3. I think you may be mistaken about the stacking of enhancement bonuses
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/glossary#TOC-Enhancement-Bonu s
I don't believe it would stack. But I'm open to being shown that I am wrong on this, but it appears for an enhancement bonus you would only receive it from the highest source, unless it wasn't from an "enhancement" bonus. I believe the 24 hour is added so that you can't add skill points or bonus spells on the same day.
+1. A wizard with a Headband of Vast INT +4 would not be affected by Fox's Cunning.
Agree with the OP too.
Stick to the book and all will work itself out.
|
I don't know what the rulings on these have been, but here's and item write up:
This ornate headband is decorated with numerous small white gemstones. The headband grants the wearer an enhancement bonus to all mental ability scores (Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma) of +2, +4, or +6. Treat this as a temporary ability bonus for the first 24 hours the headband is worn. The headband also grants skill ranks as a Headband of vast intelligence.
I guess (and its probably a mistake on my part) is the temporary part of the bonuses, as in after the 24 hours these bonuses become permanent (until the item is removed) so they can stack.
I don't know what the ruling is on this and PF does not present stat blocks with enhanced attributes in brackets + the skill point bonuses for this item make it seem like full stat changes.So maybe I am having issues with permanent vs temporary stat changes. Again, not sure on this one but you're probably right.
I agree on your points about initiative being critical and the overall reduction of the power of SoDs. But battlefield manipulation, reality manipulation and the whole core save manipulation (IMO the worst offender if the three) make the whole affair very swingy. If planning has any part in the equation I still have to give it to the casters.
Anyway, good points and info.
1. I think you have to also consider that a fighter can effectively kill a caster with a full round attack at most levels. And often with just a single attack with feats like vital strike.
The thing is, I'm just not sure why you would assume that. It just doesn't bear out -- and it's very hard to get that full attack against someone who can still cast a spell after taking a single move away from you.
|
1. I think you have to also consider that a fighter can effectively kill a caster with a full round attack at most levels. And often with just a single attack with feats like vital strike.The thing is, I'm just not sure why you would assume that. It just doesn't bear out -- and it's very hard to get that full attack against someone who can still cast a spell after taking a single move away from you.
For ranged fighters who win initiative, it is not hard to get a full attack. I think we can agree on that.
In my experience battlefield positioning at low levels limits movement and creates a lot of potential for AoO when caster checks are mathematically difficult. And as I said, the percieved SoD spells at low level both aren't SoD as much as they are save or be limited, while often forcing the caster to move deep into harms way to use them.
At higher levels, things like Step up and Teleport tactician, simple combat maneuvers, and status effect attacks further impede maneuvering for anyone the melee fighter gets close to, while things like Vital Strike and pounce, combined with status effects make the first attack much more damaging.
The topic that comes up generally is how the caster will cast a battlefield control spell, buffs and some perceived SoD spell. But until much later in the game you can only cast one spell at a time, and while some buffs are hour per level, most of the good ones aren't. And when you can cast multiple spells in the late game, most Melee can do either one shot damage or have fort based status effect attacks, and have magic items to both lesser risk from your attacks and aid them in quickly getting into hitting range of you. And so it is still largely an initiative game.
Thankfully, the game isn't played head up, so if someone gets dropped or disabled in the first round (not uncommon in games I play) the rest of the group steps up and either eliminates the threat or restores the limitation of the weakened member of the group.
But any group made up of 4 of the same type is going to have the problem of shared limitations. And every class, even Wizards, is going to have limitations at some point on a battlefield. A Wizard can both best overcome these limitations through spell selection and be at most vulnerability to them do to relatively low AC, Hit Points, Saves and spell memorization occupying a specific slot.
You guys keep talking combat.
That's not why the wizard is so stupidly better.
See, yeah, wizards are awesome in combat. We can debate back and forth on if fighters are also awesome in combat. But the thing is, wizards are also outside of combat, too. Fighters aren't. Like, at all. Fighters are probably the worst class once you leave combat, in fact.
Name a skill. Now check to see if there's a spell that completely overrides it.
That is, for me, the biggest issue. At the end of the day, the wizard is bending all of reality to his whims. The fighter never progresses past "hit thing with stick." That's why the rules, at least for me, don't function "well." There is a caster disparity, but it isn't just due to the battlefield.
That is, for me, the biggest issue. At the end of the day, the wizard is bending all of reality to his whims. The fighter never progresses past "hit thing with stick." That's why the rules, at least for me, don't function "well." There is a caster disparity, but it isn't just due to the battlefield.
