|
But nope. Scry, wizard and rogue teleport in while he sleeps, rogue performs coup de grace and they disappear. Part 4 out the window, forcing me to come up with a hackneyed plot on the spot to get ANY use from it.
So the Baron failed his +5 will save? And when and where did you observe him.
Also in a world with teleport my higher level enemies would always have defenses up to counter it.
Yes, the Fighter/Rogue with Wis8 failed the DC22 will save against the wizard who had obtained a likeness of him through reading the mind of the daughter of the captain of the guard.
And yes, now I am scripting anyone with access to magic to have protections against scrying and teleporting. Though I also allow the players to have them so there is a reason why the big bad doesn't just buy a helm of teleportation and a crystal ball to kill everyone in their sleep.
My players always have someone on watch over them when they sleep. Even in a rope trick.
And considering he seems to have a wizard in his employ doing nothing but scrying all day, I would have presumed he would put in some reasonable defenses against someone doing the same thing. Not to mention it says he rarely sleeps in his own bedchamber, preferring the Lady Quintessa's.
I would have used that against the PCs, personally. They teleport into his room only to find he isn't there, but perhaps an alarm spell is.
But YMMV.
|
Now it seems like you're being purposefully obtuse.
Jake or wizard -- interchangeable as lead. Either one can serve equally as the main character, thus parity.
Wizard vs fighter into the castle -- the DM decides how his story goes, and makes appropriate decisions for such. Is the gate ungarded so the fighter can just stroll in? No? Then why on earth is it *making stuff up* to have the castle equally guarded against magic? Well, then you're making things up to the exact same extent that you're making things up for the wizard.
Gandalf, whether you see him as the hand of god or not, is often viewed as the archetype which sets expectations for players coming into the game. How does it matter whether or not he was a literary device? It isn't relevant to the expectations he causes in the majority of readers.
And you're still confusing class with character. Who cares if the fighter has 2 skill points? The PLAYER and the DM determine how much the fighter can get done. Your whole argument ignores the fact that people are playing these characters. I already acknowledged that there is a game divide between classes, but you apparently missed the point that the divide can easily be removed by a good DM.
The fact here is that your opinion of how the game exists is just that, an opinion, which you're welcome to share as you like. I'm not proving you wrong, I'm trying to explain to you why your viewpoint isn't the only right one. There is a very important difference there.
If you want to continually play fighters as weaker, go right ahead. Whatever makes you happy. But it really isn't that hard for a DM to create parity between the two classes. And you can complain about two skill points, or combat skills, or anything you want, and you still will not change the fact that a good DM can make *anything* he wants. Which means that the type of game you play, Sinbad vs. Sorcerer, or Sorcerer vs Sorcerer while Sinbad watches is entirely dependent on the game that the DM runs. Both are supported by the manuals.
It doesn't matter how many plays you have in your playbook. All that matters is which plays are useful at that moment in that particular situation. A good dm will set up equality between the number of useful plays that any given class can execute in an encounter.
Pathfinder, and really any other tabletop game, provides a framework of rules and balancing features. How many houserules exist at your table? How many times has your DM included caster-perfect situations? You know, the ones where you have a perfect knowledge of what's coming and how long its likely to take? And how often have you been provided the fighter-perfect situation? You know, a rotting, sour smelling door, with a long dark hallway behind it.
Sometimes I wonder if the people who post to these threads play the same game I play. There's so much dissatisfaction. The fighter can't do anything well. The spellcasters are too powerful. There's no balance, no reason to play this or that class, whole parts of the game are broken or useless or intended traps. A character is only fun to play if it's the absolute best at what it does, or there's no point in playing a non-optimized character because you're going to ruin the experience for the rest of the group or you'll get yourself killed...On and on and on.
What's all this griping coming from? Is there some game called Pathfinder or D&D that I've never played where a fighter is completely useless when a wizard is in the party?
I've been playing in various kinds of gaming groups for a couple of decades now and despite everything said here people have been playing fighters and having fun with them. People have played wizards and somehow not ruined the game for the other players.
I've seen annoying min-maxed characters that were essentially one-trick ponies and still managed to have a good campaign experience with them. I've seen underpowered parties that still managed to survive and win the day.
