|
What does this term mean? +1 to the rest.Pixel-b&&#%ing is a term coined by fans adventure games and CRPGs of the bad old times. It was used to describe bad and counterintuitive puzzles, which required from the players to click through the screen pixel by pixel to find some concealed item or element that was necessary for the solution. It was like a railroad with hidden rails.
Unfortunately, many GMs in tabletop, particularly those who explicitly put story before the rules, run their games like this. In the mild case, PCs are allegedly not on rails, but any deviation from GM's plan is punished by steep difficulty increase or contrived consequences*. In the bad case, unless PCs figure out exactly what they are supposed to do, they fail. That about 80% of the plots in fantasy literature involve quests with one true solution does not help to diminish the popularity of this approach. I was guilty of the quests where PCs failed unless they were able to guess my solution too, in my early GMing days.
*Almost every time I suggest that PCs should use their power to deviate from a published adventure's plot, or influence the world in unprescribed ways, I get some reactions to this effect.
I actually agree with this. Where we disagree is applying it to the bad guys too.
I am a bad guy. My fortress got attacked but they had to flee to regroup, then I am going to reinforce against the people who attacked me, and or try to pursue and take them out while weakened. You let someone get away who came back and told me about you, I am now preparing for what he told me (which a smart player uses to their advantage)
The bad guys adapt too.
I found what you were saying about the 1-3, A-C to be interesting, but a little confusing. For example, I think awareness of "the problem" pretty much a given in optimization circles. As for "3)severe explicit or implicit limit on full casters", I don't think it is nearly as dramatic as that. Limit starting ability scores to 17, and already the uber caster is taken down to mortal levels.
In 3.X, I can make any preparation full caster rock with just enough key casting ability to get access to all spell levels. Wizard is obviously the hardest and surviving low levels might be a pain (although dominance of enemies that have either weak Fort or weak Will helps), but after level 7, where caster superiority actually kicked in most of the times, he'll be able to do just fine with spells that don't require saves at all, like Black Tentacles or Solid Fog (never mind Polymorph and Planar Binding). Heck, the grappler wizard can do so much earlier.
In PF much of BC spells seems to be nerfed and SoLs seem to be the wizard's only big gun, so I don't know.
This isn't even a rule change, it is just campaign set-up. Make access to new spells, scrolls, wands, etc. difficult. Again, not a rules change, just a campaign choice.
That's just makes the wizard less flexible, and likely inferior to sorcerer, unless you use some tricks to bust the number of automatic spells he gets, but does nothing to limit divine casters, which were ones to step on martials' toes the most.
Also, martials in campaigns without magic marts are shafted super-hard, unless they can take non-core stuff.As about rules that nerf magic in general... In my run of RotRL I found that melee combatants aren't going to get far against ogre hordes without friendly arcane casters dropping Grease, and Glitterdust, and Slow. It got worse from there. And giants actually are far from the top-end melee brutes. In my current run of AoW melee PCs fare considerably better without direct arcane debuff support - but there is an artificer PC that is willing to bling them out, and the most inept player got an overpowered character race with no ECL tax to compensate for this, so hardly a fair example. (Oh, and both parties had martials houserule-bufffed.)
So, the problem is not only that casters easily can be broken, it is that melees increasinly need casters to pull the party through past level 6 or so. And making magic in general harder to use makes the entire party lose, unless GM adjusts the opposition to compensate the impact of such deceptively simple houserules on the metagame. Which is harder than write more extensive houserules that don't touch basics of combat.
In 3.X, I can make any preparation full caster rock...more...
In PF much of BC spells seems to be nerfed and SoLs seem to be the wizard's only big gun, so I don't know.
I would agree with that for the most part, but I would say Pathfinder did indeed fix most of that - especially polymorphs, and solid fog, that spell sure ain't what it used to be.
That's just makes the wizard less flexible, and likely inferior to sorcerer, unless you use some tricks to bust the number of automatic spells he gets, but does nothing to limit divine casters, which were ones to step on martials' toes the most.
Also, martials in campaigns without magic marts are shafted super-hard, unless they can take non-core stuff.
That is true in ways, but I think all casters are weakened by not having easy access to scrolls wands and such. Also, scribing scrolls is not the printing press operation it used to be. All casters are weakened if they have to memorize spells that would normally just be used in wand or scroll form.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying characters wouldn't ever be able to buy stuff, just that they can't use the 'Magic Items' section as a mail order catalog. I have found that giving control of magic item availability back the GM makes for a better, more balanced game, and characters who are not based around items as much.
Keep in mind that RotRL was written for 3.5 rules, and once you make giants humanoids, somethings don't work as well. The party I was GMing did very well with no arcane character, until Fortress of the stone giants, when a witch joined. Oddly, it was a fire druid and a cleric who loved blasting that softened everything up for the high AC fighter and giant-hating ranger to finish off.