+1 to this.
To me, the wizard is better in combat. Not crazy better, not you-can't-ever-win better, but legitimately a little better.
And then out of combat it's a million times better than any non-caster that's even competitive with it IN combat.
If the problem is that spellcasting classes have mystical tricks while the fighter does not. Then the game you want to play is 4th edition. (which is fine... not all games can cater to all tastes)
And this is what it all comes down to. If you really want fighters and casters to have the same level of involvement in and outside of combat, then PF likely isn't for you.
A fighter should very much progress beyond "hitting thing with stick" to "not letting thing get away with a 5 foot step" or "not letting thing cast while it's within threat" Fighter also can "shield ally next to me." or "coordinate ally hitting with fighter hitting". There are a lot of things possible with feats and maneuvers and if you can't get beyond just "hit things with stick" , the problem is a failure of your imagination, not the class.If the problem is that spellcasting classes have mystical tricks while the fighter does not. Then the game you want to play is 4th edition. (which is fine... not all games can cater to all tastes)
This.
And, I'm not sure the tricks are the same. What you obtain with Diplomacy could be similar to what you obtai with Charm person.. but people could be upset if you play with their mind.
Of course, a little more sensitivity about the issue could be a start - no need of 2 skill/level to define a fighter. This is a thing that could have been improved from 3.5.
Should be indeed noted that an in score of 14 is not that hard (you need 13 for combat expertise) so with human you can go up to 5 skill/level quite easily.
BUT
And this is what it all comes down to. If you really want fighters and casters to have the same level of involvement in and outside of combat, then PF likely isn't for you.
I'm not sure that this should be mandatory. Maybe this could be addressed somewhat in future incarnations of the game.
|
|
You guys keep talking combat.
That's not why the wizard is so stupidly better.
See, yeah, wizards are awesome in combat. We can debate back and forth on if fighters are also awesome in combat. But the thing is, wizards are also outside of combat, too. Fighters aren't. Like, at all. Fighters are probably the worst class once you leave combat, in fact.
Name a skill. Now check to see if there's a spell that completely overrides it.
That is, for me, the biggest issue. At the end of the day, the wizard is bending all of reality to his whims. The fighter never progresses past "hit thing with stick." That's why the rules, at least for me, don't function "well." There is a caster disparity, but it isn't just due to the battlefield.
If you have that spell memorized/available when you need it.
You can't have every spell at the same time. If you leave an open slot, it still takes 15 minutes to memorize it. Scrolls cost money and have to be retrieved before they can be cast. Same with wands, adding in that with UMD buying these things isn't the exclusive domain of the wizard once you get to a certain level.
This is particularly useful for Rogues. We have a rogue in one of our campaign that has been collecting wands and scrolls like a fiend, and is pretty damn effective with them.
For classes with less skills, it can be harder to take advantage of the above, but considering how many feats Fighters get, taking something like magical aptitude or spell focus isn't going to be that out of the question, but I will concede may be out of the norm. Barbarians do get 4 skill points a level, so it isn't out of the question. But I fully concede they largely exist to hurt stuff and soak damage. But damn if they don't do it well.
There are a limited amount of spell slots per day. Sorcerers aren't going to learn as many utility spells since they have to stick with the same spells, and Wizards have less spells per day, particularly if they have preferred spells they want to double up on. And if you have a bunch of utility spells memorized, or empty slots, you can find yourself short on any kind of extended combat or day.
I agree out of combat matters. It is why the Bard may be the most under-rated class. But you can't start from the assumption you have all the spells you need memorized/available.
Again, to be clear I am not saying Wizards are not awesome. They are. I am saying they need other support classes just as much as any other class does, and that they have limitations, just as any other class does.
If your DM doesn't penalize you for running away, and is predicable enough that you can safely pick useful spells for all your slots, a wizard can be overpowered. But using Adventure Paths as a guide, I have found the classes to be both vulnerable and powerful in equal measure, depending on the situation.
If you have that spell memorized/available when you need it.
You can't have every spell at the same time.
A really good wizard player (I'm not claiming to be one) will come very close.
And then there's bonded object. Once a day you always have whatever weird spell you needed and don't have a scroll of.
(I think bonded object was a terrible thing to put in the game, but we're discussing the game as written, not as I'd like it to be.)
Scrolls cost money and have to be retrieved before they can be cast.