Sure, I have my preferences. Some classes are more fun for me than others, and in every group I've been in I've seen other players prefer classes I don't think so much of. And we have a blast. No one is ever really left behind, and if there's something a player can't do he/she usually has the grace to allow someone else to take up the slack.
So I just don't get it. How is the game so broken and messed up that you can't have fun playing whatever class you're interested in playing? How can I, and presumnably hundreds of others, enjoy picking whatever kind of character we want without having to analyze it down to the last mathematical formula only to decree it useless because the design was bad (or worse, intended to be bad)?
I guess I must be one of those subpar gamers that no one wants to play with.
Sometimes I wonder if the people who post to these threads play the same game I play. There's so much dissatisfaction. The fighter can't do anything well. The spellcasters are too powerful. There's no balance, no reason to play this or that class, whole parts of the game are broken or useless or intended traps. A character is only fun to play if it's the absolute best at what it does, or there's no point in playing a non-optimized character because you're going to ruin the experience for the rest of the group or you'll get yourself killed...On and on and on.
What's all this griping coming from? Is there some game called Pathfinder or D&D that I've never played where a fighter is completely useless when a wizard is in the party?
I've been playing in various kinds of gaming groups for a couple of decades now and despite everything said here people have been playing fighters and having fun with them. People have played wizards and somehow not ruined the game for the other players.
I've seen annoying min-maxed characters that were essentially one-trick ponies and still managed to have a good campaign experience with them. I've seen underpowered parties that still managed to survive and win the day.
Sure, I have my preferences. Some classes are more fun for me than others, and in every group I've been in I've seen other players prefer classes I don't think so much of. And we have a blast. No one is ever really left behind, and if there's something a player can't do he/she usually has the grace to allow someone else to take up the slack.
You and me both.
So I just don't get it. How is the game so broken and messed up that you can't have fun playing whatever class you're interested in playing? How can I, and presumnably hundreds of others, enjoy picking whatever kind of character we want without having to analyze it down to the last mathematical formula only to decree it useless because the design was bad (or worse, intended to be bad)?
The way we are playing is a style wherein all the classes seem balanced in play, we're having fun, no class outshines any other etc. which is fine and dandy for us. Now you take others who play a different way, and complain that casters are overpowered and fighters all suck, etc. and that's fine if that's the way they want to play.
But don't try and tell me that when one style makes the game broken and another style doesn't that the people playing the game that isn't broken are the one who are 'doing it wrong!'
|
Your posts strike me as quite wrong, afirmations like "skills become obsolete at 5 level" are indeed funny, also the asumption that melee based classes are useless, worse than magic users, sure, usseles hell, no.
No amount of number crunching, no matter how clever, compares to real experience, and real experience says that melee characters are relevant at all levels of play, albeit less powerful sure.
Just go look to the posts of the ends of the aventure paths and see how many unoptimized parties have made it to the end.
Is a bit of exageration "if you are not playing the best, you are usseles" way of thinking.
If it's a 15 PB game, yes you are absolutely required to have a 20 prime stat, and a solid Con
Can you please provide a page reference for this rule?
Now it seems like you're being purposefully obtuse.
Jake or wizard -- interchangeable as lead. Either one can serve equally as the main character, thus parity.
That wasn't your statement, however.
Wizard vs fighter into the castle -- the DM decides how his story goes, and makes appropriate decisions for such. Is the gate ungarded so the fighter can just stroll in? No? Then why on earth is it *making stuff up* to have the castle equally guarded against magic? Well, then you're making things up to the exact same extent that you're making things up for the wizard.
Don't be obtuse.
"There are bad guys here?" That's fine. "There's traps here?" That's fine too! "Uh oh looks like a random force known as the DM has caused all your teleportation spells to automatically funnel you into jail cells no matter where you try to go?" You really don't think that's DM Fiat in the slightest? You don't think that's targeting anyone specific?
Gandalf, whether you see him as the hand of god or not, is often viewed as the archetype which sets expectations for players coming into the game. How does it matter whether or not he was a literary device? It isn't relevant to the expectations he causes in the majority of readers.
Because, for starters, the D&D wizard is still more powerful then Gandalf by a lot. And secondarily, because I wouldn't let someone play Zeus in a game about roman centurions.
