end the fight on his own. IE, balance.
As for the claim that damage is a mook role, damage ends more combats than anything else. Also, try casting [b]black tentacles[/i] on a purple worm. A lot of the spells cited might end one combat and be completely meaningless in another.
Well-built characters accomplish whatever their player needs them to. When I build a melee fighter with no spellcaster levels, my goal iss to set the rules for combat, dictate my strategy for everyone else, and end the combat by killing the monsters, just as an optimized wizard would. And here at home, my guy is going to dictate the battle field in cooperation with the other palyers. Rather than complaining about balance and such (most of the time), we work together and accomplish party goals.
A great example coming up is an evil game. I'll play a pole arm specialist with max tripping, and maybe max reposition and combat patrol. We also will have a teleporter wizard with a revised version of master of the unseen hand. I'll roll bad guys as I need to in the combat, and he'll teleport bad guys into me to keep them occupied or setnence them to death. We add an alchemist to the mix....you get the picture. We all have jobs. Can I do as much damage as a Maximized meteor swarm every round? No. But Tyler can't cast that spell every turn, and our goal is the party's objectives are accomplished. Apply a dispel specialist to our list of people to fight and Tyler might need me to help make him effective. Throw a group of awakened epic centipedes of legend and I might want him to order the bad guys to make me more effective. Together, we can't be stopped (I hope). Separately, we are both really powerful.
The game is fine. Less time whining because of perceived mathematical imbalances and more time actually playing!
There's plenty of proof.Wraithstrike wrote:
The game definitely favors casters. I am not saying casters rule every game session, but that is more because a lot of people don't play to win the game. If they did then it would show up more often.
Please explain. I see these accusations all the time but never any proof.
Point by point, lets go to the beastiary.
1. Your caster has a 25% chance (at best) of taking out a CR 1 character if you use (at best) 1 of your 3 1st level spells a day if it has a low will save. If it is against it's good save the chances go down to about 60%. If it fails it does nothing, and has to be within 15 feet of what will attack it next round with no armor. The creature (or creatures) will not be dead, but will be severely weakened.
This is nowhere near true. A DC of 15 is possible for 1st level spell.
Most CR1 monsters wont have any better than a +5 to will save, and that is high. That is at least a 50% percent chance.
I won't even address the other ones until you come back with valid or better explained responses. I am not even a "casters=autowin" guy, and I knew that 25% was nonsense on sight.
I am curious as to how you came up with that 25% number though.
The vast majority of my experience comes from 3.5, and most of that experience was with me as DM. The vast majority of the time I didn't find that things worked. My party would get totally overpowered, and things would fall apart.
Then I did something that completely changed that around. I read and re-read the rules until I had a really firm grasp on things. When I went strictly by the book, things worked out fine. In my more limited experience with Pathfinder, things go better. They are more balanced, and there are more options without it being any more complicated.
I'm sure that the system could be improved, and I'm sure that there are arguably better systems out there, but it definitely works.
I havn't any problems with the game as it is :)
My point was only that a perfect spell is not except for in edge cases.
That is just not true. Turning a spell into something useful is one thing but certain spells that can be amazing are definitely not good in all scenarios. Hold Person is awesome, except against monsters or things with decent saves.
Black tentacles is great! except if the monster can fly or has great CMD.
Fireball is great against a frostworm, but not against a Red Dragon.
Clairvoyance/clairaudience is great! except in vast pitch black cavern.
Situation governs the power of the spell, and therefor is subject solely to player and gamemaster. How marginally effective they are is only based on the player's ability to manipulate the situation with creativity or the GM with his original proposition.
That goes without saying for all classes though, the wizard is no different.
I also think the player has as much influence, and more than the class, but that does not mean the class can't cause issues. If a powergamer plays a melee type, and the same player runs a cater he will most likely cause more issues as a caster.
I think that isn't as true. I know many power gamers.