So, the problem is not only that casters easily can be broken, it is that melees increasinly need casters to pull the party through past level 6 or so. And making magic in general harder to use makes the entire party lose, unless GM adjusts the opposition to compensate the impact of such deceptively simple houserules on the metagame. Which is harder than write more extensive houserules that don't touch basics of combat.
Casters can easily be broken, but also fairly easily controlled. I would like to see a little more guidance in the rules about limiting casters for new GM's but there are many ways. I think it is fine, or even important that melee and caster types need each other. They should.
Casters can get out of control at higher levels. They need to be reigned in. Doing so does NOT make the party lose. It just makes everyone able to contribute on a more equal level. Since the rules would affect monsters and PCs alike, it wouldn't really upset game balance at all. Also, Party Vs Monster power adjustments are super easy for the GM, PC Vs PC power inequity is much harder to deal with.
I removed a couple postss. I am capable seeing where a backhanded compliment is aimed.
I've seen SoS for Save or Suck, but as with the pixel b#*@$ing term (which was already been answered), I'm not 100% clear on "BC spells" and "SoL".
My best guess is that these mean "Battlefield Control" and "Save or Lose", but if I'm incorrect then I'd appreciate it if someone could inform me.
It seems to me that if that were your goal, you wouldn't also be bringing in things that are "nice things" for the casters.Like what?
Mental Pinnacle, Greater Mirror Image, Assay Resistance, the good non-core SR:No spells, and whatever jacks your initiative out to crazytown?
Mental Pinnacle, Greater Mirror Image, Assay Resistance, the good non-core SR:No spells, and whatever jacks your initiative out to crazytown?It seems to me that if that were your goal, you wouldn't also be bringing in things that are "nice things" for the casters.Like what?
Mental Pinnacle was used exactly once ever. And it was good then, mostly because it was a Will save or lose vs a series of weak minded enemies.
Greater Mirror Image was used at least as often by enemies.
Assay Resistance is mostly for the handful of spells that aren't already SR: No. Sure it got used, but there's plenty of other ways around that.
What non core SR: No spells?
And as for initiative, no one had an Init all that high in that party. The highest was around mid teens, if that. And out of Nerveskitter, Eager, and Warning, only one of those is caster only.
The fact that you think mid-teens isn't very high for initiative shows where you're coming from. I think the highest I've ever seen, even in an epic campaign, was around +20.
The fact that you think mid-teens isn't very high for initiative shows where you're coming from.
I would tend to agree. Sure, I've seen plenty of intiative-monkeys played, but they aren't that common, especially not in PF.
|
|
The fact that you think mid-teens isn't very high for initiative shows where you're coming from.I would tend to agree. Sure, I've seen plenty of intiative-monkeys played, but they aren't that common, especially not in PF.
The issue is in CoD's games, all character have all things at all times for all scenarios.
How? You have to play 20 questions with him to find out, only if you ask a question that might pin him down he stops answering.
I sometimes wonder if he ever plays or just posts on here, considering if he actually built any characters, ever, he could post one.
It is possible to get a pretty high initiative in Pathfinder Core if that is one of your chief goals.
You start with Dex 20 at 1st level, sink the boost at every 4th level into Dex, spend a fortune on a +5 inherent bonus, and equip a +6 belt. That would lead to Dex 36 which is a +13 base init.
Improved init would then takes that to +17, and I think there's a couple initiative traits which can buff by +1 each for a total of +19.
Finally, the Diviner could add +10 to their init at 20th, but beyond them, the only Pathfinder classes with options that buff initiative are:
- Inquisitor (Wis to Init)
- Oracle of Nature
- Witch with a Scorpion Familiar
- Ranger's Favored Terrain
- Duelist
Oooor you just use a bunch of house rules, 3rd-party/3.x content and leave the realm of Pathfinder far behind. Perfectly acceptable to do so, but it makes discussion and debate kind of moot since we are then comparing apples to demiliches.
Mental Pinnacle was used exactly once ever. And it was good then, mostly because it was a Will save or lose vs a series of weak minded enemies.
It's still something you're tossing in that buffs casters.
Greater Mirror Image was used at least as often by enemies.Assay Resistance is mostly for the handful of spells that aren't already SR: No. Sure it got used, but there's plenty of other ways around that.
Ditto and ditto. And really, this is just stuff that you've mentioned in posts. We really have no idea what the rest of your game looks like.
And as for initiative, no one had an Init all that high in that party. The highest was around mid teens, if that. And out of Nerveskitter, Eager, and Warning, only one of those is caster only.
1) That's still one more thing that buffs casters that you didn't have to throw in, but chose to and
2) Something doesn't have to be caster only to tend to benefit casters more than other characters.
I mean, you've got a mix of sources that give you a game you think is fun to play. More power to you -- but you seem to think that anyone who didn't make the same set of sometimes seemingly contradictory choices isn't "really" playing the game.