And you're still confusing class with character. Who cares if the fighter has 2 skill points? The PLAYER and the DM determine how much the fighter can get done. Your whole argument ignores the fact that people are playing these characters. I already acknowledged that there is a game divide between classes, but you apparently missed the point that the divide can easily be removed by a good DM
Class creates character. I'm not confusing anything. The fighter has two + int skill points. That is an in game fact. The fighter has 2+int skills he can focus on. That's not a whole lot.
So tell me. How does the DM "remove" this divide? Do so without using houserules as your argument is "The game is fine and doesn't need to be altered."
The fact here is that your opinion of how the game exists is just that, an opinion, which you're welcome to share as you like. I'm not proving you wrong, I'm trying to explain to you why your viewpoint isn't the only right one. There is a very important difference there.
But you haven't proven anything :|
If you want to continually play fighters as weaker, go right ahead. Whatever makes you happy. But it really isn't that hard for a DM to create parity between the two classes. And you can complain about two skill points, or combat skills, or anything you want, and you still will not change the fact that a good DM can make *anything* he wants. Which means that the type of game you play, Sinbad vs. Sorcerer, or Sorcerer vs Sorcerer while Sinbad watches is entirely dependent on the game that the DM runs. Both are supported by the manuals.
Again, this isn't combat power (though the sorcerer wins there, too).
You need to infiltrate an evil castle, kill the leader inside, steal an artifact, and get out. There is a mountain range, a sea, a river, and a forest between you and the castle. Halfway there you will need to convince a king to assist you in using an wand to destroy a magical shield around the castle. Once there, you will need to pass through some ancient ruins and a puzzle before arriving inside the castle. There, you will need to get past the array of traps and guards, slay the evil leader, steal his artifact, an then escape before the castle collapses on itself.
The wizard flies over the mountains, seas, and river, or uses spells to give himself a climb speed and swim speed, or makes a magical horse to ride over them. He conjures food to eat along the way. He either destroys the magical shield on his own, or charms the king, or uses disguise self to walk into the vault as the king to take it or uses illusions to make the guards open the vault, or charms THEM, or uses magic to increase his charisma and diplomacy, or uses suggestion to help grease the wheels. In the ancient ruins he either disintegrates his way through or uses digging spells or solves the riddles by casting a spell which gives him understanding of all written languages or just uses his incredible intellect. Inside he can sneak around by turning invisible or by turning into a mouse or by altering his appearance to that of the guards. The traps can be solved with summoned monsters or by just flying over them. The evil leader is easily and quickly dispatched by superior magic. The artifact is grabbed, and the wizard then teleports away. Magic also allows the wizard to easily rest whenever needed, so he's at full health when he's done.
The first uses climb (1 skill) and hires others to help him cross on a boat, and swims (2 skills) across the river. He uses survival (3 skills) to ensure he stays fed. He then uses diplomacy or bluff (4 skills) to convince the king, or tries to disguise his way in (still 4 skills). In the ancient ruins he tries to decipher the ancient writing (5 skills) and needs to solve a puzzle despite not having high intellect. Once at the castle he must sneak (6 skills) through, disarm the traps (7 skills), and defeat the guards in combat. He is now wounded, but cannot rest. He finds the evil leader, and must defeat him in combat despite already being greviously wounded. He then takes the artifact and desperately tries to run out as the castle collapses.
How many skills do fighters get again? How likely is the fighter to succeed in all of those? Mind you, all of that didn't include things like Perception and Acrobatics, which fighters will probably find far more useful.
It doesn't matter how many plays you have in your playbook. All that matters is which plays are useful at that moment in that particular situation. A good dm will set up equality between the number of useful plays that any given class can execute in an encounter.
It matters when the only play you have is "Hit bad guy with stick"
Pathfinder, and really any other tabletop game, provides a framework of rules and balancing features. How many houserules exist at your table? How many times has your DM included caster-perfect situations? You know, the ones where you have a perfect knowledge of what's coming and how long its likely to take? And how often have you been provided the fighter-perfect situation? You know, a rotting, sour smelling door, with a long dark hallway behind it.
Here's the problem - that fighter-perfect situation is also a caster-perfect situation. IN fact, there is only one non-caster-perfect situation. KNow what it is?
"Antimagic field."