Power gamers typically play similiar classes looking for variant ways to achieve power through the medium, or in lamens terms most powergamers try to power game either melee, stealth, or magic and very rarely excel at all 3.
With that said I would like to say that arguing that a power gamer could break the game easier by playing a caster is an argument founded only on the basis that given situations cater to the caster.
If all the situations give a spell caster an option to shine over all the other players that is coddling at its worst, especially if the GM isn't doing anything about it and is saying "well i guess the wizard is just the best class". That is all his job, challenging the PC's. It is no different than if a GM were to put antimagic fields everywhere or give scrying spells or high perceptions to counter rogues.
All subject to experience.
The rules work fine in this respect, the rule books even give great ways to make it balanced for everyone. To ignore imbalance by saying "my situations are fine its that damn caster with too much power!" is a really selfish and horrible outlook as a DM. Evaluate your styles of encounters and make something that balances against everyone, that isnt coddling the fighter that is doing your job.
It is insulting to say that non casters need to be coddled if all the given situations make it easy for the caster. Sounds like caster coddling to me.
I don't understand the penalize comment, and I have to admit I did not come up with the stone to flesh example. It was in another thread.
Penalizing them by saying they are playing the easy class because its broken.
Using someone else's clever idea is perfectly viable but just because there are a lot of clever ways to use spells doesnt mean there arent a lot of clever ways to use your sword, strength, fortitude, stealth, trickery, diplomacy, bluff, and acrobatics.
It is no different. All styles of play.
Being clever is being clever :)
I havn't any problems with the game as it is :)
I don't either, but I also don't have players trying to "win" the game. It is with these players that you can discover, whether you want too or not, how powerful any class can get.
People stating how strong class X is does not mean they have an issue with the game, but they may have come across issues they need to be resolved so they can fully enjoy the game again.
|
I'm also in the camp of people saying the game is pretty fine.
I can't always say the same of the players at my table - but it seems they are harder to optimize.
The bit I heard about casters being overpowered. In my group I have a monk. He tends to grapple nearly everything. As a GM I can tell you how awkward this is for casters.
Level one monk against a level three cleric in half plate. The monk just grappled her and dragged her into the harbor which thankfully was nearby.
If the caster doesn't manage to contain the monk in turn one he/she often doesn't get another spell off. Unless of course the caster is surrounded by these underpowered fighter types or other riffraff.
Just my 2p.
Thod
I havn't any problems with the game as it is :)
Likewise! (Always joining topics late)
What I have noticed is that it doesn't matter how powerful a character is, if you roll low it won't usually work out so well. It doesn't matter if you have a weak character, if you roll high it'll usually work out pretty well. I see things like this happen all the time (often when I am a player, some days I cannot roll my way out of a paper bag... lol)
Maybe I didn't use the CR properly.
Just do like me - don't rely totally on the CR. Open the bestiary. There are raw experience values next to each monster. Just find something vaguely close to the level of the party and hurl it at them.
|
|
Maybe I didn't use the CR properly.Just do like me - don't rely totally on the CR. Open the bestiary. There are raw experience values next to each monster. Just find something vaguely close to the level of the party and hurl it at them.
I'm not a DM, so I rarely touch the CR. Although I agree with you in principle, and a DM should just use what is appropriate, we're debating using the RAW. Using the RAW means using the CR correctly so that there's a fair line that the players and DM are both using.
My DM has developed a terribly bad habit of using whatever he wants to, and either when we are losing, or we achieved the objective, he ends the encounter, often with a deus ex machina. Ironically enough, I'd love for him to use RAW, but no way that's happening.
I'm not a DM, so I rarely touch the CR. Although I agree with you in principle, and a DM should just use what is appropriate, we're debating using the RAW. Using the RAW means using the CR correctly so that there's a fair line that the players and DM are both using.
Ah, but no where is it written in stone that an equivalent CR encounter is just a single CR 1 critter. 4 kobolds is a CR 1 as well, and much more of a challenge due to there being, well, more of them.