Sure. The haversack cheaply makes the retrieving easy, though -- for some people it's the first magic item. Move action retrieve, standard action read.
And, sure, people with UMD can get to a point where they can pretty reliably do the same, but they don't get Scribe Scroll for free to cheaply manufacture those scrolls.
|
Alchemists are awesome
Barbarians are awesome
Cavaliers are awesome
Bards are awesome
Clerics are awesome
Druids are awesome
Fighters are awesome
Inquisitors are awesome
Maguses (or would it be Magi?) are awesome
Monks are awesome
Oracles are awesome
Paladins are awesome
Rangers are awesome
Rogues are awesome
Sorcerers are awesome
Summoners are awesome
Witches are awesome
Wizards are awesome
Hell, Adepts, Aristocrats, Experts, and Warriors can be pretty awesome.
Commoners kinda suck, though.
|
|
Alchemists are awesome
Barbarians are awesome
Cavaliers are awesome
Bards are awesome
Clerics are awesome
Druids are awesome
Fighters are awesome
Inquisitors are awesome
Maguses (or would it be Magi?) are awesome
Monks are awesome
Oracles are awesome
Paladins are awesome
Rangers are awesome
Rogues are awesome
Sorcerers are awesome
Summoners are awesome
Witches are awesome
Wizards are awesomeHell, Adepts, Aristocrats, Experts, and Warriors can be pretty awesome.
Commoners kinda suck, though.
+1
If you have that spell memorized/available when you need it.You can't have every spell at the same time.
How often has this really been an issue for your group? In my play experience both as a player and a DM, wizards tend to memorize their most essential spells and have a scroll handy for literally EVERY OTHER SPELL THEY HAVE. Usually multiple copies. Its not that expensive or particularly difficult. Travel for a weak on a ship? Bamm! 5-7 new scrolls, or more if the scrolls your making only require an hour.
This is particularly useful for Rogues. We have a rogue in one of our campaign that has been collecting wands and scrolls like a fiend, and is pretty damn effective with them.
Wizards can do this even easier and for less cash investment and no skill check.
Sorcerers aren't going to learn as many utility spells since they have to stick with the same spells...
Sorcerers and other spontaneous casters may indeed encounter more situations where they aren't prepared. They, however, like the wizard, are better than the rogue at using magical items.
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
Wizards are all well and good at higher levels, but if you start a campaign at 1st level with an all-Wizard party, there's a pretty good chance you'll have a TPK within the first couple combat encounters.
At least, that would be the case with either of the DMs in our group (me or my buddy). Both of us typically use tactics with our NPCs and beasties, so there are no easy kills.
(Just thought I'd weigh in and try to balance the scales a bit, as it seems that there is a group of folks with a strong opinion that Wizards are the perfect class and all others are worthless, when this isn't the case - especially at lower levels).
If you have that spell memorized/available when you need it.You can't have every spell at the same time.
How often has this really been an issue for your group? In my play experience both as a player and a DM, wizards tend to memorize their most essential spells and have a scroll handy for literally EVERY OTHER SPELL THEY HAVE. Usually multiple copies. Its not that expensive or particularly difficult. Travel for a weak on a ship? Bamm! 5-7 new scrolls, or more if the scrolls your making only require an hour.
Pretty frequently actually. They still need to pay for all these scrolls out of their wbl, as well as any spells they aquired not through leveling. They also need to be able to find the spells in order to scribe them, and not everyone plays in a world where they are freely available. Also, if your player has other things to do with downtime, scribing scrolls becomes a secondary thing. Other item crafting, research, and social interaction all get in the way of scribing scrolls.
...if you start a campaign at 1st level with an all-Wizard party, there's a pretty good chance you'll have a TPK within the first couple combat encounters.
Why?
Both of us typically use tactics with our NPCs and beasties, so there are no easy kills.
That should be a given really. The wizard is using tactics too though. Unless the DM is Lelouch Lamperouge his tactics should be sound but beatable.
It isn't player vs DM however. There is no reason for the DM to be gunning down the party just because they are all wizards. Instead he should embrace the player's concept and work with the team to make a better game. He just needs to plan accordingly.
(Just thought I'd weigh in and try to balance the scales a bit, as it seems that there is a group of folks with a strong opinion that Wizards are the perfect class and all others are worthless, when this isn't the case - especially at lower levels).