How many of those are in your setting? Because that how many non-caster-perfect situations you have. And here's the best part - that's also a non-fighter-perfect situation.
3 allips. On average you're toast in 1 rounds with that 7. And that's just the first thing that comes to mind. I haven't even looked hard yet.
I would have qualified digging into the Bonus Bestiary as looking hard, but YMMV.
secondarily, because I wouldn't let someone play Zeus in a game about roman centurionsSure Jupiter would be better. XD
You get what I'm saying :p
LotR is not a story about Gandalf. He is a secondary character that plays the role of wise mentor + deus ex machina.
It would be like making a game based greek myth and playing as different characters or soldiers and then someone goes "I call Poseidon!"
Sure thing. It's called the Bestiary. Every page with a monster on it? That's the page number. Because that's what your stats are opposed by, and that's where the baseline is set.If it's a 15 PB game, yes you are absolutely required to have a 20 prime stat, and a solid ConCan you please provide a page reference for this rule?
Before I waste time refuting this: do we think he is serious, or just trolling?
Before I waste time refuting this: do we think he is serious, or just trolling?
Yes.
Is it still trolling if someone is using the truth in a dismissive, jerky manner?Before I waste time refuting this: do we think he is serious, or just trolling?Yes.
If his statement was actually "you should have a high primary stat" and "you need 20" was just hyperbole, I'd be willing to accept that, but I don't think that's what he meant. Seriously, you need a party where everyone has 20 in their main stats in order to beat a CR appropriate encounter with kobolds? If that's the case, someone needs to go to tactical wargaming remedial school. And if you need to have a 20 in a stat to have fun, then you have a very narrow and limiting definition of fun.
Real Actual Example! (Because you said "absolutely required" all I have to do is provide a single example to prove you wrong)
My character "Alvin the Sane" is a level 3 alchemist with an 18 INT. He hopes to get it to 20 someday, but he's got to wait. His other stats are in the 9-14 range. Along with his other non-20-primary-statted friend, they encountered a group of orcs + GM-variant orcs. The orcs played smart (ambush + engage casters in melee) and hurt us a lot, but guess what... we won! Everyone contributed to the fight (even the melee types), and all the players had fun beating up monsters.
------------------
I know it's fashionable on the internet to divide things into black-and-white scenarios where one way of thinking is unequivocally wrong, but D&D is not that strict. Isn't it great that we can all play the same game? You like making characters who are narrowly focused around their specialization, while I prefer characters who are more versatile, while still being able to execute their role successfully. I don't know that we'd have a lot of fun playing with each other, but we can both find groups where we get to play the way we want to and have fun doing so.
Before I waste time refuting this: do we think he is serious, or just trolling?Sure thing. It's called the Bestiary. Every page with a monster on it? That's the page number. Because that's what your stats are opposed by, and that's where the baseline is set.If it's a 15 PB game, yes you are absolutely required to have a 20 prime stat, and a solid ConCan you please provide a page reference for this rule?
I really couldn't guess, he's either very serious about insisting that by breaking the game he's playing it the way it's meant to be played, or he's a very skilful troll. Either way I generally ignore what he says because it's usually a repeat of the same old assertions backed up by his word for it with no acknowledgement that anyone's experience to the contrary is anything other than evidence that they aren't playing the game 'properly' ... what can you say?
You like making characters who are narrowly focused around their specialization, while I prefer characters who are more versatile, while still being able to execute their role successfully.Problem. The most versatile non-caster you can possibly come up with is STILL less versatile then a highly specialized Sorcerer or a Specialist or Focused Specialist Wizard (even if you port in 3rd edition's real school banning) or a Cleric or a Druid.
I have said nothing about casters vs. non-casters. I am arguing the point that "it is absolutely required to have a 20 in your primary stat". I am further stating that I find a 12 10 10 15 12 17 sorcerer more fun to play than a 7 7 7 7 7 20 sorcerer.
Back on topic!
When is Min/Max taken too far?
GNOME
I have said nothing about casters vs. non-casters. I am arguing the point that "it is absolutely required to have a 20 in your primary stat". I am further stating that I find a 12 10 10 15 12 17 sorcerer more fun to play than a 7 7 7 7 7 20 sorcerer.
You and me both. Cookie-cutter characters are boring!