It isn't just about the math, it's also about how the encounter is set up. If the kobolds have cover and are spread out across a 60 ft. wide cavern, the combat will be slightly more difficult than kobolds vs. random spellcasters in a vacuum, but it's still a CR 1 encounter at the end of the day.
That is just not true. Turning a spell into something useful is one thing but certain spells that can be amazing are definitely not good in all scenarios. Hold Person is awesome, except against monsters or things with decent saves....
You missed my point, but I did have a typo. What I am saying is that in most situation the "perfect" spell is not needed, therefore a caster is unlikely not to have one spell that will work. To make this more clear I don't mean any one casting class can solve all problems, but many spells can be used beyond their intended means.
That goes without saying for all classes though, the wizard is no different.
Why are we still on the wizard?
I also think the player has as much influence, and more than the class, but that does not mean the class can't cause issues. If a powergamer plays a melee type, and the same player runs a cater he will most likely cause more issues as a caster.
I think that isn't as true. I know many power gamers.Power gamers typically play similiar classes looking for variant ways to achieve power through the medium, or in lamens terms most powergamers try to power game either melee, stealth, or magic and very rarely excel at all 3.
By powergamer I meant someone who attempts to make the best character possible, not a munchkin(tends to make one trick ponies.)
The rules work fine in this respect, the rule books even give great ways to make it balanced for everyone. To ignore imbalance by saying "my situations are fine its that damn caster with too much power!" is a really selfish and horrible outlook as a DM. Evaluate your styles of encounters and make something that balances against everyone, that isnt coddling the fighter that is doing your job.
If I have to go out of my way to help class A and/or hinder class B then there is an issue. Now many cases adventurers are varied enough that everyone gets to do something, but certain players know how to stay in the spotlight, and casters make it easier due to all the things they can do.
I would not really call casters easy to play. You need a better understanding of the game most of the time, but it pays off.
I don't think any casting class is inherently broken, but they are easier to use to cause problems with.
Honestly I would rather play with a people who are not worrying about making super-character because the same people that make super-caster will try to make super-melee guy. If a DM has a lot of free time it is not an issue, assuming he does not mind making a lot of custom made NPC's, but for those of us with less free time, it can get out of hand.
|
In my experience games which are significantly imbalanced are due to a few possible reasons.
Some classes are much tougher to make effectively than others, in the hands of an experienced player they are good but in the hands of a tyro they are awful.
Rogues and Monks come to mind, they aren't the strongest classes in the game to start with and in the hands of a more casual player can be nearly worthless. Wizard, Witch, and Sorcerer also fall into this class because poor spell or lack of understanding spells can lead to nearly worthless characters.
The fix here is to steer casual players into classes that are easier to build. I like summoner and alchemist for beginning players, in spite of being 'advanced' classes they are far easier to make effective than some of the core classes. The Eidolon has a few fairly easy choices at lower levels to make it decent. Alchemist bombs are a fun/ satisfying choice. Sorcerers with a few well chosen spells can be easy and satisfying to play also.
Note: The more casual players are never likely to be the most powerful characters at the table, more important is they have fun characters to play.
Mixing optimizers and non-optimizers.
Sometimes you have a player who is just not very interested the fiddly rules but is very interested in hanging out and playing. Some players feel role playing is paramount and will make choices that harpoon their character's power because it makes sense for the character. Mix these folks with a power gamer or two and you can wind up with vastly diverse power levels at the table.
I'm happy playing with any of the above and they all bring something fun to the table but mixing them can sometimes lead to the perception that there is a big problem with a given class. Every complex game is going to have similar issues and the only way you can get around it is by GM intervention of one sort or another.
Players have varied readings of the rules
Some players quite simply bring a flawed understanding of the rules to the table. I've seen genuinely honest players bring characters to the table: with too many feats; a prepared caster that casts spontaneously; wands with spells not on their spell lists; an eidolon that's making too many attacks per round; miscalculated anything; grossly ignored weight rules; or tons of other things. Ultimately this is a very complex game and some players need varying bits of help remembering this stuff.