*shrugs* I pointed out that very high means higher than 25, and that low PB screws Fighters. I also forgot a not in there apparently, but it was clear enough what I meant.
Apparently you are looking for an argument though, as you brought up the whole everything is subjective bit again.
I apologize for supporting you and your style of play. I will endeavor to avoid that in the future. Happy gaming.
Optimized characters casually manage 20s. 30s or higher is not out of the question. No, teens isn't that high. Anyone can trivially get about +11 init.They could afford to not take init as seriously because they had solid enough defenses to take a round of attacks and live.
...Of course at the end the whole party got a +11 init boost. They never fought anything with it, but if they had well they'd have certainly gotten a lot more first strikes.
How, might I ask? I've seen one character that focused heavily on initiative, with a 40 Dex, improved initiative and epic initiative, at level 25.
|
|
Mental Pinnacle was used exactly once ever. And it was good then, mostly because it was a Will save or lose vs a series of weak minded enemies.
It's still something you're tossing in that buffs casters.
Greater Mirror Image was used at least as often by enemies.Assay Resistance is mostly for the handful of spells that aren't already SR: No. Sure it got used, but there's plenty of other ways around that.
Ditto and ditto. And really, this is just stuff that you've mentioned in posts. We really have no idea what the rest of your game looks like.
And as for initiative, no one had an Init all that high in that party. The highest was around mid teens, if that. And out of Nerveskitter, Eager, and Warning, only one of those is caster only.1) That's still one more thing that buffs casters that you didn't have to throw in, but chose to and
2) Something doesn't have to be caster only to tend to benefit casters more than other characters.
I mean, you've got a mix of sources that give you a game you think is fun to play. More power to you -- but you seem to think that anyone who didn't make the same set of sometimes seemingly contradictory choices isn't "really" playing the game.
+1
This is why he won't post builds or describe specific events without playing 20 questions.
I'm curious how this is possible with "only" 25 point buy (all must occur):
1) Initiative over 20
2) All DCs are so high that the enemy needs 16+ to succeed
3) All saves are 2 or better
4) ACs are over 60
5) Attack bonuses are over 60
6) Damage is enough to kill CR +3 or better in single round
7) Starting primary stat(s) are 18 or better
I just don't see it happening without so many house rules that you just aren't playing Pathfinder/DnD anymore. Sure, you'd have the d20 base but the rules set would have to change so much that it becomes unrecognizable.
I also want to know why it's so important to make a ton of changes to the system to "fix" problems and then have to make adjustments to the encounters to deal with the "fixes." If you feel the need to beef up everything by the same margin, why not just leave it alone? If you need X+2 to be useful and you increase the PCs by +2 then increase the opposition by +2, then you haven't really changed anything other than workload.
Seems like a lot of work has gone into making changes that do nothing other than create more work for everyone with no actual benefits. If that's the way some people like their games, that's fine. It just seems like a lot of work with little payoff.
I'm curious how this is possible with "only" 25 point buy (all must occur):
1) Initiative over 20
2) All DCs are so high that the enemy needs 16+ to succeed
3) All saves are 2 or better
4) ACs are over 60
5) Attack bonuses are over 60
6) Damage is enough to kill CR +3 or better in single round
7) Starting primary stat(s) are 18 or better
Same here. In fact, I'm HIGHLY curious. I dont think the math bears it out well at all.
I'm curious how this is possible with "only" 25 point buy (all must occur):
1) Initiative over 20
2) All DCs are so high that the enemy needs 16+ to succeed
3) All saves are 2 or better
4) ACs are over 60
5) Attack bonuses are over 60
6) Damage is enough to kill CR +3 or better in single round
7) Starting primary stat(s) are 18 or better
You forgot lazors.
You forgot lazors.I'm curious how this is possible with "only" 25 point buy (all must occur):
1) Initiative over 20
2) All DCs are so high that the enemy needs 16+ to succeed
3) All saves are 2 or better
4) ACs are over 60
5) Attack bonuses are over 60
6) Damage is enough to kill CR +3 or better in single round
7) Starting primary stat(s) are 18 or better
I was trying to avoid this type of statement. I was getting more and more curious so I went through his previous discussions and noticed this trend. I really would like to know how to pull this off. I don't think it's possible.
I am open to anyone, not just CoDZilla, to demonstrate how this is possible. Note that all statements must be true, not just one or two for a particular build. I would really like to see it for any single caster or any class in Pathfinder. I don't even care if multiclassing/prestige/archetype is used. I just want to see it done for any single adventuring day. I assume if it can be done for one day, it can be done for all days.
Pretty sure you'd have to be using the old Deities and Demigods 3.x sourcebook as your PHB in order to achieve that. Not that it might not be fun to essentially play a superheroes game using d20 (I've done it once or twice for kicks), but as many of us have conceded, that might as well be a different game altogether at that point.