Back on topic!
When is Min/Max taken too far?
GNOME
I refer my learned friend to his aforementioned comments about another aforementioned poster as the shining example of this. :D
I was just thinking about how difficult it can be to make unique PCs in the light of still wanting to be 'effective' For example, how mechanically different can two wizards be? INT high! CON decent! A short list of 'must have' spells.
Is it on us, the players and DMs to make the PCs interesting regardless (not in spite of) their stats?
Is this where Archtypes really step in, even if they don't provide a 'benefit' to the PC? (Shielded Fighter v. Weapon Master w/ a Shield)
GNOME
|
|
I was just thinking about how difficult it can be to make unique PCs in the light of still wanting to be 'effective' For example, how mechanically different can two wizards be? INT high! CON decent! A short list of 'must have' spells.
Is it on us, the players and DMs to make the PCs interesting regardless (not in spite of) their stats?
Is this where Archtypes really step in, even if they don't provide a 'benefit' to the PC? (Shielded Fighter v. Weapon Master w/ a Shield)
GNOME
Interesting PC, that is madness sir! This isn't a game!
Actually, you run the game as written and the one trick ponies get killed by the more than one trick world full of intelligent enemies. Then they realize it's all about group dynamics and adaptability or they don't and you just watch the next pony that trots out die.
Unless your DM is lazy, predictable, doesn't know the rules well, or lets you house rule and cherry pick from old WoTC splat books, one trick ponies are all win or all fail.
I removed a couple posts and the replies to them.
Also, I'd like to remind everyone that trolls thrive on attention, negative or otherwise. Attempting to prove that they are incorrect, or that you know they are a troll, only encourages them to continue.
Instead, simply pretend the post isn't there. If it violates our messageboard rules, please flag it. Don't call them out. Don't tell them you're going to ignore them. Just continue the conversation as if there were not there, just like a child throwing a tantrum.
Thank you for making the Paizo messageboards a more friendly and civil place.
|
|
I personally started to encourage Minmaxing on my players after a TPK in Age of Worms, after that gameplay improved a lot, no more 15 minute adventuring day, no more meatgrinding, the characters are heroes just as they are suposed to be. If you start considering playing a dragonwrought venerable kobold or using monster guides as the spellbook for your druid, or taking aberrant bloodline feats you have gone too far.
I removed some posts and replies to them. Personal attacks, veiled or otherwise, will not be tolerated.
|
|
That wasn't your statement, however.
It was, I felt, the obvious implication of the point, which I clarified since you missed it.
"There are bad guys here?" That's fine. "There's traps here?" That's fine too! "Uh oh looks like a random force known as the DM has caused all your teleportation spells to automatically funnel you into jail cells no matter where you try to go?" You really don't think that's DM Fiat in the slightest? You don't think that's targeting anyone specific?
General magical protection? Lead walls, for instance, with only the jail cells unleaded? Certain ones, anyhow. For that matter, there are plenty of ways a DM can protect a building from magical intrusion. Best of all? Most of them are one-time costs, unlike garrisons which have to constantly be manned and upkept. And completely reasonable in a world with magic as a normal component.
Because, for starters, the D&D wizard is still more powerful then Gandalf by a lot. And secondarily, because I wouldn't let someone play Zeus in a game about roman centurions.
Because, again, the point was about expectations. The game doesn't matter at all while those expectations are being formed. They only become relevant when expectations interact with the game, and that's where you get the divide between viewpoints of fighter/wizard parity. So thanks for reinforcing my point from the rear :)
Class creates character. I'm not confusing anything. The fighter has two + int skill points. That is an in game fact. The fighter has 2+int...
Class does not create character. You can be a fully statted-out piece of paper fighter or wizard, and have no character at all. No likes or dislikes. No idiosyncrasies. Without houseruling at all, a character can actually use his mouth to get things done without resorting to a mechanical check. The fighter without a point in diplomacy can still talk the king into activating the wand for him because it only requires a skill if you decide to abandon the roleplaying option for the mechanical one. Lacking a particular skill does not equal automatic failure, just like possessing one doesn't equal automatic success. Bypassing the roleplay aspect for "I try to convince him. /roll" is a great way to deal with things that you personally are bad at or can't be bothered to do. But actually applying a line or two of logical argument can convince someone without the dice ever hitting the table.