Maybe it seems like we all hate fighters and worship wizards, but its not the case (at least not for me). My favorite classes are the monk(which I actually do think is pretty much unplayable) and the bard(I used to bring my guitar to sessions and actually play my bardic music on my guitar). Balance isn't an alter we all need to kneel before. That doesn't mean I can't offer up constructive criticism. For me, it is about the improvement of the game as a whole. Though I am fully aware that sometimes I sound like an a!% h!~& who thinks everyone else is wrong, this is unintentional I swear :)
You guys keep talking combat.
That's not why the wizard is so stupidly better.
See, yeah, wizards are awesome in combat. We can debate back and forth on if fighters are also awesome in combat. But the thing is, wizards are also outside of combat, too. Fighters aren't. Like, at all. Fighters are probably the worst class once you leave combat, in fact.
Name a skill. Now check to see if there's a spell that completely overrides it.
That is, for me, the biggest issue. At the end of the day, the wizard is bending all of reality to his whims. The fighter never progresses past "hit thing with stick." That's why the rules, at least for me, don't function "well." There is a caster disparity, but it isn't just due to the battlefield.
But why should the wizard prepare a spell that isn't needed when he can use that spell slot more effectively? If the fighter can intimidate the guard so the party can pass easily, why should the wizard prepare charm person? He can use that slot for something else that will be more useful.
Wizards are all well and good at higher levels, but if you start a campaign at 1st level with an all-Wizard party, there's a pretty good chance you'll have a TPK within the first couple combat encounters.
Well, you wouldn't really do an all-Wizard party. You might do an all full-caster party, though.
I'd certainly bet on an all-Druid party at level 1, though that still isn't my first choice. (In 3.0 or 3.5 I would have been pretty willing to bet on a 2-druid party against any level-appropriate encounters from level 1 on, though, so in that respect balance is going in the right direction.)
What a lot of people tend to forget is that this clever tactic is of no avail in a time sensitive situation when you simply cannot have your party stand around for 15 or more minutes while a wizard fills up an unassigned slot. And with the right feats and manuvers a martial type can really shut a caster down if he gets into place.You don't need a specific spell for a specific situation most of the time. Add this to the fact that even an average player can pick useful spells means the chances of a caster having no spells that work are small. Casters can also leave slots open.
I agree that the 15 minutes is not guaranteed, but it is available more times than it is not. Of course you may not find out what spell you need until it is too late, but that is a chance you take, and there are also other party members, and at least one more caster so normally it won't be too much of an issue.
Nothing you said countered the fact that "perfect spells are needed" is a falsehood. You only need a spell that can work even if you have to think outside the box to make it work. An example was the earlier stone to flesh example.
PS:There are about 3 of these threads going on so the stone to flesh example may have been in another thread.
Maybe it seems like we all hate fighters and worship wizards, but its not the case (at least not for me). My favorite classes are the monk(which I actually do think is pretty much unplayable) and the bard(I used to bring my guitar to sessions and actually play my bardic music on my guitar). Balance isn't an alter we all need to kneel before. That doesn't mean I can't offer up constructive criticism. For me, it is about the improvement of the game as a whole. Though I am fully aware that sometimes I sound like an a!! h~%~ who thinks everyone else is wrong, this is unintentional I swear :)
Bolded for truth. If I thought the game was unplayable or unsalvageable, I wouldn't be here making suggestions or asking questions I'd be playing something else. I b$%^# because I care.
|
|
Tesla-esque mad scientist/steampunk inventors are easily the best class. They completely invalidate anything that any of the other classes can do. Their war-clanks can out-fight a fighter. Their med-bots can provide instant healing on par with any cleric. Their clockworth stealth machines can infiltrate any structure or organization. And unlike wizards, they can function perfectly well in dead-magic areas, anti-magic fields, and wild-magic zones!
|
Tesla-esque mad scientist/steampunk inventors are easily the best class. They completely invalidate anything that any of the other classes can do. Their war-clanks can out-fight a fighter. Their med-bots can provide instant healing on par with any cleric. Their clockworth stealth machines can infiltrate any structure or organization. And unlike wizards, they can function perfectly well in dead-magic areas, anti-magic fields, and wild-magic zones!
Anthropomorphic personifications of universal concepts are way better.
Tesla-esque mad scientist/steampunk inventors are easily the best class. They completely invalidate anything that any of the other classes can do. Their war-clanks can out-fight a fighter. Their med-bots can provide instant healing on par with any cleric. Their clockworth stealth machines can infiltrate any structure or organization. And unlike wizards, they can function perfectly well in dead-magic areas, anti-magic fields, and wild-magic zones!Anthropomorphic personifications of universal concepts are way better.