I'd never attempt to put such characters thru an AP, the DPR Olympics, or even a comparison with other 'D&D' characters.
This is ridiculous. Why keep asking for answers when this is obviously a farce, perpetrated by the anonymity of the internet?
If you had any integrity, you'd post a build along with that breakdown, explaining that only the accurate points were met, and the others weren't proper claims. Again, we see a vast nothing, a weaseled answer and a dodge.
For someone who claims to know better than everyone else how the game "is", you sure avoid demonstrating that objectively.
]I'm curious how this is possible with "only" 25 point buy (all must occur):
1) Initiative over 20
2) All DCs are so high that the enemy needs 16+ to succeed
3) All saves are 2 or better
4) ACs are over 60
5) Attack bonuses are over 60
6) Damage is enough to kill CR +3 or better in single round
7) Starting primary stat(s) are 18 or betterI just don't see it happening without so many house rules that you just aren't playing Pathfinder/DnD anymore. Sure, you'd have the d20 base but the rules set would have to change so much that it becomes unrecognizable.
I also want to know why it's so important to make a ton of changes to the system to "fix" problems and then have to make adjustments to the encounters to deal with the "fixes." If you feel the need to beef up everything by the same margin, why not just leave it alone? If you need X+2 to be useful and you increase the PCs by +2 then increase the opposition by +2, then you haven't really changed anything other than workload.
Seems like a lot of work has gone into making changes that do nothing other than create more work for everyone with no actual benefits. If that's the way some people like their games, that's fine. It just seems like a lot of work with little payoff.
It helps if you respond to the points I am actually making, and not strawman points. 1, 3, and 7 are accurate. 6 might or might not be accurate depending on what you mean by that. 2, 4, and 5 are not accurate.
The rest of your post is quite irrelevant and off base.Oh and D&D already is a superhero game.
So you aren't even going to respond to the points you do feel are relevant?
Point 6: You have said that combat generally lasts 1 round. You have also said that you regularly fight opponents that are CR+3 or more.
Points 2, 4, and 5:
You have made it abundantly clear that the casters' spells are essentially auto-win starting at level 1 and continuing on through all levels of play. You have also made it very clear that if your AC isn't over 60, then it may as well be 0. Since hitting AC 60 would require at least +59 to hit, I simply rounded to +60 to hit. If you want I can go back and find those posts but I don't think it's necessary. I'm not trying to prove you wrong. I am asking you to demonstrate how it is possible using the rules provided. That's all I'm asking. If it can be done, I ask that you show me how so I can see exactly where the problems are in the system. Simply stating it isn't enough. I require demonstration.
Once I demonstrate the points behind your argument are invalid, the entire thing can be safely ignored. But fine, I'll humor you.
What I actually said was 1 or 2 rounds. And that, in that particular campaign the encounters were APL + 3 or more. Note the difference between encounter levels being higher and individual enemies being higher. Now sometimes, individual enemies were higher, but APL + 3 =/= CR + 3. As long as we're collecting everything I've said I've also said I play in Normal, Hard, and Very Hard campaigns. The one I was talking to Ringtail about qualifies as Hard, with a few points that were Very Hard. In any case, having the whole party do enough damage to kill the enemy in that time frame is not too difficult. The problem is surviving long enough to get to that point. After all, 200 damage a round is not that high.It's also worth mentioning that the main reason why APL =/= CR is the former can include multiple enemies. That thing that supposedly makes combat slower, but still results in battles consistently 1-2 rounded in an actual game. Does mess with martial characters though, since they'll have a lot more HP to chop through.
Auto hitting AC 60 requires +58 to hit. Every CR 20 either can get that easily, or just casts spells at you and doesn't care what your AC is. Mostly the latter. Don't insult both of our intelligences by finding some super gimped CR 20 to try and prove me wrong either. It's trite and tiresome.
If you meant how is it possible to get AC 60, well without a lot of 3.5 material, Persisted buffs, and houserules it's not. Ignored turtles don't count. And AC 60 is the same as 0. You need higher than that to make AC count, like 75 or so. Hint: You won't get 75. Which is why I've said from the beginning you're better off ignoring AC in favor of things that actually help you.
If you meant something else, you are going to have to specify.
You have given examples in the past of CR+3 or more but let's not split hairs. Let's get to the crux of the argument. Your position is that EL+3 is average. If that's the case, then the party should be able to take on 1 CR +3, or 2 CR +2, or 3 CR +1, or 4 CR +0 opponents four to five times a day without needing to replenish. You have said that anything less than CR +0 is a mook so I won't bring mooks into the discussion.
Your casters do not deal hit point damage because hit points are irrelevant and not the job of casters but for mooks. So if your party is all casters, I don't see how you are dealing damage but that's a different argument.