Again, this isn't combat power (though the sorcerer wins there, too)... more stuff
With all that crap between the characters and the castle, I vote the fighter takes the road, then a couple boats, then another road. Oh, yeah, mundane travel doesn't require checks. Cliffs, you ask? Meh, fighter can use magical items. Fighter can go around. The fighter can deal with random encounters.
The wizard in the ancient ruins? He runs out of spells and then gets killed by a goblin who kills him in his sleep. He wakes up to realize his spellbook is gone. He triggers an acid trap that melts his face and his gear. He has a 15 minute adventuring day. The fighter? He can always find another stick. You just don't seem to understand the difference here, which is probably a failure of my ability to explain it.
Take two athletic runners of equal ability. Place one on a road, and the other one in the middle of a marsh. One of them gets farther than the other one. Place them on the same road, and they do equally as well.
Place a runner and a swimmer on a road, the runner does better. Place them in the water, the swimmer does better.
Casters are very, very vulnerable. Much more so than most fighters. When the caster has all of their spells up and running, they might be nearly untouchable. But a few hours later, most of those spells are gone and they become much more vulnerable. Meanwhile, the fighter sleeps with his armor and is equally powerful at any given time.
The wizard runs out of spells. The fighter can keep swinging. The wizard needs his rest or he's useless. The fighter can go on no sleep if he has to, with only a slight impact on his abilities.
In your example, the fighter is traveling, overcoming obstacles, while the wizard bypasses many of them. What happens during the random encounter? You know, the one where the wizard has been flying for hours, kind of dozing. Let's say they both fail their perception checks. The wizard realizes he's grappled and taking damage. His chances of getting a spell off are low. The fighter might be grappled. He might take some arrows, or a greatsword to the back. But that hardly dents his hp, and he just draws his sword, or his bow, and gets on with his day.
See how easy it is to write situations that favor one class over the other? Well, the DM is writing the situations, so he determines whether one group is favored over another or not. Whether nor not a spell is available, whether or not those constructs are immune to magic, whether or not that will save is impossible for the fighter to make or the fort save for the wizard, these are all in the control of the dm.
And, once again, depending on whether the dm feels parity or inequality is a direct determinant of whether there is parity or inequality in the game.
But let me ask you this? Where did these encounters come from? A good DM places different encounters in front of different types of characters. You know what screws a wizard? There's a bunch of constructs that'll do it. The fighter needs to activate a magical wand to get past. If the DM decides that the *only* way to activate the wand is if he has the skill, then that's a caster-favoring DM. Most DM's will provide another option, such as a hidden entrance, someone to save, a hole that's been carved through the wall, ect. ect. ect. allowing multiple ways for a particular challenge to be overcome. Otherwise it's 'You can't do it? Oh. Might as well go home and try to find another adventure hook. Nothing you can do here.'
Challenge + solutions = reward
Dm sets a challenge.
Provides 3 solutions, one targeted at the mage, one at the fighter, and one at the rogue. If one of them succeeds, then rewards and people are happy.
If you're seeing 3 solutions, all of which require the mage, then it's pretty evident where the problem is. Classes change, they come and go. They're mostly unimportant. It's the challenge which can manifest in any way, for any character, that is important. Thus, design the challenge around your players, and not so much their classes.
So if I understand this right, your solution is literally "Don't play D&D just freeform."
Um.
Hey, if you like freeform, that works, I guess!
As for the rest:
RE: Magical Items - good, the fighter can sorta do things so long as he has items a wizard made. Welp!
RE: Spellcaster vulnerability - first, how did the flying wizard suddenly get grappled? Why is he grappled and the fighter is not? Why is the wizard suddenly incapable of casting spells - even ones with no somatic components? You're just making things up here.
RE: Running out of spells - There are a million wizard spells that conjur some sort of easy sleeping area that's utterly protected from the outside world. Seriously, wizards basically never have to sleep out in the wilds once you clear the first two or three levels.
RE: Sleeping - the fighter can indeed sleep whenever he wants, only it takes him a loooooong time to heal that HP, not that he'll heal with a wandering monster coup's his sleeping body
RE: Constructs - Summon Monster. Grease.
I miss anything?