Every group I've been in runs things just a bit differently.
Some rules are interpreted vastly differently from one group to the next (stealth rules come to mind) and the power or effectiveness of a given class varies based on how you interpret the rules.
-----
In general I agree with the OP though. Usually when I see someone's character being overly powerful I give there character the once over and often there is something a little off kilter. If not I'll try and help the other character(s) keep on the power curve. Overall it's been a good mix. The fact that PFS runs as well as it does while keeping fairly tight with the game system seems to point to a fairly balanced experience also.
|
|
If I have to go out of my way to help class A and/or hinder class B then there is an issue. Now many cases adventurers are varied enough that everyone gets to do something, but certain players know how to stay in the spotlight, and casters make it easier due to all the things they can do.
So... what is class A and what is class B?
In our PFS games, and largely in my home game class A (the classes that need help) tends to be Rogue and Monk. Class B (classes you need to hinder) is far less easy to pin down in our games as pretty much every other class does a solid job of keeping up.
That said... our groups tend to cap out around 10th-12th level (in PFS it's a hard cap) which makes a huge difference. When you talk about game balance you almost need to look at it in 5 level increments.
|
|
If I have to go out of my way to help class A and/or hinder class B then there is an issue. Now many cases adventurers are varied enough that everyone gets to do something, but certain players know how to stay in the spotlight, and casters make it easier due to all the things they can do.So... what is class A and what is class B?
In our PFS games, and largely in my home game class A (the classes that need help) tends to be Rogue and Monk. Class B (classes you need to hinder) is far less easy to pin down in our games as pretty much every other class does a solid job of keeping up.
That said... our groups tend to cap out around 10th-12th level (in PFS it's a hard cap) which makes a huge difference. When you talk about game balance you almost need to look at it in 5 level increments.
I recently played a PFS game, and I enjoyed it a lot. It seems to have rules that bring the classes much closer together in balance. Like no easy access to CLW or Vigor wands was refreshing. I don't know who designed the PFS rules, but the existence of it says to me RAW is usable, but there are issues with it that can be exploited.
|
|
Maybe I didn't use the CR properly. CR1 monsters that I'm looking up in the SRD has like a +1 Will for the part. I know gnolls aren't what level 1 party should be fighting, but they are CR1. Some small elementals have +3.
If it's a +1, that's a basically a 14 DC at least. That's not 25% chance. That's around 70%. I'll definitely take and give my party a chance to end the entire threat, or just most of it with 1 spell. I'm fairly certain that Saving Throw DCs don't increase that much for monsters. Most monsters have 1 weak save, so the caster memorizes spells of different saves. Against the monster that has weak saves against a particular type, use that, and the monster is probably going to be out of the fight.
Of course it depends on what the situation is. If 2 orcs ran up against a standard party (1 fighter, 1 clerc, 1 wizard, 1 rogue), I probably wouldn't use a SoD, but I might use my cantrips instead. At high levels, I'll be using my low level spells to buff or debuff instead, and save my powerful SoDs against parties of monsters.
Things like Fly, Invis, and Stoneskin are cast to setup a powerful SoD. They are not cast for no reason. If a caster has those things up, they are planning a powerful SoD that will probably end the encounter. Otherwise, it's not worth casting those 3 spells in the first place. Once they can, casters should be using Overland Flight once the adventuring day begins. In fact, that spell was made because Fly was too good, so they nerfed it to minutes instead of hours.
Not the entire threat. One 15 ft cone, the first 5 feet of which is you getting space to avoid AoO
And if two orcs ran up on the wizard, the minimum damage on a hit is 6, which is your hit points except for con bonus with a better than 50% to hit.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/humanoids/orc
And how many spells can you memorize. Sorcerer sure, but then you are a spell level behind at times and can't switch out.