I also am not immediately concerned with what the enemy can do yet. I am more concerned with how your characters can pull it off consistently. So please tell me how you can do it nearly all the time. I really am open to learning something new. I am inviting you to teach me. Please provide examples and be very, very specific. I don't necessarily need a complete build but I do need to know exactly how it's done consistently. Complete stats, classes, necessary feats and skills, necessary spells, and necessary equipment. Races would be nice but are not required.
|
Re: the initiative debate
I have a decided to post a build. Please critique constructively. Thank you.
Pure Pathfinder
25 Point Buy
STR: 7 = 10 - 3
DEX: 18 = 10 + 6 + 2(RACE): init + 4
CON: 12 = 10 + 4 - 2(RACE)
INT: 24 = 10 + 8 + 2(RACE) + 4(4th, 8th, 12th, & 16th lvl)
WIS: 11 = 10 + 1
CHA: 7 = 10 - 3
2 Traits
- Reactionary: +2 to init
- Warrior of Old (Efl): +2 to init
16 Level Elven Wizard - Foresight Specialist
- Forewarned (Su): +8 to init
Feat
- Improved Init: +4 to init
Gear
- Belt of Incredible DEX +4: init +2
Total Init Bonus = 4(DEX) + 4(TRAITS) + 8(WIZARD) + 4(FEAT) + 2(GEAR) = +22
At level 20, due to Forewarned, this build automatically gets a 44 as its init.
My build reasoning:
Ability Scores: I understand this is a debate on init jacking, but I still made my INT as high as possible like any normal person would. If it weren't for init, I would never have lowered STR to 7.
Gear: There are simply too many good things to buy for a wizard to get a +6 DEX belt. Even a +4 DEX belt is pushing it.
2 Traits
- Reactionary: +2 to init
- Warrior of Old (Efl): +2 to init
Trait bonuses don't stack.
Trait bonuses don't stack.Good point.
BTW, are there PF gear out there that improves init other than the belt?
Yes, I dueling weapons add a +4 enhancement bonus.
There is also the rod of alertness which gives a +1 insight bonus to initiative.
There is the ioun stone, dusty rose prism (cracked) which gives a +1 competence bonus on initiative. This is in Seeker of Secrets.
Once I demonstrate the points behind your argument are invalid, the entire thing can be safely ignored. But fine, I'll humor you.
You aren't humoring anyone. You, by your own sentence, need to demonstrate that the points, as in plural, are invalid. You, again by your own admission, said that some of the points are valid.
Auto hitting AC 60 requires +58 to hit. Every CR 20 either can get that easily, or just casts spells at you and doesn't care what your AC is. Mostly the latter. Don't insult both of our intelligences by finding some super gimped CR 20 to try and prove me wrong either. It's trite and tiresome.
Naturally. So I'll provide a list of every CR 20 monster in the MM. Taken from d20srd.org
Balor (+33). Pit fiend (+30). Tarrasque (+57). Old red dragon (+36), old silver dragon (+36), very old copper (+37), very old bronze (+39), ancient brass (+40), black wyrm (+42).
Your statement of getting +58 'easily' applies to exactly one single CR 20 monster, the tarrasque, which can get +58 to hit by taking weapon focus in a weapon. Most of the other monsters will come shy even with a true strike. None of the dragons have caster levels that can actually compete with a 20th level caster, they range from 11-15th, so that shoots 'just casting spells at you' down.
So yeah, you aren't even remotely describing DnD at this point. Pathfinder has an even tighter spread of attack bonuses. CR 20s have +31 (Balor), +36 (ancient gold dragon), +32 (pit fiend) and +30 (tarn linnorm). Gold dragon still has 15th level casting, but hardly enough to 'just cast spells', and definitely not enough to fight a party with.
So, you aren't describing PF or DnD 3e.
Don't insult my intelligence by trying to explain that you don't need an explanation for this because it is so obvious either, or by telling me that those monsters aren't the actual CR they claim to be. Either you are speaking of by the book or you aren't, but your claims aren't holding any water.
And AC 60 is the same as 0.
Unless you are fighting any of the non-tarrasque CR 20s, in which case AC 60 is nearly the same as 100. Black wyrm hits AC 60 on an 18. Everyone else needs a natural 20.
|
|
Yes, dueling weapons add a +4 enhancement bonus.
There is also the rod of alertness which gives a +1 insight bonus to initiative.
There is the ioun stone, dusty rose prism (cracked) which gives a +1 competence bonus on initiative. This is in Seeker of Secrets.
Aha! Let's see here...
Dueling is intriguing, but am not sure if I would spen€€d 14K on a +4 init and some other +2s that are mostly not important when there are so many other goodies to get for wizards. If this is an arcane bond one-handed weapon, I suppose it'll only be 7K with crafting and enough downtime...