So are we playing Nobilis now?
|
|
That is, for me, the biggest issue. At the end of the day, the wizard is bending all of reality to his whims. The fighter never progresses past "hit thing with stick." That's why the rules, at least for me, don't function "well." There is a caster disparity, but it isn't just due to the battlefield.+1 to this.
To me, the wizard is better in combat. Not crazy better, not you-can't-ever-win better, but legitimately a little better.
And then out of combat it's a million times better than any non-caster that's even competitive with it IN combat.
I think I posted that about 3 pages back. Yet people keep ignoring the obvious facts that casters > non-casters in all situations.
It's funnier when some of the situations is to hire a spellcaster or get a spell cast. Irony.
|
|
If you have that spell memorized/available when you need it.
You can't have every spell at the same time.
A really good wizard player (I'm not claiming to be one) will come very close.
And then there's bonded object. Once a day you always have whatever weird spell you needed and don't have a scroll of.
(I think bonded object was a terrible thing to put in the game, but we're discussing the game as written, not as I'd like it to be.)
Bonded Item was a TERRIBLE IDEA. I mean, seriously, even if it's just 1 spell. That's potentially ANY spell in the book. It's not it's only one use. It's that it's even an option. Why not give the fighter an ability to use any combat feat once a day? Or is that too good?
It's funnier when some of the situations is to hire a spellcaster or get a spell cast. Irony.Almost as amusing as how frequently the IFitAINTaCASTERitsBROKE squad pull out "Summon Melee Monster".
The argument behind that is that the summoned monster is not an XP blackhole(XP goes in, nothing useful comes out), and it is just as useful as a dedicated fighter, not that I agree, but I have seen the argument made.
|
|
So are we playing Nobilis now?Tesla-esque mad scientist/steampunk inventors are easily the best class. They completely invalidate anything that any of the other classes can do. Their war-clanks can out-fight a fighter. Their med-bots can provide instant healing on par with any cleric. Their clockworth stealth machines can infiltrate any structure or organization. And unlike wizards, they can function perfectly well in dead-magic areas, anti-magic fields, and wild-magic zones!Anthropomorphic personifications of universal concepts are way better.
I was more thinking of this ;)
Bonded Item was a TERRIBLE IDEA. I mean, seriously, even if it's just 1 spell. That's potentially ANY spell in the book. It's not it's only one use. It's that it's even an option. Why not give the fighter an ability to use any combat feat once a day? Or is that too good?
They sorta gave that ability to the cleric.
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
...if you start a campaign at 1st level with an all-Wizard party, there's a pretty good chance you'll have a TPK within the first couple combat encounters.Why?
Low hit points + limited spells + no healing = trouble if you have more than one encounter per day. Odds are, if the party runs into groups of adversaries who don't line up nice and neat for a Color Spray, they will eventually go down.
Both of us typically use tactics with our NPCs and beasties, so there are no easy kills.
That should be a given really. The wizard is using tactics too though. Unless the DM is Lelouch Lamperouge his tactics should be sound but beatable.
It isn't player vs DM however. There is no reason for the DM to be gunning down the party just because they are all wizards. Instead he should embrace the player's concept and work with the team to make a better game. He just needs to plan accordingly.
I'm not saying it's DM vs. Player. I'm simply pointing out that a balanced party stands a better chance at survival at lower levels than a group of Wizards.
(Just thought I'd weigh in and try to balance the scales a bit, as it seems that there is a group of folks with a strong opinion that Wizards are the perfect class and all others are worthless, when this isn't the case - especially at lower levels).
Maybe it seems like we all hate fighters and worship wizards, but its not the case (at least not for me). My favorite classes are the monk(which I actually do think is pretty much unplayable) and the bard(I used to bring my guitar to sessions and actually play my bardic music on my guitar). Balance isn't an alter we all need to kneel before. That doesn't mean I can't offer up constructive criticism. For me, it is about the improvement of the game as a whole. Though I am fully aware that sometimes I sound like an a&% h@@@ who thinks everyone else is wrong, this is unintentional I swear :)
Fair enough. I just felt like the martial classes were being given short shrift.
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
Wizards are all well and good at higher levels, but if you start a campaign at 1st level with an all-Wizard party, there's a pretty good chance you'll have a TPK within the first couple combat encounters.