Hence the balance. Which is all I am arguing. The wizard can win if he gets initiative as the orc even has a -1 to will. Better than 75% to work on one Orc. But he is vulnerable to the orc, who has a better than 50% chance to take him to 0 hit points, even with a 14 Con.
As to the other spells.
Overland flight is a 5th level spell, and doesn't give full fly speed (40 ft) so you are minimum 9th level before you use it. If you want one of your 5th level spells to be overland flight when you only have a couple.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/o/overland-flight
If a caster has three rounds prior to a battle to cast those things to set up for the battle. And if not, those slots are kind of wasted, unless you are a sorcerer. In which case you don't get it until 10th.
I recently played a PFS game, and I enjoyed it a lot. It seems to have rules that bring the classes much closer together in balance. Like no easy access to CLW or Vigor wands was refreshing. I don't know who designed the PFS rules, but the existence of it says to me RAW is usable, but there are issues with it that can be exploited.If I have to go out of my way to help class A and/or hinder class B then there is an issue. Now many cases adventurers are varied enough that everyone gets to do something, but certain players know how to stay in the spotlight, and casters make it easier due to all the things they can do.So... what is class A and what is class B?
In our PFS games, and largely in my home game class A (the classes that need help) tends to be Rogue and Monk. Class B (classes you need to hinder) is far less easy to pin down in our games as pretty much every other class does a solid job of keeping up.
That said... our groups tend to cap out around 10th-12th level (in PFS it's a hard cap) which makes a huge difference. When you talk about game balance you almost need to look at it in 5 level increments.
Anything can be exploited, but that requires someone willing to exploit. Characters dont exploit, players exploit.
|
|
There's plenty of proof.Wraithstrike wrote:
The game definitely favors casters. I am not saying casters rule every game session, but that is more because a lot of people don't play to win the game. If they did then it would show up more often.
Please explain. I see these accusations all the time but never any proof.
Point by point, lets go to the beastiary.
1. Your caster has a 25% chance (at best) of taking out a CR 1 character if you use (at best) 1 of your 3 1st level spells a day if it has a low will save. If it is against it's good save the chances go down to about 60%. If it fails it does nothing, and has to be within 15 feet of what will attack it next round with no armor. The creature (or creatures) will not be dead, but will be severely weakened.
This is nowhere near true. A DC of 15 is possible for 1st level spell.
Most CR1 monsters wont have any better than a +5 to will save, and that is high. That is at least a 50% percent chance.
I won't even address the other ones until you come back with valid or better explained responses. I am not even a "casters=autowin" guy, and I knew that 25% was nonsense on sight.I am curious as to how you came up with that 25% number though.
Error on my part, I meant 25% to fail. 75% to succeed at disabling, which is not that much higher than the melee character to outright kill, not using any resources. That was the point.
It isn't to say casters are bad, it is to point out melee can be as effective without resource use.
Not the entire threat. One 15 ft cone, the first 5 feet of which is you getting space to avoid AoO
You have a thing for strange limitations that aren't actually limitations.
And how many spells can you memorize. Sorcerer sure, but then you are a spell level behind at times and can't switch out.Hence the balance. Which is all...
2 or possibly 3 (more than enough at 1st level) however as BYC mentioned earlier he has infinite daze spells, you don't get to just hand that away as an illegitimate attack option.
But why the hell are we using 1st level as our example for what works and what doesn't. The game is for the most part very well balanced between the classes at 1st level. No one PC is significantly better than another. Lets take a look at 5th level
At 5th level my wizard has Stinking Cloud, Fly, Hold Person, Suggestion ("Yuh dun goofed! I suggest you go home or the consequences will never be the same!" Yippee! I win), Displacement, Invisibility and Invisibility Sphere, Web, Haste, Slow, False Life, Etc.
What can your fighter do at 5th level? Hit me. Maybe. Once. He will charge and it will hurt like hell, though I will have an average of 10 temporary hit points from False Life. On may turn I five foot step and cast Invisibility. While invisible I move and cast fly (1st of two 3rd level spells). On you turn you scratch your nuts and wonder where I went or maybe choose a random square to attack and miss. On my turn I fly up and cast stinking cloud on you.