Rod of alertness is also very interesting, but the +1 to init is more like the icing on the cake. I would not spend 85K on it.
Dusty rose prism (cracked) gives +1 init for 500gp? That's what I am talking about! Cheap and it does its job.
Overall, I think we can conclude that there is a way in PF to get +21 init bonus by 16th lvl and 43 as ur init check by lvl 20. However, much of this is achieved by specializing in divination. None of the other builds will even come close.
Yes, dueling weapons add a +4 enhancement bonus.
There is also the rod of alertness which gives a +1 insight bonus to initiative.
There is the ioun stone, dusty rose prism (cracked) which gives a +1 competence bonus on initiative. This is in Seeker of Secrets.
Aha! Let's see here...
Dueling is intriguing, but am not sure if I would spend 14K on a +4 init (when there are so many other goodies to get for wizards). If this is an arcane bond one-handed weapon, I suppose it'll only be 7K with crafting...
Rod of alertness is also very interesting, but the +1 to init is more like the icing on the cake. I would not spend 85K on it.
Dusty rose prism (cracked) gives +1 init for 500gp? That's what I am talking about. Cheap and it does its job.
Overall, I think we can conclude that there is a way in PF to get +21 init bonus by 16th lvl and 43 as ur init check by lvl 20. However, much of this is achieved by specializing in divination. None of the other builds will even come close.
That wasn't really the question though. We really aren't contesting whether it can be done. The question is can it be done along with all the other claims as well? Can you have a character that is so much better in all ways that it essentially auto-wins all contests? I don't think so. No one has ever been able to demonstrate that either.
I think that this thread has deviated from its intended purpose. Instead of discussing the merits of multiple vs single opponents, it has degenerated into a bunch of bickering with no hope of actually seeing any progress. These threads always do well until a select few come on and we all gravitate to them like leeches to an open wound.
|
|
Alright, let's review:
1) Initiative over 20
2) All DCs are so high that the enemy needs 16+ to succeed
3) All saves are 2 or better
4) ACs are over 60
5) Attack bonuses are over 60
6) Damage is enough to kill CR +3 or better in single round
7) Starting primary stat(s) are 18 or better
1) Achieved.
For 2), does all DCs include even lvl 1 spells? That is simply not possible.
I am confused by 3). Do you mean for a lvl 1 char?
4) This is also not possible and is actually absolutely ludicrous.
5) See 4)
6) Hmmm...intriguing. More research is needed.
7) Can I get a clarification on the primary stats of a wizard? INT & DEX? Does CON count?
Alright, let's review:
1) Initiative over 20
2) All DCs are so high that the enemy needs 16+ to succeed
3) All saves are 2 or better
4) ACs are over 60
5) Attack bonuses are over 60
6) Damage is enough to kill CR +3 or better in single round
7) Starting primary stat(s) are 18 or better1) Achieved.
For 2), does all DCs include even lvl 1 spells? That is simply not possible.
I am confused by 3). Do you mean for a lvl 1 char?
4) This is also not possible and is actually absolutely ludicrous.
5) See 4)
6) Hmmm...intriguing. More research is needed.
7) Can I get a clarification on the primary stats of a wizard? INT & DEX? Does CON count?
I do believe that every one of those can be done at some point or another if the character is built that way. All 7? Not likely.
#2: Level 1-9 spells. You never know when you're going to need to use a lower level spell because you've burned your higher level ones. I will concede to 4th level on up. Roughly 1/2 the highest level spell the caster can cast. Since we are probably talking about level 15 or so, that would be 4th level spells on up.
#3: not for level 1 characters. I assume that the conditions are for level 15+. It would be nigh impossible to have initiative, AC, and attack bonuses like that before then.
#4 & #5: AC must be in the mid 70s or it's not worth it. This claim means that the attacks must also be in the mid 70s. AC and attack bonuses go hand in hand.
#6: Remember that EL+3 is considered an average encounter by the person making the claims. That means you need to do this about 4 times a day.
#7 The primary stat for a wizard is Intelligence. The claim is also that Constitution is almost as important but does not need to be as high as Intelligence. All other stats can be dumped and the character is supposedly still viable.
I want to also point out that not all these are necessarily for just the casters. If you want to build a non-caster, you need to focus on Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution while not sacrificing your skills or saving throws. So at least two of them must start at 18 with the other being a 16. That is a claim that was made in another thread but it is assumed in all these discussions.
I want to thank you for attempting this. I know it wasn't your claim. I honestly look forward to what you can do. I would prefer it to all be Core only but I'm not really that picky. I like using options. The only requirement is that you cannot use anything that isn't for Pathfinder and it must be from Paizo. No third party materials even if they are Pathfinder approved.
CoDzilla, I guess that if you decide once for all to support your statements with example and builds instead of with assumptions used as irrefutable premises, there would be less "strawmen".