Well, you wouldn't really do an all-Wizard party. You might do an all full-caster party, though.
I'd certainly bet on an all-Druid party at level 1, though that still isn't my first choice. (In 3.0 or 3.5 I would have been pretty willing to bet on a 2-druid party against any level-appropriate encounters from level 1 on, though, so in that respect balance is going in the right direction.)
A valid point. If you were going to construct a party of 4 and restrict all PCs to a single class, Druid or Cleric would (IMO) stand the best chance of surviving past 1st level.
Your assertion was "dex isn't a major booster of initiative" we came back with "Here's what's in the book, specifically" and your response was "check the handbook?"
If you can't provide some source of these massive initiative boosts, you've lost that one.
I'd really like to see the statblock.
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
I'd really like to see the statblock.Your assertion was "dex isn't a major booster of initiative" we came back with "Here's what's in the book, specifically" and your response was "check the handbook?"
If you can't provide some source of these massive initiative boosts, you've lost that one.
You won't. CoDzilla has repeatedly ignored your requests for clarification, and will continue to do so because he can't provide an example to back his claim.
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
Wizards are all well and good at higher levels, but if you start a campaign at 1st level with an all-Wizard party, there's a pretty good chance you'll have a TPK within the first couple combat encounters.
At least, that would be the case with either of the DMs in our group (me or my buddy). Both of us typically use tactics with our NPCs and beasties, so there are no easy kills.
(Just thought I'd weigh in and try to balance the scales a bit, as it seems that there is a group of folks with a strong opinion that Wizards are the perfect class and all others are worthless, when this isn't the case - especially at lower levels).
A team of all Wizards has 5 less HP, collectively than a team of Cleric/Fighter/Rogue/Wizard.
Assuming an actual optimal party of Cleric/Druid/Sorcerer/Wizard, the difference is 3 HP.
That's one toad familiar. Which I wouldn't do because rats are better, but I'm not buying it.
Anything that will slaughter an all caster team will slaughter a normal team at least as well.
You're (intentionally?) ignoring parts of my post and adding elements to it to make your argument sound. My example was an all Wizard party, not an all-caster party. That significantly hinders their hit point total. In addition, Wizards are a lot easier to hit than an armored opponent (even a Cleric or Druid), thus making them easier to kill.
Even assuming an "optimal" all caster party, without some kind of Fighter to occupy an enemy in melee, the chances of getting a spell off to significantly impact all adversaries is lessened, making the outcome more in doubt than you seem inclined to believe.
In any case, what I (or anyone else) say doesn't matter to you, as you are set in your ways, twist other people's examples to suit your needs (like you did with mine), and will not provide evidence to support your claims (as Evil Lincoln has repeatedly asked you to do with your assertion the Initiative is not driven by DEX). End result: There's no point in posting any further.
<Hits ignore CoDzilla button>
You're not going to win any converts claiming that something is too hard when the players clearly had no idea what they were doing.
This statement is very telling. Players, not characters.
I don't remember who said it, but they were right. You do not play Pathfinder, you play a sort of "chainmail" Pathfinder. Like chess. A kind of "Warhammer: Quest" with Pathfinder or 3.5 combat rules.
It all makes sense now.
Even assuming an "optimal" all caster party, without some kind of Fighter to occupy an enemy in melee, the chances of getting a spell off to significantly impact all adversaries is lessened, making the outcome more in doubt than you seem inclined to believe.
Putting aside that there's no tanking per se in PF, you're aware of the five foot step, right?
Which doesn't solve all problems, but what's left doesn't amount to "significantly."
Better we don't lose our cool on 5 foot step. Yeah they are easy in PF as in 3.5 but step up is one fighter level away.
Better we don't lose our cool on 5 foot step. Yeah they are easy in PF as in 3.5 but step up is one fighter level away.
Yep. But in practice, most of the enemies you're trying to get spells off around won't have it.
I'd actually like to see more monsters in the next Bestiary that are built with things like Step Up and Disruptive to give casters a harder time -- but right now those enemies basically don't exist unless your GM hand-builds them.
Better we don't lose our cool on 5 foot step. Yeah they are easy in PF as in 3.5 but step up is one fighter level away.
Yep. But in practice, most of the enemies you're trying to get spells off around won't have it.
I'd actually like to see more monsters in the next Bestiary that are built with things like Step Up and Disruptive to give casters a harder time -- but right now those enemies basically don't exist unless your GM hand-builds them.
No, they have reach instead.