And this is at a level where the classes still CAN compete with each other. By the time level 11 hits there is no contest as to which classes is superior.
First off I would like to thank BYC, and everyone else who takes the time to express their experiences and opinions in a constructive way. If find that their are some fairly major rules issues (most dating back to AD&D or 3.x) that should be discussed. Thank you for doing it without the condescending attitude often found in these discussions!
First of all, there are almost no broad statements that are going to apply at all levels, all classes, all tables, etc. However there are some basic things written into the rules that could cause problems in a variety of situations. GMs can fix these issues, and most gamers will generally avoid them, although some seize on them as "auto-win" options. In short, the game is not broken, but you can break the game.
The first manifestation of this phenomenon is when the GM presents a group with a challenge that would be an adventure, but the casters can simply bypass the whole thing with a single spell. Fight your way to the top of the Tower O' Doom? Levitate or fly. Later on teleport and various other transportation magic make some types of adventure take 1 standard action.
Then there is Enchantment. While Charm is fairly limited, it also insta-solves some adventure types, and can present a whole new set of challenges. Domination is where things really get weird. You can get a little taste of this when a charismatic caster casts command undead and gets his personal shadow friend to scout the whole cave complex for him, and hang out for a few days. Later on, a dominated ettin, troll, or giant all make for amusing companions. Hey, you could have one of each. The best part is that you don't even have to memorize the spell - it lasts days/level.
Save-or-Sucks are the other proud nail that seems to cause tons of trouble. Color spray and sleep are the first, both set up the victum for a coup de grace (easy to pull off, and auto-death). Hold person is the same, and then there are all the things that blind, nauseate, etc. etc. The trouble is that DCs are fairly easy to crank up and you can usually pick fort or will to target. At low level you have limited resources, but at high level wands and scrolls take care of the non-save stuff, while you start to have a dozen or more slots open for the nasty stuff.
Finally there are a few things that these crafty optimizers have taught me about casters.
Wizards have good HP! With d6, favored class, and a good con score (more char-op) your wizards HP are not going to be very respectable.
Dispel Magic is not very useful. While it can be great to dispel that 1 spell that is causing trouble, a chance to trade a dispel magic for it isn't that great a prospect.
Crafting can help you boost your powers stupidly high. Crafting a headband and con item are going to keep your powers pushing the limits of the game.
Again, these are not reasons the game is broken, but rather ways to misuse the rules to break the game. A GM will need to change the way adventures are set up in order to keep the game from becoming unbalanced.
Anything can be exploited, but that requires someone willing to exploit. Characters dont exploit, players exploit.Swords don't kill people. I kill people. : b
+1 haha
|
|
I'm not talking about infinite time to buff. My DM has us fight about 50 guys at one time in order stop the caster. He also have use fight like 20 gaming hours at a time. We are always dealing with ambushes and tons of mooks. He does that in order to STOP casters from being able to end fights quickly.He has house rules that allow for fighting classes to be more effective (a MUCH better whirlwind attack feat for example). He also uses much more powerful wizards to go against us.
I've stated my example, how does yours stop casters from taking over? My point is if there's such focus on a caster, there's probably an imbalance in the wizard class in the first place.
I'm not at your table. So I can't speak for why this is happening the way that it is happening.
But what I can tell you is about the three campaigns I'm in (2 play, one DM) that are all at 15+ level.
We don't have these problems. The DM's have used standard modules and written some of their own. We have run into problems and challenges with a fairly balanced set of character types. The spell casters by no means dominate the day.
Not sure what to add here, because there is obviously a disconnect in our vastly differing experiences.
I would say that my gaming group plays with the RAW, and we do our best to optimize all our characters. We don't home rule melee into anything.
Again, there is something you guys are missing or something your DM is not considering in combat, if his only option is to send hordes after you to stop the spell casters.