And then you remember that the balor and pit fiend are casters and therefore are the type that does not care what your AC is because they are flinging spells at you, and that the dragon's 36-42 is JUST from BAB and Str and does not consider their NPC class treasure, their ability to buff themselves, or their feat loadout. Which means it works in the exact manner I describe.
I guess I don't see the balor and pit fiend using spells to the exclusion of all other attacks.
A 3.5 balor for instance, can spam blasphemy, dominate monster and power word stun. Without dealing hp damage, stun is useless unless it is attacking a weakened party. Dominate monster is suspect due to mind blank and it has the highest DC. I suppose it could daze-lock a non-evil party via 3e's non-save blasphemy if it had a partner, but that partner still needs to be able to hit your AC to deal the damage.
Pit fiend has the same deal, replacing mass hold for dominate, with the bonus of having an even lower caster level. Is it seriously going to try a DC 21 fireball on a 20th level party? That stuff is supplemental, but if a pit fiend can't actually hit its foe, a huge portion of its combat threat (poison, disease, constrict) is gone.
Dragons. +5 item of natural attack boosting. +6 item of Str. +1 weapon focus. That's +9 to their attacks. All of them are still shy, by +7 to +13. Can you provide that with buff spells? Remember that the ones who need the most help are also the ones with the lowest caster levels. I'm not sure the CR system assumes a fully buffed dragon dropping into the fight, but at this point, I don't care. I'd just like to see the +7-+13 gotten from buffs that you are assuming. I'll even go look up the spells myself, so just name them and the source.
And then you remember that the PF fiends and dragons do the exact same thing as their 3.5 counterparts, which leaves only the tarn linnorm as an example of that sad and pathetic thing I mentioned.
Ok, so we'll leave the tarn linnorm out. We both agree it isn't in the same league as the others.
Same issues above apply to balor and pit fiend, except that PF balor can't spam blasphemy, which in PF offers a save. How do they possibly function?
The ancient gold dragon has +13 to make it to +58 once you equip it with the +5 natural attack and +6 str, and change Alertness to Weapon Focus (bite)
I know of no way to bump attack bonus up by 13 points with 15th level Pathfinder spellcasting, do you?
Recap of points.
Balor and pit fiend have no way of 'just casting spells' and harming foes with 60 AC, unless those foes fail DC 21-27 saves on a semi-frequent basis.
CR 20 dragons seem to have a massive gap even with buffs and gear to reach your +58 atk point.
Tarasque manages. Tarn linnorm is overrated.
The primary stats of a Wizard are Int and Con. The rest of your post is based on another poster's strawman. That includes the bit your question was a response to. And he's only going further into left field over time. I recommend just ignoring him. He's bent on outright lying about my position.
To be a strawman I would have to be arguing against a position that you don't have. Now that we are getting somewhere, I think goalposts are about to be changed...
And then you remember that the balor and pit fiend are casters and therefore are the type that does not care what your AC is because they are flinging spells at you, and that the dragon's 36-42 is JUST from BAB and Str and does not consider their NPC class treasure, their ability to buff themselves, or their feat loadout. Which means it works in the exact manner I describe.
Except that they aren't NPCs, and as such don't get on the dole of treasure being used as such. They are monsters, they have hoards. Nowhere in the rules does it support your position that monsters get to spend all their treasure at the one stop magic shop to buy precisely what they need to beat the party in this one encounter. Yes, obviously any encounter will be immensely challenging under such conditions.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that these monsters cannot use their treasure as funds. They have a hoard but it is not something they want to use. Forget for a moment the fact that, yes, that is highly illogical but instead think of it game mechanically. In such a situation, would not about 90% of your suppositions about the vast disparity between martials and casters disappear? If monsters only have +35ish to hit at level 20 then AC becomes relavent around 46 or so, which is far more easily achieved using the tools at hand. If monsters don't have ACs in the 70s then melee can suddenly hit them with ease and tear through them in a round or two.
This is, I genuinely believe, the crux of your disagreement with the rest of this community. The math falls into place without monsters using their treasure as slush funds. There is still a massive disparity between the casters and martials, I won't disagree, but it isn't nearly as dire as you put forth in my experience (which includes several high level campaigns) so you make your stance difficult to relate to.
The ancient gold dragon has +13 to make it to +58 once you equip it with the +5 natural attack and +6 str, and change Alertness to Weapon Focus (bite)
I know of no way to bump attack bonus up by 13 points with 15th level Pathfinder spellcasting, do you?
Off the top of my head, assuming it can cast cleric spells, Greater Heroism, Divine Power, Haste, Aid, and Summon Monster for a flanker? That's 13.
Just to play devil's advocate. Gold dragon. Dragons are freaking ROUGH son!
Except that they aren't NPCs, and as such don't get on the dole of treasure being used as such. They are monsters, they have hoards. Nowhere in the rules does it support your position that monsters get to spend all their treasure at the one stop magic shop to buy precisely what they need to beat the party in this one encounter.
With all due respect to your point, I don't think it matters ultimately...my numbers show a +7-13 point gap that CoD claims is made up via buff spells. I'm waiting on him to do so.
However, 3e dragons have triple standard treasure. While I don't have the luxury of looking up how much of that would translate to magic items (since WotC doesn't include treasure tables in the SRD), I do feel that a CR 20 dragon spending around 50K gold on a pair of magic items to boost his attack isn't going to break anything.
A Pathfinder ancient gold dragon has a horde of 132,000 to 300,000 gp. He can likewise spare the change.
Pathfinder also says CR 20 attacks should be around +23 to +30, so clearly +58 is out of the question as a reasonable CR 20 value.
EDIT: You replied to the buffs! Thanks.
Aid doesn't stack with greater heroism. Four spells is at least two rounds (using 6th and 7th level spell slots with quicken) to prep for the fight, and the dragon has 15 rounds of those spells. Assuming he doesn't get dispelled, with his lower caster level. Not sure how long any summon monster can last, but that takes an entire round to cast. Bad idea.
Your statement of getting +58 'easily' applies to exactly one single CR 20 monster, the tarrasque
Just so you know the tarrasque is NOT a CR 20 monster. It is I believe a CR 25 or 26 in Pathfinder now. Literally the king of the monsters in the bestiary.
|
Your statement of getting +58 'easily' applies to exactly one single CR 20 monster, the tarrasqueJust so you know the tarrasque is NOT a CR 20 monster. It is I believe a CR 25 or 26 in Pathfinder now. Literally the king of the monsters in the bestiary.
And just for convenience, to-hit of some Bestiary 2 "big boys":
CR 20
Iathavos: +31
Lashkarut: +32
Nightwave: +35
Olethrodaemon: +28
CR 21
Elysian Titan: +31
Mu Spore: +32
CR 22
Thanatic Titan: +37
Ravener (Red Wyrm): +40
CR 23
Jabberwock: +37
stuffinz
Yeah Aid doesn't stack. That's a DERP! moment for me. I'm not saying it is PRACTICAL for a dragon to buff this way, just that it's possible. Also, the point about the treasure thing isn't that it's gonna break the game but it circumvents the CR system. The magic chart tells us a CR should have +x for hit etc etc, when you say "well he just quicken true strikes every round" that circumvents what the rules say is an appropriate challenge. CODZilla wants to say these numbers are low-balled stats, whereas I say they are a statement of intent for the designers, and deviating from it too much changes the CR. A CR 20 creature with a +58 hit is no longer a CR 20 creature, plain and simple, unless his other stats are attenuated to compensate.
Just so you know the tarrasque is NOT a CR 20 monster. It is I believe a CR 25 or 26 in Pathfinder now. Literally the king of the monsters in the bestiary.
Midnightoker, if you've been paying attention to my posts, you'll note that I've clearly distinguished between 3.5 and PF stats, and use both in my comparisons. The tarrasque refers to 3.5, as I mentioned before. (I specifically state those stats are from the MM) I'm aware of the more well rounded CR 25 PF tarrasque, but CoD was speaking to CR 20 monsters. The PF Tarrasque doesn't fall into that category.
So yes, the tarrasque IS a CR 20 monster.
Gorbacz, thank you for the Bestiary II CR 20s/atk bonuses. I don't have that book yet, so I'm unable to use it for comparisons. How many of those four creatures are as CoD describes "spell casters that don't care about hitting you with an attack bonus", how many of them can buff their attack scores to +58 and how many of them are just 'gimped CR 20 monsters that shouldn't count'?
I find it interesting that when I support someone's style of play they still want to argue with me about why I'm wrong that their style of play is perfectly acceptable. For the life of me, I can't understand why some people insult and attack and then get upset when others do it right back to them. I am not falling into that trap.What is a trap is your pinko lefty "everybody can have fun" attitude, Bob. After reading the posts on this thread, I think it is fairly clear that no one can have fun.
My game has been doing it wrong this entire time. We've never had rocket launcher tag (levels 1-12 so far), we've never had the casters overshadowing the melee or vice versa, and we've rarely had two round combats. And we've had a lot of fun. I'm not sure whether we're playing Caster Edition or DnD Hard Mode, but I'm fairly certain it's all been wrong to this point.
And so are you, Bob. So wrong.
This.
Just yeah all of this.
If I could give you a hive five via internt I so would man.
.
Interesting read, this thread. If nothing else, it has reaffirmed my resolution to no longer argue with people that I have determined are playing the game completely differently than myself and anyone I play with.
The point is lost when we are arguing from completely different experiences.
I'm seriously not trying to be insulting. I'm having fun with my gaming, so I clearly don't need to listen to the doomsaying.